Climate change wankers
Shatner'sBassoon wrote:Wow! A couple of previous queries, Sheepster:
Your theory that "the carpetbaggers might take advantage of the situation therefore it's a scam and the science is crap", is a bit off, don't you think? (Andy M.)
Sheepster, the link...thoughts? (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/06/call-me-emotional-i... ) He is a true believin' Green 'warmist'. Naive and/or duped? You think the science community is naive and/or being duped too...by BIG NUCLEAR?
Or are they actively in on it? Paid shills for a human-induced climate change that isn't real or really that big a deal? (This one is mine)
Enquiring minds have got to know...
happyasS wrote:Sheepdog wrote:And when a ship bringing back this poison to Australia is hijacked by extremists, or when a dodgy dockworker with connections pockets a heap of crap for "dirty bombs" ( and it will happen), Flannery, Finkel, and all the other hardcore pro nuclear pro "end of the world from global warming" fucktards AND their braindead followers, AND the cretins who want to spend hours being elite on threads arguing crap over word definitions who wipe their hands over the imminent nuclear future will run and hide like rats down their fucking holes........
.....overly dramatic....but entertaining nonetheless
amasing, Doggo, simply AMASING!
wellymon wrote:"Lift, i didn't open your link coz I'm not interested in your crap..."
Fuck me that's a little bit rude!
A- it's rude.
B- It's not Uppity, there is only one lift on here?
Welly I know you usually don't pray to false Gods . But in this instance I believe you are most likely adrift .
And I don't mean in some lovely fluffy white powder ;-) .
It appears the " prodding all " son has returned to preach to the deliberately ignoring masses .
It's not bad enough that he was initially a one man army , now it seems he's formed some sort of kinky leather clad gimp brigade . Most likely he's still riding in the bitch seat on his own bike though . Nothing 's changed there !
Sorry to digress , back to utter crap that has been filling this thread for the last few weeks .
Sheepo , I whole heartedly agree . Flannery is a muppet . I wonder when he'll bust out the gaiea talk or. Jump in the endless drought bandwagon again . Just in time for serious flooding !?!
Upturkey.... Finally.... Finally you are doing your homework.... That's all I asked for the other day, but you had a sooky sooky la la.... So I'm glad you spent time going back through this enlightening thread....
"And Flannery is in that ball-park of fools? Really?"
Oh he's not alone, Upturkey.... The mung beans that wasted $30 on a book made of trees, printed in China via coal based electricity, and shipped around the world are even more stupid than Flannery... They're nearly as stupid as the people who invested in Flannery's last carpet bagging scheme - hot rocks..... Millions upon millions even supplied by Krudd.... But here's the current share price graph.....
Shats.... Ohh we're softened up to the point of ky jelly..... Imagine the scenes in 1982 if this was happening.... You'd have Midnight Oil, a bevy of celebs, massive crowds.... But hardly a whimper from a country that's lost it's soul..
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-12-05/activists-descend-on-port-ahead-of...'s-arrival/7004088
Fuck I'm sorry my little sheepish buddy. I didn't realise you were ill. Enough.
Trust you're getting the treatment you need. The meds are better these days I hear.
Good luck. And Godspeed.
Though before your next nap/appointment/dose, just to clarify, a straight answer would suffice (three dudes with pretty much the same question):
Shatner'sBassoon wrote: Wow! A couple of previous queries, Sheepster:
Your theory that "the carpetbaggers might take advantage of the situation therefore it's a scam and the science is crap", is a bit off, don't you think? (Andy M.)
Sheepster, the link...thoughts? (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/06/call-me-emotional-i... ) He is a true believin' Green 'warmist'. Naive and/or duped? You think the science community is naive and/or being duped too...by BIG NUCLEAR?
Or are they actively in on it? Paid shills for a human-induced climate change that isn't real or really that big a deal?
AndyM wrote:"Washing your hands of a problem you are helping to create......"
Let me get this right - if you believe in AGW, you are pro-nuclear/creating a nuclear future therefore you are an idiot to believe in AGW.
Logic so twisted it's pretty much broken Sheepdog.
Mate I agree with you with regards to the fact that we should be very aware of this "trojan horse" however to me, AGW and a "nuclear future" are two separate issues that some are trying to pass off as one. Clearly there's a link but they are certainly not inseparable.
I still have some faith in the Australian public and the tiers of government in that the pro-nuclear crowd will not have a win.
