Post by benjPost by Trevor WilsonPost by benjPost by Trevor WilsonPost by benjPost by Trevor WilsonPost by benjPost by Trevor WilsonPost by benjPost by NadegdaTime to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
why believe that outragous full of numbnuts shit article link
kensi pupa
posted?
If it's so "outragous[sic]" and impossible to believe, why do you froth
so? Obviously, you fear kensi's message, which puts the lie to
your k'lame
that it's too silly to be believed.
Telling you that you are an uneducated immature clown is hardly
froth. It is simply fact and is strong evidence that your
beliefs are are all nonsense. Your froth above shows you and
"kensi" fear exposure of you lack of science knowledge and try
to cover the fact with bluster. Nobody is fooled. Have a nice day.
**Pot, kettle, black you moron.
Liberal "science": puerile name-calling.
**Name calling? Nope. Just stating fact. You fail miserably to
back any of your insane claims. You fail miserably to answer any
of my questions and you fail miserably to respond to any of my
points. You are a lying moron.
Post by benjPost by Trevor WilsonPost by benjBig hint, Nads: Journalists are NOT scientists and know no science.
**Not necessarily.
True,
**There you go. That wasn't hard, was it? You finally admitted to
one of your many lies. one down, about a million to go. I won't be
holding my breath.
Lib liars always accuse others of being the liars.
**Do they? Prove it. Prove that conservatives don't do exactly the
same thing. Nonetheless, I called you a liar, because you ARE a
liar. An ignorant one, at that.
I called YOU a liar because you are one.
**And yet, not once have you managed to prove that I have lied. I
guess you lied about that as well. SOP. Lie about everything and hope
for the best. Well, it won't cut it in the real world.
That's your job I think.
**Nope. You don't think.
You "debate" noted and reportd.
Post by Trevor WilsonPost by benjPost by Trevor Wilson I note that you
Post by benjprovide no evidence of any journalist knowing any science.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natalie_Angier
Pulitzer prize is proof of science knowledge? I don't think so.
Anyway life sciences and medicine aren't real science.
**[SHAKES HEAD] There is no way you can deal with logic and reason.
Libs like you don't do logic and reason. That is a given.
**You have no idea of my political leanings. Let me remind you of this
little fact:
Here is a survey conducted by CSIRO:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-04/majority-of-australians-believe-in-climate-change-csiro-report/6909940
Scroll down to figure 42:
Here in Australia, Labor and the Greens are left wing and Liberal and
National voters are right wing.
You may care to note that 28% or Liberal voters and 22% or National
voters accept that human induced global warming is real.
So, you can continue to erroneously label people with arbitrary
political labels and look like an idiot, or you can discuss the science.
Your choice.
Post by benjPost by Trevor WilsonPost by benjPost by Trevor Wilsonhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Ball
Getting Closer. I mean he was once "sort of: a physicist before he
discovered he was liberal. I'd have to read his latest book on QM to
see if his head is up his arse or not. Clearly he is not quite a
Journalist though he regularly "contributes" to rags like NYT,
Guardian and propaganda arms like BBC. Those are all negative evidence.
**Like I said: Scientist AND journalist. Thus I answered your request.
In precisely the same way that you have failed to answer mine. You
just scurry away. Every single time.
Post by benjPost by Trevor WilsonThere are, of course, many more. We should not overlook the late,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Hawking
Can't you get the difference between journalist and writer?
**They can be regarded as the same thing. The term: 'journalist' is
very broad.
So basically you can say anyone (even Hawking... Oh wait, you already
did) is a journalist.
**Hawking WAS a scientist AND a journalist.
Stop being a fuckwit and move on.
There's no talking to you libs you just make shit
Post by benjup so you can always "win' in your own minds. No discussion just fantasies.
**You made a stupid claim and I proved you wrong. Get over it.
Post by benjPost by Trevor Wilson hey I have
Post by benjwritten books and articles on science. I'm not a journalist.
**You're nothing.
Scientific point noted and reported.
**Since your understanding of science is at 4th grade level, I can't see
how you can possibly write an article on science.
Post by benjPost by Trevor WilsonPost by benjPost by Trevor Wilson I can live
Post by benjwith a single theoretical exception.
**Except, Mr Liar, it ain't theoretical. It's actual.
Except Mr. propagandist you have still not proved the premise wrong
except by your fantasies and stretching meanings.
**What premise would that be? That scientists can be journalists? I've
given you three examples. There are many, many more.
No, you haven't you gave an example of a stupid NYT journalist, with no
evidence of science knowledge and a former scientist who writes popular
"science" books. You got nothing but usual lib bluster and lies.
