Discussion:
Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps
Add Reply
kensi
2018-03-29 10:12:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Specialised species like the mountain hare, adapted to life at high
altitudes, are particularly affected by climate change. If temperatures
become too warm for the mountain hare, it only has limited options to
move to cooler, higher elevations.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/03/180313225546.htm
--
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade
in here." ~Checkmate
Sergio
2018-03-29 13:55:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by kensi
Specialised species like the mountain hare, adapted to life at high
altitudes, are particularly affected by climate change. If temperatures
become too warm for the mountain hare, it only has limited options to
move to cooler, higher elevations.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/03/180313225546.htm
Dummy, the poor bunny survives in the summertime when the temperature is
80 degrees in the mountians. that is 35 degrees hotter than average for
months.

so, why cant he survive if the global average goes up 0.1 degree F over
100 years ?
kensi
2018-03-29 14:03:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sergio
so, why cant he survive if the global average goes up 0.1 degree F over
100 years ?
The global average has already gone up around 2 degrees F in just the
past few decades, and the rise is accelerating.
--
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade
in here." ~Checkmate
Sergio
2018-03-29 16:11:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by kensi
Post by Sergio
so, why cant he survive if the global average goes up 0.1 degree F over
100 years ?
The global average has already gone up around 2 degrees F in just the
past few decades, and the rise is accelerating.
your info is wrong as you forgot the "pause".



why did you snip the following out, instead of answering it ? (because,
You can't handle the Truth)

"Dummy, the poor bunny survives in the summertime when the temperature
is 80 degrees in the mountains. that is 35 degrees hotter than average
for months. "

so how does fluffy get killed again by a 1 degree F rise ??
benj
2018-03-29 17:51:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by kensi
Post by Sergio
so, why cant he survive if the global average goes up 0.1 degree F over
100 years ?
The global average has already gone up around 2 degrees F in just the
past few decades, and the rise is accelerating.
Only if you fudge the data.

And in any event, neither YOU nor any plant or animal could tell the
difference in two rooms of 2 degree F in a few minutes let along in a
few decades. Are you really this stupid? Do you really work in science
or "journalism"?
Sergio
2018-03-29 18:56:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by benj
Post by kensi
Post by Sergio
so, why cant he survive if the global average goes up 0.1 degree F over
100 years ?
The global average has already gone up around 2 degrees F in just the
past few decades, and the rise is accelerating.
Only if you fudge the data.
And in any event, neither YOU nor any plant or animal could tell the
difference in two rooms of 2 degree F in a few minutes let along in a
few decades. Are you really this stupid? Do you really work in science
or "journalism"?
Kensi Pupa did post equation a few days ago, but she may be member of
"Forget Common Sense".


think of it, if you could use a bunny to detect a 2 degree rise in
temperature..... by # ear wiggles/second ? one could have their
bunnyTemp in their house hoppin around, temperaturizing, and you can
count the # of ear wiggles per second...

but I bet the Bunnies are out of calibration, when+ how do you calibrate
them ? does that calibration change with size? young to old? food they
eat? amount of water they drink? or humidity in the air, or abount of
time in the sun ? etc etc....

if all this sounds stupid to you, then why believe that outragous full
of numbnuts shit article link kensi pupa posted?
Nadegda
2018-03-30 05:40:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
why believe that outragous full of numbnuts shit article link kensi pupa
posted?
If it's so "outragous[sic]" and impossible to believe, why do you froth
so? Obviously, you fear kensi's message, which puts the lie to your k'lame
that it's too silly to be believed.
--
FNVWe Nadegda

Fakey couldn't teach a monkey to eat a banana, much less answer a direct
question posed to him. -- Fakey's Dogwhistle Holder
Sergio
2018-03-30 14:04:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
why believe that outragous full of numbnuts shit article link kensi pupa
posted?
If it's so "outragous[sic]" and impossible to believe, why do you froth
so? Obviously, you fear kensi's message, which puts the lie to your k'lame
that it's too silly to be believed.
here is the common sense part you snipped off, because it is true,



"think of it, if you could use a bunny to detect a 2 degree rise in
temperature..... by # ear wiggles/second ? one could have their
bunnyTemp in their house hoppin around, temperaturizing, and you can
count the # of ear wiggles per second...

but I bet the Bunnies are out of calibration, when+ how do you calibrate
them ? does that calibration change with size? young to old? food they
eat? amount of water they drink? or humidity in the air, or abount of
time in the sun ? etc etc...."


you,kensi think that a 0.1 F rise will kill bunnies, yet they live each
year through a 90 degree F change.

obviously, you, kensi, writer of article are stupid.
Skeeter
2018-03-30 14:25:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 05:40:23 -0000 (UTC), Nadegda
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
why believe that outragous full of numbnuts shit article link kensi pupa
posted?
If it's so "outragous[sic]" and impossible to believe, why do you froth
so? Obviously, you fear kensi's message, which puts the lie to your k'lame
that it's too silly to be believed.
Same reason you snipped the part that smacked you so hard?
--
MAUKGA
benj
2018-03-30 15:53:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
why believe that outragous full of numbnuts shit article link kensi pupa
posted?
If it's so "outragous[sic]" and impossible to believe, why do you froth
so? Obviously, you fear kensi's message, which puts the lie to your k'lame
that it's too silly to be believed.
Telling you that you are an uneducated immature clown is hardly froth.
It is simply fact and is strong evidence that your beliefs are are all
nonsense. Your froth above shows you and "kensi" fear exposure of you
lack of science knowledge and try to cover the fact with bluster. Nobody
is fooled. Have a nice day.

Big hint, Nads: Journalists are NOT scientists and know no science.
You are obviously trying to be a journalist, right?
Trevor Wilson
2018-03-31 21:30:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by benj
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
why believe that outragous full of numbnuts shit article link kensi pupa
posted?
If it's so "outragous[sic]" and impossible to believe, why do you froth
so? Obviously, you fear kensi's message, which puts the lie to your k'lame
that it's too silly to be believed.
Telling you that you are an uneducated immature clown is hardly froth.
It is simply fact and is strong evidence that your beliefs are are all
nonsense. Your froth above shows you and "kensi" fear exposure of you
lack of science knowledge and try to cover the fact with bluster. Nobody
is fooled. Have a nice day.
**Pot, kettle, black you moron.
Post by benj
Big hint, Nads: Journalists are NOT scientists and know no science.
**Not necessarily.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
benj
2018-03-31 23:46:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
why believe that outragous full of numbnuts shit article link kensi pupa
posted?
If it's so "outragous[sic]" and impossible to believe, why do you froth
so? Obviously, you fear kensi's message, which puts the lie to your k'lame
that it's too silly to be believed.
Telling you that you are an uneducated immature clown is hardly froth.
It is simply fact and is strong evidence that your beliefs are are all
nonsense. Your froth above shows you and "kensi" fear exposure of you
lack of science knowledge and try to cover the fact with bluster.
Nobody is fooled. Have a nice day.
**Pot, kettle, black you moron.
Liberal "science": puerile name-calling.
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Big hint, Nads: Journalists are NOT scientists and know no science.
**Not necessarily.
True, I've just never seen one that did.
Trevor Wilson
2018-04-01 00:08:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
why believe that outragous full of numbnuts shit article link kensi pupa
posted?
If it's so "outragous[sic]" and impossible to believe, why do you froth
so? Obviously, you fear kensi's message, which puts the lie to your k'lame
that it's too silly to be believed.
Telling you that you are an uneducated immature clown is hardly
froth. It is simply fact and is strong evidence that your beliefs are
are all nonsense. Your froth above shows you and "kensi" fear
exposure of you lack of science knowledge and try to cover the fact
with bluster. Nobody is fooled. Have a nice day.
**Pot, kettle, black you moron.
Liberal "science": puerile name-calling.
**Name calling? Nope. Just stating fact. You fail miserably to back any
of your insane claims. You fail miserably to answer any of my questions
and you fail miserably to respond to any of my points. You are a lying
moron.
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Big hint, Nads: Journalists are NOT scientists and know no science.
**Not necessarily.
True,
**There you go. That wasn't hard, was it? You finally admitted to one of
your many lies. one down, about a million to go. I won't be holding my
breath.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Your Friendly Neighbourhood Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛
2018-04-01 00:26:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 1 Apr 2018 10:08:04 +1000, LO AND BEHOLD; "Trevor Wilson
<***@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au>" determined that the following was
of great importance and subsequently decided to freely share it with us
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
why believe that outragous full of numbnuts shit article link kensi pupa
posted?
If it's so "outragous[sic]" and impossible to believe, why do you froth
so? Obviously, you fear kensi's message, which puts the lie to your
k'lame that it's too silly to be believed.
Telling you that you are an uneducated immature clown is hardly froth.
It is simply fact and is strong evidence that your beliefs are are all
nonsense. Your froth above shows you and "kensi" fear exposure of you
lack of science knowledge and try to cover the fact with bluster.
Nobody is fooled. Have a nice day.
**Pot, kettle, black you moron.
Liberal "science": puerile name-calling.
**Name calling? Nope. Just stating fact. You fail miserably to back any
of your insane claims. You fail miserably to answer any of my questions
and you fail miserably to respond to any of my points. You are a lying
moron.
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Big hint, Nads: Journalists are NOT scientists and know no science.
**Not necessarily.
True,
**There you go. That wasn't hard, was it? You finally admitted to one of
your many lies. one down, about a million to go. I won't be holding my
breath.
now you get to prove science wrong, here is some space:
--
THIS SPACE FOR RENT
http://youtu.be/iB6B8jGSdLA

"Thanks to muzzies and their apologist-enablers like puppy whistle, this
seems to be the new norm in the world. It's spreading like a cancer,
and it's time we admit we're at war with pure evil. We need to put an
end to this muzzie plague, or life on Earth is going to become pure hell
everywhere. We need to get these people out of every civilized
country, and there's only one way to do it. IOW, we have to become
like them, with an emphasis on expediency over cruelty." - Checkmate (of alt.checkmate)

"Pussy Willow has just proven that Trump's crackdown on previously
unenforced immigration policies is working. We'll deal with the domestic
terrorists as needed, but we don't need to be letting the muzzie
terrorists get a foothold in our country too. One need only look at what
they're doing in Europe right now to know we're doing the right thing by
keeping them out, which is our right and our duty. - Checkmate (#1 pussy willow fan)

-

"You just made puppy whistle's sig line longer." - Janithor

-

"If I have a complaint about the (Southern Poverty) Law Center's description (of the alt-right movement), it is the phrase "heavy use of social media," which implies the alt-right is a real-world movement which uses a lot of social media. This is backwards: it is an online movement which occasionally appears in the real world. Where it gets punched." - Jason Rhode

-

"I think we should destroy every last fucking mosque in America." - "Checkmate, DoW #1" <***@The.Edge> proves for us that white males are violent in Message-ID: <***@news.altopia.com>

-

Golden Killfile, June 2005
KOTM, November 2006
Bob Allisat Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker, November 2006
Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart, November 2006
Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart, September 2007
Tony Sidaway Memorial "Drama Queen" Award, November 2006
Busted Urinal Award, April 2007
Order of the Holey Sockpuppet, September 2007
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle, September 2006
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle, April 2008
Tinfoil Sombrero, February 2007
AUK Mascot, September 2007
Putting the Awards Out of Order to Screw With the OCD Fuckheads, March 2016
benj
2018-04-01 00:56:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
why believe that outragous full of numbnuts shit article link kensi pupa
posted?
If it's so "outragous[sic]" and impossible to believe, why do you froth
so? Obviously, you fear kensi's message, which puts the lie to your k'lame
that it's too silly to be believed.
Telling you that you are an uneducated immature clown is hardly
froth. It is simply fact and is strong evidence that your beliefs
are are all nonsense. Your froth above shows you and "kensi" fear
exposure of you lack of science knowledge and try to cover the fact
with bluster. Nobody is fooled. Have a nice day.
**Pot, kettle, black you moron.
Liberal "science": puerile name-calling.
**Name calling? Nope. Just stating fact. You fail miserably to back any
of your insane claims. You fail miserably to answer any of my questions
and you fail miserably to respond to any of my points. You are a lying
moron.
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Big hint, Nads: Journalists are NOT scientists and know no science.
**Not necessarily.
True,
**There you go. That wasn't hard, was it? You finally admitted to one of
your many lies. one down, about a million to go. I won't be holding my
breath.
Lib liars always accuse others of being the liars. I note that you
provide no evidence of any journalist knowing any science. I can live
with a single theoretical exception.

I accept the truth that there ARE scientists who know science who have
sold out for money, fame, employment etc. and purposely lie and distort
facts for their handlers even though they know better. Is that you Trevor?
Trevor Wilson
2018-04-01 01:27:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
why believe that outragous full of numbnuts shit article link kensi pupa
posted?
If it's so "outragous[sic]" and impossible to believe, why do you froth
so? Obviously, you fear kensi's message, which puts the lie to your k'lame
that it's too silly to be believed.
Telling you that you are an uneducated immature clown is hardly
froth. It is simply fact and is strong evidence that your beliefs
are are all nonsense. Your froth above shows you and "kensi" fear
exposure of you lack of science knowledge and try to cover the fact
with bluster. Nobody is fooled. Have a nice day.
**Pot, kettle, black you moron.
Liberal "science": puerile name-calling.
**Name calling? Nope. Just stating fact. You fail miserably to back
any of your insane claims. You fail miserably to answer any of my
questions and you fail miserably to respond to any of my points. You
are a lying moron.
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Big hint, Nads: Journalists are NOT scientists and know no science.
**Not necessarily.
True,
**There you go. That wasn't hard, was it? You finally admitted to one
of your many lies. one down, about a million to go. I won't be holding
my breath.
Lib liars always accuse others of being the liars.
**Do they? Prove it. Prove that conservatives don't do exactly the same
thing. Nonetheless, I called you a liar, because you ARE a liar. An
ignorant one, at that.


I note that you
Post by benj
provide no evidence of any journalist knowing any science.
**You only need to ask:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natalie_Angier
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Ball

There are, of course, many more. We should not overlook the late, Steven
Hawking, who authored a huge number of papers, articles and books:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Hawking



I can live
Post by benj
with a single theoretical exception.
**Except, Mr Liar, it ain't theoretical. It's actual.
Post by benj
I accept the truth that there ARE scientists who know science who have
sold out for money, fame, employment etc.
**Sure. There's quite a few who have done that. I would argue that they
are likely in the minority.


and purposely lie and distort
Post by benj
facts for their handlers even though they know better. Is that you Trevor?
**LOL! Let me remind you, Mr Liar, that I have posed a great many
questions and comments to you. You have failed miserably to respond
and/or answer. The obvious conclusion is that you know when you are
beaten, so you just give up and scurry away.

I've dealt with your kind before. Blowhards, with no real knowledge
outside what they're fed by Fox. IOW: A moron.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
benj
2018-04-01 02:00:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt,
snowflakes, melt!
why believe that outragous full of numbnuts shit article link kensi pupa
posted?
If it's so "outragous[sic]" and impossible to believe, why do you froth
so? Obviously, you fear kensi's message, which puts the lie to your k'lame
that it's too silly to be believed.
Telling you that you are an uneducated immature clown is hardly
froth. It is simply fact and is strong evidence that your beliefs
are are all nonsense. Your froth above shows you and "kensi" fear
exposure of you lack of science knowledge and try to cover the
fact with bluster. Nobody is fooled. Have a nice day.
**Pot, kettle, black you moron.
Liberal "science": puerile name-calling.
**Name calling? Nope. Just stating fact. You fail miserably to back
any of your insane claims. You fail miserably to answer any of my
questions and you fail miserably to respond to any of my points. You
are a lying moron.
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Big hint, Nads: Journalists are NOT scientists and know no science.
**Not necessarily.
True,
**There you go. That wasn't hard, was it? You finally admitted to one
of your many lies. one down, about a million to go. I won't be
holding my breath.
Lib liars always accuse others of being the liars.
**Do they? Prove it. Prove that conservatives don't do exactly the same
thing. Nonetheless, I called you a liar, because you ARE a liar. An
ignorant one, at that.
I called YOU a liar because you are one. That's your job I think.
Post by Trevor Wilson
 I note that you
Post by benj
provide no evidence of any journalist knowing any science.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natalie_Angier
Pulitzer prize is proof of science knowledge? I don't think so. Anyway
life sciences and medicine aren't real science.
Post by Trevor Wilson
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Ball
Getting Closer. I mean he was once "sort of: a physicist before he
discovered he was liberal. I'd have to read his latest book on QM to see
if his head is up his arse or not. Clearly he is not quite a Journalist
though he regularly "contributes" to rags like NYT, Guardian and
propaganda arms like BBC. Those are all negative evidence.
Post by Trevor Wilson
There are, of course, many more. We should not overlook the late, Steven
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Hawking
Can't you get the difference between journalist and writer? hey I have
written books and articles on science. I'm not a journalist.
Post by Trevor Wilson
 I can live
Post by benj
with a single theoretical exception.
**Except, Mr Liar, it ain't theoretical. It's actual.
Except Mr. propagandist you have still not proved the premise wrong
except by your fantasies and stretching meanings.
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
I accept the truth that there ARE scientists who know science who have
sold out for money, fame, employment etc.
**Sure. There's quite a few who have done that. I would argue that they
are likely in the minority.
Science is not done by majority vote no matter what you science deniers
pretend. There is no such thing as the "settled science" you warmballers
always pretend exists.
Post by Trevor Wilson
 and purposely lie and distort
Post by benj
facts for their handlers even though they know better. Is that you Trevor?
**LOL! Let me remind you, Mr Liar, that I have posed a great many
questions and comments to you. You have failed miserably to respond
and/or answer. The obvious conclusion is that you know when you are
beaten, so you just give up and scurry away.
I have provided links to actual science an you keep pretending there is
nothing and you heard nothing. So this: Stick your fingers in your ears
and sing La LA LA LA LA! I CAN'T HEAR YOU! and that will "prove" I've
never answered any of your so-called questions. I'm still waiting for
your reply on the "Casualty of CO2 from 1940-1979 when CO2 went UP and
Temperature went DOWN! Oh that's right YOU CAN'T HEAR ME! LA LA LA LA LA!
Post by Trevor Wilson
I've dealt with your kind before. Blowhards, with no real knowledge
outside what they're fed by Fox. IOW: A moron.
I've dealt with 6th graders like you before too. In fact, years ago I
actually was one! Calling people names really shows just how "mature"
you folks in Oz are.

Why should I waste my valuable time on kooks like you?
Trevor Wilson
2018-04-01 04:57:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt,
snowflakes, melt!
why believe that outragous full of numbnuts shit article link kensi pupa
posted?
If it's so "outragous[sic]" and impossible to believe, why do you froth
so? Obviously, you fear kensi's message, which puts the lie to your k'lame
that it's too silly to be believed.
Telling you that you are an uneducated immature clown is hardly
froth. It is simply fact and is strong evidence that your beliefs
are are all nonsense. Your froth above shows you and "kensi" fear
exposure of you lack of science knowledge and try to cover the
fact with bluster. Nobody is fooled. Have a nice day.
**Pot, kettle, black you moron.
Liberal "science": puerile name-calling.
**Name calling? Nope. Just stating fact. You fail miserably to back
any of your insane claims. You fail miserably to answer any of my
questions and you fail miserably to respond to any of my points. You
are a lying moron.
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Big hint, Nads: Journalists are NOT scientists and know no science.
**Not necessarily.
True,
**There you go. That wasn't hard, was it? You finally admitted to
one of your many lies. one down, about a million to go. I won't be
holding my breath.
Lib liars always accuse others of being the liars.
**Do they? Prove it. Prove that conservatives don't do exactly the
same thing. Nonetheless, I called you a liar, because you ARE a liar.
An ignorant one, at that.
I called YOU a liar because you are one.
**And yet, not once have you managed to prove that I have lied. I guess
you lied about that as well. SOP. Lie about everything and hope for the
best. Well, it won't cut it in the real world.


That's your job I think.

**Nope. You don't think.
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
  I note that you
Post by benj
provide no evidence of any journalist knowing any science.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natalie_Angier
Pulitzer prize is proof of science knowledge? I don't think so. Anyway
life sciences and medicine aren't real science.
**[SHAKES HEAD] There is no way you can deal with logic and reason.
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Ball
Getting Closer. I mean he was once "sort of: a physicist before he
discovered he was liberal. I'd have to read his latest book on QM to see
if his head is up his arse or not. Clearly he is not quite a Journalist
though he regularly "contributes" to rags like NYT, Guardian and
propaganda arms like BBC. Those are all negative evidence.
**Like I said: Scientist AND journalist. Thus I answered your request.
In precisely the same way that you have failed to answer mine. You just
scurry away. Every single time.
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
There are, of course, many more. We should not overlook the late,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Hawking
Can't you get the difference between journalist and writer?
**They can be regarded as the same thing. The term: 'journalist' is very
broad.


hey I have
Post by benj
written books and articles on science. I'm not a journalist.
**You're nothing.
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
  I can live
Post by benj
with a single theoretical exception.
**Except, Mr Liar, it ain't theoretical. It's actual.
Except Mr. propagandist you have still not proved the premise wrong
except by your fantasies and stretching meanings.
**What premise would that be? That scientists can be journalists? I've
given you three examples. There are many, many more.
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
I accept the truth that there ARE scientists who know science who
have sold out for money, fame, employment etc.
**Sure. There's quite a few who have done that. I would argue that
they are likely in the minority.
Science is not done by majority vote no matter what you science deniers
pretend. There is no such thing as the "settled science" you warmballers
always pretend exists.
**Yeah, there is. The link between increased CO2 levels and increased
temperatures is both provably and theoretically solid. Hell, even
Mythbusters proved it.
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
  and purposely lie and distort
Post by benj
facts for their handlers even though they know better. Is that you Trevor?
**LOL! Let me remind you, Mr Liar, that I have posed a great many
questions and comments to you. You have failed miserably to respond
and/or answer. The obvious conclusion is that you know when you are
beaten, so you just give up and scurry away.
I have provided links to actual science an you keep pretending there is
nothing and you heard nothing.
**You SAY you have provided links, but you actually failed to do so.
(See the cut n copy at the end of this post)


So this: Stick your fingers in your ears
Post by benj
and sing La LA LA LA LA! I CAN'T HEAR YOU! and that will "prove" I've
never answered any of your so-called questions.
**I KNOW you have never answered my questions. You cannot. You lack the
intellect and the knowledge to do so.


I'm still waiting for
Post by benj
your reply on the "Casualty of CO2 from 1940-1979 when CO2 went UP and
Temperature went DOWN!
**Asked and answered elsewhere, you boob:

--
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
<https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-change-goes-firmly-
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
in-the-loss-column-for-insurers/>
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Do you post *anything* upbeat?
Does "she" ever post anything that is true?
No, HTH
It took a while, but now we have you on the record making a firm
statement
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
that amounts to clinate change denial.
Nonsense. Absolute lie. Lefties never do honesty. As I have said
here MANY times, the ONE principle that absolutely EVERYONE in science
agrees upon is "the certainty of change". It is you kooktards who think
that you can stop the planet and keep change from happening. That makes
YOU the 'science denier".
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Which in turn pins down your politics as right-wing, something
you've also
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
tried to maintain deniability about.
Right-wing schmite-wing. You are drooling again. What you accused
me of was being a Trump supporter. This is FAR from the case. Blowhard
sales types are not my favorite people though higher up than leftist
commies like yourself. Didn't you get the memo about the fall of your
utopian USSR? Your system is totally discredited by the largest social
experiment in history. No wonder only North Korea and Democrats are the
only ones left refusing to accept the data.
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
There's no bigger coward than one who will not go clearly on the
record as
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
believing what they believe, because it happens to be unpopular.
I not only go on record I CONSISTENTLY back up my views with peer
reviewed science that I regularly post in response to "kensi's" cut and
paste journalist propaganda.
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
**Liar. You NEVER post anything resembling science to any question
or comment I make. Not once, not ever.
Post by benj
The liar is YOU.
**LOL. Let's see.

Like al lefty Libs you don't do truth but DO do alling
Post by benj
other people names and slandering them to further you political
scams. The ends justifies the means, right? And now you have shown that
you and "kensi"/Nads are all part of the same big scamming family! You
are as ready to lie for them as you are to lie for yourself.
Post by benj
Here is a REPOST of GISS data I have posted many times?
**NO repost. As usual, you lying sack of shit.


Any idea what
Post by benj
GISS data is?
**I know EXACTLY what it is. I also know what cherry-picked data is. Do you?


Do you know who Dr. Hansen the godfather of global warming
Post by benj
is?
**The so-called 'Godfather' of global warming was Joseph Fourier. After
him, came Svante Arrhenius. Both men set the tone for global warming
research way back in the NINETEENTH century! Which is information you
would know, if you took the time to study the science.


Do you recognize HIS data?

**Well, since you failed (yet again) to present any data, no. Like I
said: You NEVER present anything resembling science to back you idiotic
claims. SOP.


Do you notice that from 1940 - 1970
Post by benj
these data showed Temperature going DOWN while CO2 went up?
**Yes. And that has been explained to you in exquisite detail many, many
times previously. Do you ever pay attention? It is due to aerosol
pollution, caused by industry and motor vehicles. You may care to note
(but you probably won't) that temperatures began to rise when
governments around the world got serious about reducing aerosol
pollution. Here's some science that you won't bother reading (nor
understand):

https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/science/aerosols-and-global-warming-faq.html#.Wr3OO39x1pg


And you have
Post by benj
the absolute balls to say this proves that CO2 "causes" warming?
**Idiot. The science is undeniable.


How
Post by benj
ignorant are you anyway.
**I assume that was a question. I am clearly a whole lot less ignorant
that you.


Why don't you show how much science you know
Post by benj
down in Oz and explain how radiative forcing made this happen?
**Certainly. CO2 is resonant at a couple of infra-red frequencies. When
infra-red (IR) hits those CO2 molecules, it causes them to vibrate
(accumulate kinetic energy). More IR = more kinetic energy. The CO2
molecules are agitated sufficiently to transfer some of their energy to
nearby molecules of atmospheric gases (nitrogen, oxygen, et al), thus
raising the energy level of the entire system. Most critically, CO2 acts
at night, when IR energy is re-radiated from the Earth's surface, thus
nighttime temperatures are raised.
Post by benj
You are all liars criminals and scammers trying to set up a fake tax
to steal trillions of dollars. Shame on YOU.

**I am not trying to set up any kind of tax.
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Neither YOU nor "kensi" EVER respond to any
Post by benj
of it,
**Pot, kettle, black, you lying sack of shit. You cannot put forward
a cogent argument when I question you. You just scurry away. Like you
will when you see this post.
Post by benj
Liar.
**You keep saying that, but you have failed to respond to my previous
posts in this area. That make YOU the lying cunt. Not me.


You simple babble on with your propaganda when I present you with
Post by benj
scientific data and then (see above) you lie and say I never did.
**You failed to supply ANY scientific data. That makes YOU the lying cunt.


Take
Post by benj
it easy on the drugs man, your fantasies are really getting strong.
**Let me remind you: _I_ am not the one who failed to supply the data.
You are.
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
instead simply resorting to immature name-calling and repeating
Post by benj
your lies over an over. As Sergio has pointed out, there has never
been ONE equation coming out of you or your sock, "kensi". And that
makes you a fraud.
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
**Actually, it is YOU who is the fraud. Not only do you fail to
respond, but you fail to admit when you have been shown to be wrong.
Post by benj
You have not shown any of the science I CONSTANTLY present as wrong.
**Lying does not make you correct. It just makes you a liar.


YOU
Post by benj
simply lie and name-call and repeat your fear-mongering propaganda
over and over. It's propaganda 101. Nothing new. Nothing of value either.
Post by benj
So start with discussing how CO2 radiative forcing is adding energy
yet temperatures are going down. This is a real "causality" trick!

**Huh? Prove that temperatures are going down.
Post by benj
We'll wait right here for your answer.
**Telling a lie, then asking ME to prove your lie is not going to happen.
--
Oh that's right YOU CAN'T HEAR ME! LA LA LA LA LA!
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
I've dealt with your kind before. Blowhards, with no real knowledge
outside what they're fed by Fox. IOW: A moron.
I've dealt with 6th graders like you before too. In fact, years ago I
actually was one!
**I have news for you, dickhead: You still are.


Calling people names really shows just how "mature"
Post by benj
you folks in Oz are.
**I don't give a fuck what you think about Aussies. I just want you to
admit that you don't know what the answers to my questions are.
Post by benj
Why should I waste my valuable time on kooks like you?
**No idea. Why do you?
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Sergio
2018-04-01 05:41:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt,
snowflakes, melt!
why believe that outragous full of numbnuts shit article link kensi pupa
posted?
If it's so "outragous[sic]" and impossible to believe, why do you froth
so? Obviously, you fear kensi's message, which puts the lie to your k'lame
that it's too silly to be believed.
Telling you that you are an uneducated immature clown is hardly
froth. It is simply fact and is strong evidence that your
beliefs are are all nonsense. Your froth above shows you and
"kensi" fear exposure of you lack of science knowledge and try
to cover the fact with bluster. Nobody is fooled. Have a nice day.
**Pot, kettle, black you moron.
Liberal "science": puerile name-calling.
**Name calling? Nope. Just stating fact. You fail miserably to back
any of your insane claims. You fail miserably to answer any of my
questions and you fail miserably to respond to any of my points.
You are a lying moron.
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Big hint, Nads: Journalists are NOT scientists and know no science.
**Not necessarily.
True,
**There you go. That wasn't hard, was it? You finally admitted to
one of your many lies. one down, about a million to go. I won't be
holding my breath.
Lib liars always accuse others of being the liars.
**Do they? Prove it. Prove that conservatives don't do exactly the
same thing. Nonetheless, I called you a liar, because you ARE a liar.
An ignorant one, at that.
I called YOU a liar because you are one.
**And yet, not once have you managed to prove that I have lied. I guess
you lied about that as well. SOP. Lie about everything and hope for the
best. Well, it won't cut it in the real world.
 That's your job I think.
**Nope. You don't think.
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
  I note that you
Post by benj
provide no evidence of any journalist knowing any science.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natalie_Angier
Pulitzer prize is proof of science knowledge? I don't think so. Anyway
life sciences and medicine aren't real science.
**[SHAKES HEAD] There is no way you can deal with logic and reason.
why shake your head on the internet ? is your hair wet ?
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Ball
Getting Closer. I mean he was once "sort of: a physicist before he
discovered he was liberal. I'd have to read his latest book on QM to
see if his head is up his arse or not. Clearly he is not quite a
Journalist though he regularly "contributes" to rags like NYT,
Guardian and propaganda arms like BBC. Those are all negative evidence.
**Like I said: Scientist AND journalist. Thus I answered your request.
In precisely the same way that you have failed to answer mine. You just
scurry away. Every single time.
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
There are, of course, many more. We should not overlook the late,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Hawking
Can't you get the difference between journalist and writer?
**They can be regarded as the same thing. The term: 'journalist' is very
broad.
wrong, they cannot be the same thing, they are two different words.
Post by Trevor Wilson
 hey I have
Post by benj
written books and articles on science. I'm not a journalist.
**You're nothing.
are you no thing?
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
  I can live
Post by benj
with a single theoretical exception.
**Except, Mr Liar, it ain't theoretical. It's actual.
Except Mr. propagandist you have still not proved the premise wrong
except by your fantasies and stretching meanings.
**What premise would that be? That scientists can be journalists? I've
given you three examples. There are many, many more.
failed scientists can become journlists, but most hate it,
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
I accept the truth that there ARE scientists who know science who
have sold out for money, fame, employment etc.
**Sure. There's quite a few who have done that. I would argue that
they are likely in the minority.
Science is not done by majority vote no matter what you science
deniers pretend. There is no such thing as the "settled science" you
warmballers always pretend exists.
**Yeah, there is. The link between increased CO2 levels and increased
temperatures is both provably and theoretically solid. Hell, even
Mythbusters proved it.
Al Gore showed a graph where they are unrelated
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
  and purposely lie and distort
Post by benj
facts for their handlers even though they know better. Is that you Trevor?
**LOL! Let me remind you, Mr Liar, that I have posed a great many
questions and comments to you. You have failed miserably to respond
and/or answer. The obvious conclusion is that you know when you are
beaten, so you just give up and scurry away.
I have provided links to actual science an you keep pretending there
is nothing and you heard nothing.
**You SAY you have provided links, but you actually failed to do so.
(See the cut n copy at the end of this post)
 So this: Stick your fingers in your ears
Post by benj
and sing La LA LA LA LA! I CAN'T HEAR YOU! and that will "prove" I've
never answered any of your so-called questions.
**I KNOW you have never answered my questions. You cannot. You lack the
intellect and the knowledge to do so.
 I'm still waiting for
Post by benj
your reply on the "Casualty of CO2 from 1940-1979 when CO2 went UP and
Temperature went DOWN!
--
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes,
melt!
<https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-change-goes-firmly-
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
in-the-loss-column-for-insurers/>
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Do you post *anything* upbeat?
Does "she" ever post anything that is true?
No,  HTH
It took a while, but now we have you on the record making a firm
statement
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
that amounts to clinate change denial.
Nonsense. Absolute lie. Lefties never do honesty. As I have said
here MANY times, the ONE principle that absolutely EVERYONE in science
agrees upon is "the certainty of change". It is you kooktards who think
that you can stop the planet and keep change from happening. That makes
YOU the 'science denier".
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Which in turn pins down your politics as right-wing, something
you've also
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
tried to maintain deniability about.
Right-wing schmite-wing. You are drooling again. What you accused me
of was being a Trump supporter. This is FAR from the case. Blowhard
sales types are not my favorite people though higher up than leftist
commies like yourself. Didn't you get the memo about the fall of your
utopian USSR? Your system is totally discredited by the largest social
experiment in history. No wonder only North Korea and Democrats are the
only ones left refusing to accept the data.
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
There's no bigger coward than one who will not go clearly on the
record as
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
believing what they believe, because it happens to be unpopular.
I not only go on record I CONSISTENTLY back up my views with peer
reviewed science that I regularly post in response to "kensi's" cut and
paste journalist propaganda.
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
**Liar. You NEVER post anything resembling science to any question or
comment I make. Not once, not ever.
Post by benj
The liar is YOU.
**LOL. Let's see.
 Like al lefty Libs you don't do truth but DO do alling
Post by benj
other people names and slandering them to further you political scams.
The ends justifies the means, right? And now you have shown that you and
"kensi"/Nads are all part of the same big scamming family! You are as
ready to lie for them as you are to lie for yourself.
Post by benj
Here is a REPOST of GISS data I have posted many times?
**NO repost. As usual, you lying sack of shit.
 Any idea what
Post by benj
GISS data is?
**I know EXACTLY what it is. I also know what cherry-picked data is. Do you?
 Do you know who Dr. Hansen the godfather of global warming
Post by benj
is?
**The so-called 'Godfather' of global warming was Joseph Fourier. After
him, came Svante Arrhenius. Both men set the tone for global warming
research way back in the NINETEENTH century! Which is information you
would know, if you took the time to study the science.
 Do you recognize HIS data?
**Well, since you failed (yet again) to present any data, no. Like I
said: You NEVER present anything resembling science to back you idiotic
claims. SOP.
  Do you notice that from 1940 - 1970
Post by benj
these data showed Temperature going DOWN while CO2 went up?
**Yes. And that has been explained to you in exquisite detail many, many
times previously. Do you ever pay attention? It is due to aerosol
pollution, caused by industry and motor vehicles. You may care to note
(but you probably won't) that temperatures began to rise when
governments around the world got serious about reducing aerosol
pollution. Here's some science that you won't bother reading (nor
aerosol polution stays near the ground, and disipates.
Post by Trevor Wilson
https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/science/aerosols-and-global-warming-faq.html#.Wr3OO39x1pg
 And you have
Post by benj
the absolute balls to say this proves that CO2 "causes" warming?
**Idiot. The science is undeniable.
look at the data, it is sattilite data measuring surface temperatures,
then highly averaged, ever see an error analysis of that muck ?
Post by Trevor Wilson
 How
Post by benj
ignorant are you anyway.
**I assume that was a question. I am clearly a whole lot less ignorant
that you.
tut tut.
Post by Trevor Wilson
 Why don't you show how much science you know
Post by benj
down in Oz and explain how radiative forcing made this happen?
**Certainly. CO2 is resonant at a couple of infra-red frequencies. When
infra-red (IR) hits those CO2 molecules, it causes them to vibrate
(accumulate kinetic energy). More IR = more kinetic energy. The CO2
molecules are agitated sufficiently to transfer some of their energy to
nearby molecules of atmospheric gases (nitrogen, oxygen, et al), thus
raising the energy level of the entire system. Most critically, CO2 acts
at night, when IR energy is re-radiated from the Earth's surface, thus
nighttime temperatures are raised.
try calculating it, your absorbation bands are too narrow on CO2 to be
meaningful.
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
You are all liars criminals and scammers trying to set up a fake tax
to steal trillions of dollars. Shame on YOU.
**I am not trying to set up any kind of tax.
Carbon Market is the new stock market for trading carbon credits and
futures, Wall street is pushing for it, about a 200B market to start.
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
   Neither YOU nor "kensi" EVER respond to any
Post by benj
of it,
**Pot, kettle, black, you lying sack of shit. You cannot put forward
a cogent argument when I question you. You just scurry away. Like you
will when you see this post.
Post by benj
Liar.
**You keep saying that, but you have failed to respond to my previous
posts in this area. That make YOU the lying cunt. Not me.
 You simple babble on with your propaganda when I present you with
Post by benj
scientific data and then (see above) you lie and say I never did.
**You failed to supply ANY scientific data. That makes YOU the lying cunt.
 Take
Post by benj
it easy on the drugs man, your fantasies are really getting strong.
**Let me remind you: _I_ am not the one who failed to supply the data.
You are.
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
   instead simply resorting to immature name-calling and repeating
Post by benj
your lies over an over. As Sergio has pointed out, there has never
been ONE equation coming out of you or your sock, "kensi". And that
makes you a fraud.
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
**Actually, it is YOU who is the fraud. Not only do you fail to
respond, but you fail to admit when you have been shown to be wrong.
Post by benj
You have not shown any of the science I CONSTANTLY present as wrong.
**Lying does not make you correct. It just makes you a liar.
 YOU
Post by benj
simply lie and name-call and repeat your fear-mongering propaganda
over and over. It's propaganda 101. Nothing new. Nothing of value either.
Post by benj
So start with discussing how CO2 radiative forcing is adding energy
yet temperatures are going down. This is a real "causality" trick!
**Huh? Prove that temperatures are going down.
Post by benj
We'll wait right here for your answer.
**Telling a lie, then asking ME to prove your lie is not going to happen.
Trevor Wilson
2018-04-01 07:31:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sergio
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
why believe that outragous full of numbnuts shit article link
kensi pupa
posted?
If it's so "outragous[sic]" and impossible to believe, why do you froth
so? Obviously, you fear kensi's message, which puts the lie to
your k'lame
that it's too silly to be believed.
Telling you that you are an uneducated immature clown is hardly
froth. It is simply fact and is strong evidence that your
beliefs are are all nonsense. Your froth above shows you and
"kensi" fear exposure of you lack of science knowledge and try
to cover the fact with bluster. Nobody is fooled. Have a nice day.
**Pot, kettle, black you moron.
Liberal "science": puerile name-calling.
**Name calling? Nope. Just stating fact. You fail miserably to back
any of your insane claims. You fail miserably to answer any of my
questions and you fail miserably to respond to any of my points.
You are a lying moron.
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Big hint, Nads: Journalists are NOT scientists and know no science.
**Not necessarily.
True,
**There you go. That wasn't hard, was it? You finally admitted to
one of your many lies. one down, about a million to go. I won't be
holding my breath.
Lib liars always accuse others of being the liars.
**Do they? Prove it. Prove that conservatives don't do exactly the
same thing. Nonetheless, I called you a liar, because you ARE a liar.
An ignorant one, at that.
I called YOU a liar because you are one.
**And yet, not once have you managed to prove that I have lied. I guess
you lied about that as well. SOP. Lie about everything and hope for the
best. Well, it won't cut it in the real world.
 That's your job I think.
**Nope. You don't think.
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
  I note that you
Post by benj
provide no evidence of any journalist knowing any science.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natalie_Angier
Pulitzer prize is proof of science knowledge? I don't think so. Anyway
life sciences and medicine aren't real science.
**[SHAKES HEAD] There is no way you can deal with logic and reason.
why shake your head on the internet ? is your hair wet ?
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Ball
Getting Closer. I mean he was once "sort of: a physicist before he
discovered he was liberal. I'd have to read his latest book on QM to
see if his head is up his arse or not. Clearly he is not quite a
Journalist though he regularly "contributes" to rags like NYT,
Guardian and propaganda arms like BBC. Those are all negative evidence.
**Like I said: Scientist AND journalist. Thus I answered your request.
In precisely the same way that you have failed to answer mine. You just
scurry away. Every single time.
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
There are, of course, many more. We should not overlook the late,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Hawking
Can't you get the difference between journalist and writer?
**They can be regarded as the same thing. The term: 'journalist' is very
broad.
wrong, they cannot be the same thing, they are two different words.
**Really? You sure about that?

