🚀 go-pugleaf

On Oct 29, 10:46 am, "kdth...@earthlink.net" <kdth...@earthlink.net>
wrote:
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.politics.misc/tree/browse_frm/thr...
>
> On Oct 26, 7:31 am, Dawlish <pjg...@hotmail.com> wrote:> On Oct 26, 10:52 am, "kdth...@earthlink.net" >
>
> '>
> '> Aww look, KD's got all annoyed and started shouting again to try to
> '> make himeself heard.
> '>
> '> x thousands and thousands of scientists. All suffering from a
> criminal
> '> dysfunctionality of the intellect, while KD undersatands what's
> really
> '> going on. I think that would probably be certifiable, if you told
> the
> '> tale to a psychiatrist.-
>
> That's a AWFULLY damn lame arguement, when I have refered
> documentation from two of the most important scientists of the 20th
> century, who in dealing with the topics of gases and thermodynamics,
> make no definition or description of 'greenhouse gases',
>
> In the meantime, us flatearthers and stone age mentality hillbillies
> are wondering why with all the billions of dollars spent by Hansen's
> devotees and disciples, you can only refer documentation of
> spectroscopic properties of CO2, and no laboratory evidence whatsoever
> to confirm your interpretation that these dark bands  of the continous
> spectrum of the emitted radiation of the gas, indicate INORDINATE
> ABSORPTION which would be reflected in the increase of energy of
> INCREASED TEMEPERATURE?
>
> SEE ALL THIS DAMN BLANK SPACE,
>
> You sure can dig deep and quickly when it comes to assasinating the
> character of your dissent, but NO REFERENCE to direct scientific
> documentation of the Tyndell parlor trick upon which ALL your
> dysfunctional and fraudulent theoretical science is based?
>
> REFER YOUR GDAMN SCIENCE TO SUPPORT YOUR STATEMENTS
>
> USING THE WORD SCIENCE, IS ALL YOU RETARDS ACTUALLY HAVE, SO WEAR IT
> THE FUCK OUT, FREAKY GLOBAL WARMING KOOKS
>
> ONE DOES FEEL LIKE YELLING WHEN DEALING WITH THE AUTISTIC AND DYSLEXIC
> CHARLATANS WHO CLAIM SCIENTIFIC CLAIRVOYANCE AS THEIR CLAIM TO
> COMPLETE CONTROL OF RECOURCES OF ENERGY
>
> http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1967/1967_Hansen_Matsushima.pdf
>
> Here is an article written by Hansen, who had just recently gained
> his
> PhD in Physics. He does a full thesis here in which he defines that
> the temperatures  of Venus are definitely caused by very small dust
> particles. He goes over alternate causes which he discounts.
>
> NOWHERE DOES HANSEN INCORPORATE OR REFERENCE THE PROPERTY OF
> GREENHOUSE GASES.
>
> NOW HE IS THE FORERUNNER, IN CLAIMING THAT THE CHANGE IN METHANE OF
> EARTH'S ATMOSPHERE OF LESS THAN 1PPM COULD HAVE DEVASTATING EFFECTS
> UPON THE CLIMATE.
>
> YET HE FELT NO NEED TO INCORPORATE THE EFFECTS OF ANY GASES UPON THE
> TEMPERATURE, ESPECIALLY NOT CO2. IT WAS WELL UNDERSTOOD THAT CO2 MUST
> BE A PREDOMINATE GAS IN THE ATMOSPHERE OF VENUS.
>
> A)
> EITHER HE IS A PURE CHARLATAN FOR INVENTING THIS THERMODYNAMIC OUTLINE
> WHICH CANNOT BE VALID IF GREENHOUSE GASES EXIST
>
> B)
> OR HE IS A PURE CHARLATAN FOR HIS LATER WORK OF WHICH HE IS A PIONEER
> OF THE EFFECTS OF GREENHOUSE GASES
>
> TAKE YOUR GDAMN PICK.
>
> EITHER WAY HE IS A HIGH CRIMINAL AND TRAITOR TO ALL OF HUMANITY, AND
> US FLAT EARTHERS THINK HE SHOULD BE PUSHED OF THE GDAMN EDGE INTO HIS
> ETERNAL DESTINY, ALONG WITH ALL THE BLIND FAITHFULL OF HIS HOSTILE AND
> DANGEROUS FLOCK.
>
> AT THE VERY DAMN LEAST, THE FACT THAT THIS PAPER EXISTS, MEANS THE
> BURDEN OF PROOF IS SQUARELY UPON YOU TO DEMONSTRATE DIRECT SCIENCE TO
> SUPPORT THE TENET OF GREENHOUSE GASES.
>
> HERE IS ALSO A BOOK FROM A NOBEL PRIZE LAUREATE OF THE 1950'S. HE DOES
> 120 PAGES ON GASES, INCORPORATING ALL FUNDAMENTAL KNOWLEDGE ON GASES
> AT THAT TIME. NO PROPERTY OF GREENHOUSE GASES IS MENTIONED OR
> DESCRIBED.
>
> http://books.google.com/books?id=EpxSzteNvMYC&pg=PA327&lpg=PA327&vq=h...
>
> CO2 IS ONLY FOUND TO BE A NORMAL GAS. WHICH OBEYS THE PERFECT GAS LAW
> AT LOW PRESSURES LIKE ALL OTHER NORMAL GASES.
>
> FURTHER PROOF THAT YOU CANNOT RIGHTFULLY CLAIM FOREGONE UNDERSTANDING
> OF THIS PROPERTY.
>
> YOU HAVE THE BURDEN OF PROOF.
>
> KD

