Moon proves the green house effect is b*llocks

"So he was just another
clueless idiot determined to share his ignorance with a wider audience. "

Sounds like you found a soul mate.

Irish Mike


"Pyriform" wrote in message
...
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.

Irish Mike wrote:
"So he was just another
clueless idiot determined to share his ignorance with a wider
audience. "
Sounds like you found a soul mate.

Ah, the top-posting clueless ****wit returns. Do please hold us all
entranced as you explain the errors in my previous post. Here it is again:

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.

Have you had that 0.004% of iron removed from your body yet? You can't
possibly need such a tiny amount, can you?

You're stupid, but consistent. BTW, are you ever going to answer the
question of what concrete, practical steps you have personally taken to
avoid or at least minimize the impact of global warming? Or are you going
to keep dodging the question while rehashing the same lame hysterical rant?

Irish Mike

"Pyriform" wrote in message
...
Irish Mike wrote:
"So he was just another
clueless idiot determined to share his ignorance with a wider
audience. "
Sounds like you found a soul mate.

Ah, the top-posting clueless ****wit returns. Do please hold us all
entranced as you explain the errors in my previous post. Here it is again:

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.

Have you had that 0.004% of iron removed from your body yet? You can't
possibly need such a tiny amount, can you?

Irish Mike wrote:
You're stupid, but consistent.

Accusations of stupidity need to be backed up with evidence. I've pointed
out the errors in your posts, but you have failed to find any in mine.
That's because there aren't any. I am consistently right, and you are
consistently wrong.

BTW, are you ever going to answer the
question of what concrete, practical steps you have personally taken
to avoid or at least minimize the impact of global warming?

Since I am only defending the science of global warming against the
"critiques" of idiots like you, no. I could have the largest CO2 footprint
on the planet, and I would still be right about the science, and you would
still be wrong.

So despite your deluge of self-righteous, pompous rants about the dangers of
global warming you finally admit that you have not taken even one single
concrete, practical step to avoid or minimize the impact of that event.
What a ****ing hypocrite. You're like some one who rants and raves about
the evils of killing animals while walking around in a fur coat. Well you
phony, arrogant gas bag, the limited appeal this discussion held for me has
now been exhausted. Welcome to the kill file Ploink!

Irish Mike

"Pyriform" wrote in message
...
Irish Mike wrote:
You're stupid, but consistent.

Accusations of stupidity need to be backed up with evidence. I've pointed
out the errors in your posts, but you have failed to find any in mine.
That's because there aren't any. I am consistently right, and you are
consistently wrong.

BTW, are you ever going to answer the
question of what concrete, practical steps you have personally taken
to avoid or at least minimize the impact of global warming?

Since I am only defending the science of global warming against the
"critiques" of idiots like you, no. I could have the largest CO2 footprint
on the planet, and I would still be right about the science, and you would
still be wrong.

On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 21:23:45 +0100, Pyriform wrote:

Irish Mike wrote:
You're stupid, but consistent.

Accusations of stupidity need to be backed up with evidence. ...

Knock it off guys. Bear in mind that this inter-group scrap was
started by the mentally troubled "lord Turkey Cough" crossposting
strange stuff. Let's end this thread now.

On Jun 19, 9:07 am, "Irish Mike" wrote:
So despite your deluge of self-righteous, pompous rants about the dangers of
global warming you finally admit that you have not taken even one single
concrete, practical step to avoid or minimize the impact of that event.

One person's actions won't make a difference, but the action
of millions might. Also, generally people don't take action if
they don't see a good reason for doing so. So, the logical
thing to do is to try to convince people there is a good reason
for doing something about global warming. Which is indeed
what the guy is doing on this thread. He's taking the
practical step of trying to get you to understand.

It's the same thing with voting really. Which does more for
your cause -- casting one vote, or holding a rally to attract
masses of voters?

"Richard Simms"

Knock it off guys. Bear in mind that this inter-group scrap was
started by the mentally troubled "lord Turkey Cough" crossposting
strange stuff. Let's end this thread now.

Yeah ... you are all acting like Nazis!!!!!!

Irish Mike wrote:
So despite your deluge of self-righteous, pompous rants about the
dangers of global warming you finally admit that you have not taken
even one single concrete, practical step to avoid or minimize the
impact of that event.

You won't be reading this, but of course I admitted to no such thing. Your
failure to comprehend the English language rivals your scientific
ineptitude.

Welcome to the kill file Ploink!

I suspect that will not greatly inconvenience me.

Cynic wrote:
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.

On what basis do you think carbon sequestration is impossible? It certainly
isn't economically impossible nor is it technically impossible.