http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/journalist?s=t
Post by Sergio
Post by Trevor Wilson
 hey I have
Post by benj
written books and articles on science. I'm not a journalist.
**You're nothing.
are you no thing?
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
  I can live
Post by benj
with a single theoretical exception.
**Except, Mr Liar, it ain't theoretical. It's actual.
Except Mr. propagandist you have still not proved the premise wrong
except by your fantasies and stretching meanings.
**What premise would that be? That scientists can be journalists? I've
given you three examples. There are many, many more.
failed scientists can become journlists, but most hate it,
**Do they? Got some proof of that claim?
Post by Sergio
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
I accept the truth that there ARE scientists who know science who
have sold out for money, fame, employment etc.
**Sure. There's quite a few who have done that. I would argue that
they are likely in the minority.
Science is not done by majority vote no matter what you science
deniers pretend. There is no such thing as the "settled science" you
warmballers always pretend exists.
**Yeah, there is. The link between increased CO2 levels and increased
temperatures is both provably and theoretically solid. Hell, even
Mythbusters proved it.
Al Gore showed a graph where they are unrelated
**Al Gore is a POLITICIAN, not a SCIENTIST. Please learn the difference.
I am not interested in what a POLITICIAN has to say about SCIENCE.
Please pay attention to the emphasis. You may quote politicians in the
area of (you guessed it) POLITICS. When discussing matters of science,
you quote (you guessed it again) SCIENTISTS.

Let's not place in at the same level as benj. Keep it up and we'll be
forced to do so.
Post by Sergio
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
  and purposely lie and distort
Post by benj
facts for their handlers even though they know better. Is that you Trevor?
**LOL! Let me remind you, Mr Liar, that I have posed a great many
questions and comments to you. You have failed miserably to respond
and/or answer. The obvious conclusion is that you know when you are
beaten, so you just give up and scurry away.
I have provided links to actual science an you keep pretending there
is nothing and you heard nothing.
**You SAY you have provided links, but you actually failed to do so.
(See the cut n copy at the end of this post)
 So this: Stick your fingers in your ears
Post by benj
and sing La LA LA LA LA! I CAN'T HEAR YOU! and that will "prove" I've
never answered any of your so-called questions.
**I KNOW you have never answered my questions. You cannot. You lack the
intellect and the knowledge to do so.
 I'm still waiting for
Post by benj
your reply on the "Casualty of CO2 from 1940-1979 when CO2 went UP and
Temperature went DOWN!
--
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes,
melt!
<https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-change-goes-firmly-
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
in-the-loss-column-for-insurers/>
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Do you post *anything* upbeat?
Does "she" ever post anything that is true?
No,  HTH
It took a while, but now we have you on the record making a firm
statement
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
that amounts to clinate change denial.
Nonsense. Absolute lie. Lefties never do honesty. As I have said
here MANY times, the ONE principle that absolutely EVERYONE in science
agrees upon is "the certainty of change". It is you kooktards who think
that you can stop the planet and keep change from happening. That makes
YOU the 'science denier".
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Which in turn pins down your politics as right-wing, something
you've also
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
tried to maintain deniability about.
Right-wing schmite-wing. You are drooling again. What you accused me
of was being a Trump supporter. This is FAR from the case. Blowhard
sales types are not my favorite people though higher up than leftist
commies like yourself. Didn't you get the memo about the fall of your
utopian USSR? Your system is totally discredited by the largest social
experiment in history. No wonder only North Korea and Democrats are the
only ones left refusing to accept the data.
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
There's no bigger coward than one who will not go clearly on the
record as
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
believing what they believe, because it happens to be unpopular.
I not only go on record I CONSISTENTLY back up my views with peer
reviewed science that I regularly post in response to "kensi's" cut and
paste journalist propaganda.
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
**Liar. You NEVER post anything resembling science to any question or
comment I make. Not once, not ever.
Post by benj
The liar is YOU.
**LOL. Let's see.
 Like al lefty Libs you don't do truth but DO do alling
Post by benj
other people names and slandering them to further you political scams.
The ends justifies the means, right? And now you have shown that you and
"kensi"/Nads are all part of the same big scamming family! You are as
ready to lie for them as you are to lie for yourself.
Post by benj
Here is a REPOST of GISS data I have posted many times?
**NO repost. As usual, you lying sack of shit.
 Any idea what
Post by benj
GISS data is?
**I know EXACTLY what it is. I also know what cherry-picked data is. Do you?
 Do you know who Dr. Hansen the godfather of global warming
Post by benj
is?
**The so-called 'Godfather' of global warming was Joseph Fourier. After
him, came Svante Arrhenius. Both men set the tone for global warming
research way back in the NINETEENTH century! Which is information you
would know, if you took the time to study the science.
 Do you recognize HIS data?
**Well, since you failed (yet again) to present any data, no. Like I
said: You NEVER present anything resembling science to back you idiotic
claims. SOP.
  Do you notice that from 1940 - 1970
Post by benj
these data showed Temperature going DOWN while CO2 went up?
**Yes. And that has been explained to you in exquisite detail many, many
times previously. Do you ever pay attention? It is due to aerosol
pollution, caused by industry and motor vehicles. You may care to note
(but you probably won't) that temperatures began to rise when
governments around the world got serious about reducing aerosol
pollution. Here's some science that you won't bother reading (nor
aerosol polution stays near the ground, and disipates.
**Does it? How about jet trails? Are they near the ground too?
Post by Sergio
Post by Trevor Wilson
https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/science/aerosols-and-global-warming-faq.html#.Wr3OO39x1pg
 And you have
Post by benj
the absolute balls to say this proves that CO2 "causes" warming?
**Idiot. The science is undeniable.
look at the data, it is sattilite data measuring surface temperatures,
then highly averaged, ever see an error analysis of that muck ?
**When examining temperatures, it is appropriate to use all measurement
criteria. That includes satellite data. However, satellite data has not
been available for most of the period under discussion.
Post by Sergio
Post by Trevor Wilson
 How
Post by benj
ignorant are you anyway.
**I assume that was a question. I am clearly a whole lot less ignorant
that you.
tut tut.
**Again: I calls it the way I sees it. benj is spectacularly ignorant.
He scurries away, when asked questions.
Post by Sergio
Post by Trevor Wilson
 Why don't you show how much science you know
Post by benj
down in Oz and explain how radiative forcing made this happen?
**Certainly. CO2 is resonant at a couple of infra-red frequencies. When
infra-red (IR) hits those CO2 molecules, it causes them to vibrate
(accumulate kinetic energy). More IR = more kinetic energy. The CO2
molecules are agitated sufficiently to transfer some of their energy to
nearby molecules of atmospheric gases (nitrogen, oxygen, et al), thus
raising the energy level of the entire system. Most critically, CO2 acts
at night, when IR energy is re-radiated from the Earth's surface, thus
nighttime temperatures are raised.
try calculating it, your absorbation bands are too narrow on CO2 to be
meaningful.
**I HAVE calculated it. Many years ago. CO2 is resonant at three
frequencies in the IR band. Two narrow peaks at around 2.5um and 4um and
a much broader peak at around 15 ~ 20um. I suggest you choose another
scientific reference, rather than Fox News.
Post by Sergio
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
You are all liars criminals and scammers trying to set up a fake tax
to steal trillions of dollars. Shame on YOU.
**I am not trying to set up any kind of tax.
Carbon Market is the new stock market for trading carbon credits and
futures, Wall street is pushing for it, about a 200B market to start.
**I am not trying to set up any kind of tax.
Post by Sergio
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
   Neither YOU nor "kensi" EVER respond to any
Post by benj
of it,
**Pot, kettle, black, you lying sack of shit. You cannot put forward
a cogent argument when I question you. You just scurry away. Like you
will when you see this post.
Post by benj
Liar.
**You keep saying that, but you have failed to respond to my previous
posts in this area. That make YOU the lying cunt. Not me.
 You simple babble on with your propaganda when I present you with
Post by benj
scientific data and then (see above) you lie and say I never did.
**You failed to supply ANY scientific data. That makes YOU the lying cunt.
 Take
Post by benj
it easy on the drugs man, your fantasies are really getting strong.
**Let me remind you: _I_ am not the one who failed to supply the data.
You are.
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
   instead simply resorting to immature name-calling and repeating
Post by benj
your lies over an over. As Sergio has pointed out, there has never
been ONE equation coming out of you or your sock, "kensi". And that
makes you a fraud.
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
**Actually, it is YOU who is the fraud. Not only do you fail to
respond, but you fail to admit when you have been shown to be wrong.
Post by benj
You have not shown any of the science I CONSTANTLY present as wrong.
**Lying does not make you correct. It just makes you a liar.
 YOU
Post by benj
simply lie and name-call and repeat your fear-mongering propaganda
over and over. It's propaganda 101. Nothing new. Nothing of value either.
Post by benj
So start with discussing how CO2 radiative forcing is adding energy
yet temperatures are going down. This is a real "causality" trick!
**Huh? Prove that temperatures are going down.
Post by benj
We'll wait right here for your answer.
**Telling a lie, then asking ME to prove your lie is not going to happen.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Sergio
2018-04-01 16:46:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Sergio
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Can't you get the difference between journalist and writer?
**They can be regarded as the same thing. The term: 'journalist' is very
broad.
wrong, they cannot be the same thing, they are two different words.
**Really? You sure about that?
I'm sure about that. Some are both, most are not, two different jobs.
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Sergio
failed scientists can become journlists, but most hate it,
**Do they? Got some proof of that claim?
sure, havent got time to look them up right now.
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Sergio
Al  Gore showed a graph where they are unrelated
**Al Gore is a POLITICIAN, not a SCIENTIST. Please learn the difference.
I am not interested in what a POLITICIAN has to say about SCIENCE.
Please pay attention to the emphasis. You may quote politicians in the
area of (you guessed it) POLITICS. When discussing matters of science,
you quote (you guessed it again) SCIENTISTS.
Let's not place in at the same level as benj. Keep it up and we'll be
forced to do so.
wrong, Al Gore invented Glowball Worming AND the internet, just ask him.
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Sergio
Post by Trevor Wilson
   Do you notice that from 1940 - 1970
Post by benj
these data showed Temperature going DOWN while CO2 went up?
**Yes. And that has been explained to you in exquisite detail many, many
times previously. Do you ever pay attention? It is due to aerosol
pollution, caused by industry and motor vehicles. You may care to note
(but you probably won't) that temperatures began to rise when
governments around the world got serious about reducing aerosol
pollution. Here's some science that you won't bother reading (nor
aerosol polution stays near the ground, and disipates.
**Does it? How about jet trails? Are they near the ground too?
they dissipate, just keep watching your chem trails up there, and
they vanish as the water evaporates.
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Sergio
Post by Trevor Wilson
https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/science/aerosols-and-global-warming-faq.html#.Wr3OO39x1pg
  And you have
Post by benj
the absolute balls to say this proves that CO2 "causes" warming?
**Idiot. The science is undeniable.
look at the data, it is sattilite data measuring surface temperatures,
then highly averaged, ever see an error analysis of that muck ?
**When examining temperatures, it is appropriate to use all measurement
criteria. That includes satellite data. However, satellite data has not
been available for most of the period under discussion.
so you admit they do not have consistent data over the entire face of
the earth.
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Sergio
Post by Trevor Wilson
  How
Post by benj
ignorant are you anyway.
**I assume that was a question. I am clearly a whole lot less ignorant
that you.
tut tut.
**Again: I calls it the way I sees it. benj is spectacularly ignorant.
He scurries away, when asked questions.
your saying you are less ignorant than benj, but you believe bunnies die
with a 0.1 F change in temperature.
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Sergio
Post by Trevor Wilson
  Why don't you show how much science you know
Post by benj
down in Oz and explain how radiative forcing made this happen?
**Certainly. CO2 is resonant at a couple of infra-red frequencies. When
infra-red (IR) hits those CO2 molecules, it causes them to vibrate
(accumulate kinetic energy). More IR = more kinetic energy. The CO2
molecules are agitated sufficiently to transfer some of their energy to
nearby molecules of atmospheric gases (nitrogen, oxygen, et al), thus
raising the energy level of the entire system. Most critically, CO2 acts
at night, when IR energy is re-radiated from the Earth's surface, thus
nighttime temperatures are raised.
try calculating it, your absorbation bands are too narrow on CO2 to be
meaningful.
**I HAVE calculated it. Many years ago. CO2 is resonant at three
frequencies in the IR band. Two narrow peaks at around 2.5um and 4um and
a much broader peak at around 15 ~ 20um. I suggest you choose another
scientific reference, rather than Fox News.
true answer is to integrate across the wavelengths widths, (use
W/m^2/nm) and compare to incoming sunlight to get a percentage. I think
you will find this is less than 3%.

so how does sunlight, which peaks at 0.5um with get converted to longer
wavelengths ?
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Sergio
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
You are all liars criminals and scammers trying to set up a fake tax
to steal trillions of dollars. Shame on YOU.
**I am not trying to set up any kind of tax.
Carbon Market is the new stock market for trading carbon credits and
futures, Wall street is pushing for it, about a 200B market to start.
**I am not trying to set up any kind of tax.
it dosent matter what you think, that is the goal of climate change
movement, once you pars out the green stuff.
Trevor Wilson
2018-04-02 00:37:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sergio
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Sergio
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Can't you get the difference between journalist and writer?
**They can be regarded as the same thing. The term: 'journalist' is very
broad.
wrong, they cannot be the same thing, they are two different words.
**Really? You sure about that?
I'm sure about that. Some are both, most are not, two different jobs.
**OK. You're wrong (again). I proved it to you.
Post by Sergio
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Sergio
failed scientists can become journlists, but most hate it,
**Do they? Got some proof of that claim?
sure, havent got time to look them up right now.
**Of course. I expected nothing less of you. You have, as usual, got
nothing.
Post by Sergio
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Sergio
Al  Gore showed a graph where they are unrelated
**Al Gore is a POLITICIAN, not a SCIENTIST. Please learn the difference.
I am not interested in what a POLITICIAN has to say about SCIENCE.
Please pay attention to the emphasis. You may quote politicians in the
area of (you guessed it) POLITICS. When discussing matters of science,
you quote (you guessed it again) SCIENTISTS.
Let's not place in at the same level as benj. Keep it up and we'll be
forced to do so.
wrong, Al Gore invented Glowball Worming AND the internet, just ask him.
**It seems I need to make my words easier for you to understand. Pay
close attention, lest I be forced to call you a moron:

Al Gore is a POLITICIAN, not a SCIENTIST. Please learn the difference. I
am not interested in what a POLITICIAN has to say about SCIENCE. Please
pay attention to the emphasis. You may quote politicians in the area of
(you guessed it) POLITICS. When discussing matters of science, you quote
(you guessed it again) SCIENTISTS.

Stop telling what some politician thinks about science. I am singularly
disinterested. And so should you be. Pay attention to the SCIENTISTS who
work in climate research.

Clear?

Make such a mistake again and you will be treated the way you deserve to
be.
Post by Sergio
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Sergio
Post by Trevor Wilson
   Do you notice that from 1940 - 1970
Post by benj
these data showed Temperature going DOWN while CO2 went up?
**Yes. And that has been explained to you in exquisite detail many, many
times previously. Do you ever pay attention? It is due to aerosol
pollution, caused by industry and motor vehicles. You may care to note
(but you probably won't) that temperatures began to rise when
governments around the world got serious about reducing aerosol
pollution. Here's some science that you won't bother reading (nor
aerosol polution stays near the ground, and disipates.
**Does it? How about jet trails? Are they near the ground too?
they dissipate, just keep watching your chem trails up there, and
they vanish as the water evaporates.
**OK, I'll ask the question once more (in a simpler fashion, so you can
understand):

Are jet trails near the ground?

A 'yes' or 'no' will be fine.
Post by Sergio
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Sergio
Post by Trevor Wilson
https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/science/aerosols-and-global-warming-faq.html#.Wr3OO39x1pg
  And you have
Post by benj
the absolute balls to say this proves that CO2 "causes" warming?
**Idiot. The science is undeniable.
look at the data, it is sattilite data measuring surface temperatures,
then highly averaged, ever see an error analysis of that muck ?
**When examining temperatures, it is appropriate to use all measurement
criteria. That includes satellite data. However, satellite data has not
been available for most of the period under discussion.
so you admit they do not have consistent data over the entire face of
the earth.
**Huh? Please point out precisely what words I used to cause you to
think I said such a thing? Take your time.
Post by Sergio
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Sergio
Post by Trevor Wilson
  How
Post by benj
ignorant are you anyway.
**I assume that was a question. I am clearly a whole lot less ignorant
that you.
tut tut.
**Again: I calls it the way I sees it. benj is spectacularly ignorant.
He scurries away, when asked questions.
your saying you are less ignorant than benj, but you believe bunnies die
with a 0.1 F change in temperature.
**Again: Please point out precisely where I made such a claim.

Also, FWIW: Rabbits are a declared pest in Australia. They, along with
cats, rats, pigs, goats and feral dogs, should be exterminated. Don't
get me started on rabbits. Horrible creatures (in Australia). Farm
losses, due to rabbit infestation is huge.
Post by Sergio
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Sergio
Post by Trevor Wilson
  Why don't you show how much science you know
Post by benj
down in Oz and explain how radiative forcing made this happen?
**Certainly. CO2 is resonant at a couple of infra-red frequencies. When
infra-red (IR) hits those CO2 molecules, it causes them to vibrate
(accumulate kinetic energy). More IR = more kinetic energy. The CO2
molecules are agitated sufficiently to transfer some of their energy to
nearby molecules of atmospheric gases (nitrogen, oxygen, et al), thus
raising the energy level of the entire system. Most critically, CO2 acts
at night, when IR energy is re-radiated from the Earth's surface, thus
nighttime temperatures are raised.
try calculating it, your absorbation bands are too narrow on CO2 to be
meaningful.
**I HAVE calculated it. Many years ago. CO2 is resonant at three
frequencies in the IR band. Two narrow peaks at around 2.5um and 4um and
a much broader peak at around 15 ~ 20um. I suggest you choose another
scientific reference, rather than Fox News.
true answer is to integrate across the wavelengths widths, (use
W/m^2/nm) and compare to incoming sunlight to get a percentage. I think
you will find this is less than 3%.
**Not even close to reality. Radiative forcing due to CO2 is between 7%
~ 26%, depending on time of day, year and other factors.
Post by Sergio
so how does sunlight, which peaks at 0.5um with get converted to longer
wavelengths ?
**You seem to be suffering some kind of delusion that the peak is
important. You're wrong (again). I will explain:

Only a very tiny amount of UV radiation (much less than IR) reaches the
Earth, yet that UV is sufficient to cause Australia to be the skin
cancer capital of the planet. The Sun radiates plenty of IR as well.
Post by Sergio
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Sergio
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
You are all liars criminals and scammers trying to set up a fake tax
to steal trillions of dollars. Shame on YOU.
**I am not trying to set up any kind of tax.
Carbon Market is the new stock market for trading carbon credits and
futures, Wall street is pushing for it, about a 200B market to start.
**I am not trying to set up any kind of tax.
it dosent matter what you think,
**I said:

"I am not trying to set up any kind of tax."

I did not provide an opinion either way.


that is the goal of climate change
Post by Sergio
movement, once you pars out the green stuff.
**Wrong. The goal of climate scientists is to provide information
pertaining to the reasons why the planet is warming. It's THAT simple.
Others will likely make decisions based on that information.

Again: It's about the SCIENCE, not opinions.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Sergio
2018-04-02 03:11:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Sergio
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Can't you get the difference between journalist and writer?
**They can be regarded as the same thing. The term: 'journalist' is very
broad.
wrong, they cannot be the same thing, they are two different words.
**Really? You sure about that?
I'm sure about that.  Some are both, most are not, two different jobs.
**OK. You're wrong (again). I proved it to you.
no, you did not. they are two different words, with individual
meanings. and you don't know how to use a dictionary.

Obviously, English is not your first language.
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Sergio
failed scientists can become journlists, but most hate it,
**Do they? Got some proof of that claim?
sure, havent got time to look them up right now.
**Of course. I expected nothing less of you. You have, as usual, got
nothing.
I don't owe you anything.
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Sergio
Al  Gore showed a graph where they are unrelated
**Al Gore is a POLITICIAN, not a SCIENTIST. Please learn the difference.
I am not interested in what a POLITICIAN has to say about SCIENCE.
Please pay attention to the emphasis. You may quote politicians in the
area of (you guessed it) POLITICS. When discussing matters of science,
you quote (you guessed it again) SCIENTISTS.
Let's not place in at the same level as benj. Keep it up and we'll be
forced to do so.
wrong, Al Gore invented Glowball Worming AND the internet, just ask him.
**It seems I need to make my words easier for you to understand. Pay
Al Gore is a POLITICIAN, not a SCIENTIST. Please learn the difference. I
am not interested in what a POLITICIAN has to say about SCIENCE. Please
pay attention to the emphasis. You may quote politicians in the area of
(you guessed it) POLITICS. When discussing matters of science, you quote
(you guessed it again) SCIENTISTS.
wrong, Al Gore invented Glowball Worming AND the internet, just ask him.
Post by Trevor Wilson
Stop telling what some politician thinks about science. I am singularly
disinterested.
no one cares what you think, you only parrot leftist "sciency"
global worming articles that you have not read.

You are the one pushing *political agenda* for Climate change.
Post by Trevor Wilson
And so should you be. Pay attention to the SCIENTISTS who
work in climate research.
Clear?
Go ahead and believe your Al Gore, or some "scientests say" phrase, from
your leftist mags.

I ask for the data that they use, usally they cannot produce it or it is
munged by a computer program to get answers somebody wants, and that is
where they fall short every time.
Post by Trevor Wilson
Make such a mistake again and you will be treated the way you deserve to
be.
whoa! your asshole is puckering!
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Sergio
Post by Trevor Wilson
    Do you notice that from 1940 - 1970
Post by benj
these data showed Temperature going DOWN while CO2 went up?
**Yes. And that has been explained to you in exquisite detail many, many
times previously. Do you ever pay attention? It is due to aerosol
pollution, caused by industry and motor vehicles. You may care to note
(but you probably won't) that temperatures began to rise when
governments around the world got serious about reducing aerosol
pollution. Here's some science that you won't bother reading (nor
aerosol polution stays near the ground, and disipates.
**Does it? How about jet trails? Are they near the ground too?
    they dissipate, just keep watching your chem trails up there, and
they vanish as the water evaporates.
**OK, I'll ask the question once more (in a simpler fashion, so you can
Are jet trails near the ground?
do you think they are ? are water tower plumes near the ground ?
Post by Trevor Wilson
A 'yes' or 'no' will be fine.
yes, your asshole is puckered!
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Sergio
Post by Trevor Wilson
https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/science/aerosols-and-global-warming-faq.html#.Wr3OO39x1pg
   And you have
Post by benj
the absolute balls to say this proves that CO2 "causes" warming?
**Idiot. The science is undeniable.
look at the data, it is sattilite data measuring surface temperatures,
then highly averaged, ever see an error analysis of that muck ?
**When examining temperatures, it is appropriate to use all measurement
criteria. That includes satellite data. However, satellite data has not
been available for most of the period under discussion.
so you admit they do not have consistent data over the entire face of
the earth.
**Huh? Please point out precisely what words I used to cause you to
think I said such a thing? Take your time.
you are so confused, try to keep up, I dont want to spend my time
refocusing your brain as it is too loose.

"...satellite data has not been available for most of the period under
discussion."

you have short term memory loss.
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Sergio
Post by Trevor Wilson
   How
Post by benj
ignorant are you anyway.
**I assume that was a question. I am clearly a whole lot less ignorant
that you.
tut tut.
**Again: I calls it the way I sees it. benj is spectacularly ignorant.
He scurries away, when asked questions.
your saying you are less ignorant than benj, but you believe bunnies die
with a 0.1 F change in temperature.
**Again: Please point out precisely where I made such a claim.
**Again: you support articles like the OP, about Bunnies dying with a
0.1F change, where Journalist reinterpret science.
Post by Trevor Wilson
Also, FWIW: Rabbits are a declared pest in Australia. They, along with
cats, rats, pigs, goats and feral dogs, should be exterminated. Don't
get me started on rabbits. Horrible creatures (in Australia). Farm
losses, due to rabbit infestation is huge.
isnt a lot warmer in Austrailia than in the Alps ? Global worming will
cause a HUGE BUNNIE BOOM in the ALps, not their deaths.

Thank you for proving the OP is bullshit!
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Sergio
Post by Trevor Wilson
   Why don't you show how much science you know
Post by benj
down in Oz and explain how radiative forcing made this happen?
**Certainly. CO2 is resonant at a couple of infra-red frequencies. When
infra-red (IR) hits those CO2 molecules, it causes them to vibrate
(accumulate kinetic energy). More IR = more kinetic energy. The CO2
molecules are agitated sufficiently to transfer some of their energy to
nearby molecules of atmospheric gases (nitrogen, oxygen, et al), thus
raising the energy level of the entire system. Most critically, CO2 acts
at night, when IR energy is re-radiated from the Earth's surface, thus
nighttime temperatures are raised.
try calculating it, your absorbation bands are too narrow on CO2 to be
meaningful.
**I HAVE calculated it. Many years ago. CO2 is resonant at three
frequencies in the IR band. Two narrow peaks at around 2.5um and 4um and
a much broader peak at around 15 ~ 20um. I suggest you choose another
scientific reference, rather than Fox News.
true answer is to integrate across the wavelengths widths, (use
W/m^2/nm) and compare to incoming sunlight to get a percentage.  I think
  you will find this is less than 3%.
**Not even close to reality. Radiative forcing due to CO2 is between 7%
~ 26%, depending on time of day, year and other factors.
I want you to show the math, this is a physics group.
So far you cannot integrate the spectrial density.
Post by Trevor Wilson
so how does sunlight, which peaks at 0.5um with get converted to longer
wavelengths ?
**You seem to be suffering some kind of delusion that the peak is
I see you don't do this often at all.
Post by Trevor Wilson
Only a very tiny amount of UV radiation (much less than IR) reaches the
Earth, yet that UV is sufficient to cause Australia to be the skin
cancer capital of the planet. The Sun radiates plenty of IR as well.
try this link; it shows where UV is scattered, and where piddley CO2
absorbation band is, and how H2O is the dominant Global Worming
Greenhouse Gas;


Loading Image...
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Sergio
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
You are all liars criminals and scammers trying to set up a fake tax
to steal trillions of dollars. Shame on YOU.
**I am not trying to set up any kind of tax.
Carbon Market is the new stock market for trading carbon credits and
futures, Wall street is pushing for it, about a 200B market to start.
**I am not trying to set up any kind of tax.
it dosent matter what you think,
"I am not trying to set up any kind of tax."
I did not provide an opinion either way.
 that is the goal of climate change
movement, once you pars out the green stuff.
**Wrong. The goal of climate scientists is to provide information
pertaining to the reasons why the planet is warming. It's THAT simple.
Others will likely make decisions based on that information.
no, that was blow out by climate computer modelers leaked emails asking
what # did they want for Global Warming several years ago.