My "Heavy Air Theory" is proven by 17 tornadoes in one day taken place
Wenesday. Its a simple theory,and goes with weight + speed =force
TreBert

....ahahahahaha...
why all that screaming, Kent?...  It won't help in this case, cuz:
Dawish, aka eco-piglet, is a class 3 enviro, which means that
he is classified as a "Little Green Idiot" who proselytizes for
his Green Bible  in <http://tinyurl.com/ylql3gf> wherein it says:
>
1 "It doesn't matter what is true ... it only matters what people
= believe is true. -- Paul Watson, Sea Shepard/ex-Greenpeace, &...
2 "If you don't know an answer, a fact, a statistic, then .... make it
= up on the spot... for the mass-media today... the truth is irrelevant."
= -- Paul Watson in Earthforce: An Earth Warrior's Guide to Strategy.
>
      === There is nothing filthier than an environmentalist  ====
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Environmentalism is the politics of Hysteria, Misanthropy & True lies.
====================================================

---------------
<kdthrge@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:365a0526-bd3c-42f1-999b-4163725527a6@c20g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.politics.misc/tree/browse_frm/thread/73ec243f9cbb4d3d/ab0c76b7df087855?hl=en&rnum=1&_done=%2Fgroup%2Ftalk.politics.misc%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F73ec243f9cbb4d3d%3Fhl%3Den%26scoring%3Dd%26&scoring=d#doc_ab0c76b7df087855
>
> On Oct 26, 7:31 am, Dawlish <pjglet@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 26, 10:52 am, Kent "kdth...@earthlink.net" >
> '>
> '> Aww look, KD's got all annoyed and started shouting again to try to
> '> make himeself heard.
> '>
> '> x thousands and thousands of scientists. All suffering from a
> criminal
> '> dysfunctionality of the intellect, while KD undersatands what's
> really
> '> going on. I think that would probably be certifiable, if you told
> the
> '> tale to a psychiatrist.-
>
> That's a AWFULLY damn lame arguement, when I have refered
> documentation from two of the most important scientists of the 20th
> century, who in dealing with the topics of gases and thermodynamics,
> make no definition or description of 'greenhouse gases',
>
> In the meantime, us flatearthers and stone age mentality hillbillies
> are wondering why with all the billions of dollars spent by Hansen's
> devotees and disciples, you can only refer documentation of
> spectroscopic properties of CO2, and no laboratory evidence whatsoever
> to confirm your interpretation that these dark bands  of the continous
> spectrum of the emitted radiation of the gas, indicate INORDINATE
> ABSORPTION which would be reflected in the increase of energy of
> INCREASED TEMEPERATURE?
