Discussion:
Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps
(too old to reply)
kensi
2018-03-29 10:12:30 UTC
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
Permalink
Raw Message
On 3/29/2018 5:12 AM, kensi wrote:
> 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
Permalink
Raw Message
On 3/29/2018 9:55 AM, Sergio wrote:
> 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
Permalink
Raw Message
On 3/29/2018 9:03 AM, kensi wrote:
> On 3/29/2018 9:55 AM, Sergio wrote:
>> 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
Permalink
Raw Message
On 3/29/2018 10:03 AM, kensi wrote:
> On 3/29/2018 9:55 AM, Sergio wrote:
>> 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
Permalink
Raw Message
On 3/29/2018 12:51 PM, benj wrote:
> On 3/29/2018 10:03 AM, kensi wrote:
>> On 3/29/2018 9:55 AM, Sergio wrote:
>>> 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
Permalink
Raw Message
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
On Thu, 29 Mar 2018 13:56:15 -0500, Sergio wrote:

> 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
Permalink
Raw Message
On 3/30/2018 12:40 AM, Nadegda wrote:
> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
> On Thu, 29 Mar 2018 13:56:15 -0500, Sergio wrote:
>
>> 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
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 05:40:23 -0000 (UTC), Nadegda
<***@gmail.invalid> wrote:

>Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
>On Thu, 29 Mar 2018 13:56:15 -0500, Sergio wrote:
>
>> 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
Permalink
Raw Message
On 3/30/2018 1:40 AM, Nadegda wrote:
> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
> On Thu, 29 Mar 2018 13:56:15 -0500, Sergio wrote:
>
>> 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
Permalink
Raw Message
On 31/03/2018 2:53 AM, benj wrote:
> On 3/30/2018 1:40 AM, Nadegda wrote:
>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
>> On Thu, 29 Mar 2018 13:56:15 -0500, Sergio wrote:
>>
>>> 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.

>
> 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
Permalink
Raw Message
On 3/31/2018 5:30 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 31/03/2018 2:53 AM, benj wrote:
>> On 3/30/2018 1:40 AM, Nadegda wrote:
>>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
>>> On Thu, 29 Mar 2018 13:56:15 -0500, Sergio wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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.

>> 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
Permalink
Raw Message
On 1/04/2018 9:46 AM, benj wrote:
> On 3/31/2018 5:30 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 31/03/2018 2:53 AM, benj wrote:
>>> On 3/30/2018 1:40 AM, Nadegda wrote:
>>>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes,
>>>> melt!
>>>> On Thu, 29 Mar 2018 13:56:15 -0500, Sergio wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 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.

>
>>> 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 ūüź∂Á¨õ
2018-04-01 00:26:11 UTC
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
in <***@mid.individual.net>:

>On 1/04/2018 9:46 AM, benj wrote:
>>On 3/31/2018 5:30 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>On 31/03/2018 2:53 AM, benj wrote:
>>>>On 3/30/2018 1:40 AM, Nadegda wrote:
>>>>>Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
>>>>>On Thu, 29 Mar 2018 13:56:15 -0500, Sergio wrote:
>>>>>>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.
>
>>
>>>>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
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=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
Permalink
Raw Message
On 3/31/2018 8:08 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 1/04/2018 9:46 AM, benj wrote:
>> On 3/31/2018 5:30 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>> On 31/03/2018 2:53 AM, benj wrote:
>>>> On 3/30/2018 1:40 AM, Nadegda wrote:
>>>>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes,
>>>>> melt!
>>>>> On Thu, 29 Mar 2018 13:56:15 -0500, Sergio wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>
>>
>>>> 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
Permalink
Raw Message
On 1/04/2018 10:56 AM, benj wrote:
> On 3/31/2018 8:08 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 1/04/2018 9:46 AM, benj wrote:
>>> On 3/31/2018 5:30 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>> On 31/03/2018 2:53 AM, benj wrote:
>>>>> On 3/30/2018 1:40 AM, Nadegda wrote:
>>>>>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes,
>>>>>> melt!
>>>>>> On Thu, 29 Mar 2018 13:56:15 -0500, Sergio wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>
>>>
>>>>> 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
> 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
> with a single theoretical exception.

**Except, Mr Liar, it ain't theoretical. It's actual.

>
> 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
> 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
Permalink
Raw Message
On 3/31/2018 9:27 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 1/04/2018 10:56 AM, benj wrote:
>> On 3/31/2018 8:08 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>> On 1/04/2018 9:46 AM, benj wrote:
>>>> On 3/31/2018 5:30 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>> On 31/03/2018 2:53 AM, benj wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/30/2018 1:40 AM, Nadegda wrote:
>>>>>>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt,
>>>>>>> snowflakes, melt!
>>>>>>> On Thu, 29 Mar 2018 13:56:15 -0500, Sergio wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> 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.

>  I note that you
>> 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.

> 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.

> 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

Can't you get the difference between journalist and writer? hey I have
written books and articles on science. I'm not a journalist.

>  I can live
>> 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.

>>
>> 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.

>
>  and purposely lie and distort
>> 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!

> 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
Permalink
Raw Message
On 1/04/2018 12:00 PM, benj wrote:
> On 3/31/2018 9:27 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 1/04/2018 10:56 AM, benj wrote:
>>> On 3/31/2018 8:08 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>> On 1/04/2018 9:46 AM, benj wrote:
>>>>> On 3/31/2018 5:30 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>>> On 31/03/2018 2:53 AM, benj wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/30/2018 1:40 AM, Nadegda wrote:
>>>>>>>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt,
>>>>>>>> snowflakes, melt!
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 29 Mar 2018 13:56:15 -0500, Sergio wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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.

>
>>   I note that you
>>> 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.

**[SHAKES HEAD] There is no way you can deal with logic and reason.

>
>> 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.

>
>> 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
>
> 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
> written books and articles on science. I'm not a journalist.

**You're nothing.

>
>>   I can live
>>> 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.


>
>>>
>>> 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.


>
>>
>>   and purposely lie and distort
>>> 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
> 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
> your reply on the "Casualty of CO2 from 1940-1979 when CO2 went UP and
> Temperature went DOWN!

**Asked and answered elsewhere, you boob:

--
On 30/03/2018 10:30 AM, benj wrote:
> On 3/29/2018 6:04 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 28/03/2018 11:07 AM, benj wrote:
>>> On 3/27/2018 7:28 PM, Nadegda wrote:
>>>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes,
melt!
>>>> On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 23:40:43 +0100, Sn!pe wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> benj <***@nobody.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 3/27/2018 8:15 AM, Wally W. wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 07:50:07 -0400, kensi wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Climate Change Goes Firmly in the "Loss" Column for Insurers:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
<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.


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.


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
> 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
> 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.


>
> 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.


>
>> 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 simple babble on with your propaganda when I present you with
> 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
> 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.

**Lying does not make you correct. It just makes you a liar.


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.

--


Oh that's right YOU CAN'T HEAR ME! LA LA LA LA LA!
>
>> 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"
> 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.

>
> 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
Permalink
Raw Message
On 3/31/2018 11:57 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 1/04/2018 12:00 PM, benj wrote:
>> On 3/31/2018 9:27 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>> On 1/04/2018 10:56 AM, benj wrote:
>>>> On 3/31/2018 8:08 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>> On 1/04/2018 9:46 AM, benj wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/31/2018 5:30 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>>>> On 31/03/2018 2:53 AM, benj wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/30/2018 1:40 AM, Nadegda wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt,
>>>>>>>>> snowflakes, melt!
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 29 Mar 2018 13:56:15 -0500, Sergio wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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.
>
>>
>>>   I note that you
>>>> 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.
>
> **[SHAKES HEAD] There is no way you can deal with logic and reason.

why shake your head on the internet ? is your hair wet ?