Loading Image...
Post by Trevor Wilson
Again: It's about the SCIENCE, not opinions.
benj
2018-04-02 04:03:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sergio
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Sergio
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Can't you get the difference between journalist and writer?
**They can be regarded as the same thing. The term: 'journalist' is very
broad.
wrong, they cannot be the same thing, they are two different words.
**Really? You sure about that?
I'm sure about that.  Some are both, most are not, two different jobs.
**OK. You're wrong (again). I proved it to you.
no, you did not. they are two different words, with individual
meanings. and you don't know how to use a dictionary.
Obviously, English is not your first language.
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Sergio
failed scientists can become journlists, but most hate it,
**Do they? Got some proof of that claim?
sure, havent got time to look them up right now.
**Of course. I expected nothing less of you. You have, as usual, got
nothing.
I don't owe you anything.
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Sergio
Al  Gore showed a graph where they are unrelated
**Al Gore is a POLITICIAN, not a SCIENTIST. Please learn the difference.
I am not interested in what a POLITICIAN has to say about SCIENCE.
Please pay attention to the emphasis. You may quote politicians in the
area of (you guessed it) POLITICS. When discussing matters of science,
you quote (you guessed it again) SCIENTISTS.
Let's not place in at the same level as benj. Keep it up and we'll be
forced to do so.
wrong, Al Gore invented Glowball Worming AND the internet, just ask him.
**It seems I need to make my words easier for you to understand. Pay
Al Gore is a POLITICIAN, not a SCIENTIST. Please learn the difference. I
am not interested in what a POLITICIAN has to say about SCIENCE. Please
pay attention to the emphasis. You may quote politicians in the area of
(you guessed it) POLITICS. When discussing matters of science, you quote
(you guessed it again) SCIENTISTS.
wrong, Al Gore invented Glowball Worming AND the internet, just ask him.
Post by Trevor Wilson
Stop telling what some politician thinks about science. I am singularly
disinterested.
no one cares what you think, you only parrot leftist "sciency"
global worming articles that you have not read.
You are the one pushing *political agenda* for Climate change.
Post by Trevor Wilson
And so should you be. Pay attention to the SCIENTISTS who
work in climate research.
Clear?
Go ahead and believe your Al Gore, or some "scientests say" phrase, from
your leftist mags.
I ask for the data that they use, usally they cannot produce it or it is
munged by a computer program to get answers somebody wants, and that is
where they fall short every time.
Post by Trevor Wilson
Make such a mistake again and you will be treated the way you deserve to
be.
whoa! your asshole is puckering!
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Sergio
Post by Trevor Wilson
    Do you notice that from 1940 - 1970
Post by benj
these data showed Temperature going DOWN while CO2 went up?
**Yes. And that has been explained to you in exquisite detail many, many
times previously. Do you ever pay attention? It is due to aerosol
pollution, caused by industry and motor vehicles. You may care to note
(but you probably won't) that temperatures began to rise when
governments around the world got serious about reducing aerosol
pollution. Here's some science that you won't bother reading (nor
aerosol polution stays near the ground, and disipates.
**Does it? How about jet trails? Are they near the ground too?
    they dissipate, just keep watching your chem trails up there, and
they vanish as the water evaporates.
**OK, I'll ask the question once more (in a simpler fashion, so you can
Are jet trails near the ground?
do you think they are ? are water tower plumes near the ground ?
Post by Trevor Wilson
A 'yes' or 'no' will be fine.
yes, your asshole is puckered!
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Sergio
Post by Trevor Wilson
https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/science/aerosols-and-global-warming-faq.html#.Wr3OO39x1pg
   And you have
Post by benj
the absolute balls to say this proves that CO2 "causes" warming?
**Idiot. The science is undeniable.
look at the data, it is sattilite data measuring surface temperatures,
then highly averaged, ever see an error analysis of that muck ?
**When examining temperatures, it is appropriate to use all measurement
criteria. That includes satellite data. However, satellite data has not
been available for most of the period under discussion.
so you admit they do not have consistent data over the entire face of
the earth.
**Huh? Please point out precisely what words I used to cause you to
think I said such a thing? Take your time.
you are so confused, try to keep up, I dont want to spend my time
refocusing your brain as it is too loose.
"...satellite data has not been available for most of the period under
discussion."
you have short term memory loss.
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Sergio
Post by Trevor Wilson
   How
Post by benj
ignorant are you anyway.
**I assume that was a question. I am clearly a whole lot less ignorant
that you.
tut tut.
**Again: I calls it the way I sees it. benj is spectacularly ignorant.
He scurries away, when asked questions.
your saying you are less ignorant than benj, but you believe bunnies die
with a 0.1 F change in temperature.
**Again: Please point out precisely where I made such a claim.
**Again: you support articles like the OP, about Bunnies dying with a
0.1F change, where Journalist reinterpret science.
Post by Trevor Wilson
Also, FWIW: Rabbits are a declared pest in Australia. They, along with
cats, rats, pigs, goats and feral dogs, should be exterminated. Don't
get me started on rabbits. Horrible creatures (in Australia). Farm
losses, due to rabbit infestation is huge.
isnt a lot warmer in Austrailia than in the Alps ? Global worming will
cause a HUGE BUNNIE BOOM in the ALps, not their deaths.
Thank you for proving the OP is bullshit!
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Sergio
Post by Trevor Wilson
   Why don't you show how much science you know
Post by benj
down in Oz and explain how radiative forcing made this happen?
**Certainly. CO2 is resonant at a couple of infra-red frequencies. When
infra-red (IR) hits those CO2 molecules, it causes them to vibrate
(accumulate kinetic energy). More IR = more kinetic energy. The CO2
molecules are agitated sufficiently to transfer some of their energy to
nearby molecules of atmospheric gases (nitrogen, oxygen, et al), thus
raising the energy level of the entire system. Most critically, CO2 acts
at night, when IR energy is re-radiated from the Earth's surface, thus
nighttime temperatures are raised.
try calculating it, your absorbation bands are too narrow on CO2 to be
meaningful.
**I HAVE calculated it. Many years ago. CO2 is resonant at three
frequencies in the IR band. Two narrow peaks at around 2.5um and 4um and
a much broader peak at around 15 ~ 20um. I suggest you choose another
scientific reference, rather than Fox News.
true answer is to integrate across the wavelengths widths, (use
W/m^2/nm) and compare to incoming sunlight to get a percentage.  I think
  you will find this is less than 3%.
**Not even close to reality. Radiative forcing due to CO2 is between 7%
~ 26%, depending on time of day, year and other factors.
I want you to show the math, this is a physics group.
So far you cannot integrate the spectrial density.
Post by Trevor Wilson
so how does sunlight, which peaks at 0.5um with get converted to longer
wavelengths ?
**You seem to be suffering some kind of delusion that the peak is
I see you don't do this often at all.
Post by Trevor Wilson
Only a very tiny amount of UV radiation (much less than IR) reaches the
Earth, yet that UV is sufficient to cause Australia to be the skin
cancer capital of the planet. The Sun radiates plenty of IR as well.
try this link; it shows where UV is scattered, and where piddley CO2
absorbation band is, and how H2O is the dominant Global Worming
Greenhouse Gas;
http://ice-age-ahead-iaa.ca/1/incoming_solar_irradiation1.jpg
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Sergio
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
You are all liars criminals and scammers trying to set up a fake tax
to steal trillions of dollars. Shame on YOU.
**I am not trying to set up any kind of tax.
Carbon Market is the new stock market for trading carbon credits and
futures, Wall street is pushing for it, about a 200B market to start.
**I am not trying to set up any kind of tax.
it dosent matter what you think,
"I am not trying to set up any kind of tax."
I did not provide an opinion either way.
 that is the goal of climate change
movement, once you pars out the green stuff.
**Wrong. The goal of climate scientists is to provide information
pertaining to the reasons why the planet is warming. It's THAT simple.
Others will likely make decisions based on that information.
no, that was blow out by climate computer modelers leaked emails asking
what # did they want for Global Warming several years ago.
http://b.vimeocdn.com/ts/136/136007_640.jpg
Post by Trevor Wilson
Again: It's about the SCIENCE, not opinions.
AS usual Trevor puts his fingers in his ears and sings: LA LA LA LA LA!
I CAN'T HEAR YOU! YOU POSTED NOTHING! (he calls this "discussing" science. )
kensi
2018-04-02 09:27:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sergio
no one cares what you think, you only parrot leftist "sciency"
global worming articles that you have not read.
... says the parrot of rightist "oily" climate change denial
talking-points that you have no actual scientific understanding of.
Post by Sergio
You are the one pushing *political agenda* for Climate change.
... says the one whose side is the more politically active and better
funded by vested interests.
Post by Sergio
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Sergio
so you admit they do not have consistent data over the entire face of
the earth.
**Huh? Please point out precisely what words I used to cause you to
think I said such a thing? Take your time.
"...satellite data has not been available for most of the period under
discussion."
And now kOoky Sergio confuses time with space!
Post by Sergio
isnt a lot warmer in Austrailia than in the Alps ? Global worming will
cause a HUGE BUNNIE BOOM in the ALps, not their deaths.
That's not what the researchers found.
Post by Sergio
Thank you for proving the OP is bullshit!
Except he didn't, and neither did you.
Post by Sergio
Post by Trevor Wilson
**Not even close to reality. Radiative forcing due to CO2 is between 7%
~ 26%, depending on time of day, year and other factors.
I want you to show the math, this is a physics group.
So far you cannot integrate the spectrial density.
Meanwhile *you* cannot even *spell* it correctly. You're hardly one to talk!
Post by Sergio
try this link; it shows where UV is scattered, and where piddley CO2
absorbation band is, and how H2O is the dominant Global Worming
Greenhouse Gas;
http://ice-age-ahead-BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAFUCKINGHAHAHAHAHAobviousdeniershite
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAFUCKINGHAHAHAHAHA! Obvious denier shite. Try again?
Post by Sergio
no, that was blow out by climate computer modelers leaked emails asking
what # did they want for Global Warming several years ago.
http://b.vimeocdn.com/ts/136/136007_640.jpg
I assume this is about as authentic as the Planned Parenthood so-called
"baby parts" video?
--
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade
in here." ~Checkmate
Sergio
2018-04-02 14:25:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by kensi
      no one cares what you think, you only parrot leftist "sciency"
global worming articles that you have not read.
... says the parrot of rightist "oily" climate change denial
talking-points that you have no actual scientific understanding of.
You are the one pushing  *political agenda* for Climate change.
... says the one whose side is the more politically active and better
funded by vested interests.
wrong, he is not a dempcrapp
Post by kensi
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Sergio
so you admit they do not have consistent data over the entire face of
the earth.
**Huh? Please point out precisely what words I used to cause you to
think I said such a thing? Take your time.
"...satellite data has not  been available for most of the period under
discussion."
And now kOoky Sergio confuses time with space!
you are confused, the report says that, and that says it is based upon
assumptions.
Post by kensi
isnt a lot warmer in Austrailia than in the Alps ?  Global worming will
cause a HUGE BUNNIE BOOM in the ALps, not their deaths.
That's not what the researchers found.
that is what the People Of Austrailia found out, when temps go up, you
get more bunnies by the billions.
Post by kensi
Thank you for proving the OP is bullshit!
Except he didn't, and neither did you.
yes he did, google Austrailia Rabbit infestation
Post by kensi
Post by Trevor Wilson
**Not even close to reality. Radiative forcing due to CO2 is between 7%
~ 26%, depending on time of day, year and other factors.
I want you to show the math, this is a physics group.
So far you cannot integrate the spectrial density.
Meanwhile *you* cannot even *spell* it correctly. You're hardly one to talk!
you revert to Engrlish teacher, instead of showing him how to integrate
across spectral density, so you not physics at all.
Post by kensi
try this link; it shows where UV is scattered, and where piddley CO2
absorbation band is, and how H2O is the dominant Global Worming
Greenhouse Gas;
http://ice-age-ahead-BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAFUCKINGHAHAHAHAHAobviousdeniershite
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAFUCKINGHAHAHAHAHA! Obvious denier shite. Try again?
your link is wrong, it went to some religious site in india; try this one:
http://ice-age-ahead-iaa.ca/1/incoming_solar_irradiation1.jpg
Post by kensi
no, that was blow out by climate computer modelers leaked emails asking
what # did they want for Global Warming several years ago.
http://b.vimeocdn.com/ts/136/136007_640.jpg
I assume this is about as authentic as the Planned Parenthood so-called
"baby parts" video?
try to stay on topic, your change in topic shows you admit lost
argument, which is noted, in the notebook, I WILL turn over to your mom,
.... soon.
benj
2018-04-02 04:01:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sergio
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Sergio
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Can't you get the difference between journalist and writer?
**They can be regarded as the same thing. The term: 'journalist' is very
broad.
wrong, they cannot be the same thing, they are two different words.
**Really? You sure about that?
I'm sure about that. Some are both, most are not, two different jobs.
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Sergio
failed scientists can become journlists, but most hate it,
**Do they? Got some proof of that claim?
sure, havent got time to look them up right now.
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Sergio
Al  Gore showed a graph where they are unrelated
**Al Gore is a POLITICIAN, not a SCIENTIST. Please learn the difference.
I am not interested in what a POLITICIAN has to say about SCIENCE.
Please pay attention to the emphasis. You may quote politicians in the
area of (you guessed it) POLITICS. When discussing matters of science,
you quote (you guessed it again) SCIENTISTS.
Let's not place in at the same level as benj. Keep it up and we'll be
forced to do so.
wrong, Al Gore invented Glowball Worming AND the internet, just ask him.
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Sergio
Post by Trevor Wilson
   Do you notice that from 1940 - 1970
Post by benj
these data showed Temperature going DOWN while CO2 went up?
**Yes. And that has been explained to you in exquisite detail many, many
times previously. Do you ever pay attention? It is due to aerosol
pollution, caused by industry and motor vehicles. You may care to note
(but you probably won't) that temperatures began to rise when
governments around the world got serious about reducing aerosol
pollution. Here's some science that you won't bother reading (nor
aerosol polution stays near the ground, and disipates.
**Does it? How about jet trails? Are they near the ground too?
they dissipate, just keep watching your chem trails up there, and
they vanish as the water evaporates.
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Sergio
Post by Trevor Wilson
https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/science/aerosols-and-global-warming-faq.html#.Wr3OO39x1pg
  And you have
Post by benj
the absolute balls to say this proves that CO2 "causes" warming?
**Idiot. The science is undeniable.
look at the data, it is sattilite data measuring surface temperatures,
then highly averaged, ever see an error analysis of that muck ?
**When examining temperatures, it is appropriate to use all measurement
criteria. That includes satellite data. However, satellite data has not
been available for most of the period under discussion.
so you admit they do not have consistent data over the entire face of
the earth.
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Sergio
Post by Trevor Wilson
  How
Post by benj
ignorant are you anyway.
**I assume that was a question. I am clearly a whole lot less ignorant
that you.
tut tut.
**Again: I calls it the way I sees it. benj is spectacularly ignorant.
He scurries away, when asked questions.
your saying you are less ignorant than benj, but you believe bunnies die
with a 0.1 F change in temperature.
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Sergio
Post by Trevor Wilson
  Why don't you show how much science you know
Post by benj
down in Oz and explain how radiative forcing made this happen?
**Certainly. CO2 is resonant at a couple of infra-red frequencies. When
infra-red (IR) hits those CO2 molecules, it causes them to vibrate
(accumulate kinetic energy). More IR = more kinetic energy. The CO2
molecules are agitated sufficiently to transfer some of their energy to
nearby molecules of atmospheric gases (nitrogen, oxygen, et al), thus
raising the energy level of the entire system. Most critically, CO2 acts
at night, when IR energy is re-radiated from the Earth's surface, thus
nighttime temperatures are raised.
try calculating it, your absorbation bands are too narrow on CO2 to be
meaningful.
**I HAVE calculated it. Many years ago. CO2 is resonant at three
frequencies in the IR band. Two narrow peaks at around 2.5um and 4um and
a much broader peak at around 15 ~ 20um. I suggest you choose another
scientific reference, rather than Fox News.
true answer is to integrate across the wavelengths widths, (use
W/m^2/nm) and compare to incoming sunlight to get a percentage. I think
you will find this is less than 3%.
so how does sunlight, which peaks at 0.5um with get converted to longer
wavelengths ?
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Sergio
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
You are all liars criminals and scammers trying to set up a fake tax
to steal trillions of dollars. Shame on YOU.
**I am not trying to set up any kind of tax.
Carbon Market is the new stock market for trading carbon credits and
futures, Wall street is pushing for it, about a 200B market to start.
**I am not trying to set up any kind of tax.
it dosent matter what you think, that is the goal of climate change
movement, once you pars out the green stuff.
As usual waste of time, Trevor blathers on pretending to know science
when he is obviously totally ignorant. IF he knew any science he would
know that only ONE CO2 band is significant and why. Instead he tries to
pretend to know some science by just babbling on with irrelevant
nonsense hoping to fool the ignorant public into his energy tax.

As I said, he's a total waste of time.
He's obviously a paid propagandist for the scam.
Sergio
2018-04-02 14:25:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Sergio
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Can't you get the difference between journalist and writer?
**They can be regarded as the same thing. The term: 'journalist' is very
broad.
wrong, they cannot be the same thing, they are two different words.
**Really? You sure about that?
I'm sure about that.  Some are both, most are not, two different jobs.
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Sergio
failed scientists can become journlists, but most hate it,
**Do they? Got some proof of that claim?
sure, havent got time to look them up right now.
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Sergio
Al  Gore showed a graph where they are unrelated
**Al Gore is a POLITICIAN, not a SCIENTIST. Please learn the difference.
I am not interested in what a POLITICIAN has to say about SCIENCE.
Please pay attention to the emphasis. You may quote politicians in the
area of (you guessed it) POLITICS. When discussing matters of science,
you quote (you guessed it again) SCIENTISTS.
Let's not place in at the same level as benj. Keep it up and we'll be
forced to do so.
wrong, Al Gore invented Glowball Worming AND the internet, just ask him.
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Sergio
Post by Trevor Wilson
    Do you notice that from 1940 - 1970
Post by benj
these data showed Temperature going DOWN while CO2 went up?
**Yes. And that has been explained to you in exquisite detail many, many
times previously. Do you ever pay attention? It is due to aerosol
pollution, caused by industry and motor vehicles. You may care to note
(but you probably won't) that temperatures began to rise when
governments around the world got serious about reducing aerosol
pollution. Here's some science that you won't bother reading (nor
aerosol polution stays near the ground, and disipates.
**Does it? How about jet trails? Are they near the ground too?
    they dissipate, just keep watching your chem trails up there, and
they vanish as the water evaporates.
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Sergio
Post by Trevor Wilson
https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/science/aerosols-and-global-warming-faq.html#.Wr3OO39x1pg
   And you have
Post by benj
the absolute balls to say this proves that CO2 "causes" warming?
**Idiot. The science is undeniable.
look at the data, it is sattilite data measuring surface temperatures,
then highly averaged, ever see an error analysis of that muck ?
**When examining temperatures, it is appropriate to use all measurement
criteria. That includes satellite data. However, satellite data has not
been available for most of the period under discussion.
so you admit they do not have consistent data over the entire face of
the earth.
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Sergio
Post by Trevor Wilson
   How
Post by benj
ignorant are you anyway.
**I assume that was a question. I am clearly a whole lot less ignorant
that you.
tut tut.
**Again: I calls it the way I sees it. benj is spectacularly ignorant.
He scurries away, when asked questions.
your saying you are less ignorant than benj, but you believe bunnies die
with a 0.1 F change in temperature.
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Sergio
Post by Trevor Wilson
   Why don't you show how much science you know
Post by benj
down in Oz and explain how radiative forcing made this happen?
**Certainly. CO2 is resonant at a couple of infra-red frequencies. When
infra-red (IR) hits those CO2 molecules, it causes them to vibrate
(accumulate kinetic energy). More IR = more kinetic energy. The CO2
molecules are agitated sufficiently to transfer some of their energy to
nearby molecules of atmospheric gases (nitrogen, oxygen, et al), thus
raising the energy level of the entire system. Most critically, CO2 acts
at night, when IR energy is re-radiated from the Earth's surface, thus
nighttime temperatures are raised.
try calculating it, your absorbation bands are too narrow on CO2 to be
meaningful.
**I HAVE calculated it. Many years ago. CO2 is resonant at three
frequencies in the IR band. Two narrow peaks at around 2.5um and 4um and
a much broader peak at around 15 ~ 20um. I suggest you choose another
scientific reference, rather than Fox News.
true answer is to integrate across the wavelengths widths, (use
W/m^2/nm) and compare to incoming sunlight to get a percentage.  I think
  you will find this is less than 3%.
so how does sunlight, which peaks at 0.5um with get converted to longer
wavelengths ?
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Sergio
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
You are all liars criminals and scammers trying to set up a fake tax
to steal trillions of dollars. Shame on YOU.
**I am not trying to set up any kind of tax.
Carbon Market is the new stock market for trading carbon credits and
futures, Wall street is pushing for it, about a 200B market to start.
**I am not trying to set up any kind of tax.
it dosent matter what you think, that is the goal of climate change
movement, once you pars out the green stuff.
As usual waste of time, Trevor blathers on pretending to know science
when he is obviously totally ignorant. IF he knew any science he would
know that only ONE CO2 band is significant and why. Instead he tries to
pretend to know some science by just babbling on with irrelevant
nonsense hoping to fool the ignorant public into his energy tax.
As I said, he's a total waste of time.
He's obviously a paid propagandist for the scam.
yep, no science or math from him.
kensi
2018-04-02 09:16:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sergio
chem trails
It figures.
--
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade
in here." ~Checkmate
Sergio
2018-04-02 14:26:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by kensi
Post by Sergio
chem trails
It figures.
Chem trails figure ?
benj
2018-04-02 23:38:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sergio
Post by kensi
Post by Sergio
chem trails
It figures.
Chem trails figure ?
Yep. They spell out secret messages to "kensi' telling of coming doom
from global warming!
benj
2018-04-01 16:39:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt,
snowflakes, melt!
why believe that outragous full of numbnuts shit article link kensi pupa
posted?
If it's so "outragous[sic]" and impossible to believe, why do you froth
so? Obviously, you fear kensi's message, which puts the lie to your k'lame
that it's too silly to be believed.
Telling you that you are an uneducated immature clown is hardly
froth. It is simply fact and is strong evidence that your
beliefs are are all nonsense. Your froth above shows you and
"kensi" fear exposure of you lack of science knowledge and try
to cover the fact with bluster. Nobody is fooled. Have a nice day.
**Pot, kettle, black you moron.
Liberal "science": puerile name-calling.
**Name calling? Nope. Just stating fact. You fail miserably to back
any of your insane claims. You fail miserably to answer any of my
questions and you fail miserably to respond to any of my points.
You are a lying moron.
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Big hint, Nads: Journalists are NOT scientists and know no science.
**Not necessarily.
True,
**There you go. That wasn't hard, was it? You finally admitted to
one of your many lies. one down, about a million to go. I won't be
holding my breath.
Lib liars always accuse others of being the liars.
**Do they? Prove it. Prove that conservatives don't do exactly the
same thing. Nonetheless, I called you a liar, because you ARE a liar.
An ignorant one, at that.
I called YOU a liar because you are one.
**And yet, not once have you managed to prove that I have lied. I guess
you lied about that as well. SOP. Lie about everything and hope for the
best. Well, it won't cut it in the real world.
 That's your job I think.
**Nope. You don't think.
You "debate" noted and reportd.
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
  I note that you
Post by benj
provide no evidence of any journalist knowing any science.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natalie_Angier
Pulitzer prize is proof of science knowledge? I don't think so. Anyway
life sciences and medicine aren't real science.
**[SHAKES HEAD] There is no way you can deal with logic and reason.
Libs like you don't do logic and reason. That is a given.
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Ball
Getting Closer. I mean he was once "sort of: a physicist before he
discovered he was liberal. I'd have to read his latest book on QM to
see if his head is up his arse or not. Clearly he is not quite a
Journalist though he regularly "contributes" to rags like NYT,
Guardian and propaganda arms like BBC. Those are all negative evidence.
**Like I said: Scientist AND journalist. Thus I answered your request.
In precisely the same way that you have failed to answer mine. You just
scurry away. Every single time.
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
There are, of course, many more. We should not overlook the late,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Hawking
Can't you get the difference between journalist and writer?
**They can be regarded as the same thing. The term: 'journalist' is very
broad.
So basically you can say anyone (even Hawking... Oh wait, you already
did) is a journalist. There's no talking to you libs you just make shit
up so you can always "win' in your own minds. No discussion just fantasies.
Post by Trevor Wilson
 hey I have
Post by benj
written books and articles on science. I'm not a journalist.
**You're nothing.
Scientific point noted and reported.
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
  I can live
Post by benj
with a single theoretical exception.
**Except, Mr Liar, it ain't theoretical. It's actual.
Except Mr. propagandist you have still not proved the premise wrong
except by your fantasies and stretching meanings.
**What premise would that be? That scientists can be journalists? I've
given you three examples. There are many, many more.
No, you haven't you gave an example of a stupid NYT journalist, with no
evidence of science knowledge and a former scientist who writes popular
"science" books. You got nothing but usual lib bluster and lies.
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
I accept the truth that there ARE scientists who know science who
have sold out for money, fame, employment etc.
**Sure. There's quite a few who have done that. I would argue that
they are likely in the minority.
Science is not done by majority vote no matter what you science
deniers pretend. There is no such thing as the "settled science" you
warmballers always pretend exists.
**Yeah, there is. The link between increased CO2 levels and increased
temperatures is both provably and theoretically solid. Hell, even
Mythbusters proved it.
Well that settles it. I bet NYT "journalists" and Wikipedia agree with
you too. And the BBC and all the other warmballer propagandists. You
might as well throw in the failed OZ cartoonist too to "prove" you are
right! Idiot.
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
  and purposely lie and distort
Post by benj
facts for their handlers even though they know better. Is that you Trevor?
**LOL! Let me remind you, Mr Liar, that I have posed a great many
questions and comments to you. You have failed miserably to respond
and/or answer. The obvious conclusion is that you know when you are
beaten, so you just give up and scurry away.
I have provided links to actual science an you keep pretending there
is nothing and you heard nothing.
Links to propaganda isn't science. "kensi" gives us more than all the
links to journalists we need.
Post by Trevor Wilson
**You SAY you have provided links, but you actually failed to do so.
(See the cut n copy at the end of this post)
Like all Libs you simply lie and lies to win. If you say I've posted
nothing then I guess it HAS to be true because YOU the great GOD of OZ
has said so. You are pathetic.
Post by Trevor Wilson
 So this: Stick your fingers in your ears
Post by benj
and sing La LA LA LA LA! I CAN'T HEAR YOU! and that will "prove" I've
never answered any of your so-called questions.
**I KNOW you have never answered my questions. You cannot. You lack the
intellect and the knowledge to do so.
How many times do you need repeat your lies until they become true.
Post by Trevor Wilson
 I'm still waiting for
Post by benj
your reply on the "Casualty of CO2 from 1940-1979 when CO2 went UP and
Temperature went DOWN!
La la la la! "I CAN"T HEAR YOU! In other words you still pretend you
heard nothing and provided all manner of proofs when in fact you sust
scurried away from real science. How are you at drawing cartoons?
Post by Trevor Wilson
--
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes,
melt!
<https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-change-goes-firmly-
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
in-the-loss-column-for-insurers/>
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Do you post *anything* upbeat?
Does "she" ever post anything that is true?
No,  HTH
It took a while, but now we have you on the record making a firm
statement
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
that amounts to clinate change denial.
Nonsense. Absolute lie. Lefties never do honesty. As I have said
here MANY times, the ONE principle that absolutely EVERYONE in science
agrees upon is "the certainty of change". It is you kooktards who think
that you can stop the planet and keep change from happening. That makes
YOU the 'science denier".
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Which in turn pins down your politics as right-wing, something
you've also
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
tried to maintain deniability about.
Right-wing schmite-wing. You are drooling again. What you accused
me of was being a Trump supporter. This is FAR from the case. Blowhard
sales types are not my favorite people though higher up than leftist
commies like yourself. Didn't you get the memo about the fall of your
utopian USSR? Your system is totally discredited by the largest social
experiment in history. No wonder only North Korea and Democrats are the
only ones left refusing to accept the data.
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
There's no bigger coward than one who will not go clearly on the
record as
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
believing what they believe, because it happens to be unpopular.
I not only go on record I CONSISTENTLY back up my views with peer
reviewed science that I regularly post in response to "kensi's" cut and
paste journalist propaganda.
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
**Liar. You NEVER post anything resembling science to any question
or comment I make. Not once, not ever.
Post by benj
The liar is YOU.
**LOL. Let's see.
 Like al lefty Libs you don't do truth but DO do alling
Post by benj
other people names and slandering them to further you political
scams. The ends justifies the means, right? And now you have shown that
you and "kensi"/Nads are all part of the same big scamming family! You
are as ready to lie for them as you are to lie for yourself.
Post by benj
Here is a REPOST of GISS data I have posted many times?
**NO repost. As usual, you lying sack of shit.
I see you cut it out! Right LA LA LA LA LA! You can't HEAR ME!!!!!!

YOu laying sack of shit. If you say there is no link then there must be
none. Of course everyone else can see it. No matter you live in your
lown little fantasy world.
Post by Trevor Wilson
 Any idea what
Post by benj
GISS data is?
**I know EXACTLY what it is. I also know what cherry-picked data is. Do you?
 Do you know who Dr. Hansen the godfather of global warming
Post by benj
is?
**The so-called 'Godfather' of global warming was Joseph Fourier. After
him, came Svante Arrhenius. Both men set the tone for global warming
research way back in the NINETEENTH century! Which is information you
would know, if you took the time to study the science.
Utter blather. 19th century theories of climate in a jar are not "global
warming politics. They were not doing politics like you. Hanson made it
political which makes him YOUR hero. He said all "deniers" should be
killed. Now that is real science!
Post by Trevor Wilson
 Do you recognize HIS data?
Climate does not take place in a glass jar! 19 century theories aren't
correct. Co2 is NOT a major greenhouse gas. Nobody had even done
tmospheric spectra then to find CO2 bands saturated. You are nothing but
a political propagandist.
Post by Trevor Wilson
**Well, since you failed (yet again) to present any data, no. Like I
said: You NEVER present anything resembling science to back you idiotic
claims. SOP.
<Snip this>

http://www.mrk-inc.com/Docs/bspam2/40-70GISS.htm

LA LA LA LA LA! YOU CAN"T HEAR ME! I NEVER POSTED ANYTHING!

You are lying crooked scum.
Post by Trevor Wilson
  Do you notice that from 1940 - 1970
Post by benj
these data showed Temperature going DOWN while CO2 went up?
**Yes. And that has been explained to you in exquisite detail many, many
times previously. Do you ever pay attention? It is due to aerosol
pollution, caused by industry and motor vehicles. You may care to note
(but you probably won't) that temperatures began to rise when
governments around the world got serious about reducing aerosol
pollution. Here's some science that you won't bother reading (nor
https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/science/aerosols-and-global-warming-faq.html#.Wr3OO39x1pg
 And you have
Post by benj
the absolute balls to say this proves that CO2 "causes" warming?
**Idiot. The science is undeniable.
 How
Post by benj
ignorant are you anyway.
**I assume that was a question. I am clearly a whole lot less ignorant
that you.
 Why don't you show how much science you know
Post by benj
down in Oz and explain how radiative forcing made this happen?
**Certainly. CO2 is resonant at a couple of infra-red frequencies. When
infra-red (IR) hits those CO2 molecules, it causes them to vibrate
(accumulate kinetic energy). More IR = more kinetic energy. The CO2
molecules are agitated sufficiently to transfer some of their energy to
nearby molecules of atmospheric gases (nitrogen, oxygen, et al), thus
raising the energy level of the entire system. Most critically, CO2 acts
at night, when IR energy is re-radiated from the Earth's surface, thus
nighttime temperatures are raised.
What is PRIMARY Greenhouse gas? How much warming duw to CO2? What
percentage of that due to human produced CO2?

<nothing but crickets>
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
You are all liars criminals and scammers trying to set up a fake tax
to steal trillions of dollars. Shame on YOU.
**I am not trying to set up any kind of tax.
So how do you propose to stop the earth and stop "climate change"?

Maybe if we all wish very very hard and click out heels together three
times, that big tax you passed in OZ won't be needed. Oh wait!
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
   Neither YOU nor "kensi" EVER respond to any
Post by benj
of it,
**Pot, kettle, black, you lying sack of shit. You cannot put forward
a cogent argument when I question you. You just scurry away. Like you
will when you see this post.
Post by benj
Liar.
**You keep saying that, but you have failed to respond to my previous
posts in this area. That make YOU the lying cunt. Not me.
You post nothing but misleading propaganda and try to pass it off as
science. That is dishonest and has no place in science.
Post by Trevor Wilson
 You simple babble on with your propaganda when I present you with
Post by benj
scientific data and then (see above) you lie and say I never did.
This is proof there can be no "discussion" with you. When you are
confronted with science you deny it exists and just repeat your sad
climate propaganda over and over as if your word was worth something.
It's not. You might was well be a journalist for Legacy media...In fact
I wquldn't be surprised if you were until you got this strategic writer
job.
Post by Trevor Wilson
**You failed to supply ANY scientific data. That makes YOU the lying cunt.
 Take
Post by benj
it easy on the drugs man, your fantasies are really getting strong.
**Let me remind you: _I_ am not the one who failed to supply the data.
You are.
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
   instead simply resorting to immature name-calling and repeating
Post by benj
your lies over an over. As Sergio has pointed out, there has never
been ONE equation coming out of you or your sock, "kensi". And that
makes you a fraud.
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
**Actually, it is YOU who is the fraud. Not only do you fail to
respond, but you fail to admit when you have been shown to be wrong.
Post by benj
You have not shown any of the science I CONSTANTLY present as wrong.
I certainly did. I showed that CO2 CANNOT be the CAUSE of "global
warming" by your own theories (radiative forcing) and all you do is say
I posted nothing. Can't have a discussion with that kind of dishonesty
Post by Trevor Wilson
**Lying does not make you correct. It just makes you a liar.
Did not, did too! did not! did too1 did NOT!

You can call it "scurrying" if you like but you are simply tring to
waste my time here so I can't answer other more important issues. I know
your tricks. Fuck off creep.

Yeah you are real mature. Find any people dumber than you who you can
convince that you actually know something? I bet there are a few SOMEWHERE!
Post by Trevor Wilson
 YOU
Post by benj
simply lie and name-call and repeat your fear-mongering propaganda
over and over. It's propaganda 101. Nothing new. Nothing of value either.
Post by benj
So start with discussing how CO2 radiative forcing is adding energy
yet temperatures are going down. This is a real "causality" trick!
**Huh? Prove that temperatures are going down.
Post by benj
We'll wait right here for your answer.
**Telling a lie, then asking ME to prove your lie is not going to happen.
Trevor Wilson
2018-04-02 01:22:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
why believe that outragous full of numbnuts shit article link
kensi pupa
posted?
If it's so "outragous[sic]" and impossible to believe, why do you froth
so? Obviously, you fear kensi's message, which puts the lie to
your k'lame
that it's too silly to be believed.
Telling you that you are an uneducated immature clown is hardly
froth. It is simply fact and is strong evidence that your
beliefs are are all nonsense. Your froth above shows you and
"kensi" fear exposure of you lack of science knowledge and try
to cover the fact with bluster. Nobody is fooled. Have a nice day.
**Pot, kettle, black you moron.
Liberal "science": puerile name-calling.
**Name calling? Nope. Just stating fact. You fail miserably to
back any of your insane claims. You fail miserably to answer any
of my questions and you fail miserably to respond to any of my
points. You are a lying moron.
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Big hint, Nads: Journalists are NOT scientists and know no science.
**Not necessarily.
True,
**There you go. That wasn't hard, was it? You finally admitted to
one of your many lies. one down, about a million to go. I won't be
holding my breath.
Lib liars always accuse others of being the liars.
**Do they? Prove it. Prove that conservatives don't do exactly the
same thing. Nonetheless, I called you a liar, because you ARE a
liar. An ignorant one, at that.
I called YOU a liar because you are one.
**And yet, not once have you managed to prove that I have lied. I
guess you lied about that as well. SOP. Lie about everything and hope
for the best. Well, it won't cut it in the real world.
  That's your job I think.
**Nope. You don't think.
You "debate" noted and reportd.
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
  I note that you
Post by benj
provide no evidence of any journalist knowing any science.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natalie_Angier
Pulitzer prize is proof of science knowledge? I don't think so.
Anyway life sciences and medicine aren't real science.
**[SHAKES HEAD] There is no way you can deal with logic and reason.
Libs like you don't do logic and reason. That is a given.
**You have no idea of my political leanings. Let me remind you of this
little fact:

Here is a survey conducted by CSIRO:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-04/majority-of-australians-believe-in-climate-change-csiro-report/6909940

Scroll down to figure 42:

Here in Australia, Labor and the Greens are left wing and Liberal and
National voters are right wing.

You may care to note that 28% or Liberal voters and 22% or National
voters accept that human induced global warming is real.

So, you can continue to erroneously label people with arbitrary
political labels and look like an idiot, or you can discuss the science.

Your choice.
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Ball
Getting Closer. I mean he was once "sort of: a physicist before he
discovered he was liberal. I'd have to read his latest book on QM to
see if his head is up his arse or not. Clearly he is not quite a
Journalist though he regularly "contributes" to rags like NYT,
Guardian and propaganda arms like BBC. Those are all negative evidence.
**Like I said: Scientist AND journalist. Thus I answered your request.
In precisely the same way that you have failed to answer mine. You
just scurry away. Every single time.
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
There are, of course, many more. We should not overlook the late,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Hawking
Can't you get the difference between journalist and writer?
**They can be regarded as the same thing. The term: 'journalist' is
very broad.
So basically you can say anyone (even Hawking... Oh wait, you already
did) is a journalist.
**Hawking WAS a scientist AND a journalist.

Stop being a fuckwit and move on.


There's no talking to you libs you just make shit
Post by benj
up so you can always "win' in your own minds. No discussion just fantasies.
**You made a stupid claim and I proved you wrong. Get over it.
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
  hey I have
Post by benj
written books and articles on science. I'm not a journalist.
**You're nothing.
Scientific point noted and reported.
**Since your understanding of science is at 4th grade level, I can't see
how you can possibly write an article on science.
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
  I can live
Post by benj
with a single theoretical exception.
**Except, Mr Liar, it ain't theoretical. It's actual.
Except Mr. propagandist you have still not proved the premise wrong
except by your fantasies and stretching meanings.
**What premise would that be? That scientists can be journalists? I've
given you three examples. There are many, many more.
No, you haven't you gave an example of a stupid NYT journalist, with no
evidence of science knowledge and a former scientist who writes popular
"science" books. You got nothing but usual lib bluster and lies.
**I gave you three examples. Get over it.
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
I accept the truth that there ARE scientists who know science who
have sold out for money, fame, employment etc.
**Sure. There's quite a few who have done that. I would argue that
they are likely in the minority.
Science is not done by majority vote no matter what you science
deniers pretend. There is no such thing as the "settled science" you
warmballers always pretend exists.
**Yeah, there is. The link between increased CO2 levels and increased
temperatures is both provably and theoretically solid. Hell, even
Mythbusters proved it.
Well that settles it.
**Good. I'm pleased you have finally accepted the truth.


I bet NYT "journalists" and Wikipedia agree with
Post by benj
you too. And the BBC and all the other warmballer propagandists. You
might as well throw in the failed OZ cartoonist too to "prove" you are
right! Idiot.
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
  and purposely lie and distort
Post by benj
facts for their handlers even though they know better. Is that you Trevor?
**LOL! Let me remind you, Mr Liar, that I have posed a great many
questions and comments to you. You have failed miserably to respond
and/or answer. The obvious conclusion is that you know when you are
beaten, so you just give up and scurry away.
I have provided links to actual science an you keep pretending there
is nothing and you heard nothing.
Links to propaganda isn't science.
**True, which is why I provided verifiable scientific links.


"kensi" gives us more than all the
Post by benj
links to journalists we need.
Post by Trevor Wilson
**You SAY you have provided links, but you actually failed to do so.
(See the cut n copy at the end of this post)
Like all Libs you simply lie and lies to win. If you say I've posted
nothing then I guess it HAS to be true because YOU the great GOD of OZ
has said so. You are pathetic.
**Let me remind you:

YOU FAILED TO PROVIDE THE LINK!