**I gave you three examples. Get over it.
Post by benjPost by Trevor WilsonPost by benjPost by Trevor WilsonPost by benjI accept the truth that there ARE scientists who know science who
have sold out for money, fame, employment etc.
**Sure. There's quite a few who have done that. I would argue that
they are likely in the minority.
Science is not done by majority vote no matter what you science
deniers pretend. There is no such thing as the "settled science" you
warmballers always pretend exists.
**Yeah, there is. The link between increased CO2 levels and increased
temperatures is both provably and theoretically solid. Hell, even
Mythbusters proved it.
Well that settles it.
**Good. I'm pleased you have finally accepted the truth.
I bet NYT "journalists" and Wikipedia agree with
Post by benjyou too. And the BBC and all the other warmballer propagandists. You
might as well throw in the failed OZ cartoonist too to "prove" you are
right! Idiot.
Post by Trevor WilsonPost by benjPost by Trevor Wilson and purposely lie and distort
Post by benjfacts for their handlers even though they know better. Is that you Trevor?
**LOL! Let me remind you, Mr Liar, that I have posed a great many
questions and comments to you. You have failed miserably to respond
and/or answer. The obvious conclusion is that you know when you are
beaten, so you just give up and scurry away.
I have provided links to actual science an you keep pretending there
is nothing and you heard nothing.
Links to propaganda isn't science.
**True, which is why I provided verifiable scientific links.
"kensi" gives us more than all the
Post by benjlinks to journalists we need.
Post by Trevor Wilson**You SAY you have provided links, but you actually failed to do so.
(See the cut n copy at the end of this post)
Like all Libs you simply lie and lies to win. If you say I've posted
nothing then I guess it HAS to be true because YOU the great GOD of OZ
has said so. You are pathetic.
**Let me remind you:
YOU FAILED TO PROVIDE THE LINK!
Go look at the thread. It's there for you to see.
Post by benjPost by Trevor Wilson So this: Stick your fingers in your ears
Post by benjand sing La LA LA LA LA! I CAN'T HEAR YOU! and that will "prove" I've
never answered any of your so-called questions.
**I KNOW you have never answered my questions. You cannot. You lack
the intellect and the knowledge to do so.
How many times do you need repeat your lies until they become true.
**It is not a lie that you have failed to answer my questions and
address my comments. It is fact. Look through the threads. You'll see.
Or, more likely, you won't.
Post by benjPost by Trevor Wilson I'm still waiting for
Post by benjyour reply on the "Casualty of CO2 from 1940-1979 when CO2 went UP
and Temperature went DOWN!
La la la la! "I CAN"T HEAR YOU! In other words you still pretend you
heard nothing and provided all manner of proofs when in fact you sust
scurried away from real science. How are you at drawing cartoons?
**Note the two -- below. That was the part of the thread where I
provided the proof you asked for. It is also one of the threads where
you failed to answer my questions.
Post by benjPost by Trevor Wilson--
>>>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt,
snowflakes, melt!
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
<https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-change-goes-firmly-
>>>> in-the-loss-column-for-insurers/>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do you post *anything* upbeat?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Does "she" ever post anything that is true?
>>>>>
>>>>> No, HTH
>>>>
>>>> It took a while, but now we have you on the record making a firm
statement
>>>> that amounts to clinate change denial.
>>>
>>> Nonsense. Absolute lie. Lefties never do honesty. As I have said
here MANY times, the ONE principle that absolutely EVERYONE in science
agrees upon is "the certainty of change". It is you kooktards who
think that you can stop the planet and keep change from happening.
That makes YOU the 'science denier".
>>>
>>>> Which in turn pins down your politics as right-wing, something
you've also
>>>> tried to maintain deniability about.
>>>
>>> Right-wing schmite-wing. You are drooling again. What you accused
me of was being a Trump supporter. This is FAR from the case. Blowhard
sales types are not my favorite people though higher up than leftist
commies like yourself. Didn't you get the memo about the fall of your
utopian USSR? Your system is totally discredited by the largest social
experiment in history. No wonder only North Korea and Democrats are
the only ones left refusing to accept the data.
>>>
>>>> There's no bigger coward than one who will not go clearly on the
record as
>>>> believing what they believe, because it happens to be unpopular.
>>>
>>> I not only go on record I CONSISTENTLY back up my views with peer
reviewed science that I regularly post in response to "kensi's" cut
and paste journalist propaganda.
>>
>> **Liar. You NEVER post anything resembling science to any question
or comment I make. Not once, not ever.