>
>>
>>> 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.
>
>>
>>> 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
>>
>> 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.

>
>  hey I have
>> written books and articles on science. I'm not a journalist.
>
> **You're nothing.

are you no thing?

>
>>
>>>   I can live
>>>> 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,

>
>
>>
>>>>
>>>> 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

>
>
>>
>>>
>>>   and purposely lie and distort
>>>> 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
>> 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
>> your reply on the "Casualty of CO2 from 1940-1979 when CO2 went UP and
>> Temperature went DOWN!
>
> **Asked and answered elsewhere, you boob:
>
> --
> On 30/03/2018 10:30 AM, benj wrote:
>> On 3/29/2018 6:04 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>> On 28/03/2018 11:07 AM, benj wrote:
>>>> On 3/27/2018 7:28 PM, Nadegda wrote:
>>>>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes,
> melt!
>>>>> On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 23:40:43 +0100, Sn!pe wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> benj <***@nobody.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 3/27/2018 8:15 AM, Wally W. wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 07:50:07 -0400, kensi wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Climate Change Goes Firmly in the "Loss" Column for Insurers:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
> <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.
>
>
>  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.
>
>
>  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
>> 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):

aerosol polution stays near the ground, and disipates.
>
> https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/science/aerosols-and-global-warming-faq.html#.Wr3OO39x1pg
>
>
>
>  And you have
>> 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 ?

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

tut tut.

>
>  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.

try calculating it, your absorbation bands are too narrow on CO2 to be
meaningful.

>
>
>>
>> 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.

>
>
>>
>>>   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 simple babble on with your propaganda when I present you with
>> 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
>> 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.
>
> **Lying does not make you correct. It just makes you a liar.
>
>
>  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.
>
Trevor Wilson
2018-04-01 07:31:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 1/04/2018 3:41 PM, Sergio wrote:
> On 3/31/2018 11:57 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 1/04/2018 12:00 PM, benj wrote:
>>> On 3/31/2018 9:27 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>> On 1/04/2018 10:56 AM, benj wrote:
>>>>> On 3/31/2018 8:08 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/04/2018 9:46 AM, benj wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/31/2018 5:30 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 31/03/2018 2:53 AM, benj wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 3/30/2018 1:40 AM, Nadegda wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt,
>>>>>>>>>> snowflakes, melt!
>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 29 Mar 2018 13:56:15 -0500, Sergio wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>
>>>
>>>>   I note that you
>>>>> 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.
>>
>> **[SHAKES HEAD] There is no way you can deal with logic and reason.
>
> why shake your head on the internet ? is your hair wet ?
>
>>
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>>>
>>>> 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
>>>
>>> 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


>
>>
>>  hey I have
>>> written books and articles on science. I'm not a journalist.
>>
>> **You're nothing.
>
> are you no thing?
>
>>
>>>
>>>>   I can live
>>>>> 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?

>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.

>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>   and purposely lie and distort
>>>>> 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
>>> 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
>>> your reply on the "Casualty of CO2 from 1940-1979 when CO2 went UP and
>>> Temperature went DOWN!
>>
>> **Asked and answered elsewhere, you boob:
>>
>> --
>> On 30/03/2018 10:30 AM, benj wrote:
>>> On 3/29/2018 6:04 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>> On 28/03/2018 11:07 AM, benj wrote:
>>>>> On 3/27/2018 7:28 PM, Nadegda wrote:
>>>>>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes,
>> melt!
>>>>>> On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 23:40:43 +0100, Sn!pe wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> benj <***@nobody.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 3/27/2018 8:15 AM, Wally W. wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 07:50:07 -0400, kensi wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Climate Change Goes Firmly in the "Loss" Column for Insurers:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>> <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.
>>
>>
>>  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.
>>
>>
>>  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
>>> 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):
>
> aerosol polution stays near the ground, and disipates.

**Does it? How about jet trails? Are they near the ground too?


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


>
>>
>>
>>  How
>>> 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.

>
>>
>>  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.
>
> 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.


>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> 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.

>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>    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 simple babble on with your propaganda when I present you with
>>> 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
>>> 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.
>>
>> **Lying does not make you correct. It just makes you a liar.
>>
>>
>>  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.
>>
>


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Sergio
2018-04-01 16:46:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 4/1/2018 2:31 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 1/04/2018 3:41 PM, Sergio wrote:

>>>
>
>>>>
>>>> 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.


>>
>> 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.

>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>

>>
>> 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.


>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>

>
>>>
>>>    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
>>> understand):
>>
>> 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.

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

>
>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>   How
>>>> 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.



>
>>
>>>
>>>   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.
>>
>> 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 ?



>
>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2/04/2018 2:46 AM, Sergio wrote:
> On 4/1/2018 2:31 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 1/04/2018 3:41 PM, Sergio wrote:
>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.

>
>
>>>
>>> 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.

>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>
>>>
>>> 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.

>
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>
>>
>>>>
>>>>    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
>>>> understand):
>>>
>>> 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.

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

>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>   How
>>>>> 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.

>
>
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>   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.
>>>
>>> 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.

>
> 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.

>
>
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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
> 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
Permalink
Raw Message
On 4/1/2018 7:37 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 2/04/2018 2:46 AM, Sergio wrote:
>> On 4/1/2018 2:31 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>> On 1/04/2018 3:41 PM, Sergio wrote:
>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.

>
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> 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.

>
>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> 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.

wrong, Al Gore invented Glowball Worming AND the internet, just ask him.

>
> 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.

> 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.

>
> Make such a mistake again and you will be treated the way you deserve to
> be.

whoa! your asshole is puckering!

>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>     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
>>>>> understand):
>>>>
>>>> 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?

do you think they are ? are water tower plumes near the ground ?

>
> A 'yes' or 'no' will be fine.

yes, your asshole is puckered!

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


>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>    How
>>>>>> 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.

>
> 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!

>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>    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.
>>>>
>>>> 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.

>
>>
>> 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:

I see you don't do this often at all.

>
> 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

>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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
>> 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



>
> Again: It's about the SCIENCE, not opinions.
>
>
benj
2018-04-02 04:03:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 4/1/2018 11:11 PM, Sergio wrote:
> On 4/1/2018 7:37 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 2/04/2018 2:46 AM, Sergio wrote:
>>> On 4/1/2018 2:31 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>> On 1/04/2018 3:41 PM, Sergio wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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.
>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>
> wrong, Al Gore invented Glowball Worming AND the internet, just ask him.
>
>>
>> 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.
>
>> 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.
>
>>
>> Make such a mistake again and you will be treated the way you deserve to
>> be.
>
> whoa! your asshole is puckering!
>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     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
>>>>>> understand):
>>>>>
>>>>> 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?
>
> do you think they are ? are water tower plumes near the ground ?
>
>>
>> A 'yes' or 'no' will be fine.
>
> yes, your asshole is puckered!
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/science/aerosols-and-global-warming-faq.html#.Wr3OO39x1pg
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    And you have
>>>>>>> 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.
>
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    How
>>>>>>> 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.
>
>>
>> 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!
>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    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.
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>
>>
>>>
>>> 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:
>
> I see you don't do this often at all.
>
>>
>> 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
>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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
>>> 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
>
>
>
>>
>> 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
Permalink
Raw Message
On 4/1/2018 11:11 PM, Sergio wrote:

> 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.

>>> 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!

> 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.

> Thank you for proving the OP is bullshit!