Go look at the thread. It's there for you to see.
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
  So this: Stick your fingers in your ears
Post by benj
and sing La LA LA LA LA! I CAN'T HEAR YOU! and that will "prove" I've
never answered any of your so-called questions.
**I KNOW you have never answered my questions. You cannot. You lack
the intellect and the knowledge to do so.
How many times do you need repeat your lies until they become true.
**It is not a lie that you have failed to answer my questions and
address my comments. It is fact. Look through the threads. You'll see.
Or, more likely, you won't.
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
  I'm still waiting for
Post by benj
your reply on the "Casualty of CO2 from 1940-1979 when CO2 went UP
and Temperature went DOWN!
La la la la! "I CAN"T HEAR YOU! In other words you still pretend you
heard nothing and provided all manner of proofs when in fact you sust
scurried away from real science. How are you at drawing cartoons?
**Note the two -- below. That was the part of the thread where I
provided the proof you asked for. It is also one of the threads where
you failed to answer my questions.
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
--
 >>>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt,
snowflakes, melt!
 >>>>
 >>>>>
 >>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>
<https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-change-goes-firmly-
 >>>> in-the-loss-column-for-insurers/>
 >>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>
 >>>>>>> Do you post *anything* upbeat?
 >>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>
 >>>>>> Does "she" ever post anything that is true?
 >>>>>
 >>>>> No,  HTH
 >>>>
 >>>> It took a while, but now we have you on the record making a firm
statement
 >>>> that amounts to clinate change denial.
 >>>
 >>> Nonsense. Absolute lie. Lefties never do honesty. As I have said
here MANY times, the ONE principle that absolutely EVERYONE in science
agrees upon is "the certainty of change". It is you kooktards who
think that you can stop the planet and keep change from happening.
That makes YOU the 'science denier".
 >>>
 >>>> Which in turn pins down your politics as right-wing, something
you've also
 >>>> tried to maintain deniability about.
 >>>
 >>> Right-wing schmite-wing. You are drooling again. What you accused
me of was being a Trump supporter. This is FAR from the case. Blowhard
sales types are not my favorite people though higher up than leftist
commies like yourself. Didn't you get the memo about the fall of your
utopian USSR? Your system is totally discredited by the largest social
experiment in history. No wonder only North Korea and Democrats are
the only ones left refusing to accept the data.
 >>>
 >>>> There's no bigger coward than one who will not go clearly on the
record as
 >>>> believing what they believe, because it happens to be unpopular.
 >>>
 >>> I not only go on record I CONSISTENTLY back up my views with peer
reviewed science that I regularly post in response to "kensi's" cut
and paste journalist propaganda.
 >>
 >> **Liar. You NEVER post anything resembling science to any question
or comment I make. Not once, not ever.
 >
 > The liar is YOU.
**LOL. Let's see.
  Like al lefty Libs you don't do truth but DO do alling
 > other people names and slandering them to further you political
scams. The ends justifies the means, right? And now you have shown
that you and "kensi"/Nads are all part of the same big scamming
family! You are as ready to lie for them as you are to lie for yourself.
 >
 > Here is a REPOST of GISS data I have posted many times?
**NO repost. As usual, you lying sack of shit.
I see you cut it out! Right LA LA LA LA LA! You can't HEAR ME!!!!!!
**I cut nothing. Go see for yourself. Or, more likely, you won't.
Post by benj
YOu laying sack of shit.
**I am not a 'laying' (sic) sack of shit. I direct you to the part of
the thread. Go look for yourself.

If you say there is no link then there must be
Post by benj
none. Of course everyone else can see it. No matter you live in your
lown little fantasy world.
**Since you failed to provide the link, I doubt anyone else can see it
either. Its all in your tiny mind.
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
  Any idea what
 > GISS data is?
**I know EXACTLY what it is. I also know what cherry-picked data is. Do you?
  Do you know who Dr. Hansen the godfather of global warming
 > is?
**The so-called 'Godfather' of global warming was Joseph Fourier.
After him, came Svante Arrhenius. Both men set the tone for global
warming research way back in the NINETEENTH century! Which is
information you would know, if you took the time to study the science.
Utter blather.
**Well, no. It's SCIENCE. Which, if you knew anything about science, you
would realise that Fourier's work is more important today, than it was
back in the 19th century. Fourier and Arrheius were towering intellects,
not to be dismissed by morons like you.

19th century theories of climate in a jar are not "global
Post by benj
warming politics. They were not doing politics like you. Hanson made it
political which makes him YOUR hero. He said all "deniers" should be
killed. Now that is real science!
**Did Hanson say that? Cite please.
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
  Do you recognize HIS data?
Climate does not take place in a glass jar! 19 century theories aren't
correct.
**Bullshit. Fourier's work in many areas is highly relevant today.


Co2 is NOT a major greenhouse gas.

**Depends on what you call "major". After water vapour, CO2 is the next
most important GHG. So, yeah, pretty important.

Nobody had even done
Post by benj
tmospheric spectra then to find CO2 bands saturated. You are nothing but
a political propagandist.
**And you have no idea about the stuff you're sprouting. Keep it up, if
it helps you live in your fantasy land.
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
**Well, since you failed (yet again) to present any data, no. Like I
said: You NEVER present anything resembling science to back you
idiotic claims. SOP.
<Snip this>
http://www.mrk-inc.com/Docs/bspam2/40-70GISS.htm
LA LA LA LA LA! YOU CAN"T HEAR ME! I NEVER POSTED ANYTHING!
You are lying crooked scum.
**The YOU find the part of the post where you allegedly posted the link.
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
   Do you notice that from 1940 - 1970
 > these data showed Temperature going DOWN while CO2 went up?
**Yes. And that has been explained to you in exquisite detail many,
many times previously. Do you ever pay attention? It is due to aerosol
pollution, caused by industry and motor vehicles. You may care to note
(but you probably won't) that temperatures began to rise when
governments around the world got serious about reducing aerosol
pollution. Here's some science that you won't bother reading (nor
https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/science/aerosols-and-global-warming-faq.html#.Wr3OO39x1pg
**No comment, I notice. SOP.
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
  And you have
 > the absolute balls to say this proves that CO2 "causes" warming?
**Idiot. The science is undeniable.
  How
 > ignorant are you anyway.
**I assume that was a question. I am clearly a whole lot less ignorant
that you.
  Why don't you show how much science you know
 > down in Oz and explain how radiative forcing made this happen?
**Certainly. CO2 is resonant at a couple of infra-red frequencies.
When infra-red (IR) hits those CO2 molecules, it causes them to
vibrate (accumulate kinetic energy). More IR = more kinetic energy.
The CO2 molecules are agitated sufficiently to transfer some of their
energy to nearby molecules of atmospheric gases (nitrogen, oxygen, et
al), thus raising the energy level of the entire system. Most
critically, CO2 acts at night, when IR energy is re-radiated from the
Earth's surface, thus nighttime temperatures are raised.
What is PRIMARY Greenhouse gas?
**The most significant GHG is water vapour. CO2 is next most significant.


How much warming duw to CO2?

**Radiative forcing due to CO2 is between 9% ~ 26%, depending on
location, time of day, time of year, etc.


What
Post by benj
percentage of that due to human produced CO2?
**Humans are adding roughly 1.9% more CO2 each year to the atmosphere.
Currently. That may go up, or may go down, depending on various business
and political factors. It's about 50 Billion Tonnes of CO2 each year.
That's quite a bit. We seem to be increasing CO2 emissions. From 1750
through to 1987, humans put around 737 Billion Tonnes of CO2 into the
atmosphere. Between 1987 and 2014, it was around 743 Billion Tonnes. So,
it's hard to say what percentage, because it changes all the time.
Mostly, up. Fundamentally, however, humans have increased CO2 levels
from around 280ppm (ca. 1750) to around 400ppm today. That's roughly a
43% increase in CO2 levels, just due to human activity. Here's a pretty
graph:

https://www.zmescience.com/ecology/climate/carbon-dioxide-400ppm-26052014/

Note how, for around 800 years, the line was pretty flat. Then, the
industrial revolution happened (1750).
Post by benj
<nothing but crickets>
Post by Trevor Wilson
 >
 > You are all liars criminals and scammers trying to set up a fake
tax to steal trillions of dollars. Shame on YOU.
**I am not trying to set up any kind of tax.
So how do you propose to stop the earth and stop "climate change"?
**Cut CO2 emissions.
Post by benj
Maybe if we all wish very very hard and click out heels together three
times, that big tax you passed in OZ won't be needed. Oh wait!
Post by Trevor Wilson
 >
 >>   Neither YOU nor "kensi" EVER respond to any
 >>> of it,
 >>
 >>
 >> **Pot, kettle, black, you lying sack of shit. You cannot put
forward a cogent argument when I question you. You just scurry away.
Like you will when you see this post.
 >
 > Liar.
**You keep saying that, but you have failed to respond to my previous
posts in this area. That make YOU the lying cunt. Not me.
You post nothing but misleading propaganda and try to pass it off as
science. That is dishonest and has no place in science.
**I post science, dickhead. You, OTOH, CLAIM to post stuff, but don't.
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
  You simple babble on with your propaganda when I present you with
 > scientific data and then (see above) you lie and say I never did.
This is proof there can be no "discussion" with you. When you are
confronted with science you deny it exists
**YOU DIDN'T POST WHAT YOU CLAIMED TO HAVE POSTED! Look at the thread. I
will await your apology.


and just repeat your sad
Post by benj
climate propaganda over and over as if your word was worth something.
It's not. You might was well be a journalist for Legacy media...In fact
I wquldn't be surprised if you were until you got this strategic writer
job.
Post by Trevor Wilson
**You failed to supply ANY scientific data. That makes YOU the lying cunt.
  Take
 > it easy on the drugs man, your fantasies are really getting strong.
**Let me remind you: _I_ am not the one who failed to supply the data.
You are.
 >
 >>   instead simply resorting to immature name-calling and repeating
 >>> your lies over an over. As Sergio has pointed out, there has
never been ONE equation coming out of you or your sock, "kensi". And
that makes you a fraud.
 >>
 >> **Actually, it is YOU who is the fraud. Not only do you fail to
respond, but you fail to admit when you have been shown to be wrong.
 >
 > You have not shown any of the science I CONSTANTLY present as wrong.
I certainly did.
**Bullshit.


I showed that CO2 CANNOT be the CAUSE of "global
Post by benj
warming" by your own theories (radiative forcing) and all you do is say
I posted nothing.
**WTF? You posted nothing of the sort. Hell, I'll play your game. Post
your proof again. Bet you don't. You never do.


Can't have a discussion with that kind of dishonesty
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
**Lying does not make you correct. It just makes you a liar.
Did not, did too! did not! did too1 did NOT!
You can call it "scurrying" if you like but you are simply tring to
waste my time here so I can't answer other more important issues. I know
your tricks. Fuck off creep.
Yeah you are real mature. Find any people dumber than you who you can
convince that you actually know something? I bet there are a few SOMEWHERE!
Post by Trevor Wilson
  YOU
 > simply lie and name-call and repeat your fear-mongering propaganda
over and over. It's propaganda 101. Nothing new. Nothing of value either.
 >
 > So start with discussing how CO2 radiative forcing is adding energy
yet temperatures are going down. This is a real "causality" trick!
**Huh? Prove that temperatures are going down.
 >
 > We'll wait right here for your answer.
**Telling a lie, then asking ME to prove your lie is not going to happen.
**[Sounds of crickets]
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
benj
2018-04-02 22:29:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt,
snowflakes, melt!
why believe that outragous full of numbnuts shit article
link kensi pupa
posted?
If it's so "outragous[sic]" and impossible to believe, why do you froth
so? Obviously, you fear kensi's message, which puts the lie
to your k'lame
that it's too silly to be believed.
Telling you that you are an uneducated immature clown is
hardly froth. It is simply fact and is strong evidence that
your beliefs are are all nonsense. Your froth above shows you
and "kensi" fear exposure of you lack of science knowledge and
try to cover the fact with bluster. Nobody is fooled. Have a
nice day.
**Pot, kettle, black you moron.
Liberal "science": puerile name-calling.
**Name calling? Nope. Just stating fact. You fail miserably to
back any of your insane claims. You fail miserably to answer any
of my questions and you fail miserably to respond to any of my
points. You are a lying moron.
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Big hint, Nads: Journalists are NOT scientists and know no science.
**Not necessarily.
True,
**There you go. That wasn't hard, was it? You finally admitted to
one of your many lies. one down, about a million to go. I won't
be holding my breath.
Lib liars always accuse others of being the liars.
**Do they? Prove it. Prove that conservatives don't do exactly the
same thing. Nonetheless, I called you a liar, because you ARE a
liar. An ignorant one, at that.
I called YOU a liar because you are one.
**And yet, not once have you managed to prove that I have lied. I
guess you lied about that as well. SOP. Lie about everything and hope
for the best. Well, it won't cut it in the real world.
  That's your job I think.
**Nope. You don't think.
You "debate" noted and reportd.
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
  I note that you
Post by benj
provide no evidence of any journalist knowing any science.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natalie_Angier
Pulitzer prize is proof of science knowledge? I don't think so.
Anyway life sciences and medicine aren't real science.
**[SHAKES HEAD] There is no way you can deal with logic and reason.
Libs like you don't do logic and reason. That is a given.
**You have no idea of my political leanings. Let me remind you of this
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-04/majority-of-australians-believe-in-climate-change-csiro-report/6909940
Here in Australia, Labor and the Greens are left wing and Liberal and
National voters are right wing.
You may care to note that 28% or Liberal voters and 22% or National
voters accept that human induced global warming is real.
So, you can continue to erroneously label people with arbitrary
political labels and look like an idiot, or you can discuss the science.
Your choice.
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Ball
Getting Closer. I mean he was once "sort of: a physicist before he
discovered he was liberal. I'd have to read his latest book on QM to
see if his head is up his arse or not. Clearly he is not quite a
Journalist though he regularly "contributes" to rags like NYT,
Guardian and propaganda arms like BBC. Those are all negative evidence.
**Like I said: Scientist AND journalist. Thus I answered your
request. In precisely the same way that you have failed to answer
mine. You just scurry away. Every single time.
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
There are, of course, many more. We should not overlook the late,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Hawking
Can't you get the difference between journalist and writer?
**They can be regarded as the same thing. The term: 'journalist' is
very broad.
So basically you can say anyone (even Hawking... Oh wait, you already
did) is a journalist.
**Hawking WAS a scientist AND a journalist.
Stop being a fuckwit and move on.
 There's no talking to you libs you just make shit
Post by benj
up so you can always "win' in your own minds. No discussion just fantasies.
**You made a stupid claim and I proved you wrong. Get over it.
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
  hey I have
Post by benj
written books and articles on science. I'm not a journalist.
**You're nothing.
Scientific point noted and reported.
**Since your understanding of science is at 4th grade level, I can't see
how you can possibly write an article on science.
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
  I can live
Post by benj
with a single theoretical exception.
**Except, Mr Liar, it ain't theoretical. It's actual.
Except Mr. propagandist you have still not proved the premise wrong
except by your fantasies and stretching meanings.
**What premise would that be? That scientists can be journalists?
I've given you three examples. There are many, many more.
No, you haven't you gave an example of a stupid NYT journalist, with
no evidence of science knowledge and a former scientist who writes
popular "science" books. You got nothing but usual lib bluster and lies.
**I gave you three examples. Get over it.
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
I accept the truth that there ARE scientists who know science who
have sold out for money, fame, employment etc.
**Sure. There's quite a few who have done that. I would argue that
they are likely in the minority.
Science is not done by majority vote no matter what you science
deniers pretend. There is no such thing as the "settled science" you
warmballers always pretend exists.
**Yeah, there is. The link between increased CO2 levels and increased
temperatures is both provably and theoretically solid. Hell, even
Mythbusters proved it.
Well that settles it.
**Good. I'm pleased you have finally accepted the truth.
 I bet NYT "journalists" and Wikipedia agree with
Post by benj
you too. And the BBC and all the other warmballer propagandists. You
might as well throw in the failed OZ cartoonist too to "prove" you are
right! Idiot.
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
  and purposely lie and distort
Post by benj
facts for their handlers even though they know better. Is that you Trevor?
**LOL! Let me remind you, Mr Liar, that I have posed a great many
questions and comments to you. You have failed miserably to respond
and/or answer. The obvious conclusion is that you know when you are
beaten, so you just give up and scurry away.
I have provided links to actual science an you keep pretending there
is nothing and you heard nothing.
Links to propaganda isn't science.
**True, which is why I provided verifiable scientific links.
 "kensi" gives us more than all the
Post by benj
links to journalists we need.
Post by Trevor Wilson
**You SAY you have provided links, but you actually failed to do so.
(See the cut n copy at the end of this post)
Like all Libs you simply lie and lies to win. If you say I've posted
nothing then I guess it HAS to be true because YOU the great GOD of OZ
has said so. You are pathetic.
YOU FAILED TO PROVIDE THE LINK!
Go look at the thread. It's there for you to see.
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
  So this: Stick your fingers in your ears
Post by benj
and sing La LA LA LA LA! I CAN'T HEAR YOU! and that will "prove"
I've never answered any of your so-called questions.
**I KNOW you have never answered my questions. You cannot. You lack
the intellect and the knowledge to do so.
How many times do you need repeat your lies until they become true.
**It is not a lie that you have failed to answer my questions and
address my comments. It is fact. Look through the threads. You'll see.
Or, more likely, you won't.
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
  I'm still waiting for
Post by benj
your reply on the "Casualty of CO2 from 1940-1979 when CO2 went UP
and Temperature went DOWN!
La la la la! "I CAN"T HEAR YOU! In other words you still pretend you
heard nothing and provided all manner of proofs when in fact you sust
scurried away from real science. How are you at drawing cartoons?
**Note the two -- below. That was the part of the thread where I
provided the proof you asked for. It is also one of the threads where
you failed to answer my questions.
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
--
 >>>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt,
snowflakes, melt!
 >>>>
 >>>>>
 >>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>
<https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-change-goes-firmly-
 >>>> in-the-loss-column-for-insurers/>
 >>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>
 >>>>>>> Do you post *anything* upbeat?
 >>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>
 >>>>>> Does "she" ever post anything that is true?
 >>>>>
 >>>>> No,  HTH
 >>>>
 >>>> It took a while, but now we have you on the record making a
firm statement
 >>>> that amounts to clinate change denial.
 >>>
 >>> Nonsense. Absolute lie. Lefties never do honesty. As I have said
here MANY times, the ONE principle that absolutely EVERYONE in
science agrees upon is "the certainty of change". It is you kooktards
who think that you can stop the planet and keep change from
happening. That makes YOU the 'science denier".
 >>>
 >>>> Which in turn pins down your politics as right-wing, something
you've also
 >>>> tried to maintain deniability about.
 >>>
 >>> Right-wing schmite-wing. You are drooling again. What you
accused me of was being a Trump supporter. This is FAR from the case.
Blowhard sales types are not my favorite people though higher up than
leftist commies like yourself. Didn't you get the memo about the fall
of your utopian USSR? Your system is totally discredited by the
largest social experiment in history. No wonder only North Korea and
Democrats are the only ones left refusing to accept the data.
 >>>
 >>>> There's no bigger coward than one who will not go clearly on
the record as
 >>>> believing what they believe, because it happens to be unpopular.
 >>>
 >>> I not only go on record I CONSISTENTLY back up my views with
peer reviewed science that I regularly post in response to "kensi's"
cut and paste journalist propaganda.
 >>
 >> **Liar. You NEVER post anything resembling science to any
question or comment I make. Not once, not ever.
 >
 > The liar is YOU.
**LOL. Let's see.
  Like al lefty Libs you don't do truth but DO do alling
 > other people names and slandering them to further you political
scams. The ends justifies the means, right? And now you have shown
that you and "kensi"/Nads are all part of the same big scamming
family! You are as ready to lie for them as you are to lie for yourself.
 >
 > Here is a REPOST of GISS data I have posted many times?
**NO repost. As usual, you lying sack of shit.
I see you cut it out! Right LA LA LA LA LA! You can't HEAR ME!!!!!!
**I cut nothing. Go see for yourself. Or, more likely, you won't.
Post by benj
YOu laying sack of shit.
**I am not a 'laying' (sic) sack of shit. I direct you to the part of
the thread. Go look for yourself.
 If you say there is no link then there must be
Post by benj
none. Of course everyone else can see it. No matter you live in your
lown little fantasy world.
**Since you failed to provide the link, I doubt anyone else can see it
either. Its all in your tiny mind.
Everyone I know can see it. It's been posted for years by me. Of course
in OZ you probably have internet censorship that removes any posts
proving the true facts about forbidden subjects like gun rights or
actual climate science.
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
  Any idea what
 > GISS data is?
**I know EXACTLY what it is. I also know what cherry-picked data is. Do you?
  Do you know who Dr. Hansen the godfather of global warming
 > is?
**The so-called 'Godfather' of global warming was Joseph Fourier.
After him, came Svante Arrhenius. Both men set the tone for global
warming research way back in the NINETEENTH century! Which is
information you would know, if you took the time to study the science.
Utter blather.
**Well, no. It's SCIENCE. Which, if you knew anything about science, you
would realise that Fourier's work is more important today, than it was
back in the 19th century. Fourier and Arrheius were towering intellects,
not to be dismissed by morons like you.
 19th century theories of climate in a jar are not "global
Post by benj
warming politics. They were not doing politics like you. Hanson made
it political which makes him YOUR hero. He said all "deniers" should
be killed. Now that is real science!
**Did Hanson say that? Cite please.
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
  Do you recognize HIS data?
Climate does not take place in a glass jar! 19 century theories aren't
correct.
**Bullshit. Fourier's work in many areas is highly relevant today.
 Co2 is NOT a major greenhouse gas.
**Depends on what you call "major". After water vapour, CO2 is the next
most important GHG. So, yeah, pretty important.
 Nobody had even done
Post by benj
tmospheric spectra then to find CO2 bands saturated. You are nothing
but a political propagandist.
**And you have no idea about the stuff you're sprouting. Keep it up, if
it helps you live in your fantasy land.
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
**Well, since you failed (yet again) to present any data, no. Like I
said: You NEVER present anything resembling science to back you
idiotic claims. SOP.
<Snip this>
http://www.mrk-inc.com/Docs/bspam2/40-70GISS.htm
LA LA LA LA LA! YOU CAN"T HEAR ME! I NEVER POSTED ANYTHING!
You are lying crooked scum.
**The YOU find the part of the post where you allegedly posted the link.
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
   Do you notice that from 1940 - 1970
 > these data showed Temperature going DOWN while CO2 went up?
**Yes. And that has been explained to you in exquisite detail many,
many times previously. Do you ever pay attention? It is due to
aerosol pollution, caused by industry and motor vehicles. You may
care to note (but you probably won't) that temperatures began to rise
when governments around the world got serious about reducing aerosol
pollution. Here's some science that you won't bother reading (nor
https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/science/aerosols-and-global-warming-faq.html#.Wr3OO39x1pg
**No comment, I notice. SOP.
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
  And you have
 > the absolute balls to say this proves that CO2 "causes" warming?
**Idiot. The science is undeniable.
  How
 > ignorant are you anyway.
**I assume that was a question. I am clearly a whole lot less
ignorant that you.
  Why don't you show how much science you know
 > down in Oz and explain how radiative forcing made this happen?
**Certainly. CO2 is resonant at a couple of infra-red frequencies.
When infra-red (IR) hits those CO2 molecules, it causes them to
vibrate (accumulate kinetic energy). More IR = more kinetic energy.
The CO2 molecules are agitated sufficiently to transfer some of their
energy to nearby molecules of atmospheric gases (nitrogen, oxygen, et
al), thus raising the energy level of the entire system. Most
critically, CO2 acts at night, when IR energy is re-radiated from the
Earth's surface, thus nighttime temperatures are raised.
What is PRIMARY Greenhouse gas?
**The most significant GHG is water vapour. CO2 is next most significant.
 How much warming duw to CO2?
**Radiative forcing due to CO2 is between 9% ~ 26%, depending on
location, time of day, time of year, etc.
 What
Post by benj
percentage of that due to human produced CO2?
**Humans are adding roughly 1.9% more CO2 each year to the atmosphere.
Currently. That may go up, or may go down, depending on various business
and political factors. It's about 50 Billion Tonnes of CO2 each year.
That's quite a bit. We seem to be increasing CO2 emissions. From 1750
through to 1987, humans put around 737 Billion Tonnes of CO2 into the
atmosphere. Between 1987 and 2014, it was around 743 Billion Tonnes. So,
it's hard to say what percentage, because it changes all the time.
Mostly, up. Fundamentally, however, humans have increased CO2 levels
from around 280ppm (ca. 1750) to around 400ppm today. That's roughly a
43% increase in CO2 levels, just due to human activity. Here's a pretty
https://www.zmescience.com/ecology/climate/carbon-dioxide-400ppm-26052014/
Note how, for around 800 years, the line was pretty flat. Then, the
industrial revolution happened (1750).
Bigdog posted data for much more than 800 years and it definitely WAS
NOT flat! In fact CO2 was higher previously than it is now industrial
revolution and all. OF course I'm sure you'll deny that Bigdog ever
posted anything like that and I could post the same graph but you'd just
lie and say I posted nothing. Please explain why any person who is not
insane would bother trying to have a discussion with you? Your
WArmballer political debates are Off-topic here in a science group and
also Off-topic in the talk.politics.guns group as well. You there is a
global warming political group where you can drool all you want.
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
<nothing but crickets>
Post by Trevor Wilson
 >
 > You are all liars criminals and scammers trying to set up a fake
tax to steal trillions of dollars. Shame on YOU.
**I am not trying to set up any kind of tax.
So how do you propose to stop the earth and stop "climate change"?
**Cut CO2 emissions.
With a huge tax that will be wasted that hyou deny promoting!

You are so deep in your left-wing fantasies nobody and make any sense of
your drool.
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Maybe if we all wish very very hard and click out heels together three
times, that big tax you passed in OZ won't be needed. Oh wait!
Post by Trevor Wilson
 >
 >>   Neither YOU nor "kensi" EVER respond to any
 >>> of it,
 >>
 >>
 >> **Pot, kettle, black, you lying sack of shit. You cannot put
forward a cogent argument when I question you. You just scurry away.
Like you will when you see this post.
 >
 > Liar.
**You keep saying that, but you have failed to respond to my previous
posts in this area. That make YOU the lying cunt. Not me.
You post nothing but misleading propaganda and try to pass it off as
science. That is dishonest and has no place in science.
**I post science, dickhead. You, OTOH, CLAIM to post stuff, but don't.
Propaganda lies 101.
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
  You simple babble on with your propaganda when I present you with
 > scientific data and then (see above) you lie and say I never did.
This is proof there can be no "discussion" with you. When you are
confronted with science you deny it exists
**YOU DIDN'T POST WHAT YOU CLAIMED TO HAVE POSTED! Look at the thread. I
will await your apology.
 and just repeat your sad
Post by benj
climate propaganda over and over as if your word was worth something.
It's not. You might was well be a journalist for Legacy media...In
fact I wquldn't be surprised if you were until you got this strategic
writer job.
Post by Trevor Wilson
**You failed to supply ANY scientific data. That makes YOU the lying cunt.
  Take
 > it easy on the drugs man, your fantasies are really getting strong.
**Let me remind you: _I_ am not the one who failed to supply the
data. You are.
 >
 >>   instead simply resorting to immature name-calling and repeating
 >>> your lies over an over. As Sergio has pointed out, there has
never been ONE equation coming out of you or your sock, "kensi". And
that makes you a fraud.
 >>
 >> **Actually, it is YOU who is the fraud. Not only do you fail to
respond, but you fail to admit when you have been shown to be wrong.
 >
 > You have not shown any of the science I CONSTANTLY present as wrong.
I certainly did.
**Bullshit.
 I showed that CO2 CANNOT be the CAUSE of "global
Post by benj
warming" by your own theories (radiative forcing) and all you do is
say I posted nothing.
**WTF? You posted nothing of the sort. Hell, I'll play your game. Post
your proof again. Bet you don't. You never do.
Propaganda 101: Never discuss the issues. Keep demanding your opponent
post "proof" and when they do it over and over say they never did and
then ask them to do it again. Keep the "kooks" spinning and they'll neer
prove you wrong! Right?
Post by Trevor Wilson
 Can't have a discussion with that kind of dishonesty
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
**Lying does not make you correct. It just makes you a liar.
Did not, did too! did not! did too1 did NOT!
You can call it "scurrying" if you like but you are simply tring to
waste my time here so I can't answer other more important issues. I
know your tricks. Fuck off creep.
Yeah you are real mature. Find any people dumber than you who you can
convince that you actually know something? I bet there are a few SOMEWHERE!
Post by Trevor Wilson
  YOU
 > simply lie and name-call and repeat your fear-mongering propaganda
over and over. It's propaganda 101. Nothing new. Nothing of value either.
 >
 > So start with discussing how CO2 radiative forcing is adding
energy yet temperatures are going down. This is a real "causality"
trick!
**Huh? Prove that temperatures are going down.
 >
 > We'll wait right here for your answer.
**Telling a lie, then asking ME to prove your lie is not going to happen.
**[Sounds of crickets]
Propaganda 101. One can't nail jello to the wall you know.
Trevor Wilson
2018-04-03 02:07:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt,
snowflakes, melt!
why believe that outragous full of numbnuts shit article
link kensi pupa
posted?
If it's so "outragous[sic]" and impossible to believe, why
do you froth
so? Obviously, you fear kensi's message, which puts the lie
to your k'lame
that it's too silly to be believed.
Telling you that you are an uneducated immature clown is
hardly froth. It is simply fact and is strong evidence that
your beliefs are are all nonsense. Your froth above shows you
and "kensi" fear exposure of you lack of science knowledge
and try to cover the fact with bluster. Nobody is fooled.
Have a nice day.
**Pot, kettle, black you moron.
Liberal "science": puerile name-calling.
**Name calling? Nope. Just stating fact. You fail miserably to
back any of your insane claims. You fail miserably to answer any
of my questions and you fail miserably to respond to any of my
points. You are a lying moron.
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Big hint, Nads: Journalists are NOT scientists and know no science.
**Not necessarily.
True,
**There you go. That wasn't hard, was it? You finally admitted
to one of your many lies. one down, about a million to go. I
won't be holding my breath.
Lib liars always accuse others of being the liars.
**Do they? Prove it. Prove that conservatives don't do exactly the
same thing. Nonetheless, I called you a liar, because you ARE a
liar. An ignorant one, at that.
I called YOU a liar because you are one.
**And yet, not once have you managed to prove that I have lied. I
guess you lied about that as well. SOP. Lie about everything and
hope for the best. Well, it won't cut it in the real world.
  That's your job I think.
**Nope. You don't think.
You "debate" noted and reportd.
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
  I note that you
Post by benj
provide no evidence of any journalist knowing any science.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natalie_Angier
Pulitzer prize is proof of science knowledge? I don't think so.
Anyway life sciences and medicine aren't real science.
**[SHAKES HEAD] There is no way you can deal with logic and reason.
Libs like you don't do logic and reason. That is a given.
**You have no idea of my political leanings. Let me remind you of this
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-04/majority-of-australians-believe-in-climate-change-csiro-report/6909940
Here in Australia, Labor and the Greens are left wing and Liberal and
National voters are right wing.
You may care to note that 28% or Liberal voters and 22% or National
voters accept that human induced global warming is real.
So, you can continue to erroneously label people with arbitrary
political labels and look like an idiot, or you can discuss the science.
Your choice.
**No comment on your constant reference to political beliefs of
Australians?
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Ball
Getting Closer. I mean he was once "sort of: a physicist before he
discovered he was liberal. I'd have to read his latest book on QM
to see if his head is up his arse or not. Clearly he is not quite a
Journalist though he regularly "contributes" to rags like NYT,
Guardian and propaganda arms like BBC. Those are all negative evidence.
**Like I said: Scientist AND journalist. Thus I answered your
request. In precisely the same way that you have failed to answer
mine. You just scurry away. Every single time.
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
There are, of course, many more. We should not overlook the late,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Hawking
Can't you get the difference between journalist and writer?
**They can be regarded as the same thing. The term: 'journalist' is
very broad.
So basically you can say anyone (even Hawking... Oh wait, you already
did) is a journalist.
**Hawking WAS a scientist AND a journalist.
Stop being a fuckwit and move on.
  There's no talking to you libs you just make shit
Post by benj
up so you can always "win' in your own minds. No discussion just fantasies.
**You made a stupid claim and I proved you wrong. Get over it.
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
  hey I have
Post by benj
written books and articles on science. I'm not a journalist.
**You're nothing.
Scientific point noted and reported.
**Since your understanding of science is at 4th grade level, I can't
see how you can possibly write an article on science.
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
  I can live
Post by benj
with a single theoretical exception.
**Except, Mr Liar, it ain't theoretical. It's actual.
Except Mr. propagandist you have still not proved the premise wrong
except by your fantasies and stretching meanings.
**What premise would that be? That scientists can be journalists?
I've given you three examples. There are many, many more.
No, you haven't you gave an example of a stupid NYT journalist, with
no evidence of science knowledge and a former scientist who writes
popular "science" books. You got nothing but usual lib bluster and lies.
**I gave you three examples. Get over it.
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
I accept the truth that there ARE scientists who know science who
have sold out for money, fame, employment etc.
**Sure. There's quite a few who have done that. I would argue that
they are likely in the minority.
Science is not done by majority vote no matter what you science
deniers pretend. There is no such thing as the "settled science"
you warmballers always pretend exists.
**Yeah, there is. The link between increased CO2 levels and
increased temperatures is both provably and theoretically solid.
Hell, even Mythbusters proved it.
Well that settles it.
**Good. I'm pleased you have finally accepted the truth.
  I bet NYT "journalists" and Wikipedia agree with
Post by benj
you too. And the BBC and all the other warmballer propagandists. You
might as well throw in the failed OZ cartoonist too to "prove" you
are right! Idiot.
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
  and purposely lie and distort
Post by benj
facts for their handlers even though they know better. Is that you Trevor?
**LOL! Let me remind you, Mr Liar, that I have posed a great many
questions and comments to you. You have failed miserably to
respond and/or answer. The obvious conclusion is that you know
when you are beaten, so you just give up and scurry away.
I have provided links to actual science an you keep pretending
there is nothing and you heard nothing.
Links to propaganda isn't science.
**True, which is why I provided verifiable scientific links.
  "kensi" gives us more than all the
Post by benj
links to journalists we need.
Post by Trevor Wilson
**You SAY you have provided links, but you actually failed to do so.
(See the cut n copy at the end of this post)
Like all Libs you simply lie and lies to win. If you say I've posted
nothing then I guess it HAS to be true because YOU the great GOD of
OZ has said so. You are pathetic.
YOU FAILED TO PROVIDE THE LINK!
Go look at the thread. It's there for you to see.
**Go look at the thread. It's there for you to see.
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
  So this: Stick your fingers in your ears
Post by benj
and sing La LA LA LA LA! I CAN'T HEAR YOU! and that will "prove"
I've never answered any of your so-called questions.
**I KNOW you have never answered my questions. You cannot. You lack
the intellect and the knowledge to do so.
How many times do you need repeat your lies until they become true.
**It is not a lie that you have failed to answer my questions and
address my comments. It is fact. Look through the threads. You'll see.
Or, more likely, you won't.
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
  I'm still waiting for
Post by benj
your reply on the "Casualty of CO2 from 1940-1979 when CO2 went UP
and Temperature went DOWN!
La la la la! "I CAN"T HEAR YOU! In other words you still pretend you
heard nothing and provided all manner of proofs when in fact you sust
scurried away from real science. How are you at drawing cartoons?
**Note the two -- below. That was the part of the thread where I
provided the proof you asked for. It is also one of the threads where
you failed to answer my questions.
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
--
 >>>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt,
snowflakes, melt!
 >>>>
 >>>>>
 >>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>
<https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-change-goes-firmly-
 >>>> in-the-loss-column-for-insurers/>
 >>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>
 >>>>>>> Do you post *anything* upbeat?
 >>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>
 >>>>>> Does "she" ever post anything that is true?
 >>>>>
 >>>>> No,  HTH
 >>>>
 >>>> It took a while, but now we have you on the record making a
firm statement
 >>>> that amounts to clinate change denial.
 >>>
 >>> Nonsense. Absolute lie. Lefties never do honesty. As I have
said here MANY times, the ONE principle that absolutely EVERYONE in
science agrees upon is "the certainty of change". It is you
kooktards who think that you can stop the planet and keep change
from happening. That makes YOU the 'science denier".
 >>>
 >>>> Which in turn pins down your politics as right-wing, something
you've also
 >>>> tried to maintain deniability about.
 >>>
 >>> Right-wing schmite-wing. You are drooling again. What you
accused me of was being a Trump supporter. This is FAR from the
case. Blowhard sales types are not my favorite people though higher
up than leftist commies like yourself. Didn't you get the memo about
the fall of your utopian USSR? Your system is totally discredited by
the largest social experiment in history. No wonder only North Korea
and Democrats are the only ones left refusing to accept the data.
 >>>
 >>>> There's no bigger coward than one who will not go clearly on
the record as
 >>>> believing what they believe, because it happens to be unpopular.
 >>>
 >>> I not only go on record I CONSISTENTLY back up my views with
peer reviewed science that I regularly post in response to "kensi's"
cut and paste journalist propaganda.
 >>
 >> **Liar. You NEVER post anything resembling science to any
question or comment I make. Not once, not ever.
 >
 > The liar is YOU.
**LOL. Let's see.
  Like al lefty Libs you don't do truth but DO do alling
 > other people names and slandering them to further you political
scams. The ends justifies the means, right? And now you have shown
that you and "kensi"/Nads are all part of the same big scamming
family! You are as ready to lie for them as you are to lie for yourself.
 >
 > Here is a REPOST of GISS data I have posted many times?
**NO repost. As usual, you lying sack of shit.
I see you cut it out! Right LA LA LA LA LA! You can't HEAR ME!!!!!!
**I cut nothing. Go see for yourself. Or, more likely, you won't.
**Go look at the thread. It's there for you to see.
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
YOu laying sack of shit.
**I am not a 'laying' (sic) sack of shit. I direct you to the part of
the thread. Go look for yourself.
  If you say there is no link then there must be
Post by benj
none. Of course everyone else can see it. No matter you live in your
lown little fantasy world.
**Since you failed to provide the link, I doubt anyone else can see it
either. Its all in your tiny mind.
Everyone I know can see it.
**No one can see what was never posted. Go look at the thread. It's
there for you to see. Or, more precisely, not see.


