Moon proves the green house effect is b*llocks

"Another fact is that the effects of global warming will not directly
affect myself or my children adversely before we are dead."

My point exactly. However, islamic terrorism, bio-chemical weapons, massive
illegal immigration and the development of nuclear weapons by Iran and N.
Korea may very well affect you and your children - profoundly.

A point that ass wipe, pyriform, lacks the mental capacity to grasp.

Irish Mike

"Cynic" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 13:26:54 +0100, "Pyriform"
wrote:

Irish Mike wrote:
"Oh do please share their findings with us. I could do with a laugh. "

You may not like it, but the fact is there are many scientists who
have stated publicly that the whole global warming hysteria is just a
load of bull ****.

And like you, they are talking out of their ample arses. That's why I
wanted
you to share their findings with us - so that I could show you (well,
probably not you - I suspect you are ineducable!) how hopelessly wrong
they
are. But you can't even do that, can you? You're just a clueless ****wit
who
believes the crap fed to him by some denialist website.

Have you tried getting rid of that 0.004% of iron from your body yet? Do
be
sure to report back your findings!

One finding that is pretty indisputable is that global warming is in
the process of taking place. It is highly probable (but not 100%
certain) that the trend will continue for quite some time.

Another fact is that the effects of global warming will not directly
affect myself or my children adversely before we are dead.

It is quite possible that man's activities have contributed to the
cycle to some extent, although the temperature cycle fits in neatly
with historic global cycles, so it is by no means certain that the
effect would not have happened anyway, without any input from mankind.

It is pretty certain that not even the most draconian actions that man
could do now would make any appreciable difference to the outcome, and
it is also pretty certain that man will not be taking anything like
the most draconian action possible.

By the time the effects are beginning to have an impact that would
affect mankind, is is almost certain that man will have developed far
more advanced technology. But even if that does not assist, nothing I
have read would suggest that the effects are likely to be particularly
catastrophic for mankind - nothing worse than many other catastophes,
both natural and manmade that have occured far more suddenly.

--
Cynic

Irish Mike wrote:
[Nothing of any consequence - snipped]

Got rid of that 0.004% of iron from your body yet? It can't possibly be
doing anything important, can it? Hell, there's even less of it in
percentage terms than there is CO2 in the atmosphere!

And I'm still waiting for you to explain the flaws in scientific methodology
that have lead so may scientists to the wrong conclusions. Or is it just
that you read some other idiot saying that, and are now repeating it here
without the benefit of any of the alleged science ever having passed through
your thick head? No doubt in the fullness of time yet other idiot will
repeat the claim, perhaps citing you as an authority. Denialist research in
action!

"Denialist research in action!"

Well bucko, you would certainly know about that. Your complete intolerance
of, and rabid hostility toward, those with opposing views on the issue of
global warming speaks volumes. Some people believe in this global warming
hysteria and others think it's bull ****. The point is, it doesn't matter.
Even if global warming did exist, you, me and every other person now living
on this planet, and their kids and their kids, kids will all be dead and
long gone before any of it would ever happen. And, by that time, assuming
some islamic nut case hasn't detonated a nuclear bomb in your back yard,
there will dozens of scientific advances and discoveries. Your fellow
hysterics will have latched on to a new crisis just like mass global
starvation, global cooling (you remember that one?) or Y2K. So you devote
the rest of your silly life to the dangers of global warming, keep current
on your Al Gore fan club dues and I'll be in the poker room.

Irish Mike

"Pyriform" wrote in message
...
Irish Mike wrote:
[Nothing of any consequence - snipped]

Got rid of that 0.004% of iron from your body yet? It can't possibly be
doing anything important, can it? Hell, there's even less of it in
percentage terms than there is CO2 in the atmosphere!

And I'm still waiting for you to explain the flaws in scientific
methodology that have lead so may scientists to the wrong conclusions. Or
is it just that you read some other idiot saying that, and are now
repeating it here without the benefit of any of the alleged science ever
having passed through your thick head? No doubt in the fullness of time
yet other idiot will repeat the claim, perhaps citing you as an authority.
Denialist research in action!

