..Sci. American article Ends Debate over Global Warming! "...more dire than even the bleak...

On Aug 7, 11:00 pm, wrote:
"columbiaaccidentinvestigation"
wrote in glegroups.com...





On Aug 7, 10:19 pm, wrote:
"columbiaaccidentinvestigation"
wrote in
oglegroups.com...

On Aug 7, 4:59 pm, wrote:
On Aug 7, 12:47 pm, columbiaaccidentinvestigation

wrote:
On Aug 6, 5:23 pm, wrote:

"columbiaaccidentinvestigation"

wrote in
oglegroups.com...

On Aug 6, 4:48 pm, wrote:
"columbiaaccidentinvestigation"

wrote in
oglegroups.com...

On Aug 6, 4:06 pm,
wrote:"Claudius
Denk:"Like all propagandists you will continue to evade the
only
issue
that matters in this discussion: There is zero evidence that
increased
CO2 (or any other "greenhouse" gas) will have any effect at
all
on
atmospheric temperatures."

* repost with extra cut out**

LOL, you are a funny man, as youre quite predictable, and I
find
you
entertaining. Now if you would like to make the observations
your
self, get in a hot air balloon, and spend the next fifty
years
taking
samples than run those numbers by hand (that's my preferred
choice for
your studies) or you can open your eyes and read some of the
links I
have posted instead of firing lame responses that a child
could
compose. But I doubt very much you will take the time to read
any of
the sources I have posted, and it very much appears you are
more
interested in arguing like a child than backing your
allegation
from
aug 5th. Now maybe your ego wont allow you to admit you made
a
mistake posting your statement on aug 5, and want to take
your
anger
out on me rather than act like an adult and take
responsibility
for
your actions (but I guess its better you act that way here
than
I you
were act this way in person) But you refusal to back your
words
once
again shows that your motivations are something other than
discussing
the changes our society must make in reducing emissions of
green
house
gases/aerosols as to avoid adverse conditions for future
generations
and economies..

On Aug 5, 10:34 am you wrote the following "Correct. Since
AGW
is a
hoax there is no need for changes."

I asked you to back it up, and you replied with the
following:
"Like
all propagandists you will continue to evade the only issue
that
matters in this discussion: There is zero evidence that
increased CO2
(or any other "greenhouse" gas) will have any effect at all
on
atmospheric temperatures. Put up or shut up, jackass.

You are evading my request to provide valid credible sources
to
back
the claim you made on aug 5. at 10:34 am, so you must "put up
or
shut
up" as you say.

Like all propagandists you will continue to evade the only
issue
that
matters in this discussion: There is zero evidence that
increased
CO2
(or any other "greenhouse" gas) will have any effect at all on
atmospheric temperatures. Put up or shut up, jackass.- Hide
quoted
text -

- Show quoted text -

I did, just read the sources.

Why are you, seemingly, afraid to quote something directly from
it?

I know you haven't so don't lie,

You seem to know a lot of things. So it must be very frustrating
to
you
that you are so completely unable to explain to us how and why you
know
these things.

or
pretend like you know something that the government, scientists
and
private sector doesn't,

It is you that is pretending.

as they are spending their money to make the
changes you are refuting,

We might as well be paying them to weigh moonbeams.

i.e. people are already acting on the
information you refuse to read.

Uh, no pal. It's because I'd read it all when it first became
public
and,
therefore, knew you were talking out your ass.

So like I said if you really think
their being duped contact them for it is their work, not mine to
defend.

They are watching this conversation right now. Your participation
is
appreciated.

Sorry you are picking a fight in the wrong spot dude, as you
are painting yourself in a corner.

So you concede that you yourself are not aware of any evidence
that
increased CO2 (or any other "greenhouse" gas) will have any effect
at
all on
atmospheric temperatures?" Right? (Answer the question you
evasive
twit.)

So try again, what did you mean
with the post on aug 5, 10:34 am, back and cite it or concede
that
what you said that day is propaganda...

If you provide an honest response to the question above you will
prove that
my accusations of you being a propagandist are mistaken.- Hide
quoted
text -

- Show quoted text -

lol, your accusations are what i flush down the toilet in the
morning,
and your judgments really belong in the same place. Look i don't
care
if you arbitrarily make a declaration of what you believe, or that
you
think you can turn the debate against me, because you're still a
joke. So try again if you want some respect, so what did you mean
with the post on aug 5, 10:34 am, back and cite it or concede that
what you said that day is propaganda... oh yeah since you are
posting
un-supported information with the purpose of doing harm to a person
or
a group, you are in fact means you are the person using propaganda
to
argue your points.

Do you concede that you yourself are not aware of any evidence that
increased CO2 (or any other "greenhouse" gas) will have any effect at
all on atmospheric temperatures?" (Answer the question you evasive
twit.)

No response.

Laughing you doesn't get it. Let me tell you what bugs me, starting
pitchers who are going for strike outs when they have more than a 5
run lead, quarterbacks who don't look off the safety, and wide
receivers who don't drag their toes that's what gets me mad not your
ridiculous accusations. Your demands don't even rank on the list of
my top 10000000 concerns. So try again, what did you mean with the
post on aug 5, 10:34 am, back and cite it or concede that what you
said that day is propaganda...