It's been posted for years by me.

**That may be the case, but you failed to post it, when you claimed you did.


Of course
Post by benj
in OZ you probably have internet censorship that removes any posts
proving the true facts about forbidden subjects like gun rights or
actual climate science.
**Nope.
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
  Any idea what
 > GISS data is?
**I know EXACTLY what it is. I also know what cherry-picked data is. Do you?
  Do you know who Dr. Hansen the godfather of global warming
 > is?
**The so-called 'Godfather' of global warming was Joseph Fourier.
After him, came Svante Arrhenius. Both men set the tone for global
warming research way back in the NINETEENTH century! Which is
information you would know, if you took the time to study the science.
Utter blather.
**Well, no. It's SCIENCE. Which, if you knew anything about science,
you would realise that Fourier's work is more important today, than it
was back in the 19th century. Fourier and Arrheius were towering
intellects, not to be dismissed by morons like you.
  19th century theories of climate in a jar are not "global
Post by benj
warming politics. They were not doing politics like you. Hanson made
it political which makes him YOUR hero. He said all "deniers" should
be killed. Now that is real science!
**Did Hanson say that? Cite please.
**Did Hanson say that? Cite please.

Still waiting for your cite.
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
  Do you recognize HIS data?
Climate does not take place in a glass jar! 19 century theories
aren't correct.
**Bullshit. Fourier's work in many areas is highly relevant today.
  Co2 is NOT a major greenhouse gas.
**Depends on what you call "major". After water vapour, CO2 is the
next most important GHG. So, yeah, pretty important.
  Nobody had even done
Post by benj
tmospheric spectra then to find CO2 bands saturated. You are nothing
but a political propagandist.
**And you have no idea about the stuff you're sprouting. Keep it up,
if it helps you live in your fantasy land.
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
**Well, since you failed (yet again) to present any data, no. Like I
said: You NEVER present anything resembling science to back you
idiotic claims. SOP.
<Snip this>
http://www.mrk-inc.com/Docs/bspam2/40-70GISS.htm
LA LA LA LA LA! YOU CAN"T HEAR ME! I NEVER POSTED ANYTHING!
You are lying crooked scum.
**The YOU find the part of the post where you allegedly posted the link.
**Then YOU find the part of the post where you allegedly posted the link.
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
   Do you notice that from 1940 - 1970
 > these data showed Temperature going DOWN while CO2 went up?
**Yes. And that has been explained to you in exquisite detail many,
many times previously. Do you ever pay attention? It is due to
aerosol pollution, caused by industry and motor vehicles. You may
care to note (but you probably won't) that temperatures began to
rise when governments around the world got serious about reducing
aerosol pollution. Here's some science that you won't bother reading
https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/science/aerosols-and-global-warming-faq.html#.Wr3OO39x1pg
**No comment, I notice. SOP.
**No comment, I notice. SOP.
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
  And you have
 > the absolute balls to say this proves that CO2 "causes" warming?
**Idiot. The science is undeniable.
  How
 > ignorant are you anyway.
**I assume that was a question. I am clearly a whole lot less
ignorant that you.
  Why don't you show how much science you know
 > down in Oz and explain how radiative forcing made this happen?
**Certainly. CO2 is resonant at a couple of infra-red frequencies.
When infra-red (IR) hits those CO2 molecules, it causes them to
vibrate (accumulate kinetic energy). More IR = more kinetic energy.
The CO2 molecules are agitated sufficiently to transfer some of
their energy to nearby molecules of atmospheric gases (nitrogen,
oxygen, et al), thus raising the energy level of the entire system.
Most critically, CO2 acts at night, when IR energy is re-radiated
from the Earth's surface, thus nighttime temperatures are raised.
What is PRIMARY Greenhouse gas?
**The most significant GHG is water vapour. CO2 is next most significant.
  How much warming duw to CO2?
**Radiative forcing due to CO2 is between 9% ~ 26%, depending on
location, time of day, time of year, etc.
  What
Post by benj
percentage of that due to human produced CO2?
**Humans are adding roughly 1.9% more CO2 each year to the atmosphere.
Currently. That may go up, or may go down, depending on various
business and political factors. It's about 50 Billion Tonnes of CO2
each year. That's quite a bit. We seem to be increasing CO2 emissions.
From 1750 through to 1987, humans put around 737 Billion Tonnes of CO2
into the atmosphere. Between 1987 and 2014, it was around 743 Billion
Tonnes. So, it's hard to say what percentage, because it changes all
the time. Mostly, up. Fundamentally, however, humans have increased
CO2 levels from around 280ppm (ca. 1750) to around 400ppm today.
That's roughly a 43% increase in CO2 levels, just due to human
https://www.zmescience.com/ecology/climate/carbon-dioxide-400ppm-26052014/
Note how, for around 800 years, the line was pretty flat. Then, the
industrial revolution happened (1750).
Bigdog posted data for much more than 800 years and it definitely WAS
NOT flat!
**Duh. I posted data that pertained to the CO2 levels up to and after
the start of the Industrial Revolution.



In fact CO2 was higher previously than it is now industrial
Post by benj
revolution and all.
**We have accurate data dating back to around 1 million years. At NO
TIME, have CO2 levels been higher in the past million years or so. The
last time CO2 levels were as high as they were today, was around 75
MILLION years ago.


OF course I'm sure you'll deny that Bigdog ever
Post by benj
posted anything like that
**Nope. Bigdog did post his graph. You failed to post yours.


and I could post the same graph but you'd just
Post by benj
lie and say I posted nothing.
**LOL! Weasel words.


Please explain why any person who is not
Post by benj
insane would bother trying to have a discussion with you?
**You are having a discussion with me.


Your
Post by benj
WArmballer political debates are Off-topic here in a science group and
also Off-topic in the talk.politics.guns group as well.
**I did not start the thread.


You there is a
Post by benj
global warming political group where you can drool all you want.
**Cool.
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
<nothing but crickets>
Post by Trevor Wilson
 >
 > You are all liars criminals and scammers trying to set up a fake
tax to steal trillions of dollars. Shame on YOU.
**I am not trying to set up any kind of tax.
So how do you propose to stop the earth and stop "climate change"?
**Cut CO2 emissions.
With a huge tax that will be wasted that hyou deny promoting!
**HOW CO2 emissions should be cut, is not for me to say.
Post by benj
You are so deep in your left-wing fantasies nobody and make any sense of
your drool.
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Maybe if we all wish very very hard and click out heels together
three times, that big tax you passed in OZ won't be needed. Oh wait!
Post by Trevor Wilson
 >
 >>   Neither YOU nor "kensi" EVER respond to any
 >>> of it,
 >>
 >>
 >> **Pot, kettle, black, you lying sack of shit. You cannot put
forward a cogent argument when I question you. You just scurry away.
Like you will when you see this post.
 >
 > Liar.
**You keep saying that, but you have failed to respond to my
previous posts in this area. That make YOU the lying cunt. Not me.
You post nothing but misleading propaganda and try to pass it off as
science. That is dishonest and has no place in science.
**I post science, dickhead. You, OTOH, CLAIM to post stuff, but don't.
Propaganda lies 101.
**Fact, dickhead. Fact.
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
  You simple babble on with your propaganda when I present you with
 > scientific data and then (see above) you lie and say I never did.
This is proof there can be no "discussion" with you. When you are
confronted with science you deny it exists
**YOU DIDN'T POST WHAT YOU CLAIMED TO HAVE POSTED! Look at the thread.
I will await your apology.
  and just repeat your sad
Post by benj
climate propaganda over and over as if your word was worth something.
It's not. You might was well be a journalist for Legacy media...In
fact I wquldn't be surprised if you were until you got this strategic
writer job.
Post by Trevor Wilson
**You failed to supply ANY scientific data. That makes YOU the lying cunt.
  Take
 > it easy on the drugs man, your fantasies are really getting strong.
**Let me remind you: _I_ am not the one who failed to supply the
data. You are.
 >
 >>   instead simply resorting to immature name-calling and repeating
 >>> your lies over an over. As Sergio has pointed out, there has
never been ONE equation coming out of you or your sock, "kensi". And
that makes you a fraud.
 >>
 >> **Actually, it is YOU who is the fraud. Not only do you fail to
respond, but you fail to admit when you have been shown to be wrong.
 >
 > You have not shown any of the science I CONSTANTLY present as wrong.
I certainly did.
**Bullshit.
  I showed that CO2 CANNOT be the CAUSE of "global
Post by benj
warming" by your own theories (radiative forcing) and all you do is
say I posted nothing.
**WTF? You posted nothing of the sort. Hell, I'll play your game. Post
your proof again. Bet you don't. You never do.
Propaganda 101: Never discuss the issues.
**That IS the issue! You made a claim and failed to back it with any
evidence.


Keep demanding your opponent
Post by benj
post "proof" and when they do it over and over say they never did and
then ask them to do it again. Keep the "kooks" spinning and they'll neer
prove you wrong! Right?
**Read the thread and you will see that you failed to present your
evidence.
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
  Can't have a discussion with that kind of dishonesty
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
**Lying does not make you correct. It just makes you a liar.
Did not, did too! did not! did too1 did NOT!
You can call it "scurrying" if you like but you are simply tring to
waste my time here so I can't answer other more important issues. I
know your tricks. Fuck off creep.
Yeah you are real mature. Find any people dumber than you who you can
convince that you actually know something? I bet there are a few SOMEWHERE!
Post by Trevor Wilson
  YOU
 > simply lie and name-call and repeat your fear-mongering
propaganda over and over. It's propaganda 101. Nothing new. Nothing
of value either.
 >
 > So start with discussing how CO2 radiative forcing is adding
energy yet temperatures are going down. This is a real "causality"
trick!
**Huh? Prove that temperatures are going down.
 >
 > We'll wait right here for your answer.
**Telling a lie, then asking ME to prove your lie is not going to happen.
**[Sounds of crickets]
Propaganda 101. One can't nail jello to the wall you know.
**Fortunately, it is easy to prove that you are a liar. It's all on the
record.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Dinsdale
2018-04-03 02:26:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Trevor Wilson
**Fact, dickhead. Fact.
That's the best response.

True facts can't be refuted.

Not even by dumnass copy-pasting true bullshit.
--
Dinsdale
kensi
2018-04-02 09:35:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by benj
Climate does not take place in a glass jar! 19 century theories aren't
correct. Co2 is NOT a major greenhouse gas. Nobody had even done
tmospheric spectra then to find CO2 bands saturated.
https://skepticalscience.com/saturated-co2-effect.htm
--
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade
in here." ~Checkmate
Sergio
2018-04-02 14:29:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by kensi
Post by benj
Climate does not take place in a glass jar! 19 century theories aren't
correct. Co2 is NOT a major greenhouse gas. Nobody had even done
tmospheric spectra then to find CO2 bands saturated.
https://skepticalscience.com/saturated-co2-effect.htm
Water vapor is the largest greenhouse gas, which is ignored by glowball
worming activists.
benj
2018-04-02 23:57:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sergio
Post by kensi
Post by benj
Climate does not take place in a glass jar! 19 century theories aren't
correct. Co2 is NOT a major greenhouse gas. Nobody had even done
tmospheric spectra then to find CO2 bands saturated.
https://skepticalscience.com/saturated-co2-effect.htm
Water vapor is the largest greenhouse gas, which is ignored by glowball
worming activists.
Note, "kensi" digs up fake science website of failed Oz cartoonist as
some kind of scientific proof. Pathetic.

I could reference NASA peer reviewed paper proving CO2 is minor GHG but
then Trevor and "Kensi" would just stick their fingers in their ears and
sing: La LA La La LA! YOU POSTED NOTHING!!!!

Oh what the hell!

http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Schmidt/attribution_present_GH_effect_2010.pdf

Note CO2 is MINOR GHG and given this is NASA probably the 20% they
estimate is WAY exaggerated. And remember the human contribution to that
20% is just a Minor fraction of that.

But "kensi" and Trevor can't tax the ocean so they try to tax Big energy
instead. Is the criminal nature of this money scam and people like
Trevor and "kensi" becoming more and more obvious?
Trevor Wilson
2018-04-03 05:51:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by benj
Post by Sergio
Post by kensi
Post by benj
Climate does not take place in a glass jar! 19 century theories aren't
correct. Co2 is NOT a major greenhouse gas. Nobody had even done
tmospheric spectra then to find CO2 bands saturated.
https://skepticalscience.com/saturated-co2-effect.htm
Water vapor is the largest greenhouse gas, which is ignored by glowball
worming activists.
Note, "kensi" digs up fake science website of failed Oz cartoonist as
some kind of scientific proof. Pathetic.
I could reference NASA peer reviewed paper proving CO2 is minor GHG but
then Trevor and "Kensi" would just stick their fingers in their ears and
sing: La LA La La LA! YOU POSTED NOTHING!!!!
Oh what the hell!
http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Schmidt/attribution_present_GH_effect_2010.pdf
Note CO2 is MINOR GHG and given this is NASA probably the 20% they
estimate is WAY exaggerated. And remember the human contribution to that
20% is just a Minor fraction of that.
**The contribution of CO2 varies from around 9% ~ 26%, depending on a
number of factors. Since humans have increased the level of CO2 in the
atmosphere by approximately 43%, since the 18th century, you cannot
claim that the human contribution is minor. It is most significant.
Post by benj
But "kensi" and Trevor can't tax the ocean so they try to tax Big energy
instead. Is the criminal nature of this money scam and people like
Trevor and "kensi" becoming more and more obvious?
**There you go again: Blathering on about politics and ignoring the
science.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Sergio
2018-04-03 14:30:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Sergio
Post by kensi
Post by benj
Climate does not take place in a glass jar! 19 century theories aren't
correct. Co2 is NOT a major greenhouse gas. Nobody had even done
tmospheric spectra then to find CO2 bands saturated.
https://skepticalscience.com/saturated-co2-effect.htm
Water vapor is the largest greenhouse gas, which is ignored by glowball
worming activists.
Note, "kensi" digs up fake science website of failed Oz cartoonist as
some kind of scientific proof. Pathetic.
I could reference NASA peer reviewed paper proving CO2 is minor GHG
but then Trevor and "Kensi" would just stick their fingers in their
ears and sing: La LA La La LA! YOU POSTED NOTHING!!!!
Oh what the hell!
http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Schmidt/attribution_present_GH_effect_2010.pdf
Note CO2 is MINOR GHG and given this is NASA probably the 20% they
estimate is WAY exaggerated. And remember the human contribution to
that 20% is just a Minor fraction of that.
**The contribution of CO2 varies from around 9% ~ 26%, depending on a
number of factors. Since humans have increased the level of CO2 in the
atmosphere by approximately 43%, since the 18th century, you cannot
claim that the human contribution is minor. It is most significant.
bullshit,

the paper clearly says Water Vapor is 50% to 67% of the effect, then
clouds, 25%, and you say CO2 is 9%

READ THE PAPERs, but you rather to post your parrot propaganda of the
shallow minds

Why are Democrats pushing for legalizing POT ? to keep voters stupid.
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
But "kensi" and Trevor can't tax the ocean so they try to tax Big
energy instead. Is the criminal nature of this money scam and people
like Trevor and "kensi" becoming more and more obvious?
**There you go again: Blathering on about politics and ignoring the
science.
benj
2018-04-03 18:20:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sergio
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Sergio
Post by kensi
Post by benj
Climate does not take place in a glass jar! 19 century theories aren't
correct. Co2 is NOT a major greenhouse gas. Nobody had even done
tmospheric spectra then to find CO2 bands saturated.
https://skepticalscience.com/saturated-co2-effect.htm
Water vapor is the largest greenhouse gas, which is ignored by glowball
worming activists.
Note, "kensi" digs up fake science website of failed Oz cartoonist as
some kind of scientific proof. Pathetic.
I could reference NASA peer reviewed paper proving CO2 is minor GHG
but then Trevor and "Kensi" would just stick their fingers in their
ears and sing: La LA La La LA! YOU POSTED NOTHING!!!!
Oh what the hell!
http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Schmidt/attribution_present_GH_effect_2010.pdf
Note CO2 is MINOR GHG and given this is NASA probably the 20% they
estimate is WAY exaggerated. And remember the human contribution to
that 20% is just a Minor fraction of that.
**The contribution of CO2 varies from around 9% ~ 26%, depending on a
number of factors. Since humans have increased the level of CO2 in the
atmosphere by approximately 43%, since the 18th century, you cannot
claim that the human contribution is minor. It is most significant.
bullshit,
the paper clearly says Water Vapor is 50% to 67% of the effect, then
clouds, 25%, and you say CO2 is 9%
READ THE PAPERs, but you rather to post your parrot propaganda of the
shallow minds
Why are Democrats pushing for legalizing POT ? to keep voters stupid.
Bullshit is exactly correct. More exactly Trevor shit as he pulled his
43% right out of his ass. Truth is he's just making it up to scare
people. Yep, nothing but lies to push his scam. He has no idea how much
CO2 is caused by man. He's just looking at a fake "hockey stick" of CO2
and pretending that it all came from man. Pseudoscience. Truth is the
planet Earth has a natural CO2 cycle that controls levels. Other planets
do not which is why they aren't fit places to live. The NASA website
used to have a big explanation of this on their website, but but they
pulled that part down as a cover-up to make Trevor's lies more
"plausible". The Oceans, water vapor etc. are all part of this natural
cycle.

Here is a partial explanation of that cycle from Germany:

"It is ten times as likely that atmospheric CO2 is coming from natural
sources, namely the warming ocean surface, as it is likely that it is
coming from anthropogenic sources. The changes in CO2 track ocean
surface temperature, not global carbon emissions. Burning fossil fuels
is not increasing atmospheric CO2. Recovery from the Little Ice Age,
driven by the sun, is causing the oceans to release CO2. It is
temperature driving CO2 release, not the other way around. Just as it
has always been."

http://notrickszone.com/2013/03/02/most-of-the-rise-in-co2-likely-comes-from-natural-sources/#sthash.c34J9eHL.dpbs

As I've said here all along. Trevor is a lying scammer con man trying to
sell the idea that man is causing the temperatures to rise by burning
things (like rain forests) and that only a huge energy tax for them to
waste can save us all. It's nothing but criminal fraud. Listening or
trying to discuss anything intelligent with such a fraudster is a total
waste of your time.
Skeeter
2018-04-03 18:23:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by benj
Post by Sergio
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Sergio
Post by kensi
Post by benj
Climate does not take place in a glass jar! 19 century theories aren't
correct. Co2 is NOT a major greenhouse gas. Nobody had even done
tmospheric spectra then to find CO2 bands saturated.
https://skepticalscience.com/saturated-co2-effect.htm
Water vapor is the largest greenhouse gas, which is ignored by glowball
worming activists.
Note, "kensi" digs up fake science website of failed Oz cartoonist as
some kind of scientific proof. Pathetic.
I could reference NASA peer reviewed paper proving CO2 is minor GHG
but then Trevor and "Kensi" would just stick their fingers in their
ears and sing: La LA La La LA! YOU POSTED NOTHING!!!!
Oh what the hell!
http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Schmidt/attribution_present_GH_effect_2010.pdf
Note CO2 is MINOR GHG and given this is NASA probably the 20% they
estimate is WAY exaggerated. And remember the human contribution to
that 20% is just a Minor fraction of that.
**The contribution of CO2 varies from around 9% ~ 26%, depending on a
number of factors. Since humans have increased the level of CO2 in the
atmosphere by approximately 43%, since the 18th century, you cannot
claim that the human contribution is minor. It is most significant.
bullshit,
the paper clearly says Water Vapor is 50% to 67% of the effect, then
clouds, 25%, and you say CO2 is 9%
READ THE PAPERs, but you rather to post your parrot propaganda of the
shallow minds
Why are Democrats pushing for legalizing POT ? to keep voters stupid.
Bullshit is exactly correct. More exactly Trevor shit as he pulled his
43% right out of his ass. Truth is he's just making it up to scare
people. Yep, nothing but lies to push his scam. He has no idea how much
CO2 is caused by man. He's just looking at a fake "hockey stick" of CO2
and pretending that it all came from man. Pseudoscience. Truth is the
planet Earth has a natural CO2 cycle that controls levels. Other planets
do not which is why they aren't fit places to live. The NASA website
used to have a big explanation of this on their website, but but they
pulled that part down as a cover-up to make Trevor's lies more
"plausible". The Oceans, water vapor etc. are all part of this natural
cycle.
"It is ten times as likely that atmospheric CO2 is coming from natural
sources, namely the warming ocean surface, as it is likely that it is
coming from anthropogenic sources. The changes in CO2 track ocean
surface temperature, not global carbon emissions. Burning fossil fuels
is not increasing atmospheric CO2. Recovery from the Little Ice Age,
driven by the sun, is causing the oceans to release CO2. It is
temperature driving CO2 release, not the other way around. Just as it
has always been."
http://notrickszone.com/2013/03/02/most-of-the-rise-in-co2-likely-comes-from-natural-sources/#sthash.c34J9eHL.dpbs
As I've said here all along. Trevor is a lying scammer con man trying to
sell the idea that man is causing the temperatures to rise by burning
things (like rain forests) and that only a huge energy tax for them to
waste can save us all. It's nothing but criminal fraud. Listening or
trying to discuss anything intelligent with such a fraudster is a total
waste of your time.
Even people that smoke pot know that.
Sergio
2018-04-03 18:47:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Skeeter
Post by benj
Post by Sergio
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Sergio
Post by kensi
Post by benj
Climate does not take place in a glass jar! 19 century theories aren't
correct. Co2 is NOT a major greenhouse gas. Nobody had even done
tmospheric spectra then to find CO2 bands saturated.
https://skepticalscience.com/saturated-co2-effect.htm
Water vapor is the largest greenhouse gas, which is ignored by glowball
worming activists.
Note, "kensi" digs up fake science website of failed Oz cartoonist as
some kind of scientific proof. Pathetic.
I could reference NASA peer reviewed paper proving CO2 is minor GHG
but then Trevor and "Kensi" would just stick their fingers in their
ears and sing: La LA La La LA! YOU POSTED NOTHING!!!!
Oh what the hell!
http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Schmidt/attribution_present_GH_effect_2010.pdf
Note CO2 is MINOR GHG and given this is NASA probably the 20% they
estimate is WAY exaggerated. And remember the human contribution to
that 20% is just a Minor fraction of that.
**The contribution of CO2 varies from around 9% ~ 26%, depending on a
number of factors. Since humans have increased the level of CO2 in the
atmosphere by approximately 43%, since the 18th century, you cannot
claim that the human contribution is minor. It is most significant.
bullshit,
the paper clearly says Water Vapor is 50% to 67% of the effect, then
clouds, 25%, and you say CO2 is 9%
READ THE PAPERs, but you rather to post your parrot propaganda of the
shallow minds
Why are Democrats pushing for legalizing POT ? to keep voters stupid.
Bullshit is exactly correct. More exactly Trevor shit as he pulled his
43% right out of his ass. Truth is he's just making it up to scare
people. Yep, nothing but lies to push his scam. He has no idea how much
CO2 is caused by man. He's just looking at a fake "hockey stick" of CO2
and pretending that it all came from man. Pseudoscience. Truth is the
planet Earth has a natural CO2 cycle that controls levels. Other planets
do not which is why they aren't fit places to live. The NASA website
used to have a big explanation of this on their website, but but they
pulled that part down as a cover-up to make Trevor's lies more
"plausible". The Oceans, water vapor etc. are all part of this natural
cycle.
"It is ten times as likely that atmospheric CO2 is coming from natural
sources, namely the warming ocean surface, as it is likely that it is
coming from anthropogenic sources. The changes in CO2 track ocean
surface temperature, not global carbon emissions. Burning fossil fuels
is not increasing atmospheric CO2. Recovery from the Little Ice Age,
driven by the sun, is causing the oceans to release CO2. It is
temperature driving CO2 release, not the other way around. Just as it
has always been."
http://notrickszone.com/2013/03/02/most-of-the-rise-in-co2-likely-comes-from-natural-sources/#sthash.c34J9eHL.dpbs
As I've said here all along. Trevor is a lying scammer con man trying to
sell the idea that man is causing the temperatures to rise by burning
things (like rain forests) and that only a huge energy tax for them to
waste can save us all. It's nothing but criminal fraud. Listening or
trying to discuss anything intelligent with such a fraudster is a total
waste of your time.
Even people that smoke pot know that.
pot smokers like global worming,
as the all the plants get bigger, back to rainforests of huge pot
plants, plus smoking them creates heat, which helps heat the planet up,
and warm the wintertimes. Win-Win
Skeeter
2018-04-03 19:21:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sergio
Post by Skeeter
Post by benj
Post by Sergio
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Sergio
Post by kensi
Post by benj
Climate does not take place in a glass jar! 19 century theories aren't
correct. Co2 is NOT a major greenhouse gas. Nobody had even done
tmospheric spectra then to find CO2 bands saturated.
https://skepticalscience.com/saturated-co2-effect.htm
Water vapor is the largest greenhouse gas, which is ignored by glowball
worming activists.
Note, "kensi" digs up fake science website of failed Oz cartoonist as
some kind of scientific proof. Pathetic.
I could reference NASA peer reviewed paper proving CO2 is minor GHG
but then Trevor and "Kensi" would just stick their fingers in their
ears and sing: La LA La La LA! YOU POSTED NOTHING!!!!
Oh what the hell!
http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Schmidt/attribution_present_GH_effect_2010.pdf
Note CO2 is MINOR GHG and given this is NASA probably the 20% they
estimate is WAY exaggerated. And remember the human contribution to
that 20% is just a Minor fraction of that.
**The contribution of CO2 varies from around 9% ~ 26%, depending on a
number of factors. Since humans have increased the level of CO2 in the
atmosphere by approximately 43%, since the 18th century, you cannot
claim that the human contribution is minor. It is most significant.
bullshit,
the paper clearly says Water Vapor is 50% to 67% of the effect, then
clouds, 25%, and you say CO2 is 9%
READ THE PAPERs, but you rather to post your parrot propaganda of the
shallow minds
Why are Democrats pushing for legalizing POT ? to keep voters stupid.
Bullshit is exactly correct. More exactly Trevor shit as he pulled his
43% right out of his ass. Truth is he's just making it up to scare
people. Yep, nothing but lies to push his scam. He has no idea how much
CO2 is caused by man. He's just looking at a fake "hockey stick" of CO2
and pretending that it all came from man. Pseudoscience. Truth is the
planet Earth has a natural CO2 cycle that controls levels. Other planets
do not which is why they aren't fit places to live. The NASA website
used to have a big explanation of this on their website, but but they
pulled that part down as a cover-up to make Trevor's lies more
"plausible". The Oceans, water vapor etc. are all part of this natural
cycle.
"It is ten times as likely that atmospheric CO2 is coming from natural
sources, namely the warming ocean surface, as it is likely that it is
coming from anthropogenic sources. The changes in CO2 track ocean
surface temperature, not global carbon emissions. Burning fossil fuels
is not increasing atmospheric CO2. Recovery from the Little Ice Age,
driven by the sun, is causing the oceans to release CO2. It is
temperature driving CO2 release, not the other way around. Just as it
has always been."
http://notrickszone.com/2013/03/02/most-of-the-rise-in-co2-likely-comes-from-natural-sources/#sthash.c34J9eHL.dpbs
As I've said here all along. Trevor is a lying scammer con man trying to
sell the idea that man is causing the temperatures to rise by burning
things (like rain forests) and that only a huge energy tax for them to
waste can save us all. It's nothing but criminal fraud. Listening or
trying to discuss anything intelligent with such a fraudster is a total
waste of your time.
Even people that smoke pot know that.
pot smokers like global worming,
as the all the plants get bigger, back to rainforests of huge pot
plants, plus smoking them creates heat, which helps heat the planet up,
and warm the wintertimes. Win-Win
Oh...um...I smoke pot and I hate libtards and think glow ball warming
is a scam.
kensi
2018-04-03 11:09:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by benj
I could reference NASA peer reviewed paper proving CO2 is minor GHG but
then Trevor and "Kensi" would just stick their fingers in their ears and
sing: La LA La La LA! YOU POSTED NOTHING!!!!
Oh what the hell!
http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Schmidt/attribution_present_GH_effect_2010.pdf
Oops. That's not nasa.gov, that's some site in Luxembourg of all places.
Post by benj
Note CO2 is MINOR GHG and given this is NASA
Except it isn't.
--
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade
in here." ~Checkmate
Sergio
2018-04-03 14:31:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by kensi
Post by benj
I could reference NASA peer reviewed paper proving CO2 is minor GHG
but then Trevor and "Kensi" would just stick their fingers in their
ears and sing: La LA La La LA! YOU POSTED NOTHING!!!!
Oh what the hell!
http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Schmidt/attribution_present_GH_effect_2010.pdf
Oops. That's not nasa.gov, that's some site in Luxembourg of all places.
Post by benj
Note CO2 is MINOR GHG and given this is NASA
Except it isn't.
read the paper, Water Vapor is 67%, look at table 2 at the end. Then
read the paper. can you read technical papers pupa?
Nadegda
2018-04-01 06:13:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt,
snowflakes, melt!
why believe that outragous full of numbnuts shit article link
kensi pupa posted?
If it's so "outragous[sic]" and impossible to believe, why do you
froth so? Obviously, you fear kensi's message, which puts the lie
to your k'lame that it's too silly to be believed.
Telling you that you are an uneducated immature clown is hardly
froth. It is simply fact and is strong evidence that your beliefs
are are all nonsense. Your froth above shows you and "kensi" fear
exposure of you lack of science knowledge and try to cover the
fact with bluster. Nobody is fooled. Have a nice day.
**Pot, kettle, black you moron.
Liberal "science": puerile name-calling.
**Name calling? Nope. Just stating fact. You fail miserably to back
any of your insane claims. You fail miserably to answer any of my
questions and you fail miserably to respond to any of my points. You
are a lying moron.
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Big hint, Nads: Journalists are NOT scientists and know no science.
**Not necessarily.
True,
**There you go. That wasn't hard, was it? You finally admitted to one
of your many lies. one down, about a million to go. I won't be
holding my breath.
Lib liars always accuse others of being the liars.
**Do they? Prove it. Prove that conservatives don't do exactly the same
thing. Nonetheless, I called you a liar, because you ARE a liar. An
ignorant one, at that.
I called YOU a liar because you are one. That's your job I think.
Post by Trevor Wilson
 I note that you
Post by benj
provide no evidence of any journalist knowing any science.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natalie_Angier
Pulitzer prize is proof of science knowledge? I don't think so. Anyway
life sciences and medicine aren't real science.
No True Scotsman now?
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Ball
Getting Closer. I mean he was once "sort of: a physicist before he
discovered he was liberal. I'd have to read his latest book on QM to see
if his head is up his arse or not.
Oh that's easy enough to check. Does he favor MWI, absent direct evidence
against? Then his head isn't. Does he favor some sort of non-unitary, non-
local, non-time-symmetric, etc. etc. etc. (kensi could tell you the rest),
and most of all non-*testable* collapse mechanism? Then his head is so far
up there he doesn't need a doctor's help to check himself for colon cancer
every year.
Post by benj
Clearly he is not quite a Journalist though he regularly "contributes"
to rags like NYT, Guardian and
Erm, the last time I checked, people who *regularly* have (non-
advertising) articles accepted at major newspapers like NYT and the
Guardian are called ... drumroll ... journalists.
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Hawking
Can't you get the difference between journalist and writer? hey I have
written books and articles on science. I'm not a journalist.
A broadish definition of journalist is "writer of nonfiction for a lay
audience". Since some of Hawking's nonfiction books are for a lay audience
he falls within that definition.
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
 I can live
Post by benj
with a single theoretical exception.
**Except, Mr Liar, it ain't theoretical. It's actual.
Except Mr. propagandist you have still not proved the premise wrong
except by your fantasies and stretching meanings.
See above, kooky.
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
I accept the truth that there ARE scientists who know science who have
sold out for money, fame, employment etc.
**Sure. There's quite a few who have done that. I would argue that they
are likely in the minority.
Science is not done by majority vote no matter what you science deniers
pretend.
Peer review is sorta similar, though.
Post by benj
There is no such thing as the "settled science" you warmballers always
pretend exists.
Sure there is. There's stuff that's bleeding edge (a lot of quantum
physics stuff, still), then there's stuff that's considered close to rock
solid (only a paradigm shift of Einsteinian proportions, akin to the
discovery of relativity, could conceivably shake it). Right now, rock-
solid includes the basic laws of mechanics (adjusted for relativity and QM
where circumstances warrant), quantum electrodynamics (for the particle
physics scale stuff), and general relativity, evolution in biology, the
usual textbook introductory material about geology in particular age,
size, and structure of the Earth, and so forth. Oh, and thermodynamics,
which I'm given to understand is a statistical consequence of the laws of
mechanics. And which is the rock solid foundation of the settled science
of climate change.
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
 and purposely lie and distort
Post by benj
facts for their handlers even though they know better. Is that you Trevor?
**LOL! Let me remind you, Mr Liar, that I have posed a great many
questions and comments to you. You have failed miserably to respond
and/or answer. The obvious conclusion is that you know when you are
beaten, so you just give up and scurry away.
I have provided links to actual science an you keep pretending there is
nothing and you heard nothing. So this: Stick your fingers in your ears
and sing La LA LA LA LA! I CAN'T HEAR YOU! and that will "prove" I've
never answered any of your so-called questions. I'm still waiting for
your reply on the "Casualty of CO2 from 1940-1979 when CO2 went UP and
Temperature went DOWN! Oh that's right YOU CAN'T HEAR ME! LA LA LA LA LA!
Now where's that bookmark kensi sent me ...

Ah, yes:

https://skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-mid-20th-century-advanced.htm

SPNAK!
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
I've dealt with your kind before. Blowhards, with no real knowledge
outside what they're fed by Fox. IOW: A moron.
I've dealt with 6th graders like you before too. In fact, years ago I
actually was one! Calling people names really shows just how "mature"
you folks in Oz are.
We're not much better in Az, you chucklefuck.