>
> SEE ALL THIS DAMN BLANK SPACE,
>
> You sure can dig deep and quickly when it comes to assasinating the
> character of your dissent, but NO REFERENCE to direct scientific
> documentation of the Tyndell parlor trick upon which ALL your
> dysfunctional and fraudulent theoretical science is based?
>
> REFER YOUR GDAMN SCIENCE TO SUPPORT YOUR STATEMENTS
>
> USING THE WORD SCIENCE, IS ALL YOU RETARDS ACTUALLY HAVE, SO WEAR IT
> THE FUCK OUT, FREAKY GLOBAL WARMING KOOKS
>
> ONE DOES FEEL LIKE YELLING WHEN DEALING WITH THE AUTISTIC AND DYSLEXIC
> CHARLATANS WHO CLAIM SCIENTIFIC CLAIRVOYANCE AS THEIR CLAIM TO
> COMPLETE CONTROL OF RECOURCES OF ENERGY
>
> http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1967/1967_Hansen_Matsushima.pdf
>
> Here is an article written by Hansen, who had just recently gained
> his
> PhD in Physics. He does a full thesis here in which he defines that
> the temperatures  of Venus are definitely caused by very small dust
> particles. He goes over alternate causes which he discounts.
>
> NOWHERE DOES HANSEN INCORPORATE OR REFERENCE THE PROPERTY OF
> GREENHOUSE GASES.
>
> NOW HE IS THE FORERUNNER, IN CLAIMING THAT THE CHANGE IN METHANE OF
> EARTH'S ATMOSPHERE OF LESS THAN 1PPM COULD HAVE DEVASTATING EFFECTS
> UPON THE CLIMATE.
>
> YET HE FELT NO NEED TO INCORPORATE THE EFFECTS OF ANY GASES UPON THE
> TEMPERATURE, ESPECIALLY NOT CO2. IT WAS WELL UNDERSTOOD THAT CO2 MUST
> BE A PREDOMINATE GAS IN THE ATMOSPHERE OF VENUS.
>
> A)
> EITHER HE IS A PURE CHARLATAN FOR INVENTING THIS THERMODYNAMIC OUTLINE
> WHICH CANNOT BE VALID IF GREENHOUSE GASES EXIST
>
>
> B)
> OR HE IS A PURE CHARLATAN FOR HIS LATER WORK OF WHICH HE IS A PIONEER
> OF THE EFFECTS OF GREENHOUSE GASES
>
> TAKE YOUR GDAMN PICK.
>
> EITHER WAY HE IS A HIGH CRIMINAL AND TRAITOR TO ALL OF HUMANITY, AND
> US FLAT EARTHERS THINK HE SHOULD BE PUSHED OF THE GDAMN EDGE INTO HIS
> ETERNAL DESTINY, ALONG WITH ALL THE BLIND FAITHFULL OF HIS HOSTILE AND
> DANGEROUS FLOCK.
>
> AT THE VERY DAMN LEAST, THE FACT THAT THIS PAPER EXISTS, MEANS THE
> BURDEN OF PROOF IS SQUARELY UPON YOU TO DEMONSTRATE DIRECT SCIENCE TO
> SUPPORT THE TENET OF GREENHOUSE GASES.
>
>
> HERE IS ALSO A BOOK FROM A NOBEL PRIZE LAUREATE OF THE 1950'S. HE DOES
> 120 PAGES ON GASES, INCORPORATING ALL FUNDAMENTAL KNOWLEDGE ON GASES
> AT THAT TIME. NO PROPERTY OF GREENHOUSE GASES IS MENTIONED OR
> DESCRIBED.
>
> http://books.google.com/books?id=EpxSzteNvMYC&pg=PA327&lpg=PA327&vq=h...
>
> CO2 IS ONLY FOUND TO BE A NORMAL GAS. WHICH OBEYS THE PERFECT GAS LAW
> AT LOW PRESSURES LIKE ALL OTHER NORMAL GASES.
>
> FURTHER PROOF THAT YOU CANNOT RIGHTFULLY CLAIM FOREGONE UNDERSTANDING
> OF THIS PROPERTY.
>
> YOU HAVE THE BURDEN OF PROOF.
>
>
> KD