Do you concede that you yourself are not aware of any evidence that
increased CO2 (or any other "greenhouse" gas) will have any effect at
all on atmospheric temperatures?" (Answer the question you evasive
twit.)

- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

laughing more and more. Are you still the child who askes why is the
sky blue, or why do fish swim every night? Now just show your valid
and credible sources to back the claim you made on aug 5. at 10:34 am,
so you must "put up or shut up" as you have said. tom

Dontcha think that by refusing to answer my question you affirm the validity
of my assertion that AGW is propaganda?



- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

nope

On Tue, 07 Aug 2007 21:28:48 -0700, owl wrote:

On Aug 8, 12:00 am, Bill Ward wrote:
On Tue, 07 Aug 2007 14:05:59 -0700, owl wrote:
On Aug 7, 1:09 pm, wrote:
On Aug 7, 1:21 am, owl wrote:

On Aug 7, 2:31 am, wrote:

Like all propagandists you will continue to evade the only issue
that matters in this discussion: There is zero evidence that
increased CO2 (or any other "greenhouse" gas) will have any
effect at all on atmospheric temperatures."

Like all shoulder-toads, you will continue to evade every issue
that matters in this discussion.

http://www.is.wayne.edu/mnissani/a&s/co2class.htm

3rd grade science.

It works. Your claim of zero effect is disproven and without merit.
Your alteration of requirements when confronted with this '3rd grade
science' is evasion.

Time for you to provide evidence that CO2 has zero effect on
atmospheric temperatures. You can pick any grade youj want.

That stunt is bogus and you know it. Look at the picture - the light is
over the CO2 bottle.

That's just plain friggin lame as a response. You got the site, contact
the guy and tell him the demonstration is flawed because of the light bulb
angle. Gawd you really are a burnt-out wick.

It doesn't really matter, as the demonstration only
proves that CO2 is heavier than air and thus doesn't carry the heat away
by convection as the air does.

It's not bogus. It's a variation of the exact same demonstration that's
been repeated over and over again. Nice try ... no, not really. Sad,
pathetic, flatulent, attempt to avoid reality.

I explained why it's bogus, and you apparently don't comprehend. It has
nothing to do with radiative properties, it's a trick based on the
specific gravity of CO2 being higher (heavier) than air. The air convects
(gets hot and rises) heat out of the open top, but when the CO2 is
introduced, the CO2 sinks to the bottom and just stays there, getting
hotter by conduction from the wall. It's not able to cool as rapidly as
the air, because it can't rise out of the jar.

The stunt's a lie, pure and simple, every time it's done.

Can you understand that?

Misleading kids like that is child abuse.

You're posting way too much stuff that has issues attached. If it's
loneliness and lack of attention on your plate, this might be the worng
forum. hth.

See how much of this link you posted you can follow:

It's okay. The formulas are over there, the presentation isn't quite as
readable as a motherboard schematic, and the reference sources are
consistant with the vitriolic attitude towards a climate science they
can't relate to. Other than that, so far it's ... boring.

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Fals...ion_of_CO2.pdf

Tell us where they're wrong and why. Or figure out a way to evade the
issue.

Don' have to, Will Bored. Pester someone who gives a spit about your
crappy responses.

... the light is off-centre ... how embarassing...

So you don't have a clue about any of that boring ol' science stuff...

Poor girl needs another job.

Greenpeace isn't getting their moneys worth out of you, but I'll never
tell.

On Aug 8, 1:20 am, wrote:
"owl" wrote in message

ps.com...

On Aug 7, 7:59 pm, wrote:

Do you concede that you yourself are not aware of any evidence that
increased CO2 (or any other "greenhouse" gas) will have any effect at
all on atmospheric temperatures?" (Answer the question you evasive
twit.)

Do you concede that you yourself refuse to accept any evidence
provided, and rewire your criteria to evade the evidence?

No.

(Answer the
question you evasive twit.)

Any more questions?

Show your evidence for CO2 failing to affect temperature. Use any two
flasks you want.

On Aug 7, 11:24 pm, owl wrote:
On Aug 8, 1:20 am, wrote:





"owl" wrote in message

ups.com...

On Aug 7, 7:59 pm, wrote:

Do you concede that you yourself are not aware of any evidence that
increased CO2 (or any other "greenhouse" gas) will have any effect at
all on atmospheric temperatures?" (Answer the question you evasive
twit.)

Do you concede that you yourself refuse to accept any evidence
provided, and rewire your criteria to evade the evidence?

No.

(Answer the
question you evasive twit.)

Any more questions?

Show your evidence for CO2 failing to affect temperature. Use any two
flasks you want.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dry CO2 is merely a harmless insulative gas, of which can be converted
via diatoms into co/o2. Wet CO2 is just about as acidic nasty as all
get out, although wet NOx is actually far worse.
- Brad Guth