Except he didn't, and neither did you.

>> **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!

> 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?

> 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
Permalink
Raw Message
On 4/2/2018 4:27 AM, kensi wrote:
> On 4/1/2018 11:11 PM, Sergio wrote:
>
>>       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

>
>>>> 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.

>
>> 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.


>
>> Thank you for proving the OP is bullshit!
>
> Except he didn't, and neither did you.

yes he did, google Austrailia Rabbit infestation

>
>>> **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.

>
>> 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

>
>> 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
Permalink
Raw Message
On 4/1/2018 12:46 PM, Sergio wrote:
> On 4/1/2018 2:31 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 1/04/2018 3:41 PM, Sergio wrote:
>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>
>
>>>
>>> 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.
>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>
>>>
>>> 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.
>
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>
>>
>>>>
>>>>    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
>>>> understand):
>>>
>>> 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.
>
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/science/aerosols-and-global-warming-faq.html#.Wr3OO39x1pg
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>   And you have
>>>>> 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.
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>   How
>>>>> 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.
>
>
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>   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.
>>>
>>> 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 ?
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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
Permalink
Raw Message
On 4/1/2018 11:01 PM, benj wrote:
> On 4/1/2018 12:46 PM, Sergio wrote:
>> On 4/1/2018 2:31 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>> On 1/04/2018 3:41 PM, Sergio wrote:
>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>     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
>>>>> understand):
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/science/aerosols-and-global-warming-faq.html#.Wr3OO39x1pg
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>    And you have
>>>>>> 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.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>    How
>>>>>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>    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.
>>>>
>>>> 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 ?
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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
Permalink
Raw Message
On 4/1/2018 12:46 PM, Sergio wrote:
> 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
Permalink
Raw Message
On 4/2/2018 4:16 AM, kensi wrote:
> On 4/1/2018 12:46 PM, Sergio wrote:
>> chem trails
>
> It figures.
>

Chem trails figure ?
benj
2018-04-02 23:38:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 4/2/2018 10:26 AM, Sergio wrote:
> On 4/2/2018 4:16 AM, kensi wrote:
>> On 4/1/2018 12:46 PM, Sergio wrote:
>>> 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
Permalink
Raw Message
On 4/1/2018 12:57 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 1/04/2018 12:00 PM, benj wrote:
>> On 3/31/2018 9:27 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>> On 1/04/2018 10:56 AM, benj wrote:
>>>> On 3/31/2018 8:08 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>> On 1/04/2018 9:46 AM, benj wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/31/2018 5:30 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>>>> On 31/03/2018 2:53 AM, benj wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/30/2018 1:40 AM, Nadegda wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt,
>>>>>>>>> snowflakes, melt!
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 29 Mar 2018 13:56:15 -0500, Sergio wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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.

>>
>>>   I note that you
>>>> 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.
>
> **[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.

>>
>>> 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.
>
>>
>>> 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
>>
>> 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.

>
>  hey I have
>> written books and articles on science. I'm not a journalist.
>
> **You're nothing.

Scientific point noted and reported.

>>
>>>   I can live
>>>> 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 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.

>
>>
>>>
>>>   and purposely lie and distort
>>>> 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.

>
> **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.

>  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 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.

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

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?

> --
> On 30/03/2018 10:30 AM, benj wrote:
> > On 3/29/2018 6:04 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> >> On 28/03/2018 11:07 AM, benj wrote:
> >>> On 3/27/2018 7:28 PM, Nadegda wrote:
> >>>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes,
> melt!
> >>>> On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 23:40:43 +0100, Sn!pe wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> benj <***@nobody.net> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On 3/27/2018 8:15 AM, Wally W. wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 07:50:07 -0400, kensi wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Climate Change Goes Firmly in the "Loss" Column for Insurers:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> <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!!!!!!

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.

>
>  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. 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!

>
>  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.

> **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.


>   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
> understand):
>
> https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/science/aerosols-and-global-warming-faq.html#.Wr3OO39x1pg
>
>
>
>  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? How much warming duw to CO2? What
percentage of that due to human produced CO2?

<nothing but crickets>

> >
> > 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!

> >
> >>   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.

>  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 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.

> **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. 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

> **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!
>
>
>  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.
>
Trevor Wilson
2018-04-02 01:22:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2/04/2018 2:39 AM, benj wrote:
> On 4/1/2018 12:57 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 1/04/2018 12:00 PM, benj wrote:
>>> On 3/31/2018 9:27 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>> On 1/04/2018 10:56 AM, benj wrote:
>>>>> On 3/31/2018 8:08 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/04/2018 9:46 AM, benj wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/31/2018 5:30 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 31/03/2018 2:53 AM, benj wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 3/30/2018 1:40 AM, Nadegda wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt,
>>>>>>>>>> snowflakes, melt!
>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 29 Mar 2018 13:56:15 -0500, Sergio wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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.
>
>>>
>>>>   I note that you
>>>>> 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.
>>
>> **[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.

>
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>>>
>>>> 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
>>>
>>> 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
> 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.

>
>>
>>   hey I have
>>> 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.

>
>>>
>>>>   I can live
>>>>> 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.

>
>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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
> 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.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>   and purposely lie and distort
>>>>> 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
> links to journalists we need.
>
>>
>> **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.


>
>>   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 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.

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

>
>> --
>> On 30/03/2018 10:30 AM, benj wrote:
>>  > On 3/29/2018 6:04 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>  >> On 28/03/2018 11:07 AM, benj wrote:
>>  >>> On 3/27/2018 7:28 PM, Nadegda wrote:
>>  >>>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt,
>> snowflakes, melt!
>>  >>>> On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 23:40:43 +0100, Sn!pe wrote:
>>  >>>>
>>  >>>>> benj <***@nobody.net> wrote:
>>  >>>>>
>>  >>>>>> On 3/27/2018 8:15 AM, Wally W. wrote:
>>  >>>>>>> On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 07:50:07 -0400, kensi wrote:
>>  >>>>>>>
>>  >>>>>>>> Climate Change Goes Firmly in the "Loss" Column for Insurers:
>>  >>>>>>>>
>>  >>>>>>>>
>> <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.

>
> 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
> 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.

>
>>
>>   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
> 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.

>
>>
>>   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
> 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.


>
>> **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.

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

**No comment, I notice. SOP.


>>
>>
>>
>>   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
> 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).


>
> <nothing but crickets>
>
>>  >
>>  > 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.


>
> 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!
>
>>  >
>>  >>   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.