>
> The liar is YOU.
**LOL. Let's see.
Like al lefty Libs you don't do truth but DO do alling
> other people names and slandering them to further you political
scams. The ends justifies the means, right? And now you have shown
that you and "kensi"/Nads are all part of the same big scamming
family! You are as ready to lie for them as you are to lie for yourself.
>
> Here is a REPOST of GISS data I have posted many times?
**NO repost. As usual, you lying sack of shit.
I see you cut it out! Right LA LA LA LA LA! You can't HEAR ME!!!!!!
**I cut nothing. Go see for yourself. Or, more likely, you won't.
Post by benjYOu laying sack of shit.
**I am not a 'laying' (sic) sack of shit. I direct you to the part of
the thread. Go look for yourself.
If you say there is no link then there must be
Post by benjnone. Of course everyone else can see it. No matter you live in your
lown little fantasy world.
**Since you failed to provide the link, I doubt anyone else can see it
either. Its all in your tiny mind.
Post by benjPost by Trevor Wilson Any idea what
> GISS data is?
**I know EXACTLY what it is. I also know what cherry-picked data is. Do you?
Do you know who Dr. Hansen the godfather of global warming
> is?
**The so-called 'Godfather' of global warming was Joseph Fourier.
After him, came Svante Arrhenius. Both men set the tone for global
warming research way back in the NINETEENTH century! Which is
information you would know, if you took the time to study the science.
Utter blather.
**Well, no. It's SCIENCE. Which, if you knew anything about science, you
would realise that Fourier's work is more important today, than it was
back in the 19th century. Fourier and Arrheius were towering intellects,
not to be dismissed by morons like you.
19th century theories of climate in a jar are not "global
Post by benjwarming politics. They were not doing politics like you. Hanson made it
political which makes him YOUR hero. He said all "deniers" should be
killed. Now that is real science!
**Did Hanson say that? Cite please.
Post by benjPost by Trevor Wilson Do you recognize HIS data?
Climate does not take place in a glass jar! 19 century theories aren't
correct.
**Bullshit. Fourier's work in many areas is highly relevant today.
Co2 is NOT a major greenhouse gas.
**Depends on what you call "major". After water vapour, CO2 is the next
most important GHG. So, yeah, pretty important.
Nobody had even done
Post by benjtmospheric spectra then to find CO2 bands saturated. You are nothing but
a political propagandist.
**And you have no idea about the stuff you're sprouting. Keep it up, if
it helps you live in your fantasy land.
Post by benjPost by Trevor Wilson**Well, since you failed (yet again) to present any data, no. Like I
said: You NEVER present anything resembling science to back you
idiotic claims. SOP.
<Snip this>
http://www.mrk-inc.com/Docs/bspam2/40-70GISS.htm
LA LA LA LA LA! YOU CAN"T HEAR ME! I NEVER POSTED ANYTHING!
You are lying crooked scum.
**The YOU find the part of the post where you allegedly posted the link.
Post by benjPost by Trevor Wilson Do you notice that from 1940 - 1970
> these data showed Temperature going DOWN while CO2 went up?
**Yes. And that has been explained to you in exquisite detail many,
many times previously. Do you ever pay attention? It is due to aerosol
pollution, caused by industry and motor vehicles. You may care to note
(but you probably won't) that temperatures began to rise when
governments around the world got serious about reducing aerosol
pollution. Here's some science that you won't bother reading (nor
https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/science/aerosols-and-global-warming-faq.html#.Wr3OO39x1pg
**No comment, I notice. SOP.
Post by benjPost by Trevor Wilson And you have
> the absolute balls to say this proves that CO2 "causes" warming?
**Idiot. The science is undeniable.
How
> ignorant are you anyway.
**I assume that was a question. I am clearly a whole lot less ignorant
that you.
Why don't you show how much science you know
> down in Oz and explain how radiative forcing made this happen?
**Certainly. CO2 is resonant at a couple of infra-red frequencies.
When infra-red (IR) hits those CO2 molecules, it causes them to
vibrate (accumulate kinetic energy). More IR = more kinetic energy.
The CO2 molecules are agitated sufficiently to transfer some of their
energy to nearby molecules of atmospheric gases (nitrogen, oxygen, et
al), thus raising the energy level of the entire system. Most
critically, CO2 acts at night, when IR energy is re-radiated from the
Earth's surface, thus nighttime temperatures are raised.
What is PRIMARY Greenhouse gas?
**The most significant GHG is water vapour. CO2 is next most significant.
How much warming duw to CO2?