<snicker>
Post by benj
Why should I waste my valuable time on kooks like you?
How ironic, coming from the only kook of us three.
--
FNVWe Nadegda

Fakey couldn't teach a monkey to eat a banana, much less answer a direct
question posed to him. -- Fakey's Dogwhistle Holder
Your Friendly Neighbourhood Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛
2018-04-01 06:45:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 1 Apr 2018 06:13:21 -0000 (UTC), LO AND BEHOLD; "Nadegda
<***@gmail.invalid>" determined that the following was of great
importance and subsequently decided to freely share it with us in
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
why believe that outragous full of numbnuts shit article link kensi pupa
posted?
If it's so "outragous[sic]" and impossible to believe, why do you froth
so? Obviously, you fear kensi's message, which puts the lie to your
k'lame that it's too silly to be believed.
Telling you that you are an uneducated immature clown is hardly froth.
It is simply fact and is strong evidence that your beliefs are are all
nonsense. Your froth above shows you and "kensi" fear exposure of you
lack of science knowledge and try to cover the fact with bluster.
Nobody is fooled. Have a nice day.
**Pot, kettle, black you moron.
Liberal "science": puerile name-calling.
**Name calling? Nope. Just stating fact. You fail miserably to back any
of your insane claims. You fail miserably to answer any of my questions
and you fail miserably to respond to any of my points. You are a lying
moron.
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Big hint, Nads: Journalists are NOT scientists and know no science.
**Not necessarily.
True,
**There you go. That wasn't hard, was it? You finally admitted to one of
your many lies. one down, about a million to go. I won't be holding my
breath.
Lib liars always accuse others of being the liars.
**Do they? Prove it. Prove that conservatives don't do exactly the same
thing. Nonetheless, I called you a liar, because you ARE a liar. An
ignorant one, at that.
I called YOU a liar because you are one. That's your job I think.
Post by Trevor Wilson
 I note that you
Post by benj
provide no evidence of any journalist knowing any science.
**You only need to ask: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natalie_Angier
Pulitzer prize is proof of science knowledge? I don't think so. Anyway
life sciences and medicine aren't real science.
No True Scotsman now?
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Ball
Getting Closer. I mean he was once "sort of: a physicist before he
discovered he was liberal. I'd have to read his latest book on QM to
see if his head is up his arse or not.
Oh that's easy enough to check. Does he favor MWI, absent direct
evidence against? Then his head isn't. Does he favor some sort of
non-unitary, non- local, non-time-symmetric, etc. etc. etc. (kensi
could tell you the rest), and most of all non-*testable* collapse
mechanism? Then his head is so far up there he doesn't need a doctor's
help to check himself for colon cancer every year.
Post by benj
Clearly he is not quite a Journalist though he regularly "contributes"
to rags like NYT, Guardian and
Erm, the last time I checked, people who *regularly* have (non-
advertising) articles accepted at major newspapers like NYT and the
Guardian are called ... drumroll ... journalists.
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Hawking
Can't you get the difference between journalist and writer? hey I have
written books and articles on science. I'm not a journalist.
A broadish definition of journalist is "writer of nonfiction for a lay
audience". Since some of Hawking's nonfiction books are for a lay
audience he falls within that definition.
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
 I can live
Post by benj
with a single theoretical exception.
**Except, Mr Liar, it ain't theoretical. It's actual.
Except Mr. propagandist you have still not proved the premise wrong
except by your fantasies and stretching meanings.
See above, kooky.
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
I accept the truth that there ARE scientists who know science who have
sold out for money, fame, employment etc.
**Sure. There's quite a few who have done that. I would argue that they
are likely in the minority.
Science is not done by majority vote no matter what you science deniers
pretend.
Peer review is sorta similar, though.
Post by benj
There is no such thing as the "settled science" you warmballers always
pretend exists.
Sure there is. There's stuff that's bleeding edge (a lot of quantum
physics stuff, still), then there's stuff that's considered close to
rock solid (only a paradigm shift of Einsteinian proportions, akin to
the discovery of relativity, could conceivably shake it). Right now,
rock- solid includes the basic laws of mechanics (adjusted for
relativity and QM where circumstances warrant), quantum electrodynamics
(for the particle physics scale stuff), and general relativity,
evolution in biology, the usual textbook introductory material about
geology in particular age, size, and structure of the Earth, and so
forth. Oh, and thermodynamics, which I'm given to understand is a
statistical consequence of the laws of mechanics. And which is the rock
solid foundation of the settled science of climate change.
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
 and purposely lie and distort
Post by benj
facts for their handlers even though they know better. Is that you Trevor?
**LOL! Let me remind you, Mr Liar, that I have posed a great many
questions and comments to you. You have failed miserably to respond
and/or answer. The obvious conclusion is that you know when you are
beaten, so you just give up and scurry away.
I have provided links to actual science an you keep pretending there is
nothing and you heard nothing. So this: Stick your fingers in your ears
and sing La LA LA LA LA! I CAN'T HEAR YOU! and that will "prove" I've
never answered any of your so-called questions. I'm still waiting for
your reply on the "Casualty of CO2 from 1940-1979 when CO2 went UP and
Temperature went DOWN! Oh that's right YOU CAN'T HEAR ME! LA LA LA LA LA!
Now where's that bookmark kensi sent me ...
https://skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-mid-20th-century-advanced.ht
m
SPNAK!
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
I've dealt with your kind before. Blowhards, with no real knowledge
outside what they're fed by Fox. IOW: A moron.
I've dealt with 6th graders like you before too. In fact, years ago I
actually was one! Calling people names really shows just how "mature"
you folks in Oz are.
We're not much better in Az, you chucklefuck.
<💩snickerTurd💩>
Post by benj
Why should I waste my valuable time on kooks like you?
How ironic, coming from the only kook of us three.
maybe he can punch some QM panels next time?

he could offer the shroedingers or the heisenbergs.

the cost of the shroedingers is "up in the air" while the heisenbergs aren't for sale if you know the price.
--
THIS SPACE FOR RENT
http://youtu.be/iB6B8jGSdLA

"Thanks to muzzies and their apologist-enablers like puppy whistle, this
seems to be the new norm in the world. It's spreading like a cancer,
and it's time we admit we're at war with pure evil. We need to put an
end to this muzzie plague, or life on Earth is going to become pure hell
everywhere. We need to get these people out of every civilized
country, and there's only one way to do it. IOW, we have to become
like them, with an emphasis on expediency over cruelty." - Checkmate (of alt.checkmate)

"Pussy Willow has just proven that Trump's crackdown on previously
unenforced immigration policies is working. We'll deal with the domestic
terrorists as needed, but we don't need to be letting the muzzie
terrorists get a foothold in our country too. One need only look at what
they're doing in Europe right now to know we're doing the right thing by
keeping them out, which is our right and our duty. - Checkmate (#1 pussy willow fan)

-

"You just made puppy whistle's sig line longer." - Janithor

-

"If I have a complaint about the (Southern Poverty) Law Center's description (of the alt-right movement), it is the phrase "heavy use of social media," which implies the alt-right is a real-world movement which uses a lot of social media. This is backwards: it is an online movement which occasionally appears in the real world. Where it gets punched." - Jason Rhode

-

"I think we should destroy every last fucking mosque in America." - "Checkmate, DoW #1" <***@The.Edge> proves for us that white males are violent in Message-ID: <***@news.altopia.com>

-

Golden Killfile, June 2005
KOTM, November 2006
Bob Allisat Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker, November 2006
Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart, November 2006
Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart, September 2007
Tony Sidaway Memorial "Drama Queen" Award, November 2006
Busted Urinal Award, April 2007
Order of the Holey Sockpuppet, September 2007
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle, September 2006
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle, April 2008
Tinfoil Sombrero, February 2007
AUK Mascot, September 2007
Putting the Awards Out of Order to Screw With the OCD Fuckheads, March 2016
kensi
2018-04-01 10:29:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Nadegda
Post by benj
Getting Closer. I mean he was once "sort of: a physicist before he
discovered he was liberal. I'd have to read his latest book on QM to see
if his head is up his arse or not.
Oh that's easy enough to check. Does he favor MWI, absent direct evidence
against? Then his head isn't. Does he favor some sort of non-unitary, non-
local, non-time-symmetric, etc. etc. etc. (kensi could tell you the rest),
and most of all non-*testable* collapse mechanism? Then his head is so far
up there he doesn't need a doctor's help to check himself for colon cancer
every year.
LOL!

And very well remembered, though, the exact list is:

Non-linear, non-unitary, non-differentiable, non-local in configuration
space, non-local in (ordinary) space, non-CPT-symmetric,
Liouville-theorem-violating, Lorentz-noninvariant, non-deterministic,
*and* faster-than-light.

[rest of benj being spanked to blisters snipped for brevity]
--
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade
in here." ~Checkmate
Nadegda
2018-04-01 05:46:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
why believe that outragous full of numbnuts shit article link
kensi pupa posted?
If it's so "outragous[sic]" and impossible to believe, why do you
froth so? Obviously, you fear kensi's message, which puts the lie
to your k'lame that it's too silly to be believed.
Telling you that you are an uneducated immature clown is hardly
froth. It is simply fact and is strong evidence that your beliefs
are are all nonsense. Your froth above shows you and "kensi" fear
exposure of you lack of science knowledge and try to cover the fact
with bluster. Nobody is fooled. Have a nice day.
**Pot, kettle, black you moron.
Liberal "science": puerile name-calling.
**Name calling? Nope. Just stating fact. You fail miserably to back any
of your insane claims. You fail miserably to answer any of my questions
and you fail miserably to respond to any of my points. You are a lying
moron.
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Big hint, Nads: Journalists are NOT scientists and know no science.
**Not necessarily.
True,
**There you go. That wasn't hard, was it? You finally admitted to one
of your many lies. one down, about a million to go. I won't be holding
my breath.
Lib liars always accuse others of being the liars. I note that you
provide no evidence of any journalist knowing any science. I can live
with a single theoretical exception.
I accept the truth that there ARE scientists who know science who have
sold out for money, fame, employment etc. and purposely lie and distort
facts for their handlers even though they know better.
Yep; a lot of them work for the big oil companies. Perhaps you even know
some of them?
--
FNVWe Nadegda

Fakey couldn't teach a monkey to eat a banana, much less answer a direct
question posed to him. -- Fakey's Dogwhistle Holder
Sergio
2018-04-01 05:49:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
why believe that outragous full of numbnuts shit article link
kensi pupa posted?
If it's so "outragous[sic]" and impossible to believe, why do you
froth so? Obviously, you fear kensi's message, which puts the lie
to your k'lame that it's too silly to be believed.
Telling you that you are an uneducated immature clown is hardly
froth. It is simply fact and is strong evidence that your beliefs
are are all nonsense. Your froth above shows you and "kensi" fear
exposure of you lack of science knowledge and try to cover the fact
with bluster. Nobody is fooled. Have a nice day.
**Pot, kettle, black you moron.
Liberal "science": puerile name-calling.
**Name calling? Nope. Just stating fact. You fail miserably to back any
of your insane claims. You fail miserably to answer any of my questions
and you fail miserably to respond to any of my points. You are a lying
moron.
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Big hint, Nads: Journalists are NOT scientists and know no science.
**Not necessarily.
True,
**There you go. That wasn't hard, was it? You finally admitted to one
of your many lies. one down, about a million to go. I won't be holding
my breath.
Lib liars always accuse others of being the liars. I note that you
provide no evidence of any journalist knowing any science. I can live
with a single theoretical exception.
I accept the truth that there ARE scientists who know science who have
sold out for money, fame, employment etc. and purposely lie and distort
facts for their handlers even though they know better.
Yep; a lot of them work for the big oil companies. Perhaps you even know
some of them?
prove it, Nads pupa,

http://www.populartechnology.net/2011/05/are-skeptical-scientists-funded-by.html
Your Friendly Neighbourhood Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛
2018-04-01 06:20:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 1 Apr 2018 00:49:33 -0500, LO AND BEHOLD; "Sergio
<***@invalid.com>" determined that the following was of great
importance and subsequently decided to freely share it with us in
Post by Sergio
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
why believe that outragous full of numbnuts shit article link kensi pupa
posted?
If it's so "outragous[sic]" and impossible to believe, why do you froth
so? Obviously, you fear kensi's message, which puts the lie to your
k'lame that it's too silly to be believed.
Telling you that you are an uneducated immature clown is hardly froth.
It is simply fact and is strong evidence that your beliefs are are all
nonsense. Your froth above shows you and "kensi" fear exposure of you
lack of science knowledge and try to cover the fact with bluster.
Nobody is fooled. Have a nice day.
**Pot, kettle, black you moron.
Liberal "science": puerile name-calling.
**Name calling? Nope. Just stating fact. You fail miserably to back any
of your insane claims. You fail miserably to answer any of my questions
and you fail miserably to respond to any of my points. You are a lying
moron.
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Big hint, Nads: Journalists are NOT scientists and know no science.
**Not necessarily.
True,
**There you go. That wasn't hard, was it? You finally admitted to one of
your many lies. one down, about a million to go. I won't be holding my
breath.
Lib liars always accuse others of being the liars. I note that you
provide no evidence of any journalist knowing any science. I can live
with a single theoretical exception. I accept the truth that there ARE
scientists who know science who have sold out for money, fame,
employment etc. and purposely lie and distort facts for their handlers
even though they know better.
Yep; a lot of them work for the big oil companies. Perhaps you even know
some of them?
prove it, Nads pupa,
http://www.populartechnology.net/2011/05/are-skeptical-scientists-funded
-by.html
prove that you don't have the same killfile that gergles the klown trotted out a few days back.

or better yet... you and he post at exactly the same time with the same timestamp and "prove" that you aren't the same person... bc that's a "very reasonable" test of "anything"?
--
THIS SPACE FOR RENT
http://youtu.be/iB6B8jGSdLA

"Thanks to muzzies and their apologist-enablers like puppy whistle, this
seems to be the new norm in the world. It's spreading like a cancer,
and it's time we admit we're at war with pure evil. We need to put an
end to this muzzie plague, or life on Earth is going to become pure hell
everywhere. We need to get these people out of every civilized
country, and there's only one way to do it. IOW, we have to become
like them, with an emphasis on expediency over cruelty." - Checkmate (of alt.checkmate)

"Pussy Willow has just proven that Trump's crackdown on previously
unenforced immigration policies is working. We'll deal with the domestic
terrorists as needed, but we don't need to be letting the muzzie
terrorists get a foothold in our country too. One need only look at what
they're doing in Europe right now to know we're doing the right thing by
keeping them out, which is our right and our duty. - Checkmate (#1 pussy willow fan)

-

"You just made puppy whistle's sig line longer." - Janithor

-

"If I have a complaint about the (Southern Poverty) Law Center's description (of the alt-right movement), it is the phrase "heavy use of social media," which implies the alt-right is a real-world movement which uses a lot of social media. This is backwards: it is an online movement which occasionally appears in the real world. Where it gets punched." - Jason Rhode

-

"I think we should destroy every last fucking mosque in America." - "Checkmate, DoW #1" <***@The.Edge> proves for us that white males are violent in Message-ID: <***@news.altopia.com>

-

Golden Killfile, June 2005
KOTM, November 2006
Bob Allisat Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker, November 2006
Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart, November 2006
Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart, September 2007
Tony Sidaway Memorial "Drama Queen" Award, November 2006
Busted Urinal Award, April 2007
Order of the Holey Sockpuppet, September 2007
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle, September 2006
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle, April 2008
Tinfoil Sombrero, February 2007
AUK Mascot, September 2007
Putting the Awards Out of Order to Screw With the OCD Fuckheads, March 2016
Skeeter
2018-04-01 12:25:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 01 Apr 2018 01:20:22 -0500, Your Friendly Neighbourhood Puppy
Post by Your Friendly Neighbourhood Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛
On Sun, 1 Apr 2018 00:49:33 -0500, LO AND BEHOLD; "Sergio
importance and subsequently decided to freely share it with us in
Post by Sergio
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
why believe that outragous full of numbnuts shit article link kensi pupa
posted?
If it's so "outragous[sic]" and impossible to believe, why do you froth
so? Obviously, you fear kensi's message, which puts the lie to your
k'lame that it's too silly to be believed.
Telling you that you are an uneducated immature clown is hardly froth.
It is simply fact and is strong evidence that your beliefs are are all
nonsense. Your froth above shows you and "kensi" fear exposure of you
lack of science knowledge and try to cover the fact with bluster.
Nobody is fooled. Have a nice day.
**Pot, kettle, black you moron.
Liberal "science": puerile name-calling.
**Name calling? Nope. Just stating fact. You fail miserably to back any
of your insane claims. You fail miserably to answer any of my questions
and you fail miserably to respond to any of my points. You are a lying
moron.
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Big hint, Nads: Journalists are NOT scientists and know no science.
**Not necessarily.
True,
**There you go. That wasn't hard, was it? You finally admitted to one of
your many lies. one down, about a million to go. I won't be holding my
breath.
Lib liars always accuse others of being the liars. I note that you
provide no evidence of any journalist knowing any science. I can live
with a single theoretical exception. I accept the truth that there ARE
scientists who know science who have sold out for money, fame,
employment etc. and purposely lie and distort facts for their handlers
even though they know better.
Yep; a lot of them work for the big oil companies. Perhaps you even know
some of them?
prove it, Nads pupa,
http://www.populartechnology.net/2011/05/are-skeptical-scientists-funded
-by.html
prove that you don't have the same killfile that gergles the klown trotted out a few days back.
or better yet... you and he post at exactly the same time with the same timestamp and "prove" that you aren't the same person... bc that's a "very reasonable" test of "anything"?
paranoid much?
--
MAUKGA
Sergio
2018-04-01 23:38:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Skeeter
On Sun, 01 Apr 2018 01:20:22 -0500, Your Friendly Neighbourhood Puppy
Post by Your Friendly Neighbourhood Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛
On Sun, 1 Apr 2018 00:49:33 -0500, LO AND BEHOLD; "Sergio
importance and subsequently decided to freely share it with us in
Post by Sergio
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
why believe that outragous full of numbnuts shit article link kensi pupa
posted?
If it's so "outragous[sic]" and impossible to believe, why do you froth
so? Obviously, you fear kensi's message, which puts the lie to your
k'lame that it's too silly to be believed.
Telling you that you are an uneducated immature clown is hardly froth.
It is simply fact and is strong evidence that your beliefs are are all
nonsense. Your froth above shows you and "kensi" fear exposure of you
lack of science knowledge and try to cover the fact with bluster.
Nobody is fooled. Have a nice day.
**Pot, kettle, black you moron.
Liberal "science": puerile name-calling.
**Name calling? Nope. Just stating fact. You fail miserably to back any
of your insane claims. You fail miserably to answer any of my questions
and you fail miserably to respond to any of my points. You are a lying
moron.
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Big hint, Nads: Journalists are NOT scientists and know no science.
**Not necessarily.
True,
**There you go. That wasn't hard, was it? You finally admitted to one of
your many lies. one down, about a million to go. I won't be holding my
breath.
Lib liars always accuse others of being the liars. I note that you
provide no evidence of any journalist knowing any science. I can live
with a single theoretical exception. I accept the truth that there ARE
scientists who know science who have sold out for money, fame,
employment etc. and purposely lie and distort facts for their handlers
even though they know better.
Yep; a lot of them work for the big oil companies. Perhaps you even know
some of them?
prove it, Nads pupa,
http://www.populartechnology.net/2011/05/are-skeptical-scientists-funded
-by.html
prove that you don't have the same killfile that gergles the klown trotted out a few days back.
or better yet... you and he post at exactly the same time with the same timestamp and "prove" that you aren't the same person... bc that's a "very reasonable" test of "anything"?
paranoid much?
timestamp is put on by the receivers computer, isn't it ?
Nadegda
2018-04-01 06:45:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
Post by Sergio
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt,
snowflakes,
melt!
why believe that outragous full of numbnuts shit article link
kensi pupa posted?
If it's so "outragous[sic]" and impossible to believe, why do you
froth so? Obviously, you fear kensi's message, which puts the lie
to your k'lame that it's too silly to be believed.
Telling you that you are an uneducated immature clown is hardly
froth. It is simply fact and is strong evidence that your beliefs
are are all nonsense. Your froth above shows you and "kensi" fear
exposure of you lack of science knowledge and try to cover the
fact with bluster. Nobody is fooled. Have a nice day.
**Pot, kettle, black you moron.
Liberal "science": puerile name-calling.
**Name calling? Nope. Just stating fact. You fail miserably to back
any of your insane claims. You fail miserably to answer any of my
questions and you fail miserably to respond to any of my points. You
are a lying moron.
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Big hint, Nads: Journalists are NOT scientists and know no science.
**Not necessarily.
True,
**There you go. That wasn't hard, was it? You finally admitted to one
of your many lies. one down, about a million to go. I won't be
holding my breath.
Lib liars always accuse others of being the liars. I note that you
provide no evidence of any journalist knowing any science. I can live
with a single theoretical exception.
I accept the truth that there ARE scientists who know science who have
sold out for money, fame, employment etc. and purposely lie and
distort facts for their handlers even though they know better.
Yep; a lot of them work for the big oil companies. Perhaps you even
know some of them?
prove it, Nads pupa,
http://www.populartechnology.net/2011/05/are-skeptical-scientists-funded-
by.html

Notorious denier kookshite:

https://whac-a-troll.blogspot.ca/2014/09/despite-claims-to-contrary.html

http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2011/04/900-papers-part-two-using-our-
paper-is-misleading

http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com.au/2009/11/better-recheck-that-list.html

----------
After repeated communication with the authors of http://
www.populartechnology.net I have concluded that the content of the site is
intentionally inaccurate and misleading. That list a paper on which I am a
coauthor as "skeptical." Our paper supports the view that man-made climate
change is a substantial danger to human health and the environment. The
site refused to remove our paper(s) from their list after repeated written
requests to do so.
----------

SPANKY-SPANKY!

And from the horse's mouth, we have this bald-faced lie:

"This site receives no funding of any kind"

Erm, whut? Then how does it pay the bills? Obviously it gets money from
some source. I believe that technically constitutes "funding". So: what's
the source? Not disclosed, of course.

The site's two authors refuse to disclose their surnames, probably because
they're either fake or a quick LinkedIn lookup would find them at places
like the Heritage Foundation, ExxonMobil, the RNC, and BP.

So: anonymous authorship, totally opaque funding, and caught in at least
two bald-faced lies (listing a pro climate change paper as anti climate
change *and* claiming to have zero income while still magically, somehow,
paying for bandwidth and hosting): every sort of credibility red flag, all
at the same time.

Go to skepticalscience's about page and you'll find the author's full
name, a clear statement of their funding source and methods, and etc., by
contrast.
--
FNVWe Nadegda

Fakey couldn't teach a monkey to eat a banana, much less answer a direct
question posed to him. -- Fakey's Dogwhistle Holder
Your Friendly Neighbourhood Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛
2018-04-01 06:50:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 1 Apr 2018 06:45:48 -0000 (UTC), LO AND BEHOLD; "Nadegda
<***@gmail.invalid>" determined that the following was of great
importance and subsequently decided to freely share it with us in
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
Post by Sergio
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
why believe that outragous full of numbnuts shit article link kensi pupa
posted?
If it's so "outragous[sic]" and impossible to believe, why do you froth
so? Obviously, you fear kensi's message, which puts the lie to your
k'lame that it's too silly to be believed.
Telling you that you are an uneducated immature clown is hardly froth.
It is simply fact and is strong evidence that your beliefs are are all
nonsense. Your froth above shows you and "kensi" fear exposure of you
lack of science knowledge and try to cover the fact with bluster.
Nobody is fooled. Have a nice day.
**Pot, kettle, black you moron.
Liberal "science": puerile name-calling.
**Name calling? Nope. Just stating fact. You fail miserably to back any
of your insane claims. You fail miserably to answer any of my questions
and you fail miserably to respond to any of my points. You are a lying
moron.
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Big hint, Nads: Journalists are NOT scientists and know no science.
**Not necessarily.
True,
**There you go. That wasn't hard, was it? You finally admitted to one of
your many lies. one down, about a million to go. I won't be holding my
breath.
Lib liars always accuse others of being the liars. I note that you
provide no evidence of any journalist knowing any science. I can live
with a single theoretical exception. I accept the truth that there ARE
scientists who know science who have sold out for money, fame,
employment etc. and purposely lie and distort facts for their handlers
even though they know better.
Yep; a lot of them work for the big oil companies. Perhaps you even know
some of them?
prove it, Nads pupa,
http://www.populartechnology.net/2011/05/are-skeptical-scientists-funde
d-
by.html
https://whac-a-troll.blogspot.ca/2014/09/despite-claims-to-contrary.html
http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2011/04/900-papers-part-two-using-our-
paper-is-misleading
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com.au/2009/11/better-recheck-that-list.ht
ml
---------- After repeated communication with the authors of http://
www.populartechnology.net I have concluded that the content of the site
is intentionally inaccurate and misleading. That list a paper on which
I am a coauthor as "skeptical." Our paper supports the view that
man-made climate change is a substantial danger to human health and the
environment. The site refused to remove our paper(s) from their list
after repeated written requests to do so. ----------
SPANKY-SPANKY!
"This site receives no funding of any kind"
Erm, whut? Then how does it pay the bills? Obviously it gets money from
what's the source? Not disclosed, of course.
The site's two authors refuse to disclose their surnames, probably
because they're either fake or a quick LinkedIn lookup would find them
at places like the Heritage Foundation, ExxonMobil, the RNC, and BP.
So: anonymous authorship, totally opaque funding, and caught in at least
two bald-faced lies (listing a pro climate change paper as anti climate
change *and* claiming to have zero income while still magically,
somehow, paying for bandwidth and hosting): every sort of credibility
red flag, all at the same time.
Go to skepticalscience's about page and you'll find the author's full
name, a clear statement of their funding source and methods, and etc.,
by contrast.
perhaps donald dumbfuck can condense it all down into a solution that he can inject instead of smoking meth? (or whatever it is lunatics do with their meth)
--
THIS SPACE FOR RENT
http://youtu.be/iB6B8jGSdLA

"Thanks to muzzies and their apologist-enablers like puppy whistle, this
seems to be the new norm in the world. It's spreading like a cancer,
and it's time we admit we're at war with pure evil. We need to put an
end to this muzzie plague, or life on Earth is going to become pure hell
everywhere. We need to get these people out of every civilized
country, and there's only one way to do it. IOW, we have to become
like them, with an emphasis on expediency over cruelty." - Checkmate (of alt.checkmate)

"Pussy Willow has just proven that Trump's crackdown on previously
unenforced immigration policies is working. We'll deal with the domestic
terrorists as needed, but we don't need to be letting the muzzie
terrorists get a foothold in our country too. One need only look at what
they're doing in Europe right now to know we're doing the right thing by
keeping them out, which is our right and our duty. - Checkmate (#1 pussy willow fan)

-

"You just made puppy whistle's sig line longer." - Janithor

-

"If I have a complaint about the (Southern Poverty) Law Center's description (of the alt-right movement), it is the phrase "heavy use of social media," which implies the alt-right is a real-world movement which uses a lot of social media. This is backwards: it is an online movement which occasionally appears in the real world. Where it gets punched." - Jason Rhode

-

"I think we should destroy every last fucking mosque in America." - "Checkmate, DoW #1" <***@The.Edge> proves for us that white males are violent in Message-ID: <***@news.altopia.com>

-

Golden Killfile, June 2005
KOTM, November 2006
Bob Allisat Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker, November 2006
Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart, November 2006
Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart, September 2007
Tony Sidaway Memorial "Drama Queen" Award, November 2006
Busted Urinal Award, April 2007
Order of the Holey Sockpuppet, September 2007
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle, September 2006
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle, April 2008
Tinfoil Sombrero, February 2007
AUK Mascot, September 2007
Putting the Awards Out of Order to Screw With the OCD Fuckheads, March 2016
Skeeter
2018-04-01 12:26:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 01 Apr 2018 01:50:25 -0500, Your Friendly Neighbourhood Puppy
Post by Your Friendly Neighbourhood Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛
On Sun, 1 Apr 2018 06:45:48 -0000 (UTC), LO AND BEHOLD; "Nadegda
importance and subsequently decided to freely share it with us in
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
Post by Sergio
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
why believe that outragous full of numbnuts shit article link kensi pupa
posted?
If it's so "outragous[sic]" and impossible to believe, why do you froth
so? Obviously, you fear kensi's message, which puts the lie to your
k'lame that it's too silly to be believed.
Telling you that you are an uneducated immature clown is hardly froth.
It is simply fact and is strong evidence that your beliefs are are all
nonsense. Your froth above shows you and "kensi" fear exposure of you
lack of science knowledge and try to cover the fact with bluster.
Nobody is fooled. Have a nice day.
**Pot, kettle, black you moron.
Liberal "science": puerile name-calling.
**Name calling? Nope. Just stating fact. You fail miserably to back any
of your insane claims. You fail miserably to answer any of my questions
and you fail miserably to respond to any of my points. You are a lying
moron.
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Big hint, Nads: Journalists are NOT scientists and know no science.
**Not necessarily.
True,
**There you go. That wasn't hard, was it? You finally admitted to one of
your many lies. one down, about a million to go. I won't be holding my
breath.
Lib liars always accuse others of being the liars. I note that you
provide no evidence of any journalist knowing any science. I can live
with a single theoretical exception. I accept the truth that there ARE
scientists who know science who have sold out for money, fame,
employment etc. and purposely lie and distort facts for their handlers
even though they know better.
Yep; a lot of them work for the big oil companies. Perhaps you even know
some of them?
prove it, Nads pupa,
http://www.populartechnology.net/2011/05/are-skeptical-scientists-funde
d-
by.html
https://whac-a-troll.blogspot.ca/2014/09/despite-claims-to-contrary.html
http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2011/04/900-papers-part-two-using-our-
paper-is-misleading
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com.au/2009/11/better-recheck-that-list.ht
ml
---------- After repeated communication with the authors of http://
www.populartechnology.net I have concluded that the content of the site
is intentionally inaccurate and misleading. That list a paper on which
I am a coauthor as "skeptical." Our paper supports the view that
man-made climate change is a substantial danger to human health and the
environment. The site refused to remove our paper(s) from their list
after repeated written requests to do so. ----------
SPANKY-SPANKY!
"This site receives no funding of any kind"
Erm, whut? Then how does it pay the bills? Obviously it gets money from
what's the source? Not disclosed, of course.
The site's two authors refuse to disclose their surnames, probably
because they're either fake or a quick LinkedIn lookup would find them
at places like the Heritage Foundation, ExxonMobil, the RNC, and BP.
So: anonymous authorship, totally opaque funding, and caught in at least
two bald-faced lies (listing a pro climate change paper as anti climate
change *and* claiming to have zero income while still magically,
somehow, paying for bandwidth and hosting): every sort of credibility
red flag, all at the same time.
Go to skepticalscience's about page and you'll find the author's full
name, a clear statement of their funding source and methods, and etc.,
by contrast.
perhaps donald dumbfuck can condense it all down into a solution that he can inject instead of smoking meth? (or whatever it is lunatics do with their meth)
hey i know, since i don't know anything about the topic, let's drag
Trumps name into it because we are still butthurt.
--
MAUKGA
Sergio
2018-04-01 18:37:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Skeeter
On Sun, 01 Apr 2018 01:50:25 -0500, Your Friendly Neighbourhood Puppy
Post by Your Friendly Neighbourhood Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛
On Sun, 1 Apr 2018 06:45:48 -0000 (UTC), LO AND BEHOLD; "Nadegda
importance and subsequently decided to freely share it with us in
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
Post by Sergio
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
why believe that outragous full of numbnuts shit article link kensi pupa
posted?
If it's so "outragous[sic]" and impossible to believe, why do you froth
so? Obviously, you fear kensi's message, which puts the lie to your
k'lame that it's too silly to be believed.
Telling you that you are an uneducated immature clown is hardly froth.
It is simply fact and is strong evidence that your beliefs are are all
nonsense. Your froth above shows you and "kensi" fear exposure of you
lack of science knowledge and try to cover the fact with bluster.
Nobody is fooled. Have a nice day.
**Pot, kettle, black you moron.
Liberal "science": puerile name-calling.
**Name calling? Nope. Just stating fact. You fail miserably to back any
of your insane claims. You fail miserably to answer any of my questions
and you fail miserably to respond to any of my points. You are a lying
moron.
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Big hint, Nads: Journalists are NOT scientists and know no science.
**Not necessarily.
True,
**There you go. That wasn't hard, was it? You finally admitted to one of
your many lies. one down, about a million to go. I won't be holding my
breath.
Lib liars always accuse others of being the liars. I note that you
provide no evidence of any journalist knowing any science. I can live
with a single theoretical exception. I accept the truth that there ARE
scientists who know science who have sold out for money, fame,
employment etc. and purposely lie and distort facts for their handlers
even though they know better.
Yep; a lot of them work for the big oil companies. Perhaps you even know
some of them?
prove it, Nads pupa,
http://www.populartechnology.net/2011/05/are-skeptical-scientists-funde
d-
by.html
https://whac-a-troll.blogspot.ca/2014/09/despite-claims-to-contrary.html
http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2011/04/900-papers-part-two-using-our-
paper-is-misleading
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com.au/2009/11/better-recheck-that-list.ht
ml
---------- After repeated communication with the authors of http://
www.populartechnology.net I have concluded that the content of the site
is intentionally inaccurate and misleading. That list a paper on which
I am a coauthor as "skeptical." Our paper supports the view that
man-made climate change is a substantial danger to human health and the
environment. The site refused to remove our paper(s) from their list
after repeated written requests to do so. ----------
SPANKY-SPANKY!
"This site receives no funding of any kind"
Erm, whut? Then how does it pay the bills? Obviously it gets money from
what's the source? Not disclosed, of course.
The site's two authors refuse to disclose their surnames, probably
because they're either fake or a quick LinkedIn lookup would find them
at places like the Heritage Foundation, ExxonMobil, the RNC, and BP.
So: anonymous authorship, totally opaque funding, and caught in at least
two bald-faced lies (listing a pro climate change paper as anti climate
change *and* claiming to have zero income while still magically,
somehow, paying for bandwidth and hosting): every sort of credibility
red flag, all at the same time.
Go to skepticalscience's about page and you'll find the author's full
name, a clear statement of their funding source and methods, and etc.,
by contrast.
perhaps donald dumbfuck can condense it all down into a solution that he can inject instead of smoking meth? (or whatever it is lunatics do with their meth)
hey i know, since i don't know anything about the topic, let's drag
Trumps name into it because we are still butthurt.
if Trump, gotta drag Alkie-Alzi-Hillary into discussion too, is she
still in rehab ?
Sergio
2018-04-01 07:12:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
Post by Sergio
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt,
snowflakes,
melt!
why believe that outragous full of numbnuts shit article link
kensi pupa posted?
If it's so "outragous[sic]" and impossible to believe, why do you
froth so? Obviously, you fear kensi's message, which puts the lie
to your k'lame that it's too silly to be believed.
Telling you that you are an uneducated immature clown is hardly
froth. It is simply fact and is strong evidence that your beliefs
are are all nonsense. Your froth above shows you and "kensi" fear
exposure of you lack of science knowledge and try to cover the
fact with bluster. Nobody is fooled. Have a nice day.
**Pot, kettle, black you moron.
Liberal "science": puerile name-calling.
**Name calling? Nope. Just stating fact. You fail miserably to back
any of your insane claims. You fail miserably to answer any of my
questions and you fail miserably to respond to any of my points. You
are a lying moron.
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Big hint, Nads: Journalists are NOT scientists and know no science.
**Not necessarily.
True,
**There you go. That wasn't hard, was it? You finally admitted to one
of your many lies. one down, about a million to go. I won't be
holding my breath.
Lib liars always accuse others of being the liars. I note that you
provide no evidence of any journalist knowing any science. I can live
with a single theoretical exception.
I accept the truth that there ARE scientists who know science who have
sold out for money, fame, employment etc. and purposely lie and
distort facts for their handlers even though they know better.
Yep; a lot of them work for the big oil companies. Perhaps you even
know some of them?
prove it, Nads pupa,
http://www.populartechnology.net/2011/05/are-skeptical-scientists-funded-
by.html
https://whac-a-troll.blogspot.ca/2014/09/despite-claims-to-contrary.html
http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2011/04/900-papers-part-two-using-our-
paper-is-misleading
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com.au/2009/11/better-recheck-that-list.html
don't you have any FRESH links?

those are 4 to 9 years OLD and so stale, yuck!

its like walking into a dark theater with sticky floors.
Your Friendly Neighbourhood Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛
2018-04-01 07:31:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 1 Apr 2018 02:12:12 -0500, LO AND BEHOLD; "Sergio
<***@invalid.com>" determined that the following was of great
importance and subsequently decided to freely share it with us in
Post by Sergio
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
Post by Sergio
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
why believe that outragous full of numbnuts shit article link kensi pupa
posted?
If it's so "outragous[sic]" and impossible to believe, why do you froth
so? Obviously, you fear kensi's message, which puts the lie to your
k'lame that it's too silly to be believed.
Telling you that you are an uneducated immature clown is hardly froth.
It is simply fact and is strong evidence that your beliefs are are all
nonsense. Your froth above shows you and "kensi" fear exposure of you
lack of science knowledge and try to cover the fact with bluster.
Nobody is fooled. Have a nice day.
**Pot, kettle, black you moron.
Liberal "science": puerile name-calling.
**Name calling? Nope. Just stating fact. You fail miserably to back any
of your insane claims. You fail miserably to answer any of my questions
and you fail miserably to respond to any of my points. You are a lying
moron.
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Big hint, Nads: Journalists are NOT scientists and know no science.
**Not necessarily.
True,
**There you go. That wasn't hard, was it? You finally admitted to one of
your many lies. one down, about a million to go. I won't be holding my
breath.
Lib liars always accuse others of being the liars. I note that you
provide no evidence of any journalist knowing any science. I can live
with a single theoretical exception. I accept the truth that there ARE
scientists who know science who have sold out for money, fame,
employment etc. and purposely lie and distort facts for their handlers
even though they know better.
Yep; a lot of them work for the big oil companies. Perhaps you even know
some of them?
prove it, Nads pupa,
http://www.populartechnology.net/2011/05/are-skeptical-scientists-funde
d-
https://whac-a-troll.blogspot.ca/2014/09/despite-claims-to-contrary.htm
l http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2011/04/900-papers-part-two-using-our-
paper-is-misleading
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com.au/2009/11/better-recheck-that-list.h
tml
don't you have any FRESH links?
those are 4 to 9 years OLD and so stale, yuck!
its like walking into a dark theater with sticky floors.
i post all kinds of fresh links, you just have to stop using the same exact killfile as gergles and you might see them.

have you tried whinging a bunch about the content here not being up to your "standards"? (or were you just getting warmed up?)
--
THIS SPACE FOR RENT
http://youtu.be/iB6B8jGSdLA

"Thanks to muzzies and their apologist-enablers like puppy whistle, this
seems to be the new norm in the world. It's spreading like a cancer,
and it's time we admit we're at war with pure evil. We need to put an
end to this muzzie plague, or life on Earth is going to become pure hell
everywhere. We need to get these people out of every civilized
country, and there's only one way to do it. IOW, we have to become
like them, with an emphasis on expediency over cruelty." - Checkmate (of alt.checkmate)

"Pussy Willow has just proven that Trump's crackdown on previously
unenforced immigration policies is working. We'll deal with the domestic
terrorists as needed, but we don't need to be letting the muzzie
terrorists get a foothold in our country too. One need only look at what
they're doing in Europe right now to know we're doing the right thing by
keeping them out, which is our right and our duty. - Checkmate (#1 pussy willow fan)

-

"You just made puppy whistle's sig line longer." - Janithor

-

"If I have a complaint about the (Southern Poverty) Law Center's description (of the alt-right movement), it is the phrase "heavy use of social media," which implies the alt-right is a real-world movement which uses a lot of social media. This is backwards: it is an online movement which occasionally appears in the real world. Where it gets punched." - Jason Rhode

-

"I think we should destroy every last fucking mosque in America." - "Checkmate, DoW #1" <***@The.Edge> proves for us that white males are violent in Message-ID: <***@news.altopia.com>

-

Golden Killfile, June 2005
KOTM, November 2006
Bob Allisat Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker, November 2006
Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart, November 2006
Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart, September 2007
Tony Sidaway Memorial "Drama Queen" Award, November 2006
Busted Urinal Award, April 2007
Order of the Holey Sockpuppet, September 2007
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle, September 2006
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle, April 2008
Tinfoil Sombrero, February 2007
AUK Mascot, September 2007
Putting the Awards Out of Order to Screw With the OCD Fuckheads, March 2016
Skeeter
2018-04-01 12:24:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 1 Apr 2018 05:46:00 -0000 (UTC), Nadegda
Post by Nadegda
Post by benj
I accept the truth that there ARE scientists who know science who have
sold out for money, fame, employment etc. and purposely lie and distort
facts for their handlers even though they know better.
Yep; a lot of them work for the big oil companies. Perhaps you even know
some of them?
Seeing as how you don't?
--
MAUKGA
Trevor Wilson
2018-03-31 20:53:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by benj
Post by kensi
Post by Sergio
so, why cant he survive if the global average goes up 0.1 degree F over
100 years ?
The global average has already gone up around 2 degrees F in just the
past few decades, and the rise is accelerating.
Only if you fudge the data.
And in any event, neither YOU nor any plant or animal could tell the
difference in two rooms of 2 degree F in a few minutes let along in a
few decades. Are you really this stupid? Do you really work in science
or "journalism"?
**I don't have to ask if YOU are this stupid. Everyone already knows
that not only are you as dumb as a pile of rocks, but you can not, nor
will not answer direct questions, when asked. You scurry away. I expect
nothing less from you now.