>
>>   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
> 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.
>
>> **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
> 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
>
>> **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!
>>
>>
>>   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
Permalink
Raw Message
On 4/1/2018 9:22 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 2/04/2018 2:39 AM, benj wrote:
>> On 4/1/2018 12:57 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>> On 1/04/2018 12:00 PM, benj wrote:
>>>> On 3/31/2018 9:27 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>> On 1/04/2018 10:56 AM, benj wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/31/2018 8:08 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/04/2018 9:46 AM, benj wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/31/2018 5:30 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 31/03/2018 2:53 AM, benj wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/30/2018 1:40 AM, Nadegda wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt,
>>>>>>>>>>> snowflakes, melt!
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 29 Mar 2018 13:56:15 -0500, Sergio wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>
>>>>
>>>>>   I note that you
>>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> **[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.
>
>>
>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>> 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
>> 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.
>
>>
>>>
>>>   hey I have
>>>> 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.
>
>>
>>>>
>>>>>   I can live
>>>>>> 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.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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
>> 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.
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>   and purposely lie and distort
>>>>>> 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
>> links to journalists we need.
>>
>>>
>>> **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.
>
>
>>
>>>   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 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.
>
>>
>>>   I'm still waiting for
>>>> your reply on the "Casualty of CO2 from 1940-1979 when CO2 went UP
>>>> and Temperature went DOWN!
>>>
>>> **Asked and answered elsewhere, you boob:
>>
>> 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.
>
>>
>>> --
>>> On 30/03/2018 10:30 AM, benj wrote:
>>>  > On 3/29/2018 6:04 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>  >> On 28/03/2018 11:07 AM, benj wrote:
>>>  >>> On 3/27/2018 7:28 PM, Nadegda wrote:
>>>  >>>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt,
>>> snowflakes, melt!
>>>  >>>> On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 23:40:43 +0100, Sn!pe wrote:
>>>  >>>>
>>>  >>>>> benj <***@nobody.net> wrote:
>>>  >>>>>
>>>  >>>>>> On 3/27/2018 8:15 AM, Wally W. wrote:
>>>  >>>>>>> On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 07:50:07 -0400, kensi wrote:
>>>  >>>>>>>
>>>  >>>>>>>> Climate Change Goes Firmly in the "Loss" Column for Insurers:
>>>  >>>>>>>>
>>>  >>>>>>>>
>>> <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.
>
>>
>> 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
>> 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.
>
>>
>>>
>>>   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
>> 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.
>
>>
>>>
>>>   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
>> 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.
>
>
>>
>>> **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.
>
>>
>>
>>>    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
>>> understand):
>>>
>>> https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/science/aerosols-and-global-warming-faq.html#.Wr3OO39x1pg
>
>
> **No comment, I notice. SOP.
>
>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>   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
>> 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).

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.

>>
>> <nothing but crickets>
>>
>>>  >
>>>  > 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.

>
>>
>> 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!
>>
>>>  >
>>>  >>   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.

>
>>
>>>   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
>> 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.
>>
>>> **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
>> 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?

>
>  Can't have a discussion with that kind of dishonesty
>>
>>> **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!
>>>
>>>
>>>   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
Permalink
Raw Message
On 3/04/2018 8:29 AM, benj wrote:
> On 4/1/2018 9:22 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 2/04/2018 2:39 AM, benj wrote:
>>> On 4/1/2018 12:57 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>> On 1/04/2018 12:00 PM, benj wrote:
>>>>> On 3/31/2018 9:27 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/04/2018 10:56 AM, benj wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/31/2018 8:08 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 1/04/2018 9:46 AM, benj wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 3/31/2018 5:30 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 31/03/2018 2:53 AM, benj wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/30/2018 1:40 AM, Nadegda wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt,
>>>>>>>>>>>> snowflakes, melt!
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 29 Mar 2018 13:56:15 -0500, Sergio wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>   I note that you
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> **[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.

**No comment on your constant reference to political beliefs of
Australians?


>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>> 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
>>> 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.
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>   hey I have
>>>>> 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.
>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>   I can live
>>>>>>> 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.
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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
>>> 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.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   and purposely lie and distort
>>>>>>> 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
>>> links to journalists we need.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> **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.

**Go look at the thread. It's there for you to see.


>>
>>
>>>
>>>>   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 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.
>>
>>>
>>>>   I'm still waiting for
>>>>> your reply on the "Casualty of CO2 from 1940-1979 when CO2 went UP
>>>>> and Temperature went DOWN!
>>>>
>>>> **Asked and answered elsewhere, you boob:
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>>>
>>>> --
>>>> On 30/03/2018 10:30 AM, benj wrote:
>>>>  > On 3/29/2018 6:04 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>  >> On 28/03/2018 11:07 AM, benj wrote:
>>>>  >>> On 3/27/2018 7:28 PM, Nadegda wrote:
>>>>  >>>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt,
>>>> snowflakes, melt!
>>>>  >>>> On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 23:40:43 +0100, Sn!pe wrote:
>>>>  >>>>
>>>>  >>>>> benj <***@nobody.net> wrote:
>>>>  >>>>>
>>>>  >>>>>> On 3/27/2018 8:15 AM, Wally W. wrote:
>>>>  >>>>>>> On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 07:50:07 -0400, kensi wrote:
>>>>  >>>>>>>
>>>>  >>>>>>>> Climate Change Goes Firmly in the "Loss" Column for Insurers:
>>>>  >>>>>>>>
>>>>  >>>>>>>>
>>>> <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.

>>
>>>
>>> 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
>>> 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
> 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.


>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>   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
>>> 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.


>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>   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
>>> 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.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> **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.


>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>    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 understand):
>>>>
>>>> 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.



>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>   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
>>> 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).
>
> 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
> 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
> 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
> lie and say I posted nothing.

**LOL! Weasel words.


Please explain why any person who is not
> insane would bother trying to have a discussion with you?

**You are having a discussion with me.


Your
> 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
> global warming political group where you can drool all you want.

**Cool.

>
>>>
>>> <nothing but crickets>
>>>
>>>>  >
>>>>  > 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.


>
> You are so deep in your left-wing fantasies nobody and make any sense of
> your drool.
>
>>
>>>
>>> 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!
>>>
>>>>  >
>>>>  >>   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.


>
>>
>>>
>>>>   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
>>> 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.
>>>
>>>> **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
>>> 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 "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.


>
>>
>>   Can't have a discussion with that kind of dishonesty
>>>
>>>> **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!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>   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
Permalink
Raw Message
On 4/2/2018 10:07 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> **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
Permalink
Raw Message
On 4/1/2018 12:39 PM, benj wrote:
> 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
Permalink
Raw Message
On 4/2/2018 4:35 AM, kensi wrote:
> On 4/1/2018 12:39 PM, benj wrote:
>> 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
Permalink
Raw Message
On 4/2/2018 10:29 AM, Sergio wrote:
> On 4/2/2018 4:35 AM, kensi wrote:
>> On 4/1/2018 12:39 PM, benj wrote:
>>> 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
Permalink
Raw Message
On 3/04/2018 9:57 AM, benj wrote:
> On 4/2/2018 10:29 AM, Sergio wrote:
>> On 4/2/2018 4:35 AM, kensi wrote:
>>> On 4/1/2018 12:39 PM, benj wrote:
>>>> 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.

>
> 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
Permalink
Raw Message
On 4/3/2018 12:51 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 3/04/2018 9:57 AM, benj wrote:
>> On 4/2/2018 10:29 AM, Sergio wrote:
>>> On 4/2/2018 4:35 AM, kensi wrote:
>>>> On 4/1/2018 12:39 PM, benj wrote:
>>>>> 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.




>
>>
>> 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
Permalink
Raw Message
On 4/3/2018 10:30 AM, Sergio wrote:
> On 4/3/2018 12:51 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 3/04/2018 9:57 AM, benj wrote:
>>> On 4/2/2018 10:29 AM, Sergio wrote:
>>>> On 4/2/2018 4:35 AM, kensi wrote:
>>>>> On 4/1/2018 12:39 PM, benj wrote:
>>>>>> 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
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 3 Apr 2018 14:20:41 -0400, benj <***@nobody.net> wrote:

>On 4/3/2018 10:30 AM, Sergio wrote:
>> On 4/3/2018 12:51 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>> On 3/04/2018 9:57 AM, benj wrote:
>>>> On 4/2/2018 10:29 AM, Sergio wrote:
>>>>> On 4/2/2018 4:35 AM, kensi wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/1/2018 12:39 PM, benj wrote:
>>>>>>> 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.