Sheepie, I'm not sure why you wouldn't put your considerable energy into the anti-nuclear side of things as opposed to abusing those that believe in AGW.
And I wrote more recently:
So, Flannery, as a scientist, is part of this "nutcake cha ching share holder agenda thing" (nutcake? kettle meet pot), hey? Like Finkel? And they're in it for the $$$. Right...........so that's why they and their scientific cohorts have exaggerated, or even invented this climate science thing 'cos they're in the pay of big nuclear? Or big oil looking to shift over to big nuclear? And chuck in big gas and big mining too. But first the big oil/mining/gas big boys are backing the sceptic thing to see how that plays out? And keeping the pro climate scientist dudes on the payroll too like an each-way bet? Right.........
As for the pollies. Well, Mal and Hunt are the worst of the political species you'd ever hope to run over in your tractor. Old Jay is clutching at any old straws trying to keep Adelaide from becoming Flint, Michigan. Yes, they will say and do almost anything. That's why we have to keep vigilant, hey comrade?
But to suggest the science community is 'in on it'? Duped? Naive? Or just corpo, money hungry, lying scum?
And either way, it all means that the climate science is dubious, bogus, and/or 'crap'??????
And me, stumbling on to these previously unanswered queries from others that correspond to my own more recent one, is lauded by you as "doing my homework"?!
Poor bugger. And I thought Tony Abbott was delusional. Maybe we do all want him back, hey buddy?
Have a breath, a think, then sweet dreams. And enjoy your chicken souffle.
(recommended by Dr. Big Wayne Uplift von Rottmouth the Third)
TALKING TURKEY are you calling me a kiddie fiddler? You obviously don't live in Australia and obviously a man in a girls body.
Please don't think I hold that against you with your poor grasp of science.
AndyM I am still waiting.
For your information I read the article and I did understand the words ( If you think I can't understand that those big words) your are arguing with the wrong person.
What is amazing to me that if if you read the article properly then you would realise they are just guessing.
In case you hadn't realised Nick, this is unprecedented in recorded history (apart from the records in ice cores and the like, if you follow me), so expecting an exact figure is either trolling or showing an incredible amount of ignorance. 1.1m rise is a "mid-point", between 1 and 1.5m by the end of this century is "plausible" and so on.
To be frank mate, you can argue from your bedroom, and the educated and informed will carry on and you'll be dragged along whether you like it or not.
nick3 wrote:TALKING TURKEY are you calling me a kiddie fiddler? You obviously don't live in Australia and obviously a man in a girls body.
Please don't think I hold that against you with your poor grasp of science.
Comedy gold. All the better for not making any logical sense. PROJECTION. Google it Nick Nick.
As for poor old Doggo, still no answers to old, old questions. Hang in, little buddy. Help is on its way. Godspeed.
@sheepdog
Maintain the rage! A la 1982.
Find a happy place, find a happy place.
Well, it seems that many in this chat are very proficient in copy & paste - a small step for mankind (being facetious, sorry). I may also have to part take in this but I will enclose the copy in quotes. Firstly, for those that believe in Prof Flannery, well, please understand and review his background. He has made several fundamental errors and pronouncements which have tended to cause anxiety and of course, proven to be incorrect - the benefit of hindsight. But if you truly believe in what he says then I suggest either read his latest book and follow up on what he is now suggesting. You will find that his thoughts are very theoretical, not all his own and importantly not in production for use today, referring of course to his thoughts at geoengineering. This field is relative new.
Now, if we use the article referenced by AndyM on sea level rises, then the article states - 'Our present climate is warming to a level associated with significant polar ice-sheet loss in the past, but a number of challenges remain to further constrain ice-sheet sensitivity to climate change using paleo–sea level records.' Also, study the graph of the different periods. Note the similar temperature and CO2 level at the different periods. Then also note the retraction of the polar sheets. Note Antarctica stays relatively fixed with respect to temperature increases. The editor states - 'Nevertheless, accurate projections of how much sea-level rise will occur are difficult to make based solely on modern observations. '
Now fresh as of Tuesday 8th Dec we have - 'Global Carbon Project: Study suggests greenhouse gas emissions may have dropped as world economy grew in 2015'.
Now this could be classed as cherry picking since I don't know the Global Carbon Project and their credibility but, if you wish to believe this (heh, don't we all believe what the ABC says) then this is a significant result. The key point is the world did not stand still, did not contract but grew.