**Radiative forcing due to CO2 is between 9% ~ 26%, depending on
location, time of day, time of year, etc.
What
Post by benjpercentage of that due to human produced CO2?
**Humans are adding roughly 1.9% more CO2 each year to the atmosphere.
Currently. That may go up, or may go down, depending on various business
and political factors. It's about 50 Billion Tonnes of CO2 each year.
That's quite a bit. We seem to be increasing CO2 emissions. From 1750
through to 1987, humans put around 737 Billion Tonnes of CO2 into the
atmosphere. Between 1987 and 2014, it was around 743 Billion Tonnes. So,
it's hard to say what percentage, because it changes all the time.
Mostly, up. Fundamentally, however, humans have increased CO2 levels
from around 280ppm (ca. 1750) to around 400ppm today. That's roughly a
43% increase in CO2 levels, just due to human activity. Here's a pretty
graph:
https://www.zmescience.com/ecology/climate/carbon-dioxide-400ppm-26052014/
Note how, for around 800 years, the line was pretty flat. Then, the
industrial revolution happened (1750).
Post by benj<nothing but crickets>
Post by Trevor Wilson >
> You are all liars criminals and scammers trying to set up a fake
tax to steal trillions of dollars. Shame on YOU.
**I am not trying to set up any kind of tax.
So how do you propose to stop the earth and stop "climate change"?
**Cut CO2 emissions.
Post by benjMaybe if we all wish very very hard and click out heels together three
times, that big tax you passed in OZ won't be needed. Oh wait!
Post by Trevor Wilson >
>> Neither YOU nor "kensi" EVER respond to any
>>> of it,
>>
>>
>> **Pot, kettle, black, you lying sack of shit. You cannot put
forward a cogent argument when I question you. You just scurry away.
Like you will when you see this post.
>
> Liar.
**You keep saying that, but you have failed to respond to my previous
posts in this area. That make YOU the lying cunt. Not me.
You post nothing but misleading propaganda and try to pass it off as
science. That is dishonest and has no place in science.
**I post science, dickhead. You, OTOH, CLAIM to post stuff, but don't.
Post by benjPost by Trevor Wilson You simple babble on with your propaganda when I present you with
> scientific data and then (see above) you lie and say I never did.
This is proof there can be no "discussion" with you. When you are
confronted with science you deny it exists
**YOU DIDN'T POST WHAT YOU CLAIMED TO HAVE POSTED! Look at the thread. I
will await your apology.
and just repeat your sad
Post by benjclimate propaganda over and over as if your word was worth something.
It's not. You might was well be a journalist for Legacy media...In fact
I wquldn't be surprised if you were until you got this strategic writer
job.
Post by Trevor Wilson**You failed to supply ANY scientific data. That makes YOU the lying cunt.
Take
> it easy on the drugs man, your fantasies are really getting strong.
**Let me remind you: _I_ am not the one who failed to supply the data.
You are.
>
>> instead simply resorting to immature name-calling and repeating
>>> your lies over an over. As Sergio has pointed out, there has
never been ONE equation coming out of you or your sock, "kensi". And
that makes you a fraud.
>>
>> **Actually, it is YOU who is the fraud. Not only do you fail to
respond, but you fail to admit when you have been shown to be wrong.
>
> You have not shown any of the science I CONSTANTLY present as wrong.
I certainly did.
**Bullshit.
I showed that CO2 CANNOT be the CAUSE of "global
Post by benjwarming" by your own theories (radiative forcing) and all you do is say
I posted nothing.
**WTF? You posted nothing of the sort. Hell, I'll play your game. Post
your proof again. Bet you don't. You never do.
Can't have a discussion with that kind of dishonesty
Post by benjPost by Trevor Wilson**Lying does not make you correct. It just makes you a liar.
Did not, did too! did not! did too1 did NOT!
You can call it "scurrying" if you like but you are simply tring to
waste my time here so I can't answer other more important issues. I know
your tricks. Fuck off creep.
Yeah you are real mature. Find any people dumber than you who you can
convince that you actually know something? I bet there are a few SOMEWHERE!
Post by Trevor Wilson YOU
> simply lie and name-call and repeat your fear-mongering propaganda
over and over. It's propaganda 101. Nothing new. Nothing of value either.
>
> So start with discussing how CO2 radiative forcing is adding energy
yet temperatures are going down. This is a real "causality" trick!
**Huh? Prove that temperatures are going down.
>
> We'll wait right here for your answer.
**Telling a lie, then asking ME to prove your lie is not going to happen.
**[Sounds of crickets]
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