Irish Mike wrote:
Your complete
intolerance of, and rabid hostility toward, those with opposing views
on the issue of global warming speaks volumes. Some people believe
in this global warming hysteria and others think it's bull ****.

Indeed. And the people who think global warming (forget the hysteria bit) is
bull**** are idiots. Like you. It isn't a matter of personal preference;
it's a matter of sound science versus a mixture of bad science, misleading
information and outright lies. That's why you get such a hostile response
from me. Not because you have doubts about the science, or admit to not
understanding it. I don't have a problem with people like that. The trouble
with you is that you loudly announce to anyone within earshot that it's all
bull****, when it is quite clear that you have no understanding of the
subject at all. You are just a pub bore with a big mouth.

The point is, it doesn't matter. Even if global warming did exist, you,
me and every other person now living on this planet, and their kids
and their kids, kids will all be dead and long gone before any of it
would ever happen. And, by that time, assuming some islamic nut case
hasn't detonated a nuclear bomb in your back yard, there will dozens
of scientific advances and discoveries.

So basically, your position is that it isn't happening. Or it is happening,
but it doesn't matter, and anyway we'll be able to fix it in some
unspecified manner at some unspecified time in the future. You really *are*
an idiot.

Your fellow hysterics will
have latched on to a new crisis just like mass global starvation,
global cooling (you remember that one?) or Y2K.

Mass starvation is indeed a likely consequence of unconstrained global
warming. Not that I'd expect you to worry about that. The threat of global
cooling (in the 1970's sense) is largely a myth, in that it was unsupported
by the science of the time but greedily lapped up by the mass media - which
is why you remember it. Or perhaps you'd like to list the peer-reviewed
scientific literature of the time that supported that idea?

Y2K was always largely ********, as anyone with a brain could have told you
before the event.

I'll be in the poker room.

I'm sure you will.

"Roderick Stewart" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 01:26:44 +0100, Cynic
wrote:

Cynic wrote:
The *only* species of concern to me is mankind - and the probability
that the predicted global warming will significantly affect that
species is close to zero.

You appear to be an idiot. No wonder you think Lord Turkey ******** is
brighter than he seems.

So explain to me exactly how global wqarming is likely to adversely
affect me or any of my great great grandchildren

You mean when half the UK is under water, the remaining half is like
the Sahara, and there are no animals left to eat?


Nonsense if all the ice sheets melt we will gain a continent
(antartica) plus greenland, alaska and much of norhern
canada and russia.

We would be better off. We would also have more
sea for the fish to swim in (more food).

The excess water would be great for the UK given our droughts and
and, much the same for the rest of the world. We could irigate
the Sahara for example.


Global warming would produce an economic boom the likes of
you have never seen before.

We would also be able to get at Antartica vast oil reserves.


They'll die. That's how it will affect them.

Rod.

"charles" wrote in message
...
In article . com,
Another Problem Solved By R.G.P. wrote:
On Jun 15, 7:34 am, Cynic wrote:

So what actions do you propose should be taken? Stop generating CO2
and return to the stone age? Quickly invest our entire GNP in wind
farms?

Oh my. Stone age! Our *entire* GNP! Are those are only options? But
let's talk wind power.

What percentage of US GNP (or GDP) -- would you guess -- *is*
currently invested in wind energy?

The problem with wind power, in this country, is that wind is not a
permanent thing.

An example: a couple of winters ago I drove round the M25 on a freezing
morning and passed the wind turbine near Hemel Hempstead. No wind, so it
was not turning at all - at a time when it was needed.

Thats noproblem.

--
From KT24 - in "Leafy Surrey"

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11

"Another Problem Solved By R.G.P." wrote in message
ups.com...
On Jun 15, 7:34 am, Cynic wrote:

So what actions do you propose should be taken? Stop generating CO2
and return to the stone age? Quickly invest our entire GNP in wind
farms?

Oh my. Stone age! Our *entire* GNP! Are those are only options? But
let's talk wind power.

What percentage of US GNP (or GDP) -- would you guess -- *is*
currently invested in wind energy?