What does it matter if a human can or can not pick a temperature
difference of a degree C or two? The fact is: The average temperatures
on this planet are rising. Whilst humans may have some difficulty in
picking the temperature change that small, many plants and animals can:

https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/coralreef-climate.html

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature01333

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1046/j.1354-1013.2001.00467.x

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169534799017644

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2005.00796.x

https://www.osti.gov/biblio/379668


Now all these guys and many more have spent many years doing solid
research on this matter. How much scientific research have YOU done?

What are your qualifications WRT climate science that we should listen
to any of your insane babbling?

Then there's this:

---
Post by benj
Post by kensi
Post by Sergio
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes,
melt!
<https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-change-goes-firmly-
Post by benj
Post by kensi
Post by Sergio
Post by Nadegda
in-the-loss-column-for-insurers/>
Do you post *anything* upbeat?
Does "she" ever post anything that is true?
No, HTH
It took a while, but now we have you on the record making a firm
statement
Post by benj
Post by kensi
Post by Sergio
Post by Nadegda
that amounts to clinate change denial.
Nonsense. Absolute lie. Lefties never do honesty. As I have said
here MANY times, the ONE principle that absolutely EVERYONE in science
agrees upon is "the certainty of change". It is you kooktards who think
that you can stop the planet and keep change from happening. That makes
YOU the 'science denier".
Post by benj
Post by kensi
Post by Sergio
Post by Nadegda
Which in turn pins down your politics as right-wing, something
you've also
Post by benj
Post by kensi
Post by Sergio
Post by Nadegda
tried to maintain deniability about.
Right-wing schmite-wing. You are drooling again. What you accused
me of was being a Trump supporter. This is FAR from the case. Blowhard
sales types are not my favorite people though higher up than leftist
commies like yourself. Didn't you get the memo about the fall of your
utopian USSR? Your system is totally discredited by the largest social
experiment in history. No wonder only North Korea and Democrats are the
only ones left refusing to accept the data.
Post by benj
Post by kensi
Post by Sergio
Post by Nadegda
There's no bigger coward than one who will not go clearly on the
record as
Post by benj
Post by kensi
Post by Sergio
Post by Nadegda
believing what they believe, because it happens to be unpopular.
I not only go on record I CONSISTENTLY back up my views with peer
reviewed science that I regularly post in response to "kensi's" cut and
paste journalist propaganda.
Post by benj
Post by kensi
**Liar. You NEVER post anything resembling science to any question
or comment I make. Not once, not ever.
Post by benj
The liar is YOU.
**LOL. Let's see.

Like al lefty Libs you don't do truth but DO do alling
Post by benj
other people names and slandering them to further you political
scams. The ends justifies the means, right? And now you have shown that
you and "kensi"/Nads are all part of the same big scamming family! You
are as ready to lie for them as you are to lie for yourself.
Post by benj
Here is a REPOST of GISS data I have posted many times?
**NO repost. As usual, you lying sack of shit.


Any idea what
Post by benj
GISS data is?
**I know EXACTLY what it is. I also know what cherry-picked data is. Do you?


Do you know who Dr. Hansen the godfather of global warming
Post by benj
is?
**The so-called 'Godfather' of global warming was Joseph Fourier. After
him, came Svante Arrhenius. Both men set the tone for global warming
research way back in the NINETEENTH century! Which is information you
would know, if you took the time to study the science.


Do you recognize HIS data?

**Well, since you failed (yet again) to present any data, no. Like I
said: You NEVER present anything resembling science to back you idiotic
claims. SOP.


Do you notice that from 1940 - 1970
Post by benj
these data showed Temperature going DOWN while CO2 went up?
**Yes. And that has been explained to you in exquisite detail many, many
times previously. Do you ever pay attention? It is due to aerosol
pollution, caused by industry and motor vehicles. You may care to note
(but you probably won't) that temperatures began to rise when
governments around the world got serious about reducing aerosol
pollution. Here's some science that you won't bother reading (nor
understand):

https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/science/aerosols-and-global-warming-faq.html#.Wr3OO39x1pg


And you have
Post by benj
the absolute balls to say this proves that CO2 "causes" warming?
**Idiot. The science is undeniable.


How
Post by benj
ignorant are you anyway.
**I assume that was a question. I am clearly a whole lot less ignorant
that you.


Why don't you show how much science you know
Post by benj
down in Oz and explain how radiative forcing made this happen?
**Certainly. CO2 is resonant at a couple of infra-red frequencies. When
infra-red (IR) hits those CO2 molecules, it causes them to vibrate
(accumulate kinetic energy). More IR = more kinetic energy. The CO2
molecules are agitated sufficiently to transfer some of their energy to
nearby molecules of atmospheric gases (nitrogen, oxygen, et al), thus
raising the energy level of the entire system. Most critically, CO2 acts
at night, when IR energy is re-radiated from the Earth's surface, thus
nighttime temperatures are raised.
Post by benj
You are all liars criminals and scammers trying to set up a fake tax
to steal trillions of dollars. Shame on YOU.

**I am not trying to set up any kind of tax.
Post by benj
Post by kensi
Neither YOU nor "kensi" EVER respond to any
Post by Sergio
of it,
**Pot, kettle, black, you lying sack of shit. You cannot put forward
a cogent argument when I question you. You just scurry away. Like you
will when you see this post.
Post by benj
Liar.
**You keep saying that, but you have failed to respond to my previous
posts in this area. That make YOU the lying cunt. Not me.


You simple babble on with your propaganda when I present you with
Post by benj
scientific data and then (see above) you lie and say I never did.
**You failed to supply ANY scientific data. That makes YOU the lying cunt.


Take
Post by benj
it easy on the drugs man, your fantasies are really getting strong.
**Let me remind you: _I_ am not the one who failed to supply the data.
You are.
Post by benj
Post by kensi
instead simply resorting to immature name-calling and repeating
Post by Sergio
your lies over an over. As Sergio has pointed out, there has never
been ONE equation coming out of you or your sock, "kensi". And that
makes you a fraud.
Post by benj
Post by kensi
**Actually, it is YOU who is the fraud. Not only do you fail to
respond, but you fail to admit when you have been shown to be wrong.
Post by benj
You have not shown any of the science I CONSTANTLY present as wrong.
**Lying does not make you correct. It just makes you a liar.


YOU
Post by benj
simply lie and name-call and repeat your fear-mongering propaganda
over and over. It's propaganda 101. Nothing new. Nothing of value either.
Post by benj
So start with discussing how CO2 radiative forcing is adding energy
yet temperatures are going down. This is a real "causality" trick!

**Huh? Prove that temperatures are going down.
Post by benj
We'll wait right here for your answer.
**Telling a lie, then asking ME to prove your lie is not going to happen.
---

You claim to post something which you don't, then fail to interpret the
data. You're an idiot.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Sergio
2018-03-31 22:57:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by kensi
Post by Sergio
so, why cant he survive if the global average goes up 0.1 degree F over
100 years ?
The global average has already gone up around 2 degrees F in just the
past few decades, and the rise is accelerating.
Only if you fudge the data.
And in any event, neither YOU nor any plant or animal could tell the
difference in two rooms of 2 degree F in a few minutes let along in a
few decades. Are you really this stupid? Do you really work in science
or "journalism"?
**I don't have to ask if YOU are this stupid. Everyone already knows
that not only are you as dumb as a pile of rocks, but you can not, nor
will not answer direct questions, when asked. You scurry away. I expect
nothing less from you now.
What does it matter if a human can or can not pick a temperature
difference of a degree C or two? The fact is: The average temperatures
on this planet are rising. Whilst humans may have some difficulty in
this is where you are wrong,

plants and animals are already adapted to temperature changing over the
year from about 32 degrees F in winter up to 95 degrees F in the summer.

a piddily little change caused by global warming average of 0.1 degree
F over a decade will not impact any living thing.

so all the articles that say "clams are dying due to global worming" are
bullshit.
Your Friendly Neighbourhood Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛
2018-03-31 23:20:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 31 Mar 2018 17:57:40 -0500, LO AND BEHOLD; "Sergio
<***@invalid.com>" determined that the following was of great
importance and subsequently decided to freely share it with us in
Post by Sergio
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by kensi
Post by Sergio
so, why cant he survive if the global average goes up 0.1 degree F over
100 years ?
The global average has already gone up around 2 degrees F in just the
past few decades, and the rise is accelerating.
Only if you fudge the data. And in any event, neither YOU nor any plant
or animal could tell the difference in two rooms of 2 degree F in a few
minutes let along in a few decades. Are you really this stupid? Do you
really work in science or "journalism"?
**I don't have to ask if YOU are this stupid. Everyone already knows
that not only are you as dumb as a pile of rocks, but you can not, nor
will not answer direct questions, when asked. You scurry away. I expect
nothing less from you now. What does it matter if a human can or can not
pick a temperature difference of a degree C or two? The fact is: The
average temperatures on this planet are rising. Whilst humans may have
some difficulty in picking the temperature change that small, many
this is where you are wrong,
plants and animals are already adapted to temperature changing over the
year from about 32 degrees F in winter up to 95 degrees F in the summer.
a piddily little change caused by global warming average of 0.1 degree
F over a decade will not impact any living thing.
so all the articles that say "clams are dying due to global worming" are
bullshit.
your "experiment" excludes every other thing on earth except "plants and animals", for some reason.

do you have a problem with some data that you are excluding?

<snooker>
--
THIS SPACE FOR RENT


"Thanks to muzzies and their apologist-enablers like puppy whistle, this
seems to be the new norm in the world. It's spreading like a cancer,
and it's time we admit we're at war with pure evil. We need to put an
end to this muzzie plague, or life on Earth is going to become pure hell
everywhere. We need to get these people out of every civilized
country, and there's only one way to do it. IOW, we have to become
like them, with an emphasis on expediency over cruelty." - Checkmate (of alt.checkmate)

"Pussy Willow has just proven that Trump's crackdown on previously
unenforced immigration policies is working. We'll deal with the domestic
terrorists as needed, but we don't need to be letting the muzzie
terrorists get a foothold in our country too. One need only look at what
they're doing in Europe right now to know we're doing the right thing by
keeping them out, which is our right and our duty. - Checkmate (#1 pussy willow fan)

-

"You just made puppy whistle's sig line longer." - Janithor

-

"If I have a complaint about the (Southern Poverty) Law Center's description (of the alt-right movement), it is the phrase "heavy use of social media," which implies the alt-right is a real-world movement which uses a lot of social media. This is backwards: it is an online movement which occasionally appears in the real world. Where it gets punched." - Jason Rhode

-

"I think we should destroy every last fucking mosque in America." - "Checkmate, DoW #1" <***@The.Edge> proves for us that white males are violent in Message-ID: <***@news.altopia.com>

-

Golden Killfile, June 2005
KOTM, November 2006
Bob Allisat Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker, November 2006
Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart, November 2006
Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart, September 2007
Tony Sidaway Memorial "Drama Queen" Award, November 2006
Busted Urinal Award, April 2007
Order of the Holey Sockpuppet, September 2007
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle, September 2006
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle, April 2008
Tinfoil Sombrero, February 2007
AUK Mascot, September 2007
Putting the Awards Out of Order to Screw With the OCD Fuckheads, March 2016
Trevor Wilson
2018-03-31 23:42:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sergio
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by kensi
Post by Sergio
so, why cant he survive if the global average goes up 0.1 degree F over
100 years ?
The global average has already gone up around 2 degrees F in just the
past few decades, and the rise is accelerating.
Only if you fudge the data.
And in any event, neither YOU nor any plant or animal could tell the
difference in two rooms of 2 degree F in a few minutes let along in a
few decades. Are you really this stupid? Do you really work in science
or "journalism"?
**I don't have to ask if YOU are this stupid. Everyone already knows
that not only are you as dumb as a pile of rocks, but you can not, nor
will not answer direct questions, when asked. You scurry away. I expect
nothing less from you now.
What does it matter if a human can or can not pick a temperature
difference of a degree C or two? The fact is: The average temperatures
on this planet are rising. Whilst humans may have some difficulty in
this is where you are wrong,
plants and animals are already adapted to temperature changing over the
year from about 32 degrees F in winter up to 95 degrees F in the summer.
**Another moron steps up to be demolished. Did you bother reading ANY of
the cites?
Post by Sergio
a piddily little change caused by global warming average of 0.1 degree
F over a decade will not impact any living thing.
**And yet, it already does.
Post by Sergio
so all the articles that say "clams are dying due to global worming" are
bullshit.
**OK, you cite YOUR climate science credentials. This should be a laugh.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
benj
2018-04-01 00:52:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by kensi
Post by Sergio
so, why cant he survive if the global average goes up 0.1 degree F over
100 years ?
The global average has already gone up around 2 degrees F in just the
past few decades, and the rise is accelerating.
Only if you fudge the data.
And in any event, neither YOU nor any plant or animal could tell the
difference in two rooms of 2 degree F in a few minutes let along in a
few decades. Are you really this stupid? Do you really work in science
or "journalism"?
**I don't have to ask if YOU are this stupid. Everyone already knows
that not only are you as dumb as a pile of rocks, but you can not, nor
will not answer direct questions, when asked. You scurry away. I expect
nothing less from you now.
What does it matter if a human can or can not pick a temperature
difference of a degree C or two? The fact is: The average temperatures
on this planet are rising. Whilst humans may have some difficulty in
           this is where you are wrong,
plants and animals are already adapted to temperature changing over the
year from  about 32 degrees F in winter up to 95 degrees F in the summer.
**Another moron steps up to be demolished. Did you bother reading ANY of
the cites?
a piddily little change caused by global warming average of  0.1 degree
F over a decade will not impact any living thing.
**And yet, it already does.
In Trevor's fantasies!
Post by Trevor Wilson
so all the articles that say "clams are dying due to global worming" are
bullshit.
**OK, you cite YOUR climate science credentials. This should be a laugh.
A credential war between Trevor and Sergio! This should be rich!

Hey Sergio, the last "climate scientist expert" posting from OZ turned
out to be a failed cartoonist and paid strategic writer!

http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/03/truth-about-skeptical-science.html

PS. The "failed cartoonist" now has been getting a degree in "climate
propaganda". I kid you not!
Sergio
2018-04-01 01:18:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by kensi
Post by Sergio
so, why cant he survive if the global average goes up 0.1 degree F over
100 years ?
The global average has already gone up around 2 degrees F in just the
past few decades, and the rise is accelerating.
Only if you fudge the data.
And in any event, neither YOU nor any plant or animal could tell the
difference in two rooms of 2 degree F in a few minutes let along in a
few decades. Are you really this stupid? Do you really work in science
or "journalism"?
**I don't have to ask if YOU are this stupid. Everyone already knows
that not only are you as dumb as a pile of rocks, but you can not, nor
will not answer direct questions, when asked. You scurry away. I expect
nothing less from you now.
What does it matter if a human can or can not pick a temperature
difference of a degree C or two? The fact is: The average temperatures
on this planet are rising. Whilst humans may have some difficulty in
           this is where you are wrong,
plants and animals are already adapted to temperature changing over the
year from  about 32 degrees F in winter up to 95 degrees F in the summer.
**Another moron steps up to be demolished. Did you bother reading ANY of
the cites?
that is the point, the cites are bullshit. why ?

"plants and animals are already adapted to temperature changing over the
year from about 32 degrees F in winter up to 95 degrees F in the
summer. and golwball worming only changes 0.01 F per year."
Post by Trevor Wilson
a piddily little change caused by global warming average of  0.1 degree
F over a decade will not impact any living thing.
**And yet, it already does.
no, check your links again, it is conjecture, look for the *weasel
words*, if, may, impacts, could, might, increasing, less, dramatically,
changing, varied, warming, stress, more, more frequent, altered, ......

but there is no real facts or meat to support the conjecture,

take your first link, they say the ocean is more acidic, so where are
the measurements, ? how small of a change is it ? within measurement
error? where and when did they measure it? how many millions of
measurements did they take ? At what depths ?

that link want you to donate to FishWatch.
Post by Trevor Wilson
so all the articles that say "clams are dying due to global worming" are
bullshit.
**OK, you cite YOUR climate science credentials. This should be a laugh.
Trevor Wilson
2018-04-01 05:03:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sergio
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by kensi
Post by Sergio
so, why cant he survive if the global average goes up 0.1 degree F over
100 years ?
The global average has already gone up around 2 degrees F in just the
past few decades, and the rise is accelerating.
Only if you fudge the data.
And in any event, neither YOU nor any plant or animal could tell the
difference in two rooms of 2 degree F in a few minutes let along in a
few decades. Are you really this stupid? Do you really work in science
or "journalism"?
**I don't have to ask if YOU are this stupid. Everyone already knows
that not only are you as dumb as a pile of rocks, but you can not, nor
will not answer direct questions, when asked. You scurry away. I expect
nothing less from you now.
What does it matter if a human can or can not pick a temperature
difference of a degree C or two? The fact is: The average temperatures
on this planet are rising. Whilst humans may have some difficulty in
           this is where you are wrong,
plants and animals are already adapted to temperature changing over the
year from  about 32 degrees F in winter up to 95 degrees F in the summer.
**Another moron steps up to be demolished. Did you bother reading ANY of
the cites?
that is the point, the cites are bullshit. why ?
"plants and animals are already adapted to temperature changing over the
year from about 32 degrees F in winter up to 95 degrees F in the
summer. and golwball worming only changes 0.01 F per year."
**What is "golwball worming"?
Post by Sergio
Post by Trevor Wilson
a piddily little change caused by global warming average of  0.1 degree
F over a decade will not impact any living thing.
**And yet, it already does.
no, check your links again, it is conjecture, look for the *weasel
words*, if, may, impacts, could, might, increasing, less, dramatically,
changing, varied, warming, stress, more, more frequent, altered, ......
**I already HAVE checked my links. I suggest you read them.
Post by Sergio
but there is no real facts or meat to support the conjecture,
take your first link, they say the ocean is more acidic, so where are
the measurements, ?
**Ask and ye shall receive:

https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/Quality+of+pH+Measurements+in+the+NODC+Data+Archives

https://www.csiro.au/en/Research/OandA/Areas/Coastal-management/Reef-capability/Future-Reef-2

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature04095

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature10295





how small of a change is it ?

**See links.

within measurement
Post by Sergio
error?
**See links.

where and when did they measure it?

**See links.

how many millions of
Post by Sergio
measurements did they take ?
**See links.

At what depths ?

**See links.
Post by Sergio
that link want you to donate to FishWatch.
Post by Trevor Wilson
so all the articles that say "clams are dying due to global worming" are
bullshit.
**OK, you cite YOUR climate science credentials. This should be a laugh.
**[Sounds of crickets]
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Sergio
2018-04-01 05:46:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by kensi
Post by Sergio
so, why cant he survive if the global average goes up 0.1 degree F over
100 years ?
The global average has already gone up around 2 degrees F in just the
past few decades, and the rise is accelerating.
Only if you fudge the data.
And in any event, neither YOU nor any plant or animal could tell the
difference in two rooms of 2 degree F in a few minutes let along in a
few decades. Are you really this stupid? Do you really work in science
or "journalism"?
**I don't have to ask if YOU are this stupid. Everyone already knows
that not only are you as dumb as a pile of rocks, but you can not, nor
will not answer direct questions, when asked. You scurry away. I expect
nothing less from you now.
What does it matter if a human can or can not pick a temperature
difference of a degree C or two? The fact is: The average temperatures
on this planet are rising. Whilst humans may have some difficulty in
            this is where you are wrong,
plants and animals are already adapted to temperature changing over the
year from  about 32 degrees F in winter up to 95 degrees F in the summer.
**Another moron steps up to be demolished. Did you bother reading ANY of
the cites?
that is the point, the cites are bullshit.  why ?
"plants and animals are already adapted to temperature changing over the
year from  about 32 degrees F in winter up to 95 degrees F in the
summer. and golwball worming only changes 0.01 F per year."
**What is "golwball worming"?
Post by Trevor Wilson
a piddily little change caused by global warming average of  0.1 degree
F over a decade will not impact any living thing.
**And yet, it already does.
no, check your links again, it is  conjecture, look for the *weasel
words*, if, may, impacts, could, might, increasing, less, dramatically,
changing, varied, warming, stress, more, more frequent, altered, ......
**I already HAVE checked my links. I suggest you read them.
you did not read them, did you ?
Post by Trevor Wilson
   but there is no real facts or meat to support the conjecture,
take your first link, they say the ocean is more acidic, so where are
the measurements, ?
https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/Quality+of+pH+Measurements+in+the+NODC+Data+Archives
the big change is only 0.1 ph in 100 years, BUT in the article, "This
data set is thus not at all well-suited to showing a change of 0.1 in pH
over the last 100 years"

so the article you are so proud of, says it is bogus.
Post by Trevor Wilson
         that link want you to donate to FishWatch.
Post by Trevor Wilson
so all the articles that say "clams are dying due to global worming" are
bullshit.
**OK, you cite YOUR climate science credentials. This should be a laugh.
**[Sounds of crickets]
Trevor Wilson
2018-04-01 09:14:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sergio
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by kensi
Post by Sergio
so, why cant he survive if the global average goes up 0.1 degree F over
100 years ?
The global average has already gone up around 2 degrees F in just the
past few decades, and the rise is accelerating.
Only if you fudge the data.
And in any event, neither YOU nor any plant or animal could tell the
difference in two rooms of 2 degree F in a few minutes let along in a
few decades. Are you really this stupid? Do you really work in science
or "journalism"?
**I don't have to ask if YOU are this stupid. Everyone already knows
that not only are you as dumb as a pile of rocks, but you can not, nor
will not answer direct questions, when asked. You scurry away. I expect
nothing less from you now.
What does it matter if a human can or can not pick a temperature
difference of a degree C or two? The fact is: The average temperatures
on this planet are rising. Whilst humans may have some difficulty in
            this is where you are wrong,
plants and animals are already adapted to temperature changing over the
year from  about 32 degrees F in winter up to 95 degrees F in the summer.
**Another moron steps up to be demolished. Did you bother reading ANY of
the cites?
that is the point, the cites are bullshit.  why ?
"plants and animals are already adapted to temperature changing over the
year from  about 32 degrees F in winter up to 95 degrees F in the
summer. and golwball worming only changes 0.01 F per year."
**What is "golwball worming"?
**What is "golwball worming"?
Post by Sergio
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Trevor Wilson
a piddily little change caused by global warming average of  0.1 degree
F over a decade will not impact any living thing.
**And yet, it already does.
no, check your links again, it is  conjecture, look for the *weasel
words*, if, may, impacts, could, might, increasing, less, dramatically,
changing, varied, warming, stress, more, more frequent, altered, ......
**I already HAVE checked my links. I suggest you read them.
you did not read them, did you ?
**Yup.
Post by Sergio
Post by Trevor Wilson
   but there is no real facts or meat to support the conjecture,
take your first link, they say the ocean is more acidic, so where are
the measurements, ?
https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/Quality+of+pH+Measurements+in+the+NODC+Data+Archives
the big change is only 0.1 ph in 100 years, BUT in the article, "This
data set is thus not at all well-suited to showing a change of 0.1 in pH
over the last 100 years"
so the article you are so proud of, says it is bogus.
**Well, no, it does not. In fact, had you taken the time to read the
article, you might have noticed this graph:

https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/file/Hawaii+Carbon+Dioxide+Time-Series

Kinda says it all.
Post by Sergio
Post by Trevor Wilson
         that link want you to donate to FishWatch.
Post by Trevor Wilson
so all the articles that say "clams are dying due to global worming" are
bullshit.
**OK, you cite YOUR climate science credentials. This should be a laugh.
**[Sounds of crickets]
**[More crickets]
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Sergio
2018-04-01 20:34:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Sergio
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by kensi
Post by Sergio
so, why cant he survive if the global average goes up 0.1
degree F
over
100 years ?
The global average has already gone up around 2 degrees F in just the
past few decades, and the rise is accelerating.
Only if you fudge the data.
And in any event, neither YOU nor any plant or animal could tell the
difference in two rooms of 2 degree F in a few minutes let along in a
few decades. Are you really this stupid? Do you really work in science
or "journalism"?
**I don't have to ask if YOU are this stupid. Everyone already knows
that not only are you as dumb as a pile of rocks, but you can not, nor
will not answer direct questions, when asked. You scurry away. I expect
nothing less from you now.
What does it matter if a human can or can not pick a temperature
difference of a degree C or two? The fact is: The average temperatures
on this planet are rising. Whilst humans may have some difficulty in
             this is where you are wrong,
plants and animals are already adapted to temperature changing over the
year from  about 32 degrees F in winter up to 95 degrees F in the summer.
**Another moron steps up to be demolished. Did you bother reading ANY of
the cites?
that is the point, the cites are bullshit.  why ?
"plants and animals are already adapted to temperature changing over the
year from  about 32 degrees F in winter up to 95 degrees F in the
summer. and golwball worming only changes 0.01 F per year."
**What is "golwball worming"?
**What is "golwball worming"?
Post by Sergio
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Trevor Wilson
a piddily little change caused by global warming average of  0.1 degree
F over a decade will not impact any living thing.
**And yet, it already does.
no, check your links again, it is  conjecture, look for the *weasel
words*, if, may, impacts, could, might, increasing, less, dramatically,
changing, varied, warming, stress, more, more frequent, altered, ......
**I already HAVE checked my links. I suggest you read them.
you did not read them, did you ?
**Yup.
Post by Sergio
Post by Trevor Wilson
    but there is no real facts or meat to support the conjecture,
take your first link, they say the ocean is more acidic, so where are
the measurements, ?
https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/Quality+of+pH+Measurements+in+the+NODC+Data+Archives
the big change is only 0.1 ph in 100 years, BUT in the article, "This
data set is thus not at all well-suited to showing a change of 0.1 in pH
over the last 100 years"
so the article you are so proud of, says it is bogus.
**Well, no, it does not. In fact, had you taken the time to read the
https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/file/Hawaii+Carbon+Dioxide+Time-Series
Kinda says it all.
no, read the article, and also follow thei link to

https://data.nodc.noaa.gov/woa/WOD13/DOC/wod13_intro.pdf#page=44

"For example, originator’s chemical concentration units reported in
per mass units were converted to per volume units assuming a
constant density of seawater equal to 1025 kg·m ( e.g. ,an
arbitrary choice). "


the study says itself, it is full of holes.
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Sergio
Post by Trevor Wilson
          that link want you to donate to FishWatch.
Post by Trevor Wilson
so all the articles that say "clams are dying due to global worming" are
bullshit.
**OK, you cite YOUR climate science credentials. This should be a laugh.
**[Sounds of crickets]
**[More crickets]
[sound of FishWatch, fishing for your green money]
benj
2018-04-02 22:10:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sergio
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Sergio
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by kensi
Post by Sergio
so, why cant he survive if the global average goes up 0.1
degree F
over
100 years ?
The global average has already gone up around 2 degrees F in just the
past few decades, and the rise is accelerating.
Only if you fudge the data.
And in any event, neither YOU nor any plant or animal could tell the
difference in two rooms of 2 degree F in a few minutes let along in a
few decades. Are you really this stupid? Do you really work in science
or "journalism"?
**I don't have to ask if YOU are this stupid. Everyone already knows
that not only are you as dumb as a pile of rocks, but you can not, nor
will not answer direct questions, when asked. You scurry away. I expect
nothing less from you now.
What does it matter if a human can or can not pick a temperature
difference of a degree C or two? The fact is: The average temperatures
on this planet are rising. Whilst humans may have some difficulty in
             this is where you are wrong,
plants and animals are already adapted to temperature changing over the
year from  about 32 degrees F in winter up to 95 degrees F in the summer.
**Another moron steps up to be demolished. Did you bother reading ANY of
the cites?
that is the point, the cites are bullshit.  why ?
"plants and animals are already adapted to temperature changing over the
year from  about 32 degrees F in winter up to 95 degrees F in the
summer. and golwball worming only changes 0.01 F per year."
**What is "golwball worming"?
**What is "golwball worming"?
Post by Sergio
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Trevor Wilson
a piddily little change caused by global warming average of  0.1 degree
F over a decade will not impact any living thing.
**And yet, it already does.
no, check your links again, it is  conjecture, look for the *weasel
words*, if, may, impacts, could, might, increasing, less, dramatically,
changing, varied, warming, stress, more, more frequent, altered, ......
**I already HAVE checked my links. I suggest you read them.
you did not read them, did you ?
**Yup.
Post by Sergio
Post by Trevor Wilson
    but there is no real facts or meat to support the conjecture,
take your first link, they say the ocean is more acidic, so where are
the measurements, ?
https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/Quality+of+pH+Measurements+in+the+NODC+Data+Archives
the big change is only 0.1 ph in 100 years, BUT in the article, "This
data set is thus not at all well-suited to showing a change of 0.1 in pH
over the last 100 years"
so the article you are so proud of, says it is bogus.
**Well, no, it does not. In fact, had you taken the time to read the
https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/file/Hawaii+Carbon+Dioxide+Time-Series
Kinda says it all.
no, read the article, and also follow thei link to
https://data.nodc.noaa.gov/woa/WOD13/DOC/wod13_intro.pdf#page=44
"For example, originator’s chemical concentration units reported in
per mass units were converted to per volume units assuming a
constant density of seawater equal to 1025 kg·m ( e.g. ,an
arbitrary choice). "
the study says itself, it is full of holes.
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Sergio
Post by Trevor Wilson
          that link want you to donate to FishWatch.
Post by Trevor Wilson
so all the articles that say "clams are dying due to global worming" are
bullshit.
**OK, you cite YOUR climate science credentials. This should be a laugh.
**[Sounds of crickets]
**[More crickets]
[sound of FishWatch, fishing for your green money]
Watch out, Sergio, this reference of yours is a bit advanced to be
understood by those like Trevor and "kensi" with advanced education and
major climate credentials. If you want them to discuss it, you'd better
link to something with more of their kind of science in it, like New
York Times or BBC.
Trevor Wilson
2018-04-03 06:38:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sergio
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Sergio
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by kensi
Post by Sergio
so, why cant he survive if the global average goes up 0.1
degree F
over
100 years ?
The global average has already gone up around 2 degrees F in just the
past few decades, and the rise is accelerating.
Only if you fudge the data.
And in any event, neither YOU nor any plant or animal could tell the
difference in two rooms of 2 degree F in a few minutes let along in a
few decades. Are you really this stupid? Do you really work in science
or "journalism"?
**I don't have to ask if YOU are this stupid. Everyone already knows
that not only are you as dumb as a pile of rocks, but you can not, nor
will not answer direct questions, when asked. You scurry away. I expect
nothing less from you now.
What does it matter if a human can or can not pick a temperature
difference of a degree C or two? The fact is: The average temperatures
on this planet are rising. Whilst humans may have some difficulty in
             this is where you are wrong,
plants and animals are already adapted to temperature changing over the
year from  about 32 degrees F in winter up to 95 degrees F in the summer.
**Another moron steps up to be demolished. Did you bother reading ANY of
the cites?
that is the point, the cites are bullshit.  why ?
"plants and animals are already adapted to temperature changing over the
year from  about 32 degrees F in winter up to 95 degrees F in the
summer. and golwball worming only changes 0.01 F per year."
**What is "golwball worming"?
**What is "golwball worming"?
**What is "golwball worming"?
Post by Sergio
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Sergio
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Trevor Wilson
a piddily little change caused by global warming average of  0.1 degree
F over a decade will not impact any living thing.
**And yet, it already does.
no, check your links again, it is  conjecture, look for the *weasel
words*, if, may, impacts, could, might, increasing, less, dramatically,
changing, varied, warming, stress, more, more frequent, altered, ......
**I already HAVE checked my links. I suggest you read them.
you did not read them, did you ?
**Yup.
Post by Sergio
Post by Trevor Wilson
    but there is no real facts or meat to support the conjecture,
take your first link, they say the ocean is more acidic, so where are
the measurements, ?
https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/Quality+of+pH+Measurements+in+the+NODC+Data+Archives
the big change is only 0.1 ph in 100 years, BUT in the article, "This
data set is thus not at all well-suited to showing a change of 0.1 in pH
over the last 100 years"
so the article you are so proud of, says it is bogus.
**Well, no, it does not. In fact, had you taken the time to read the
https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/file/Hawaii+Carbon+Dioxide+Time-Series
Kinda says it all.
no, read the article, and also follow thei link to
https://data.nodc.noaa.gov/woa/WOD13/DOC/wod13_intro.pdf#page=44
"For example, originator’s chemical concentration units reported in
per mass units were converted to per volume units assuming a
constant density of seawater equal to 1025 kg·m ( e.g. ,an
arbitrary choice). "
the study says itself, it is full of holes.
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Sergio
Post by Trevor Wilson
          that link want you to donate to FishWatch.
Post by Trevor Wilson
so all the articles that say "clams are dying due to global worming" are
bullshit.
**OK, you cite YOUR climate science credentials. This should be a laugh.
**[Sounds of crickets]
**[More crickets]
[sound of FishWatch, fishing for your green money]
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Sergio
2018-04-03 14:35:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Sergio
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Sergio
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by kensi
Post by Sergio
so, why cant he survive if the global average goes up 0.1
degree F
over
100 years ?
The global average has already gone up around 2 degrees F in
just
the
past few decades, and the rise is accelerating.
Only if you fudge the data.
And in any event, neither YOU nor any plant or animal could tell the
difference in two rooms of 2 degree F in a few minutes let along in a
few decades. Are you really this stupid? Do you really work in science
or "journalism"?
**I don't have to ask if YOU are this stupid. Everyone already knows
that not only are you as dumb as a pile of rocks, but you can not, nor
will not answer direct questions, when asked. You scurry away. I expect
nothing less from you now.
What does it matter if a human can or can not pick a temperature
difference of a degree C or two? The fact is: The average temperatures
on this planet are rising. Whilst humans may have some
difficulty in
              this is where you are wrong,
plants and animals are already adapted to temperature changing over the
year from  about 32 degrees F in winter up to 95 degrees F in the summer.
**Another moron steps up to be demolished. Did you bother reading ANY of
the cites?
that is the point, the cites are bullshit.  why ?
"plants and animals are already adapted to temperature changing over the
year from  about 32 degrees F in winter up to 95 degrees F in the
summer. and golwball worming only changes 0.01 F per year."
**What is "golwball worming"?
**What is "golwball worming"?
**What is "golwball worming"?
the question is, will bunny population explode, rather than implode as
the op paper says, and Austrailia demonstrates the populations will
EXPLODE !! so the op paper is poopus.