If we truly have an Armageddon then yes all energy sources need to be on the table, including nuclear. If we don't want nuclear then we don't have an Armageddon. We can wait.
As there seems to be much of compliments and platitudes here, I will try to use the swell forecasts and soak up the JAWS contest and those blokes efforts - just plain amazing.
Better man then me, Gunga Din.
So let me get this straight.
If Prof. Flannery is wrong then the idea of anthropological inducted climate change is wrong. Yeah?
Following this line of thought but on the flip side if, say, Lord Monkton is wrong then the idea that mankind's activities are not influencing the climate is wrong.
Bit of a conundrum, no?
Braud....is your question the same as - Has Prof Flannery ever been wrong ?
The conundrum is in the solutions. The conundrum is in the proof of sea level rise. The conundrum is in the 'probable' temperature rise. Yep there are conundrums in this subject.
tonybarber wrote:Braud....is your question the same as - Has Prof Flannery ever been wrong ?
Certainly Prof Flannery has been wrong but in the context of the conundrum then yes the question is the same, or at least the same as 'Has Lord Monkton ever been wrong?'.
and now for something different .... more tripe questioning science.
Australia, the international leaner when it comes to climate change ..........
http://media.smh.com.au/featured/waleed-aly-targets-andrew-bolt-over-cli...
Baudo...there was recent chat re prof Flannery. There was also a reference to an article on possible 'sea level rise' and similar co2 and temperatures in early geological periods. Also the recent report from the global carbon project - may or may not be relevant. Lord Marty Feldman, I'll leave him to you
a great turn of phrase from Andy M. above:
"Logic so twisted it's pretty much broken."
applies to a lot of the comments on here...and everywhere. In fact, it should be a thread of its very own!
floyd wrote:Australia, the international leaner when it comes to climate change ..........
http://media.smh.com.au/featured/waleed-aly-targets-andrew-bolt-over-cli...
I reckon some of the anti-science brains trust on here have graduated from the same institution.
he did appear in this year's sydney mardi gras, right?
Ha! Are you guys still trying to justify a carbon tax?
Is CO'2 Driving global warming and sea level rise?
Talking Turds are you upset that for all the shit you post it still doesn't answer the real physical science.
It is like religion just except and believe . If you were to look at it through actual grounded science it would not stack up.
AnyM i did not ask for a exact figure ,I just want you tell me in your own words how you read and interpret these articles.
Floyd are you the weakest piece of shit going around ? You never answer a hard question and all you do is try to discredit people.
Sorry that implies to most of you. Dickheads:)
Nah Nick3 Flawed is a cunt..Who unfortunately the lightning missed a few yrs ago..If over population is ever an issue then surely Floyd should do the self sacrifice thing and save the world a few carbon tonnes
another big night on the terps for the dynamic duo
Nah sorry flawed..just come to realize your a worthless troll
don't over tax that single brain cell of yours now
"As for poor old Doggo, still no answers to old, old questions. Hang in, little buddy. Help is on its way. Godspeed."
Bahahahaha..... All the questions have been answered... It just doesn't sink in to that pea sized cranium of yours... No response to Flannery's failed hot rocks venture.... No reponse to his beachside mansions or his pro nuclear stance.... Just dodge weave dodge weave stay lucky......
BTW, fuckn man up and use you real blogging name.... Leave the multiple accounts to cowards... Ohh hang on... That's right.... You are..... Glass of cement mate....
Now for the more sensible out there, in BB's old thread that got the axe, those with a better memory than the Elliston Gimp would remember a conversation I had with BB, Floyd, Stu etc about the Carbon sinks/forests and Phytoplankton, and my concerns that those points are the real issue, and not the burning of fossil fuels..... I said that if anything is going to bite us on the arse, it will be a lack of o2, as the o2 producing mechanisms are destroyed.... Meanwhile, since my chat with andym days ago, have a guess how much amazon is gone? Just a guess..... In 3 days.......
meanwhile; http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/12/151201094120.htm
braudulio wrote:So let me get this straight.
If Prof. Flannery is wrong then the idea of anthropological inducted climate change is wrong. Yeah?
Following this line of thought but on the flip side if, say, Lord Monkton is wrong then the idea that mankind's activities are not influencing the climate is wrong.
Bit of a conundrum, no?
Ummmmm..... O....Kay....... lol
Geez you guys are a classic bunch of nerds..