Answer: not very much. According to the American Wind Energy
Association, in 2005 wind power supplied 0.5% of electricity
consumption in the USA, the equivalent of only about 1.6 million
households. Meanwhile, in Denmark, parts of Germany and Spain, wind
power supplied over 20% of electricity demand.

Got a linkfor thosefigures?
I suspect they are wrong!!!!!

Why can they do it but
we can't? The AWEA estimates that $50 billion in new investment would
increase wind power-supplied electricity by 700% -- the equivalent of
about 11 million households -- and create 10,000 jobs, by the way. And
$50 billion is a drop in the GDP bucket. US GDP in 2005 was $12
trillion.

On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 21:45:03 +0100, "Pyriform"
wrote:

So basically, your position is that it isn't happening. Or it is happening,
but it doesn't matter, and anyway we'll be able to fix it in some
unspecified manner at some unspecified time in the future. You really *are*
an idiot.

*You* are the idiot if you think that there is the slightest chance of
man doing anything to stop it. Instead of trying to blow against the
hurricane, it would be far better devoting your efforts into finding
the best ways to cope with the consequences - and perhaps even use
them to our advantage. Although the fact that the change is so
gradual means that that will happen as and when needed anyway.

There are many people saying, "We must do something - this is
'something' so we must do it." And a lot of others with the mentality
that the worse the medicine tastes, the more good it will do.

Mass starvation is indeed a likely consequence of unconstrained global
warming.

Is it? Really a *likely* consequence? Over how large a geographical
area? I am aware that some areas are likely to become infertile, but
that will only lead to mass starvation if there are poor people living
there when they do so. It won't happen overnight. Meanwhile other
areas that are presently infertile (and thus presently unpopulated)
will almost certainly become habitable.

--
Cynic

On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 16:11:55 -0700, "Another Problem Solved By R.G.P."
wrote:

On Jun 13, 4:02 pm, "Lord Turkey Cough" wrote:
Guess what the temperature on the moon is (same distance
from the Sun as Earth. Very cold you will wisely say because it
has no atmosphere to keep it warm llike the earth with it's
lovely greehouse gases.
So you would expet it to be about -30C would you not?
Guess what it can get to over 100C there.

PROOF THE GREENHOUSE GAS (CO2) THEORY IS WRONG.
A MYTH EXPOSED BY LORD TURKEY HIMSELF AND
HIS MASSIVE BRAIN.

You remind me of the guy who wrote to our local newspaper about his
experiment that "proved" that global warming won't raise the sea
level. He put some ice cubes in a glass of water and waited until they
melted. The glass didn't overflow. That's the "proof."

Yes, but that is a very valid point. Assuming that all of the ice in
icebergs was floating, his point would be absolutely true: the ice
above the water is not going to raise the surface level of the world's
oceans for exactly that reason. The water in the glass is merely
displaced by the ice above the surface.

LeeJS wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 16:11:55 -0700, "Another Problem Solved By R.G.P."
wrote:

On Jun 13, 4:02 pm, "Lord Turkey Cough" wrote:
Guess what the temperature on the moon is (same distance
from the Sun as Earth. Very cold you will wisely say because it
has no atmosphere to keep it warm llike the earth with it's
lovely greehouse gases.
So you would expet it to be about -30C would you not?
Guess what it can get to over 100C there.

PROOF THE GREENHOUSE GAS (CO2) THEORY IS WRONG.
A MYTH EXPOSED BY LORD TURKEY HIMSELF AND
HIS MASSIVE BRAIN.

You remind me of the guy who wrote to our local newspaper about his
experiment that "proved" that global warming won't raise the sea
level. He put some ice cubes in a glass of water and waited until
they melted. The glass didn't overflow. That's the "proof."

Yes, but that is a very valid point. Assuming that all of the ice in
icebergs was floating, his point would be absolutely true: the ice
above the water is not going to raise the surface level of the world's
oceans for exactly that reason. The water in the glass is merely
displaced by the ice above the surface.

All of which is entirely irrelevant. Global warming raises sea levels by two
mechanisms: melting ice sheets which are *not* floating, and increasing the
volume of the oceans through thermal expansion. So he was just another
clueless idiot determined to share his ignorance with a wider audience.