I dont want to explain this to you again, try to keep up.
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Sergio
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Sergio
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Trevor Wilson
a piddily little change caused by global warming average of  0.1 degree
F over a decade will not impact any living thing.
**And yet, it already does.
no, check your links again, it is  conjecture, look for the *weasel
words*, if, may, impacts, could, might, increasing, less,
dramatically,
changing, varied, warming, stress, more, more frequent, altered, ......
**I already HAVE checked my links. I suggest you read them.
you did not read them, did you ?
**Yup.
Post by Sergio
Post by Trevor Wilson
     but there is no real facts or meat to support the conjecture,
take your first link, they say the ocean is more acidic, so where are
the measurements, ?
https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/Quality+of+pH+Measurements+in+the+NODC+Data+Archives
the big change is only 0.1 ph in 100 years, BUT in the article, "This
data set is thus not at all well-suited to showing a change of 0.1 in pH
over the last 100 years"
so the article you are so proud of, says it is bogus.
**Well, no, it does not. In fact, had you taken the time to read the
https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/file/Hawaii+Carbon+Dioxide+Time-Series
Kinda says it all.
no, read the article, and also follow thei link to
https://data.nodc.noaa.gov/woa/WOD13/DOC/wod13_intro.pdf#page=44
"For example, originator’s chemical  concentration  units  reported  in
per mass  units  were  converted  to  per volume units  assuming  a
constant density  of  seawater  equal  to  1025  kg·m ( e.g. ,an
arbitrary choice). "
the study says itself, it is full of holes.
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Sergio
Post by Trevor Wilson
           that link want you to donate to FishWatch.
Post by Trevor Wilson
so all the articles that say "clams are dying due to global
worming"
are
bullshit.
**OK, you cite YOUR climate science credentials. This should be a laugh.
**[Sounds of crickets]
**[More crickets]
  [sound of FishWatch, fishing for your green money]
Trevor Wilson
2018-04-03 20:03:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sergio
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by kensi
Post by Sergio
so, why cant he survive if the global average goes up 0.1
degree F
over
100 years ?
The global average has already gone up around 2 degrees F in
just
the
past few decades, and the rise is accelerating.
Only if you fudge the data.
And in any event, neither YOU nor any plant or animal could tell the
difference in two rooms of 2 degree F in a few minutes let along in a
few decades. Are you really this stupid? Do you really work in science
or "journalism"?
**I don't have to ask if YOU are this stupid. Everyone already knows
that not only are you as dumb as a pile of rocks, but you can not, nor
will not answer direct questions, when asked. You scurry away. I expect
nothing less from you now.
What does it matter if a human can or can not pick a temperature
difference of a degree C or two? The fact is: The average temperatures
on this planet are rising. Whilst humans may have some difficulty in
              this is where you are wrong,
plants and animals are already adapted to temperature changing over the
year from  about 32 degrees F in winter up to 95 degrees F in the summer.
**Another moron steps up to be demolished. Did you bother reading ANY of
the cites?
that is the point, the cites are bullshit.  why ?
"plants and animals are already adapted to temperature changing over the
year from  about 32 degrees F in winter up to 95 degrees F in the
summer. and golwball worming only changes 0.01 F per year."
**What is "golwball worming"?
**What is "golwball worming"?
**What is "golwball worming"?
the question is, will bunny population explode, rather than implode as
the op paper says, and Austrailia demonstrates the populations will
EXPLODE !! so the op paper is poopus.
I dont want to explain this to you again, try to keep up.
**I'll ask the question again:

What is golwball worming?

You appear to be attempting to say something to a native English speaker
(me), that isn't English. I seek merely to understand what the fuck
you're trying to say.

What is golwball worming?

Please elaborate and we can move on.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Skeeter
2018-04-03 20:26:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 4 Apr 2018 06:03:50 +1000, Trevor Wilson
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Sergio
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by kensi
Post by Sergio
so, why cant he survive if the global average goes up 0.1
degree F
over
100 years ?
The global average has already gone up around 2 degrees F in
just
the
past few decades, and the rise is accelerating.
Only if you fudge the data.
And in any event, neither YOU nor any plant or animal could tell the
difference in two rooms of 2 degree F in a few minutes let along in a
few decades. Are you really this stupid? Do you really work in
science
or "journalism"?
**I don't have to ask if YOU are this stupid. Everyone already knows
that not only are you as dumb as a pile of rocks, but you can not, nor
will not answer direct questions, when asked. You scurry away. I expect
nothing less from you now.
What does it matter if a human can or can not pick a temperature
difference of a degree C or two? The fact is: The average temperatures
on this planet are rising. Whilst humans may have some difficulty in
              this is where you are wrong,
plants and animals are already adapted to temperature changing over the
year from  about 32 degrees F in winter up to 95 degrees F in the
summer.
**Another moron steps up to be demolished. Did you bother reading ANY of
the cites?
that is the point, the cites are bullshit.  why ?
"plants and animals are already adapted to temperature changing over the
year from  about 32 degrees F in winter up to 95 degrees F in the
summer. and golwball worming only changes 0.01 F per year."
**What is "golwball worming"?
**What is "golwball worming"?
**What is "golwball worming"?
the question is, will bunny population explode, rather than implode as
the op paper says, and Austrailia demonstrates the populations will
EXPLODE !! so the op paper is poopus.
I dont want to explain this to you again, try to keep up.
What is golwball worming?
You appear to be attempting to say something to a native English speaker
(me), that isn't English. I seek merely to understand what the fuck
you're trying to say.
What is golwball worming?
Please elaborate and we can move on.
A true scientist like yourself be side tracked by a little typo?

benj
2018-04-01 00:40:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sergio
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by kensi
Post by Sergio
so, why cant he survive if the global average goes up 0.1 degree F over
100 years ?
The global average has already gone up around 2 degrees F in just the
past few decades, and the rise is accelerating.
Only if you fudge the data.
And in any event, neither YOU nor any plant or animal could tell the
difference in two rooms of 2 degree F in a few minutes let along in a
few decades. Are you really this stupid? Do you really work in science
or "journalism"?
**I don't have to ask if YOU are this stupid. Everyone already knows
that not only are you as dumb as a pile of rocks, but you can not, nor
will not answer direct questions, when asked. You scurry away. I expect
nothing less from you now.
What does it matter if a human can or can not pick a temperature
difference of a degree C or two? The fact is: The average temperatures
on this planet are rising. Whilst humans may have some difficulty in
this is where you are wrong,
plants and animals are already adapted to temperature changing over the
year from about 32 degrees F in winter up to 95 degrees F in the summer.
a piddily little change caused by global warming average of 0.1 degree
F over a decade will not impact any living thing.
so all the articles that say "clams are dying due to global worming" are
bullshit.
Trevor and "kensi"/Nads are the personification of bullshit.
Trevor Wilson
2018-04-01 01:28:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by kensi
Post by Sergio
so, why cant he survive if the global average goes up 0.1 degree F over
100 years ?
The global average has already gone up around 2 degrees F in just the
past few decades, and the rise is accelerating.
Only if you fudge the data.
And in any event, neither YOU nor any plant or animal could tell the
difference in two rooms of 2 degree F in a few minutes let along in a
few decades. Are you really this stupid? Do you really work in science
or "journalism"?
**I don't have to ask if YOU are this stupid. Everyone already knows
that not only are you as dumb as a pile of rocks, but you can not, nor
will not answer direct questions, when asked. You scurry away. I expect
nothing less from you now.
What does it matter if a human can or can not pick a temperature
difference of a degree C or two? The fact is: The average temperatures
on this planet are rising. Whilst humans may have some difficulty in
           this is where you are wrong,
plants and animals are already adapted to temperature changing over the
year from  about 32 degrees F in winter up to 95 degrees F in the summer.
a piddily little change caused by global warming average of  0.1 degree
F over a decade will not impact any living thing.
so all the articles that say "clams are dying due to global worming" are
bullshit.
Trevor and "kensi"/Nads are the personification of bullshit.
**So you keep blathering on about, yet you STILL scurry away when asked
the tough questions.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
benj
2018-04-01 02:05:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by kensi
Post by Sergio
so, why cant he survive if the global average goes up 0.1 degree F over
100 years ?
The global average has already gone up around 2 degrees F in just the
past few decades, and the rise is accelerating.
Only if you fudge the data.
And in any event, neither YOU nor any plant or animal could tell the
difference in two rooms of 2 degree F in a few minutes let along in a
few decades. Are you really this stupid? Do you really work in science
or "journalism"?
**I don't have to ask if YOU are this stupid. Everyone already knows
that not only are you as dumb as a pile of rocks, but you can not, nor
will not answer direct questions, when asked. You scurry away. I expect
nothing less from you now.
What does it matter if a human can or can not pick a temperature
difference of a degree C or two? The fact is: The average temperatures
on this planet are rising. Whilst humans may have some difficulty in
           this is where you are wrong,
plants and animals are already adapted to temperature changing over the
year from  about 32 degrees F in winter up to 95 degrees F in the summer.
a piddily little change caused by global warming average of  0.1 degree
F over a decade will not impact any living thing.
so all the articles that say "clams are dying due to global worming" are
bullshit.
Trevor and "kensi"/Nads are the personification of bullshit.
**So you keep blathering on about, yet you STILL scurry away when asked
the tough questions.
You complain because I'm here making you froth and then say I've
scurried away. You know you have no more "tough questions" than the OZ
propaganda site run by the failed cartoonist. There can be no
"discussion" with you because you have an agenda and will make up any
fantasy and tell any lie to "prove" you've "won".

You are constantly being spanked by Me, Sergio, Bigdog and others and
yet you keep coming back saying we said nothing. Are you really that
much into B&D? How about you put a red rubber ball in your big mouth. I
think you'll really enjoy it.
Libtard
2018-04-01 08:57:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by kensi
Post by Sergio
so, why cant he survive if the global average goes up 0.1 degree
F over 100 years ?
The global average has already gone up around 2 degrees F in just
the past few decades, and the rise is accelerating.
Only if you fudge the data.
And in any event, neither YOU nor any plant or animal could tell
the difference in two rooms of 2 degree F in a few minutes let
along in a few decades. Are you really this stupid? Do you really
work in science or "journalism"?
**I don't have to ask if YOU are this stupid. Everyone already knows
that not only are you as dumb as a pile of rocks, but you can not,
nor will not answer direct questions, when asked. You scurry away. I
expect nothing less from you now.
What does it matter if a human can or can not pick a temperature
difference of a degree C or two? The fact is: The average
temperatures on this planet are rising. Whilst humans may have some
difficulty in picking the temperature change that small, many plants
           this is where you are wrong,
plants and animals are already adapted to temperature changing over
the year from  about 32 degrees F in winter up to 95 degrees F in the
summer.
a piddily little change caused by global warming average of  0.1
degree F over a decade will not impact any living thing.
so all the articles that say "clams are dying due to global worming"
are bullshit.
Trevor and "kensi"/Nads are the personification of bullshit.
**So you keep blathering on about, yet you STILL scurry away when asked
the tough questions.
We in AUK have an award for that: Coward of the Month. You, Trevor sir,
seem to have found a worthy candidate. Want to enter him in May's awards
competition?
Post by benj
You complain because I'm here making you froth and then say I've
scurried away. You know you have no more "tough questions" than the OZ
propaganda site run by the failed cartoonist. There can be no
"discussion" with you because you have an agenda and will make up any
fantasy and tell any lie to "prove" you've "won".
And if I'm not too terribly mistaken we also have an irony award ...

[politics group snecked]
--
Libtard, AUK's current Vote Wrangler
Your Friendly Neighbourhood Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛
2018-04-01 09:42:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 1 Apr 2018 08:57:37 -0000 (UTC), LO AND BEHOLD; "Libtard
<***@sandernistas.edu>" determined that the following was of great
importance and subsequently decided to freely share it with us in
Post by Libtard
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by kensi
Post by Sergio
so, why cant he survive if the global average goes up 0.1 degree F over
100 years ?
The global average has already gone up around 2 degrees F in just the
past few decades, and the rise is accelerating.
Only if you fudge the data. And in any event, neither YOU nor any plant
or animal could tell the difference in two rooms of 2 degree F in a few
minutes let along in a few decades. Are you really this stupid? Do you
really work in science or "journalism"?
**I don't have to ask if YOU are this stupid. Everyone already knows
that not only are you as dumb as a pile of rocks, but you can not, nor
will not answer direct questions, when asked. You scurry away. I expect
nothing less from you now. What does it matter if a human can or can not
pick a temperature difference of a degree C or two? The fact is: The
average temperatures on this planet are rising. Whilst humans may have
some difficulty in picking the temperature change that small, many
           this is where you are wrong, plants and animals are
already adapted to temperature changing over the year from  about 32
degrees F in winter up to 95 degrees F in the summer. a piddily little
change caused by global warming average of  0.1 degree F over a decade
will not impact any living thing. so all the articles that say "clams
are dying due to global worming" are bullshit.
Trevor and "kensi"/Nads are the personification of bullshit.
**So you keep blathering on about, yet you STILL scurry away when asked
the tough questions.
We in AUK have an award for that: Coward of the Month. You, Trevor sir,
seem to have found a worthy candidate. Want to enter him in May's awards
competition?
Post by benj
You complain because I'm here making you froth and then say I've
scurried away. You know you have no more "tough questions" than the OZ
propaganda site run by the failed cartoonist. There can be no
"discussion" with you because you have an agenda and will make up any
fantasy and tell any lie to "prove" you've "won".
And if I'm not too terribly mistaken we also have an irony award ...
[politics group snecked]
have you consulted gerg's killfile about this?
--
THIS SPACE FOR RENT
http://youtu.be/iB6B8jGSdLA

"Thanks to muzzies and their apologist-enablers like puppy whistle, this
seems to be the new norm in the world. It's spreading like a cancer,
and it's time we admit we're at war with pure evil. We need to put an
end to this muzzie plague, or life on Earth is going to become pure hell
everywhere. We need to get these people out of every civilized
country, and there's only one way to do it. IOW, we have to become
like them, with an emphasis on expediency over cruelty." - Checkmate (of alt.checkmate)

"Pussy Willow has just proven that Trump's crackdown on previously
unenforced immigration policies is working. We'll deal with the domestic
terrorists as needed, but we don't need to be letting the muzzie
terrorists get a foothold in our country too. One need only look at what
they're doing in Europe right now to know we're doing the right thing by
keeping them out, which is our right and our duty. - Checkmate (#1 pussy willow fan)

-

"You just made puppy whistle's sig line longer." - Janithor

-

"If I have a complaint about the (Southern Poverty) Law Center's description (of the alt-right movement), it is the phrase "heavy use of social media," which implies the alt-right is a real-world movement which uses a lot of social media. This is backwards: it is an online movement which occasionally appears in the real world. Where it gets punched." - Jason Rhode

-

"I think we should destroy every last fucking mosque in America." - "Checkmate, DoW #1" <***@The.Edge> proves for us that white males are violent in Message-ID: <***@news.altopia.com>

-

Golden Killfile, June 2005
KOTM, November 2006
Bob Allisat Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker, November 2006
Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart, November 2006
Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart, September 2007
Tony Sidaway Memorial "Drama Queen" Award, November 2006
Busted Urinal Award, April 2007
Order of the Holey Sockpuppet, September 2007
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle, September 2006
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle, April 2008
Tinfoil Sombrero, February 2007
AUK Mascot, September 2007
Putting the Awards Out of Order to Screw With the OCD Fuckheads, March 2016
Skeeter
2018-04-01 12:29:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 1 Apr 2018 08:57:37 -0000 (UTC), Libtard
Post by Libtard
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by kensi
Post by Sergio
so, why cant he survive if the global average goes up 0.1 degree
F over 100 years ?
The global average has already gone up around 2 degrees F in just
the past few decades, and the rise is accelerating.
Only if you fudge the data.
And in any event, neither YOU nor any plant or animal could tell
the difference in two rooms of 2 degree F in a few minutes let
along in a few decades. Are you really this stupid? Do you really
work in science or "journalism"?
**I don't have to ask if YOU are this stupid. Everyone already knows
that not only are you as dumb as a pile of rocks, but you can not,
nor will not answer direct questions, when asked. You scurry away. I
expect nothing less from you now.
What does it matter if a human can or can not pick a temperature
difference of a degree C or two? The fact is: The average
temperatures on this planet are rising. Whilst humans may have some
difficulty in picking the temperature change that small, many plants
           this is where you are wrong,
plants and animals are already adapted to temperature changing over
the year from  about 32 degrees F in winter up to 95 degrees F in the
summer.
a piddily little change caused by global warming average of  0.1
degree F over a decade will not impact any living thing.
so all the articles that say "clams are dying due to global worming"
are bullshit.
Trevor and "kensi"/Nads are the personification of bullshit.
**So you keep blathering on about, yet you STILL scurry away when asked
the tough questions.
We in AUK have an award for that: Coward of the Month. You, Trevor sir,
seem to have found a worthy candidate. Want to enter him in May's awards
competition?
<TINW> Paul.

You can't even post in AUK...it is to laff.
Post by Libtard
Post by benj
You complain because I'm here making you froth and then say I've
scurried away. You know you have no more "tough questions" than the OZ
propaganda site run by the failed cartoonist. There can be no
"discussion" with you because you have an agenda and will make up any
fantasy and tell any lie to "prove" you've "won".
And if I'm not too terribly mistaken we also have an irony award ...
You have nothing Paul.
Post by Libtard
[politics group snecked]
Did you snip AUK too?

<snacker>
--
MAUKGA
Libtard
2018-04-02 17:34:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Skeeter
On Sun, 1 Apr 2018 08:57:37 -0000 (UTC), Libtard
Post by Libtard
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by kensi
Post by Sergio
so, why cant he survive if the global average goes up 0.1
degree F over 100 years ?
The global average has already gone up around 2 degrees F in
just the past few decades, and the rise is accelerating.
Only if you fudge the data.
And in any event, neither YOU nor any plant or animal could tell
the difference in two rooms of 2 degree F in a few minutes let
along in a few decades. Are you really this stupid? Do you really
work in science or "journalism"?
**I don't have to ask if YOU are this stupid. Everyone already
knows that not only are you as dumb as a pile of rocks, but you
can not, nor will not answer direct questions, when asked. You
scurry away. I expect nothing less from you now.
What does it matter if a human can or can not pick a temperature
difference of a degree C or two? The fact is: The average
temperatures on this planet are rising. Whilst humans may have
some difficulty in picking the temperature change that small, many
           this is where you are wrong,
plants and animals are already adapted to temperature changing over
the year from  about 32 degrees F in winter up to 95 degrees F in
the summer.
a piddily little change caused by global warming average of  0.1
degree F over a decade will not impact any living thing.
so all the articles that say "clams are dying due to global
worming" are bullshit.
Trevor and "kensi"/Nads are the personification of bullshit.
**So you keep blathering on about, yet you STILL scurry away when
asked the tough questions.
We in AUK have an award for that: Coward of the Month. You, Trevor sir,
seem to have found a worthy candidate. Want to enter him in May's awards
competition?
<TINW> Paul.
You can't even post in AUK...it is to laff.
Post by Libtard
Post by benj
You complain because I'm here making you froth and then say I've
scurried away. You know you have no more "tough questions" than the OZ
propaganda site run by the failed cartoonist. There can be no
"discussion" with you because you have an agenda and will make up any
fantasy and tell any lie to "prove" you've "won".
And if I'm not too terribly mistaken we also have an irony award ...
You have nothing Paul.
I'm sorry; who is Paul? I haven't seen anybody posting here with that name.
Post by Skeeter
Post by Libtard
[politics group snecked]
Did you snip AUK too?
No. AUK is emphatically where kooks like you and benj belong.
Skeeter
2018-04-02 19:26:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 2 Apr 2018 17:34:48 -0000 (UTC), Libtard
Post by Libtard
Post by Skeeter
On Sun, 1 Apr 2018 08:57:37 -0000 (UTC), Libtard
Post by Libtard
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by kensi
Post by Sergio
so, why cant he survive if the global average goes up 0.1
degree F over 100 years ?
The global average has already gone up around 2 degrees F in
just the past few decades, and the rise is accelerating.
Only if you fudge the data.
And in any event, neither YOU nor any plant or animal could tell
the difference in two rooms of 2 degree F in a few minutes let
along in a few decades. Are you really this stupid? Do you really
work in science or "journalism"?
**I don't have to ask if YOU are this stupid. Everyone already
knows that not only are you as dumb as a pile of rocks, but you
can not, nor will not answer direct questions, when asked. You
scurry away. I expect nothing less from you now.
What does it matter if a human can or can not pick a temperature
difference of a degree C or two? The fact is: The average
temperatures on this planet are rising. Whilst humans may have
some difficulty in picking the temperature change that small, many
           this is where you are wrong,
plants and animals are already adapted to temperature changing over
the year from  about 32 degrees F in winter up to 95 degrees F in
the summer.
a piddily little change caused by global warming average of  0.1
degree F over a decade will not impact any living thing.
so all the articles that say "clams are dying due to global
worming" are bullshit.
Trevor and "kensi"/Nads are the personification of bullshit.
**So you keep blathering on about, yet you STILL scurry away when
asked the tough questions.
We in AUK have an award for that: Coward of the Month. You, Trevor sir,
seem to have found a worthy candidate. Want to enter him in May's awards
competition?
<TINW> Paul.
You can't even post in AUK...it is to laff.
Post by Libtard
Post by benj
You complain because I'm here making you froth and then say I've
scurried away. You know you have no more "tough questions" than the OZ
propaganda site run by the failed cartoonist. There can be no
"discussion" with you because you have an agenda and will make up any
fantasy and tell any lie to "prove" you've "won".
And if I'm not too terribly mistaken we also have an irony award ...
You have nothing Paul.
I'm sorry; who is Paul? I haven't seen anybody posting here with that name.
Post by Skeeter
Post by Libtard
[politics group snecked]
Did you snip AUK too?
No. AUK is emphatically where kooks like you and benj belong.
Are you having a happy day Paul?
--
MAUKGA
Nadegda
2018-04-02 20:05:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
Post by Skeeter
On Mon, 2 Apr 2018 17:34:48 -0000 (UTC), Libtard
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.checkmate,alt.usenet.kooks
[snip]
Post by Skeeter
<TINW> Paul.
You can't even post in AUK...it is to laff.
[snip]
Post by Skeeter
No. AUK is emphatically where kooks like you and benj belong.
Are you having a happy day Paul?
But he can't be Paul, or at least not the Paul you were talking about. Per
your own prior statement, that Paul "can't even post in AUK", but
Libtard ... did. Ergo, he's not that Paul.
--
FNVWe Nadegda

Fakey couldn't teach a monkey to eat a banana, much less answer a direct
question posed to him. -- Fakey's Dogwhistle Holder
Sergio
2018-04-02 20:41:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
Post by Skeeter
On Mon, 2 Apr 2018 17:34:48 -0000 (UTC), Libtard
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.checkmate,alt.usenet.kooks
[snip]
Post by Skeeter
<TINW> Paul.
You can't even post in AUK...it is to laff.
[snip]
Post by Skeeter
No. AUK is emphatically where kooks like you and benj belong.
Are you having a happy day Paul?
But he can't be Paul, or at least not the Paul you were talking about. Per
your own prior statement, that Paul "can't even post in AUK", but
Libtard ... did. Ergo, he's not that Paul.
if Nads negates, then it must be Paul.... PAUL !!!
Your Friendly Neighbourhood Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛
2018-04-01 04:14:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 1 Apr 2018 11:28:57 +1000, LO AND BEHOLD; "Trevor Wilson
<***@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au>" determined that the following was
of great importance and subsequently decided to freely share it with us
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by kensi
Post by Sergio
so, why cant he survive if the global average goes up 0.1 degree F over
100 years ?
The global average has already gone up around 2 degrees F in just the
past few decades, and the rise is accelerating.
Only if you fudge the data. And in any event, neither YOU nor any plant
or animal could tell the difference in two rooms of 2 degree F in a few
minutes let along in a few decades. Are you really this stupid? Do you
really work in science or "journalism"?
**I don't have to ask if YOU are this stupid. Everyone already knows
that not only are you as dumb as a pile of rocks, but you can not, nor
will not answer direct questions, when asked. You scurry away. I expect
nothing less from you now. What does it matter if a human can or can not
pick a temperature difference of a degree C or two? The fact is: The
average temperatures on this planet are rising. Whilst humans may have
some difficulty in picking the temperature change that small, many
           this is where you are wrong, plants and animals are
already adapted to temperature changing over the year from  about 32
degrees F in winter up to 95 degrees F in the summer. a piddily little
change caused by global warming average of  0.1 degree F over a decade
will not impact any living thing. so all the articles that say "clams
are dying due to global worming" are bullshit.
Trevor and "kensi"/Nads are the personification of bullshit.
**So you keep blathering on about, yet you STILL scurry away when asked
the tough questions.
they might be one of those morons who happen to have the same exact killfile as gerg somehow.

it's always amazing to watch people try for weeks to figure out some new dufus's real ident and i already know bc gergles is such a dumbfuck.
--
THIS SPACE FOR RENT
http://youtu.be/iB6B8jGSdLA

"Thanks to muzzies and their apologist-enablers like puppy whistle, this
seems to be the new norm in the world. It's spreading like a cancer,
and it's time we admit we're at war with pure evil. We need to put an
end to this muzzie plague, or life on Earth is going to become pure hell
everywhere. We need to get these people out of every civilized
country, and there's only one way to do it. IOW, we have to become
like them, with an emphasis on expediency over cruelty." - Checkmate (of alt.checkmate)

"Pussy Willow has just proven that Trump's crackdown on previously
unenforced immigration policies is working. We'll deal with the domestic
terrorists as needed, but we don't need to be letting the muzzie
terrorists get a foothold in our country too. One need only look at what
they're doing in Europe right now to know we're doing the right thing by
keeping them out, which is our right and our duty. - Checkmate (#1 pussy willow fan)

-

"You just made puppy whistle's sig line longer." - Janithor

-

"If I have a complaint about the (Southern Poverty) Law Center's description (of the alt-right movement), it is the phrase "heavy use of social media," which implies the alt-right is a real-world movement which uses a lot of social media. This is backwards: it is an online movement which occasionally appears in the real world. Where it gets punched." - Jason Rhode

-

"I think we should destroy every last fucking mosque in America." - "Checkmate, DoW #1" <***@The.Edge> proves for us that white males are violent in Message-ID: <***@news.altopia.com>

-

Golden Killfile, June 2005
KOTM, November 2006
Bob Allisat Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker, November 2006
Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart, November 2006
Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart, September 2007
Tony Sidaway Memorial "Drama Queen" Award, November 2006
Busted Urinal Award, April 2007
Order of the Holey Sockpuppet, September 2007
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle, September 2006
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle, April 2008
Tinfoil Sombrero, February 2007
AUK Mascot, September 2007
Putting the Awards Out of Order to Screw With the OCD Fuckheads, March 2016
Sergio
2018-04-01 01:23:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by kensi
Post by Sergio
so, why cant he survive if the global average goes up 0.1 degree F over
100 years ?
The global average has already gone up around 2 degrees F in just the
past few decades, and the rise is accelerating.
Only if you fudge the data.
And in any event, neither YOU nor any plant or animal could tell the
difference in two rooms of 2 degree F in a few minutes let along in a
few decades. Are you really this stupid? Do you really work in science
or "journalism"?
**I don't have to ask if YOU are this stupid. Everyone already knows
that not only are you as dumb as a pile of rocks, but you can not, nor
will not answer direct questions, when asked. You scurry away. I expect
nothing less from you now.
What does it matter if a human can or can not pick a temperature
difference of a degree C or two? The fact is: The average temperatures
on this planet are rising. Whilst humans may have some difficulty in
If you want to know what happened to you;
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/9426205/Cannabis-smoking-permanently-lowers-IQ.html
%
2018-04-01 01:28:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sergio
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by benj
Post by kensi
Post by Sergio
so, why cant he survive if the global average goes up 0.1 degree F over
100 years ?
The global average has already gone up around 2 degrees F in just the
past few decades, and the rise is accelerating.
Only if you fudge the data.
And in any event, neither YOU nor any plant or animal could tell the
difference in two rooms of 2 degree F in a few minutes let along in a
few decades. Are you really this stupid? Do you really work in science
or "journalism"?
**I don't have to ask if YOU are this stupid. Everyone already knows
that not only are you as dumb as a pile of rocks, but you can not, nor
will not answer direct questions, when asked. You scurry away. I expect
nothing less from you now.
What does it matter if a human can or can not pick a temperature
difference of a degree C or two? The fact is: The average temperatures
on this planet are rising. Whilst humans may have some difficulty in
If you want to know what happened to you;
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/9426205/Cannabis-smoking-permanently-lowers-IQ.html
i can prove this
J***@.
1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by kensi
Specialised species like the mountain hare,
adapted to life at high altitudes,
are particularly affected by climate change.
Yeah, change is a bitch, and so are you.
Lay off the "coffee" please.

"Uppers" ( caffeine, cocaine, meth, adderall, and testosterone )
make us obnoxious and arrogant ( "Bow Down before me, you worm", style ).

China is winning the game (imperialism) because
they aren't as obnoxious/arrogant as the west.
With them, it's just business, not intrusion.
Sergio
2018-03-29 16:14:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J***@.
Post by kensi
Specialised species like the mountain hare,
adapted to life at high altitudes,
are particularly affected by climate change.
Yeah, change is a bitch, and so are you.
Lay off the "coffee" please.
"Uppers" ( caffeine, cocaine, meth, adderall, and testosterone )
make us obnoxious and arrogant ( "Bow Down before me, you worm", style ).
China is winning the game (imperialism) because
they aren't as obnoxious/arrogant as the west.
With them, it's just business, not intrusion.
bullshit, to get a contract in china, you have to give away lots of
your intellectual property to them. Then they go into competition with
you and run you out of the market.

China plays for keeps.
J***@.
1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J***@.
China is winning the game (imperialism) because
they aren't as obnoxious/arrogant as the west.
With them, it's just business, not intrusion.
to get a contract in China,
you have to give them your intellectual property.
Then don't do it.
If your ambition is that low, you deserve it, right ?
Sergio
2018-03-29 20:05:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J***@.
Post by J***@.
China is winning the game (imperialism) because
they aren't as obnoxious/arrogant as the west.
With them, it's just business, not intrusion.
to get a contract in China,
you have to give them your intellectual property.
Then don't do it.
If your ambition is that low, you deserve it, right ?
I personally know the US Government approved Gov contractors to sell
electronic parts of jet fighters, and also train Taiwan and Isreal
engineers to design the same, and give them the IP.

our own Gov selling us out.
benj
2018-03-29 22:00:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sergio
Post by J***@.
Post by J***@.
China is winning the game (imperialism) because
they aren't as obnoxious/arrogant as the west.
With them, it's just business, not intrusion.
to get a contract in China,
you have to give them your intellectual property.
Then don't do it.
If your ambition is that low, you deserve it, right ?
I personally know the US Government approved Gov contractors to sell
electronic parts of jet fighters, and also train Taiwan and Isreal
engineers to design the same, and give them the IP.
our own Gov selling us out.
Wait a minute! Government = politicians = ?... A sell-out is something
new? I don't think so.
benj
2018-03-29 17:53:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sergio
Post by J***@.
Post by kensi
Specialised species like the mountain hare,
adapted to life at high altitudes,
are particularly affected by climate change.
Yeah, change is a bitch, and so are you.
Lay off the "coffee" please.
"Uppers" ( caffeine, cocaine, meth, adderall, and testosterone )
make us obnoxious and arrogant ( "Bow Down before me, you worm", style ).
China is winning the game (imperialism) because
they aren't as obnoxious/arrogant as the west.
With them, it's just business, not intrusion.
bullshit, to get a contract in china, you have to give away lots of
your intellectual property to them. Then they go into competition with
you and run you out of the market.
China plays for keeps.
If you do any internet buying from China, you'll quickly discover that
if they ever learn to speak proper English they will rule the world!
mixed nuts
2018-03-29 18:32:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by benj
Post by J***@.
Post by kensi
Specialised species like the mountain hare,
adapted to life at high altitudes,
are particularly affected by climate change.
Yeah, change is a bitch, and so are you.
Lay off the "coffee" please.
"Uppers" ( caffeine, cocaine, meth, adderall, and testosterone )
make us obnoxious and arrogant ( "Bow Down before me, you worm", style ).
China is winning the game (imperialism) because
they aren't as obnoxious/arrogant as the west.
With them, it's just business, not intrusion.
bullshit,  to get a contract in china, you have to give away lots of
your intellectual property to them.  Then they go into competition with
you and run you out of the market.
China plays for keeps.
If you do any internet buying from China, you'll quickly discover that
if they ever learn to speak proper English they will rule the world!
They already speak English. They learn it in school.
--
Grizzly H.
Checkmate
2018-03-29 20:34:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts by
Post by mixed nuts
Post by benj
Post by J***@.
Post by kensi
Specialised species like the mountain hare,
adapted to life at high altitudes,
are particularly affected by climate change.
Yeah, change is a bitch, and so are you.
Lay off the "coffee" please.
"Uppers" ( caffeine, cocaine, meth, adderall, and testosterone )
make us obnoxious and arrogant ( "Bow Down before me, you worm", style ).
China is winning the game (imperialism) because
they aren't as obnoxious/arrogant as the west.
With them, it's just business, not intrusion.
bullshit,  to get a contract in china, you have to give away lots of
your intellectual property to them.  Then they go into competition with
you and run you out of the market.
China plays for keeps.
If you do any internet buying from China, you'll quickly discover that
if they ever learn to speak proper English they will rule the world!
They already speak English. They learn it in school.
They speak it you can understand, it is for your good life!
--
Checkmate ®
Author, Humorist, Cynic
Philosopher, Humanitarian
Poet, Elektrishun to the Stars
Copyright © 2018
all rights reserved

In loving memory of The Battle Kitten
May 2010-February 12, 2017

"There are many here among us,
who feel that life is but a joke."
benj
2018-03-29 21:54:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by benj
Post by J***@.
Post by kensi
Specialised species like the mountain hare,
adapted to life at high altitudes,
are particularly affected by climate change.
Yeah, change is a bitch, and so are you.
Lay off the "coffee" please.
"Uppers" ( caffeine, cocaine, meth, adderall, and testosterone )
make us obnoxious and arrogant ( "Bow Down before me, you worm", style ).
China is winning the game (imperialism) because
they aren't as obnoxious/arrogant as the west.
With them, it's just business, not intrusion.
bullshit,  to get a contract in china, you have to give away lots of
your intellectual property to them.  Then they go into competition with
you and run you out of the market.
China plays for keeps.
If you do any internet buying from China, you'll quickly discover that
if they ever learn to speak proper English they will rule the world!
They already speak English.  They learn it in school.
Obviously you have not been to Chinese websites or read any Chinese
"instruction manuals". They Learn Engrish. I said PROPER English, dude.

http://www.engrish.com/category/chinglish/
Sergio
2018-03-29 23:33:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by benj
Post by benj
Post by J***@.
Post by kensi
Specialised species like the mountain hare,
adapted to life at high altitudes,
are particularly affected by climate change.
Yeah, change is a bitch, and so are you.
Lay off the "coffee" please.
"Uppers" ( caffeine, cocaine, meth, adderall, and testosterone )
make us obnoxious and arrogant ( "Bow Down before me, you worm", style ).
China is winning the game (imperialism) because
they aren't as obnoxious/arrogant as the west.
With them, it's just business, not intrusion.
bullshit,  to get a contract in china, you have to give away lots of
your intellectual property to them.  Then they go into competition with
you and run you out of the market.
China plays for keeps.
If you do any internet buying from China, you'll quickly discover
that if they ever learn to speak proper English they will rule the
world!
They already speak English.  They learn it in school.
Obviously you have not been to Chinese websites or read any Chinese
"instruction manuals". They Learn Engrish. I said PROPER English, dude.
http://www.engrish.com/category/chinglish/
great website, "Shi Ting" toilet paper......
Loading...