Nice rain 23 degrees up here today, compared to yesterday working in the Clatex refinery port of Briss,y 36 degrees in the sun , hauling up 7m 80kg pipes to lay for potable water, standing on 250 degree pipes with a Vessel 700 degrees low pressure close by !!!!
FUCKING HOT, suck it up internet seat sitters????????????
;)
wellymon wrote:Geez you guys are a classic bunch of nerds..
Nice rain 23 degrees up here today, compared to yesterday working in the Clatex refinery port of Briss,y 36 degrees in the sun , hauling up 7m 80kg pipes to lay for potable water, standing on 250 degree pipes with a Vessel 700 degrees low pressure close by !!!!
FUCKING HOT, suck it up internet seat sitters????????????
;)
Words from the wellyguru.... So are you saying it's hot, welly? In summer? Shit.......... ;)
NO SHEEPIO,It is when you're working in an environment where I have been working, similar but not quite to the mornay pies ?
No guru just having a read of all the banter champ, wouldn't mind seeing Davo again he's a cool mutha for sure you there Rave!
Dunno whats happened to the rave, welly.... Perhaps he malted and choked on a fur ball :p
wellymon wrote:Geez you guys are a classic bunch of nerds..
Nice rain 23 degrees up here today, compared to yesterday working in the Clatex refinery port of Briss,y 36 degrees in the sun , hauling up 7m 80kg pipes to lay for potable water, standing on 250 degree pipes with a Vessel 700 degrees low pressure close by !!!!
FUCKING HOT, suck it up internet seat sitters????????????
;)
Yeah but it's a dry heat.
Haha B
Dry heat sitting at a computer looking up links to climate change behind those dark sunnies in aircond sporting the suave suit..... ;)
Dripping wet in full PPE sucking shit loads of water.
Jenny Craig's weight loss.
Was a climate change working today compared to yesterday 13 degree difference which has been happening a fair bit lately. IMO
Anyone got any references to the varying temps????
@wellymon, for the record I don't own a suave suit.
braudulio wrote:@wellymon, for the record I don't own a suave suit.
Hmmm.... Visions of the braudmeister at his pc, listening to "Nature boy" by primus...... Not good.... I might double up on the xanax.......
Always happy to disturb
Good summary of the results from Paris.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2015/dec/12/paris-c...
Cheers Blindboy. Also this:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/12/james-hansen-climate-...,
"Hanson,74, has just returned from Paris where he again called for a price to be placed on each tonne of carbon from major emitters (he’s suggested a “fee” – because “taxes scare people off” – of $15 a tonne that would rise $10 a year and bring in $600bn in the US alone). There aren’t many takers, even among “big green” as Hansen labels environment groups."
It could be argued that the Labor Party were just ahead of their time. Besides the fact they couldn't organise a look out the window on a sunny day, never mind sell a carbon "fee".
For you Sheepy:
“It’s all embarrassing really,” Hansen says. “After a while you realise as a scientist that politicians don’t act rationally.
My suggestion is, don't necessarily blame the science, blame our so-called leaders, our politicians.
Sheepdog wrote:"As for poor old Doggo, still no answers to old, old questions. Hang in, little buddy. Help is on its way. Godspeed."
Bahahahaha..... All the questions have been answered... It just doesn't sink in to that pea sized cranium of yours... No response to Flannery's failed hot rocks venture.... No reponse to his beachside mansions or his pro nuclear stance.... Just dodge weave dodge weave stay lucky......
BTW, fuckn man up and use you real blogging name.... Leave the multiple accounts to cowards... Ohh hang on... That's right.... You are..... Glass of cement mate....
Taking a turn from the delusional to the surreal. "Use your real blogging name"? Right.......you mean use my real fake name instead of my fake fake name? Right........
As for the rest, well, Doggo, you've answered fuck-all, and yet your "dodging and weaving", as you like to put it (there's that PROJECTION again), answers everything.
Hey little buddy, at least Lord Monkton, Bolt, and the rest of the Catallaxy Files gang, are getting some coin for their bitter ramblings and slop.
What are you and Nicky getting? Poor old Lord Sheeeeeepdog, doing it for the love. And attention.
I can give you my 'real' number on here a la Schmux if you like, so we can have a proper old chin-wag ? Or else drop in and say g'day next time you're in town. I don't mean drop in literally, ya old hell man! Doggo would go! Yeah, nah.