Oy rool out a carbon tax wrote
> This in no way absolves the IPCC of its gross ineptitude and its total
> discreditation in claiming to be "scientific". If you were a real
> scientist yourself you would know that this "error", as you call it, in
> a major publication (IPCC Fourth Assessment Report) is an abomination in
> the eyes of science. It's not that the number happened to be "wrong" -
> it's the entire context in which it was allowed to be included (correct
> or otherwise) in such a cavalier manner. Attempts to "correct" and
> band-aid such a fundamental blunder can, in no way, cover up the fact
> that this committee is nothing but a sham in the scientific context.
> 

Please explain why the IPCC is guilty of anything.   When the IPCC isn't even the 
source of climate change study, but a condiut?



You know, you're like those idiots who loved Bush and said that everything fell 
apart when the Democrats held the house, but when challenged for the reasons why, 
can't come up with a single example of why.

So, please elucidate, or fuck off.

I'm sick of mindless whining.

"Pete" <Pete.Campbell@madmen.ca> wrote in message 
news:MPG.2736c50fd12127098a0b3@news.x-privat.org...
> Oy rool out a carbon tax wrote
>> This in no way absolves the IPCC of its gross ineptitude and its total
>> discreditation in claiming to be "scientific". If you were a real
>> scientist yourself you would know that this "error", as you call it, in
>> a major publication (IPCC Fourth Assessment Report) is an abomination in
>> the eyes of science. It's not that the number happened to be "wrong" -
>> it's the entire context in which it was allowed to be included (correct
>> or otherwise) in such a cavalier manner. Attempts to "correct" and
>> band-aid such a fundamental blunder can, in no way, cover up the fact
>> that this committee is nothing but a sham in the scientific context.
>>
>
> Please explain why the IPCC is guilty of anything.   When the IPCC isn't 
> even the
> source of climate change study, but a condiut?
>

No need for sources
One only has to look at their actions and how they are responsible for the 
follow-up mess
1)    They claimed that since they were "scientists" they had a handle on 
the "science"
2)    As a "conduit", they conducted false and misleading data to come to 
false and misleading conclusions
3)    In effect, they wrapped themselves in the mantle of "scientists" to 
foist UNscientific data on the public, so that they could push their agenda
        In other words they participated in a BIG CON job.



>
>
> You know, you're like those idiots who loved Bush and said that everything 
> fell
> apart when the Democrats held the house, but when challenged for the 
> reasons why,
> can't come up with a single example of why.
>

It's the house and not BUsh that has the final say on ANY spending
So it was the Dem controlled houses that ACTUALLY had FULL control of ANY 
signed bills to bail out businesses.


> So, please elucidate, or fuck off.
>

After you, you mindless idiot

> I'm sick of mindless whining.
>
>

So stop whining

"Little Green Idiot" "Garry Bergman" <caseyterry5959@yahoo.com>
 wrote in message
news:edf01684-354f-422b-b984-f8647fe43a39@j25g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
Sure, Gore may not be a scientist, but at least
he's saying what the experts say, not making shit up.
>
"hanson" <hanson@quick.net> wrote:
.. ahahahahaha.. Sure, that is because Gore does not
wanna know  that your experts follow the  Green Bible,
in <http://tinyurl.com/ylql3gf>, wherein it says:
>
1 "It doesn't matter what is true ... it only matters what people
= believe is true. -- Paul Watson, Sea Shepard/ex-Greenpeace, &...
2 "If you don't know an answer, a fact, a statistic, then .... make it
= up on the spot... for the mass-media today... the truth is irrelevant."
= -- Paul Watson in Earthforce: An Earth Warrior's Guide to Strategy.
>
      === There is nothing filthier than an environmentalist  ====
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Environmentalism is the politics of Hysteria, Misanthropy & True lies.
====================================================
>