Even people that smoke pot know that.
Sergio
2018-04-03 18:47:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 4/3/2018 1:23 PM, Skeeter wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Apr 2018 14:20:41 -0400, benj <***@nobody.net> wrote:
>
>> On 4/3/2018 10:30 AM, Sergio wrote:
>>> On 4/3/2018 12:51 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>> On 3/04/2018 9:57 AM, benj wrote:
>>>>> On 4/2/2018 10:29 AM, Sergio wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/2/2018 4:35 AM, kensi wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/1/2018 12:39 PM, benj wrote:
>>>>>>>> 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.
>
>
> 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
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 3 Apr 2018 13:47:06 -0500, Sergio <***@invalid.com> wrote:

>On 4/3/2018 1:23 PM, Skeeter wrote:
>> On Tue, 3 Apr 2018 14:20:41 -0400, benj <***@nobody.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/3/2018 10:30 AM, Sergio wrote:
>>>> On 4/3/2018 12:51 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>> On 3/04/2018 9:57 AM, benj wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/2/2018 10:29 AM, Sergio wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/2/2018 4:35 AM, kensi wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/1/2018 12:39 PM, benj wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>
>>
>> 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
Permalink
Raw Message
On 4/2/2018 7:57 PM, benj wrote:
> 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.

> 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
Permalink
Raw Message
On 4/3/2018 6:09 AM, kensi wrote:
> On 4/2/2018 7:57 PM, benj wrote:
>> 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.
>
>> 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
Permalink
Raw Message
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
On Sat, 31 Mar 2018 22:00:13 -0400, benj wrote:

> On 3/31/2018 9:27 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 1/04/2018 10:56 AM, benj wrote:
>>> On 3/31/2018 8:08 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>> On 1/04/2018 9:46 AM, benj wrote:
>>>>> On 3/31/2018 5:30 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>>> On 31/03/2018 2:53 AM, benj wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/30/2018 1:40 AM, Nadegda wrote:
>>>>>>>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt,
>>>>>>>> snowflakes, melt!
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 29 Mar 2018 13:56:15 -0500, Sergio wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> 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.
>
>>  I note that you
>>> 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?

>> 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.

> 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.

>> 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.

>>  I can live
>>> 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.

>>> 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.

> 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.

>>  and purposely lie and distort
>>> 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!

>> 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>

> 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 ūüź∂Á¨õ
2018-04-01 06:45:39 UTC
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
<p9pta1$10k$***@dont-email.me>:

>Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
>On Sat, 31 Mar 2018 22:00:13 -0400, benj wrote:
>
>>On 3/31/2018 9:27 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>On 1/04/2018 10:56 AM, benj wrote:
>>>>On 3/31/2018 8:08 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>>On 1/04/2018 9:46 AM, benj wrote:
>>>>>>On 3/31/2018 5:30 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>>>>On 31/03/2018 2:53 AM, benj wrote:
>>>>>>>>On 3/30/2018 1:40 AM, Nadegda wrote:
>>>>>>>>>Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
>>>>>>>>>On Thu, 29 Mar 2018 13:56:15 -0500, Sergio wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>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.
>>>>>>>>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.
>>> I note that you
>>>>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?
>
>>>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.
>
>>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.
>
>>>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.
>
>>> I can live
>>>>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.
>
>>>>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.
>
>>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.
>
>>> and purposely lie and distort
>>>>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.ht
>m
>
>SPNAK!
>
>>>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.
>
><ūüí©snickerTurdūüí©>
>
>>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
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=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
Permalink
Raw Message
On 4/1/2018 2:13 AM, Nadegda wrote:
> On Sat, 31 Mar 2018 22:00:13 -0400, benj wrote:
>> 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
Permalink
Raw Message
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
On Sat, 31 Mar 2018 20:56:54 -0400, benj wrote:

> On 3/31/2018 8:08 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 1/04/2018 9:46 AM, benj wrote:
>>> On 3/31/2018 5:30 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>> On 31/03/2018 2:53 AM, benj wrote:
>>>>> On 3/30/2018 1:40 AM, Nadegda wrote:
>>>>>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes,
>>>>>> melt!
>>>>>> On Thu, 29 Mar 2018 13:56:15 -0500, Sergio wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>
>>
>>>>> 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
Permalink
Raw Message
On 4/1/2018 12:46 AM, Nadegda wrote:
> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
> On Sat, 31 Mar 2018 20:56:54 -0400, benj wrote:
>
>> On 3/31/2018 8:08 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>> On 1/04/2018 9:46 AM, benj wrote:
>>>> On 3/31/2018 5:30 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>> On 31/03/2018 2:53 AM, benj wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/30/2018 1:40 AM, Nadegda wrote:
>>>>>>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes,
>>>>>>> melt!
>>>>>>> On Thu, 29 Mar 2018 13:56:15 -0500, Sergio wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> 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 ūüź∂Á¨õ
2018-04-01 06:20:22 UTC
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
<p9pruk$65b$***@gioia.aioe.org>:

>On 4/1/2018 12:46 AM, Nadegda wrote:
>>Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
>>On Sat, 31 Mar 2018 20:56:54 -0400, benj wrote:
>>>On 3/31/2018 8:08 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>On 1/04/2018 9:46 AM, benj wrote:
>>>>>On 3/31/2018 5:30 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>>>On 31/03/2018 2:53 AM, benj wrote:
>>>>>>>On 3/30/2018 1:40 AM, Nadegda wrote:
>>>>>>>>Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
>>>>>>>>On Thu, 29 Mar 2018 13:56:15 -0500, Sergio wrote:
>>>>>>>>>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.
>>>>>>>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
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=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
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 01 Apr 2018 01:20:22 -0500, Your Friendly Neighbourhood Puppy
Whistle Holder Emeritus ?? <***@127.0.0.1> wrote:

>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
><p9pruk$65b$***@gioia.aioe.org>:
>
>>On 4/1/2018 12:46 AM, Nadegda wrote:
>>>Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
>>>On Sat, 31 Mar 2018 20:56:54 -0400, benj wrote:
>>>>On 3/31/2018 8:08 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>>On 1/04/2018 9:46 AM, benj wrote:
>>>>>>On 3/31/2018 5:30 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>>>>On 31/03/2018 2:53 AM, benj wrote:
>>>>>>>>On 3/30/2018 1:40 AM, Nadegda wrote:
>>>>>>>>>Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
>>>>>>>>>On Thu, 29 Mar 2018 13:56:15 -0500, Sergio wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>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.
>>>>>>>>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
Permalink
Raw Message
On 4/1/2018 7:25 AM, Skeeter wrote:
> On Sun, 01 Apr 2018 01:20:22 -0500, Your Friendly Neighbourhood Puppy
> Whistle Holder Emeritus ?? <***@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>
>> 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
>> <p9pruk$65b$***@gioia.aioe.org>:
>>
>>> On 4/1/2018 12:46 AM, Nadegda wrote:
>>>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
>>>> On Sat, 31 Mar 2018 20:56:54 -0400, benj wrote:
>>>>> On 3/31/2018 8:08 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/04/2018 9:46 AM, benj wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/31/2018 5:30 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 31/03/2018 2:53 AM, benj wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 3/30/2018 1:40 AM, Nadegda wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 29 Mar 2018 13:56:15 -0500, Sergio wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>> 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
Permalink
Raw Message
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
On Sun, 01 Apr 2018 00:49:33 -0500, Sergio wrote:

> On 4/1/2018 12:46 AM, Nadegda wrote:
>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes,
>> melt!
>> On Sat, 31 Mar 2018 20:56:54 -0400, benj wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/31/2018 8:08 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>> On 1/04/2018 9:46 AM, benj wrote:
>>>>> On 3/31/2018 5:30 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>>> On 31/03/2018 2:53 AM, benj wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/30/2018 1:40 AM, Nadegda wrote:
>>>>>>>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt,
>>>>>>>> snowflakes,
>>>>>>>> melt!
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 29 Mar 2018 13:56:15 -0500, Sergio wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> 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 ūüź∂Á¨õ
2018-04-01 06:50:25 UTC
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
<p9pv6s$10k$***@dont-email.me>:

>Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
>On Sun, 01 Apr 2018 00:49:33 -0500, Sergio wrote:
>
>>On 4/1/2018 12:46 AM, Nadegda wrote:
>>>Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
>>>On Sat, 31 Mar 2018 20:56:54 -0400, benj wrote:
>>>>On 3/31/2018 8:08 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>>On 1/04/2018 9:46 AM, benj wrote:
>>>>>>On 3/31/2018 5:30 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>>>>On 31/03/2018 2:53 AM, benj wrote:
>>>>>>>>On 3/30/2018 1:40 AM, Nadegda wrote:
>>>>>>>>>Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
>>>>>>>>>On Thu, 29 Mar 2018 13:56:15 -0500, Sergio wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>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.
>>>>>>>>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
>
>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.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!
>
>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.

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
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=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
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 01 Apr 2018 01:50:25 -0500, Your Friendly Neighbourhood Puppy
Whistle Holder Emeritus ?? <***@127.0.0.1> wrote:

>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
><p9pv6s$10k$***@dont-email.me>:
>
>>Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
>>On Sun, 01 Apr 2018 00:49:33 -0500, Sergio wrote:
>>
>>>On 4/1/2018 12:46 AM, Nadegda wrote:
>>>>Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
>>>>On Sat, 31 Mar 2018 20:56:54 -0400, benj wrote:
>>>>>On 3/31/2018 8:08 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>>>On 1/04/2018 9:46 AM, benj wrote:
>>>>>>>On 3/31/2018 5:30 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>>>>>On 31/03/2018 2:53 AM, benj wrote:
>>>>>>>>>On 3/30/2018 1:40 AM, Nadegda wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
>>>>>>>>>>On Thu, 29 Mar 2018 13:56:15 -0500, Sergio wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>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.
>>>>>>>>>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
>>
>>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.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!
>>
>>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.
>
>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
Permalink
Raw Message
On 4/1/2018 7:26 AM, Skeeter wrote:
> On Sun, 01 Apr 2018 01:50:25 -0500, Your Friendly Neighbourhood Puppy
> Whistle Holder Emeritus ?? <***@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>
>> 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
>> <p9pv6s$10k$***@dont-email.me>:
>>
>>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
>>> On Sun, 01 Apr 2018 00:49:33 -0500, Sergio wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4/1/2018 12:46 AM, Nadegda wrote:
>>>>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
>>>>> On Sat, 31 Mar 2018 20:56:54 -0400, benj wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/31/2018 8:08 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/04/2018 9:46 AM, benj wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/31/2018 5:30 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 31/03/2018 2:53 AM, benj wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/30/2018 1:40 AM, Nadegda wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 29 Mar 2018 13:56:15 -0500, Sergio wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>
>>> 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.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!
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> 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
Permalink
Raw Message
On 4/1/2018 1:45 AM, Nadegda wrote:
> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
> On Sun, 01 Apr 2018 00:49:33 -0500, Sergio wrote:
>
>> On 4/1/2018 12:46 AM, Nadegda wrote:
>>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes,
>>> melt!
>>> On Sat, 31 Mar 2018 20:56:54 -0400, benj wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 3/31/2018 8:08 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>> On 1/04/2018 9:46 AM, benj wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/31/2018 5:30 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>>>> On 31/03/2018 2:53 AM, benj wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/30/2018 1:40 AM, Nadegda wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt,
>>>>>>>>> snowflakes,
>>>>>>>>> melt!
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 29 Mar 2018 13:56:15 -0500, Sergio wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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
>


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 ūüź∂Á¨õ
2018-04-01 07:31:31 UTC
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
<p9q0oc$d42$***@gioia.aioe.org>:

>On 4/1/2018 1:45 AM, Nadegda wrote:
>>Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
>>On Sun, 01 Apr 2018 00:49:33 -0500, Sergio wrote:
>>>On 4/1/2018 12:46 AM, Nadegda wrote:
>>>>Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
>>>>On Sat, 31 Mar 2018 20:56:54 -0400, benj wrote:
>>>>>On 3/31/2018 8:08 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>>>On 1/04/2018 9:46 AM, benj wrote:
>>>>>>>On 3/31/2018 5:30 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>>>>>On 31/03/2018 2:53 AM, benj wrote:
>>>>>>>>>On 3/30/2018 1:40 AM, Nadegda wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
>>>>>>>>>>On Thu, 29 Mar 2018 13:56:15 -0500, Sergio wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>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.
>>>>>>>>>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 Notorious denier kookshite:
>>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
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=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
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 1 Apr 2018 05:46:00 -0000 (UTC), Nadegda
<***@gmail.invalid> wrote:

>> 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
Permalink
Raw Message
On 30/03/2018 4:51 AM, benj wrote:
> On 3/29/2018 10:03 AM, kensi wrote:
>> On 3/29/2018 9:55 AM, Sergio wrote:
>>> 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:

---
On 30/03/2018 10:30 AM, benj wrote:
> On 3/29/2018 6:04 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 28/03/2018 11:07 AM, benj wrote:
>>> On 3/27/2018 7:28 PM, Nadegda wrote:
>>>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes,
melt!
>>>> On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 23:40:43 +0100, Sn!pe wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> benj <***@nobody.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 3/27/2018 8:15 AM, Wally W. wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 07:50:07 -0400, kensi wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Climate Change Goes Firmly in the "Loss" Column for Insurers:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
<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.


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.


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
> 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
> 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.


>
> 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.


>
>> 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 simple babble on with your propaganda when I present you with
> 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
> 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.

**Lying does not make you correct. It just makes you a liar.


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.
---

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
Permalink
Raw Message
On 3/31/2018 3:53 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 30/03/2018 4:51 AM, benj wrote:
>> On 3/29/2018 10:03 AM, kensi wrote:
>>> On 3/29/2018 9:55 AM, Sergio wrote:
>>>> 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:


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 ūüź∂Á¨õ
2018-03-31 23:20:43 UTC
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
<p9p3qb$19i4$***@gioia.aioe.org>:

>On 3/31/2018 3:53 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>On 30/03/2018 4:51 AM, benj wrote:
>>>On 3/29/2018 10:03 AM, kensi wrote:
>>>>On 3/29/2018 9:55 AM, Sergio wrote:
>>>>>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:
>
> 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
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=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
Trevor Wilson
2018-03-31 23:42:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 1/04/2018 8:57 AM, Sergio wrote:
> On 3/31/2018 3:53 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 30/03/2018 4:51 AM, benj wrote:
>>> On 3/29/2018 10:03 AM, kensi wrote:
>>>> On 3/29/2018 9:55 AM, Sergio wrote:
>>>>> 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:
>
>
> 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.

>
> 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
Permalink
Raw Message
On 3/31/2018 7:42 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 1/04/2018 8:57 AM, Sergio wrote:
>> On 3/31/2018 3:53 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>> On 30/03/2018 4:51 AM, benj wrote:
>>>> On 3/29/2018 10:03 AM, kensi wrote:
>>>>> On 3/29/2018 9:55 AM, Sergio wrote:
>>>>>> 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:
>>
>>
>>            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!