Sheepdog wrote:Now for the more sensible out there, in BB's old thread that got the axe, those with a better memory than the Elliston Gimp would remember a conversation I had with BB, Floyd, Stu etc about the Carbon sinks/forests and Phytoplankton, and my concerns that those points are the real issue, and not the burning of fossil fuels..... I said that if anything is going to bite us on the arse, it will be a lack of o2, as the o2 producing mechanisms are destroyed....
That Benski bloke is a scientist, yeah? Hang on, so are you! Shit, sorry buddy, the penny has just dropped. I apologise, will drink a glass of concrete etc etc.
So when you read this that Benski posted ages ago, you replied...um...somewhere?
"Stop wasting your time with pointless strawmen and have a proper discussion.
If your issues with climate science, your alleged agnosticism about climate change, is due to what you read in the media, then you've got a lot more thinking to do man. Relying on what some "leading person" said in an interview to make your assessment? I thought I showed you the problem of doing that with the Vic rainfall in October :-).
Seriously, you know how much crap is in the media (misreported or otherwise), why bother relying on that for something this complicated when the forecasts with associated probabilities and estimates of uncertainty are available to you directly (all based on a 30 year definition of climate)? Do some proper reading for yourself.
You reckon no one gives a hoot about carbon sinks and phytoplankton? The IPCC consider it explictly...
Here's their discussion from the 4th assessment report on the capacity of phytoplankton
https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch11s11-2-2.html
And here's their analysis of the scientific literature on carbon sinks from the third assessment reports
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg2/index.php?idp=274
And here's a presentation of the probable rates of sequestration from re-afforestation
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sres/land_use/index.php?idp=151
If you think the science community isn't considering this stuff then you're not reading enough before jumping to your conclusions"
I know you don't read my crap, you told me, and I'm not a scientist, but is this similar? Couple of scientists on the same page?
"Flannery believes that some climate engineering techniques are more acceptable because they simply accelerate natural processes of atmospheric and hydrological carbon management.
"Using photosynthesis to grow vegetation, for example, that dines on CO2 and stores the waste carbon as plant matter, but this process is only 1% efficient. We can force nature to do better, Flannery says, by dramatically boosting the pace of the natural carbon cycle and storing the extracted carbon in biological (forest, seaweed, biochar) form or in synthetic products, or by sequestering it through deep or frigid (South Pole) burial.
“Third Way” techniques range from the unobjectionable – reforestation and wetlands reclamation — to the more problematic. The problematic techniques include ocean fertilization, chemically-enhanced weathering of rocks, production of carbon-negative cement and plastics, and carbon capture that is not designed simply to prolong the life of fossil fuels."
Lord Sheeeeepdog:
"Imagine if every man woman and child planted a tree tomorrow.. or a bush.... Or a shrub.... 7 billion plants.... tomorrow...... Sucking in carbon.... Better than a wankstain "earth hour"..... Now scientists can modify canola to be pest resistant... Well why the fuck aren't we modifying all these crops, and rose bushes, and plantation pines to store more carbon? Dunno..... Fuck all money in it I suppose... More money in uranium, carbon credits, bullshit schemes...."
Sorry for posting a lot of reading, dude.
Meanwhile in a far more sane corner of the planet:
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/un-climate-conference/us-town-rejects-...
Was thinkin' this could work out well for ski resorts, less sun = less heat! Plus ya got power (allegedly) for the snow guns! Win win!
But lets not stop there, if we use the same logics then wind farms oughta suck in all the wind, no? I want one on the headland at my local, glassy all day even if it's blowing a hooley! And power for the pub. Again win win!
Turkey breath... Are you fuckn right now mate? Glad you got all that out of your system??
Dude, you wrote a week or 2 ago;
"'Ummm... I'm fairly new here...... Can someone please explain WTF this is about? A rather bizarre but intriguing read...... "
Ok... so you're "FAIRLY NEW HERE".............
Then , just above, you write;
"I can give you my 'real' number on here a la Schmux if you like, so we can have a proper old chin-wag ?"
a la Schmux aye?????????????
And you're "fairly new here"..................... "A la Schmux"??????? Fuckn spare me.... Bullshit.... You use words like "amasing"spelled with an s, "gimp", "swillnutters", "soufle'".......
And you're "fairly new here'......
It's either a case of "different shit - same arsehole", or "same shit different arsehole".... Either way it's still shit..... From an arsehole...
So above Upturkey supplies some links from 2007 about carbon sinks... Whooaaahhh.... But this is the same turkey who only on wed' said,,,,,, "Amasing research, Doggo. From 2006. At least mine was from 2015. "
So, it's ok for the turkster to supply links from the last decade, but not for anyone else... Classic hypocrite, for all to see....
Yep, we've hit Peak Doggo. Or he's jumped the Fonzie or something.
I remember a while back some ego-maddened peanut crapping on to me about "doing my homework" on Swellnet. So I did. Obviously, it wasn't the "homework" he meant for me to do. The stuff I found was waaaay more interesting. I discovered quite an array of characters. Some I even know. Some I've got an idea who they are. Some I don't and wouldn't want to.
Now, Doggo, I know you're not the sharpest tool in the shed, and you're not much of a reader, but fuck sake, you've lost me now regarding the carbon sink 2007 stuff. Upturkey? Is that me? If so, when did I personally supply these links?
Or are you talking about Benski's links, and more interesting comments around them, I've reposted a coupla times now ('cos you keep "dodging and weaving" as you like to put it. Or FLOUNDERING as I like to put it)? First time you've read 'em?
I know I'm not a scientist, but Benski did say to you, and I quote, "You reckon no one gives a hoot about carbon sinks and phytoplankton? The IPCC consider it explictly..."
And then he supplied these links to reports from waaaay back to show that, yes, scientists have been giving a shit and looking at this stuff for ages!
As for your stuff about Flannery and nuclear from 2006, what's his position NOW? You'd know if you had a look at the reviews of his latest book in 2015 I supplied. Which weren't glowing either, by the way. He can't see nuclear as an option NOW. Yeah, Finkel has raised it. Mal got him the gig, yeah? There's a bunch of scientists looking at nuclear as a possible help and a bunch of them dismissing it as a hindrance. Ain't that what scientists do? Yeah, nah, they're ALL bought and sold according to you. ALL of 'em. Both sides by the same BIG BUSINESSES. SO BECAUSE OF THAT DOGGO 'FACT', IT'S ALL A CROCK OF SHIT, MADE UP OR EXAGGERATED FOR THE $$$$!
Yeah, we know you're not a big reader, Doggo. You're not even a little one. We get that.
But buddy, despite your pseudo-agnostic bullshit line, and your "dodging and weaving", it's obvious to all and sundry that you're just another floundering card-carrying "climate change is crap" ignoramus, like the real "bought & sold" Bolt, Monkton, the Catallaxy gang etc etc etc.
Oh, and Nicky 3 too. Except he's doesn't get paid. Like you. Or do you???????
(You do love a conspiracy, don't ya Doggo, ya nut? There's that pesky Swellnet "homework" again)
Turkey, you write "Now, Doggo, I know you're not the sharpest tool in the shed, and you're not much of a reader, but fuck sake, you've lost me now regarding the carbon sink 2007 stuff. Upturkey? Is that me? If so, when did I personally supply these links?
You're actually an idiot, aren't you.... No, seriously.... You are an idiot.... Below is the link and comment you posted just above, less that 24 hours ago..... Now look at it.... Now tell me if the date says 2007....
You reckon no one gives a hoot about carbon sinks and phytoplankton? The IPCC consider it explictly...
Here's their discussion from the 4th assessment report on the capacity of phytoplankton
https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch11s11-2-2.html
You've lost the plot, turklift.... You are that full of rage and shit, you cant even remember what you posted less than 24 hours ago.... Amasing.... The gimp's gone gaga.... The soufle didn't rise... Get your fuckn act together, and re check your 2007 link...
And you want to speak to me on the phone? A la Scmux? Wow.. Unhinged... Obsessed... Do you realize how crazy that makes you come across? Of all the argy bargy on this site over 1 1/2 years, you are the only one that wants to supply a number and have it out personally over the phone.... You're a nutter, right?
As far as you using all of uplifts phrases and favorite words, well, hey, everyone can draw their own conclusions on that....
http://principia-scientific.org/supportnews/latest-news/163-new-discover...
Now to all you fruit loops. This is the end to the biggest load bullshit of all time. The government know's it (but still won't say it ), the smart people like me know it. When will you clowns please apologise to me for your un-educated attacks.
To all the man made global warmest alarmist's suck shit losers.
Now go and do something worthwhile fuckwits.