>> 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
Permalink
Raw Message
On 3/31/2018 6:42 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 1/04/2018 8:57 AM, Sergio wrote:
>> On 3/31/2018 3:53 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>> On 30/03/2018 4:51 AM, benj wrote:
>>>> On 3/29/2018 10:03 AM, kensi wrote:
>>>>> On 3/29/2018 9:55 AM, Sergio wrote:
>>>>>> 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:
>>
>>
>>            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."
>

>
>
>>
>> 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.



>
>>
>> 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
Permalink
Raw Message
On 1/04/2018 11:18 AM, Sergio wrote:
> On 3/31/2018 6:42 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 1/04/2018 8:57 AM, Sergio wrote:
>>> On 3/31/2018 3:53 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>> On 30/03/2018 4:51 AM, benj wrote:
>>>>> On 3/29/2018 10:03 AM, kensi wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/29/2018 9:55 AM, Sergio wrote:
>>>>>>> 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:
>>>
>>>
>>>            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"?

>>
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> 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.

>
> 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
> error?

**See links.

where and when did they measure it?

**See links.

how many millions of
> measurements did they take ?

**See links.

At what depths ?

**See links.


>
> that link want you to donate to FishWatch.
>
>
>
>>
>>>
>>> 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
Permalink
Raw Message
On 4/1/2018 12:03 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 1/04/2018 11:18 AM, Sergio wrote:
>> On 3/31/2018 6:42 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>> On 1/04/2018 8:57 AM, Sergio wrote:
>>>> On 3/31/2018 3:53 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>> On 30/03/2018 4:51 AM, benj wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/29/2018 10:03 AM, kensi wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/29/2018 9:55 AM, Sergio wrote:
>>>>>>>> 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:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>             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"?
>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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 ?

>
>>
>>    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

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.




>>
>>          that link want you to donate to FishWatch.
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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
Permalink
Raw Message
On 1/04/2018 3:46 PM, Sergio wrote:
> On 4/1/2018 12:03 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 1/04/2018 11:18 AM, Sergio wrote:
>>> On 3/31/2018 6:42 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>> On 1/04/2018 8:57 AM, Sergio wrote:
>>>>> On 3/31/2018 3:53 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>>> On 30/03/2018 4:51 AM, benj wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/29/2018 10:03 AM, kensi wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/29/2018 9:55 AM, Sergio wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 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:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>             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"?


>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.

>
>>
>>>
>>>    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
>
> 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.

>
>
>
>
>>>
>>>          that link want you to donate to FishWatch.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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
Permalink
Raw Message
On 4/1/2018 4:14 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 1/04/2018 3:46 PM, Sergio wrote:
>> On 4/1/2018 12:03 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>> On 1/04/2018 11:18 AM, Sergio wrote:
>>>> On 3/31/2018 6:42 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>> On 1/04/2018 8:57 AM, Sergio wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/31/2018 3:53 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>>>> On 30/03/2018 4:51 AM, benj wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/29/2018 10:03 AM, kensi wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 3/29/2018 9:55 AM, Sergio wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 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:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>              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"?
>
>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>     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
>>>
>>
>> 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.


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.

>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>           that link want you to donate to FishWatch.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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
Permalink
Raw Message
On 4/1/2018 4:34 PM, Sergio wrote:
> On 4/1/2018 4:14 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 1/04/2018 3:46 PM, Sergio wrote:
>>> On 4/1/2018 12:03 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>> On 1/04/2018 11:18 AM, Sergio wrote:
>>>>> On 3/31/2018 6:42 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/04/2018 8:57 AM, Sergio wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/31/2018 3:53 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 30/03/2018 4:51 AM, benj wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 3/29/2018 10:03 AM, kensi wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/29/2018 9:55 AM, Sergio wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> 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:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>              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"?
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>     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
>>>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>
>
> 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.
>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>           that link want you to donate to FishWatch.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2/04/2018 6:34 AM, Sergio wrote:
> On 4/1/2018 4:14 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 1/04/2018 3:46 PM, Sergio wrote:
>>> On 4/1/2018 12:03 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>> On 1/04/2018 11:18 AM, Sergio wrote:
>>>>> On 3/31/2018 6:42 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/04/2018 8:57 AM, Sergio wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/31/2018 3:53 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 30/03/2018 4:51 AM, benj wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 3/29/2018 10:03 AM, kensi wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/29/2018 9:55 AM, Sergio wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> 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:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>              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"?


>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>     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
>>>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>
>
> 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.
>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>           that link want you to donate to FishWatch.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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
Permalink
Raw Message
On 4/3/2018 1:38 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 2/04/2018 6:34 AM, Sergio wrote:
>> On 4/1/2018 4:14 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>> On 1/04/2018 3:46 PM, Sergio wrote:
>>>> On 4/1/2018 12:03 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>> On 1/04/2018 11:18 AM, Sergio wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/31/2018 6:42 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/04/2018 8:57 AM, Sergio wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/31/2018 3:53 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 30/03/2018 4:51 AM, benj wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/29/2018 10:03 AM, kensi wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/29/2018 9:55 AM, Sergio wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>               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.

>
>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>            that link want you to donate to FishWatch.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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
Permalink
Raw Message
On 4/04/2018 12:35 AM, Sergio wrote:
> On 4/3/2018 1:38 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 2/04/2018 6:34 AM, Sergio wrote:
>>> On 4/1/2018 4:14 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>> On 1/04/2018 3:46 PM, Sergio wrote:
>>>>> On 4/1/2018 12:03 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/04/2018 11:18 AM, Sergio wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/31/2018 6:42 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 1/04/2018 8:57 AM, Sergio wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 3/31/2018 3:53 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 30/03/2018 4:51 AM, benj wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/29/2018 10:03 AM, kensi wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/29/2018 9:55 AM, Sergio wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>               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
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 4 Apr 2018 06:03:50 +1000, Trevor Wilson
<***@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

>On 4/04/2018 12:35 AM, Sergio wrote:
>> On 4/3/2018 1:38 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>> On 2/04/2018 6:34 AM, Sergio wrote:
>>>> On 4/1/2018 4:14 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>> On 1/04/2018 3:46 PM, Sergio wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/1/2018 12:03 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/04/2018 11:18 AM, Sergio wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/31/2018 6:42 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 1/04/2018 8:57 AM, Sergio wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/31/2018 3:53 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 30/03/2018 4:51 AM, benj wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/29/2018 10:03 AM, kensi wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/29/2018 9:55 AM, Sergio wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>               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.

A true scientist like yourself be side tracked by a little typo?
benj
2018-04-01 00:40:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 3/31/2018 6:57 PM, Sergio wrote:
> On 3/31/2018 3:53 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 30/03/2018 4:51 AM, benj wrote:
>>> On 3/29/2018 10:03 AM, kensi wrote:
>>>> On 3/29/2018 9:55 AM, Sergio wrote:
>>>>> 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:
>
>
> 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
Permalink
Raw Message
On 1/04/2018 10:40 AM, benj wrote:
> On 3/31/2018 6:57 PM, Sergio wrote:
>> On 3/31/2018 3:53 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>> On 30/03/2018 4:51 AM, benj wrote:
>>>> On 3/29/2018 10:03 AM, kensi wrote:
>>>>> On 3/29/2018 9:55 AM, Sergio wrote:
>>>>>> 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:
>>
>>
>>            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
Permalink
Raw Message
On 3/31/2018 9:28 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 1/04/2018 10:40 AM, benj wrote:
>> On 3/31/2018 6:57 PM, Sergio wrote:
>>> On 3/31/2018 3:53 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>> On 30/03/2018 4:51 AM, benj wrote:
>>>>> On 3/29/2018 10:03 AM, kensi wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/29/2018 9:55 AM, Sergio wrote:
>>>>>>> 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:
>>>
>>>
>>>            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
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 31 Mar 2018 22:05:01 -0400, benj wrote:

> On 3/31/2018 9:28 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 1/04/2018 10:40 AM, benj wrote:
>>> On 3/31/2018 6:57 PM, Sergio wrote:
>>>> On 3/31/2018 3:53 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>> On 30/03/2018 4:51 AM, benj wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/29/2018 10:03 AM, kensi wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/29/2018 9:55 AM, Sergio wrote:
>>>>>>>> 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:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>            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?

> 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 ūüź∂Á¨õ
2018-04-01 09:42:58 UTC
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
<p9q6u0$mgu$***@news.mixmin.net>:

>On Sat, 31 Mar 2018 22:05:01 -0400, benj wrote:
>
>>On 3/31/2018 9:28 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>On 1/04/2018 10:40 AM, benj wrote:
>>>>On 3/31/2018 6:57 PM, Sergio wrote:
>>>>>On 3/31/2018 3:53 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>>>On 30/03/2018 4:51 AM, benj wrote:
>>>>>>>On 3/29/2018 10:03 AM, kensi wrote:
>>>>>>>>On 3/29/2018 9:55 AM, Sergio wrote:
>>>>>>>>>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:
>>>>>           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?
>
>>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
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=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
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 1 Apr 2018 08:57:37 -0000 (UTC), Libtard
<***@sandernistas.edu> wrote:

>On Sat, 31 Mar 2018 22:05:01 -0400, benj wrote:
>
>> On 3/31/2018 9:28 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>> On 1/04/2018 10:40 AM, benj wrote:
>>>> On 3/31/2018 6:57 PM, Sergio wrote:
>>>>> On 3/31/2018 3:53 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>>> On 30/03/2018 4:51 AM, benj wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/29/2018 10:03 AM, kensi wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/29/2018 9:55 AM, Sergio wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 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:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>            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.
>
>> 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.
>
>[politics group snecked]


Did you snip AUK too?

<snacker>

--

MAUKGA
Libtard
2018-04-02 17:34:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 01 Apr 2018 06:29:44 -0600, Skeeter wrote:

> On Sun, 1 Apr 2018 08:57:37 -0000 (UTC), Libtard
> <***@sandernistas.edu> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 31 Mar 2018 22:05:01 -0400, benj wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/31/2018 9:28 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>> On 1/04/2018 10:40 AM, benj wrote:
>>>>> On 3/31/2018 6:57 PM, Sergio wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/31/2018 3:53 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>>>> On 30/03/2018 4:51 AM, benj wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/29/2018 10:03 AM, kensi wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 3/29/2018 9:55 AM, Sergio wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 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:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>            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.
>>
>>> 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.

>>[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
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 2 Apr 2018 17:34:48 -0000 (UTC), Libtard
<***@sandernistas.edu> wrote:

>On Sun, 01 Apr 2018 06:29:44 -0600, Skeeter wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 1 Apr 2018 08:57:37 -0000 (UTC), Libtard
>> <***@sandernistas.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 31 Mar 2018 22:05:01 -0400, benj wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 3/31/2018 9:28 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>> On 1/04/2018 10:40 AM, benj wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/31/2018 6:57 PM, Sergio wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/31/2018 3:53 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 30/03/2018 4:51 AM, benj wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 3/29/2018 10:03 AM, kensi wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/29/2018 9:55 AM, Sergio wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> 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:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>            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.
>>>
>>>> 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.
>
>>>[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
Permalink
Raw Message
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
On Mon, 02 Apr 2018 13:26:16 -0600, Skeeter wrote:

> On Mon, 2 Apr 2018 17:34:48 -0000 (UTC), Libtard
> <***@sandernistas.edu> wrote:
>
>> Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.checkmate,alt.usenet.kooks
[snip]
> <TINW> Paul.
>
> You can't even post in AUK...it is to laff.
[snip]
>>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
Permalink
Raw Message
On 4/2/2018 3:05 PM, Nadegda wrote:
> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
> On Mon, 02 Apr 2018 13:26:16 -0600, Skeeter wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 2 Apr 2018 17:34:48 -0000 (UTC), Libtard
>> <***@sandernistas.edu> wrote:
>>
>>> Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.checkmate,alt.usenet.kooks
> [snip]
>> <TINW> Paul.
>>
>> You can't even post in AUK...it is to laff.
> [snip]
>>> 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 ūüź∂Á¨õ
2018-04-01 04:14:43 UTC
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
in <***@mid.individual.net>:

>On 1/04/2018 10:40 AM, benj wrote:
>>On 3/31/2018 6:57 PM, Sergio wrote:
>>>On 3/31/2018 3:53 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>On 30/03/2018 4:51 AM, benj wrote:
>>>>>On 3/29/2018 10:03 AM, kensi wrote:
>>>>>>On 3/29/2018 9:55 AM, Sergio wrote:
>>>>>>>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:
>>>           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
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=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
Permalink
Raw Message
On 3/31/2018 3:53 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 30/03/2018 4:51 AM, benj wrote:
>> On 3/29/2018 10:03 AM, kensi wrote:
>>> On 3/29/2018 9:55 AM, Sergio wrote:
>>>> 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:
>


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
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-03-31 6:23 PM, Sergio wrote:
> On 3/31/2018 3:53 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 30/03/2018 4:51 AM, benj wrote:
>>> On 3/29/2018 10:03 AM, kensi wrote:
>>>> On 3/29/2018 9:55 AM, Sergio wrote:
>>>>> 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:
>>
>
>
> 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
Permalink
Raw Message
> 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
Permalink
Raw Message
On 3/29/2018 10:46 AM, Jeff-***@. wrote:
>> 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
Permalink
Raw Message
> > 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
Permalink
Raw Message
On 3/29/2018 11:26 AM, Jeff-***@. wrote:
>>> 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
Permalink
Raw Message
On 3/29/2018 4:05 PM, Sergio wrote:
> On 3/29/2018 11:26 AM, Jeff-***@. wrote:
>>>> 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
Permalink
Raw Message
On 3/29/2018 12:14 PM, Sergio wrote:
> On 3/29/2018 10:46 AM, Jeff-***@. wrote:
>>> 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
Permalink
Raw Message
On 3/29/2018 1:53 PM, benj wrote:
> On 3/29/2018 12:14 PM, Sergio wrote:
>> On 3/29/2018 10:46 AM, Jeff-***@. wrote:
>>>> 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
Permalink
Raw Message
Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts by
Checkmate! In article <p9jbgq$3bk$***@gioia.aioe.org>,
***@undulatus.budgie says...


>
> On 3/29/2018 1:53 PM, benj wrote:
> > On 3/29/2018 12:14 PM, Sergio wrote:
> >> On 3/29/2018 10:46 AM, Jeff-***@. wrote:
> >>>> 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 ¬ģ
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
Permalink
Raw Message
On 3/29/2018 2:32 PM, mixed nuts wrote:
> On 3/29/2018 1:53 PM, benj wrote:
>> On 3/29/2018 12:14 PM, Sergio wrote:
>>> On 3/29/2018 10:46 AM, Jeff-***@. wrote:
>>>>> 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
Permalink
Raw Message
On 3/29/2018 4:54 PM, benj wrote:
> On 3/29/2018 2:32 PM, mixed nuts wrote:
>> On 3/29/2018 1:53 PM, benj wrote:
>>> On 3/29/2018 12:14 PM, Sergio wrote:
>>>> On 3/29/2018 10:46 AM, Jeff-***@. wrote:
>>>>>> 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...