Calculate your carbon footprint

Peter Muehlbauer wrote:
"Phil Randal" wrote
Peter Muehlbauer wrote:
"Bill Wright" wrote
"Rich" wrote in message
. ..
Hey, I'm sure that there are some exciting moments in Al Gore's life,
although my
imagination is lacking in regards to what those might be.
He's political failure who looked round for a bandwagon, saw a good one, and
jumped on. He is becoming very famous and turning into an international
superstar on the back of the global warming fiasco. Yet his own personal
consumption is megga!
Shorter version:
He hasn't digested the rout in 2000 and that's dishonour for him.
What we see here is a dispaired try to regain his honesty by hook
or by crook. IOW, it's simply compensation of an inferiority complex.
He needs the masses to approve him, regardless of if he is right or wrong.
The false science he uses is nothing more than a medium for him to
achieve his goal. This guy is simply a case for psychiatry.
False science? Strange, the climatologists who run realclimate.org said
his film was mostly sound. I'll trust them more than I trust you on that.

You mean that realkooks.org?
The one, where liars and bribed "scientists" incense themselves?

Contributors:
Mann = well known imposter and liar.
Rahmstorf = religious-fanatical idiot, bribed with US$1.000.000 by an african commerce group.

LOL
realclimate.org is the very last website, I would recommend.

If you want to be taken seriously I suggest you start by learning a bit
of the science and debating facts instead of launching ad-hominem attacks.

"Phil Randal" wrote
Peter Muehlbauer wrote:
"Phil Randal" wrote
Peter Muehlbauer wrote:
"Bill Wright" wrote
"Rich" wrote in message
. ..
Hey, I'm sure that there are some exciting moments in Al Gore's life,
although my
imagination is lacking in regards to what those might be.
He's political failure who looked round for a bandwagon, saw a good one, and
jumped on. He is becoming very famous and turning into an international
superstar on the back of the global warming fiasco. Yet his own personal
consumption is megga!
Shorter version:
He hasn't digested the rout in 2000 and that's dishonour for him.
What we see here is a dispaired try to regain his honesty by hook
or by crook. IOW, it's simply compensation of an inferiority complex.
He needs the masses to approve him, regardless of if he is right or wrong.
The false science he uses is nothing more than a medium for him to
achieve his goal. This guy is simply a case for psychiatry.
False science? Strange, the climatologists who run realclimate.org said
his film was mostly sound. I'll trust them more than I trust you on that.

You mean that realkooks.org?
The one, where liars and bribed "scientists" incense themselves?

Contributors:
Mann = well known imposter and liar.
Rahmstorf = religious-fanatical idiot, bribed with US$1.000.000 by an african commerce group.

LOL
realclimate.org is the very last website, I would recommend.

If you want to be taken seriously I suggest you start by learning a bit
of the science and debating facts instead of launching ad-hominem attacks.

Sorry, but that ARE facts.
If you claim to be well informed about science, you should have known this.

On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 00:37:43 +0100, "Pyriform"
wrote:

If you think the science is false you are an idiot with no knowledge of
science.

Of course, anybody that can say CO2 has great knowledge of
science. And if they agree with Al Gore, give them credit for
being a team player in the biggest dumb thing since cold fusion.

Peter Muehlbauer wrote:
"Pyriform" wrote
Peter Muehlbauer wrote:
If you think the science is false you are an idiot with no
knowledge of science.

Al Bore is disproved in more than 35 points by hundreds of
scientists.

Cretin. Gore did not invent global warming, nor has he done any of
the research. You may, if you wish, entertain us by listing these 35
points on which AGW (presumably) is "disproved".

Anyway, you are able to use Google?
http://www.google.de/search?hl=de&q=...le-Suche&meta=
Ergebnisse 1 - 10 von ungefähr 45.000 für "Al Gore" disproved

Well, that's certainly a convincing argument! You ask me to search for other
idiots saying the same idiotic thing as you. Denialist research in action! I
can use google to find you an endless supply of idiots insisting that
creationism is true, that the Sun revolves around the Earth, or that they've
been anally probed by space aliens...

But maybe you will start with this
http://home.earthlink.net/~ponderthemaunderg/

Another piece of crap from a not-especially-bright 15-year-old American kid
with delusions of competence. I ploughed my way through her earlier high
school project in which she took on the might of the world's climate
scientists. She demonstrated then that she had no more than a superficial
understanding of science (her description of how the greenhouse effect works
was particularly comic), and I see that her knowledge hasn't improved since
then.

I was hoping you might be able to point at some actual science done by
actual scientists! But of course the problem with that is that none of the
anti-AGW science is remotely credible.

"If CO2 increases, the temperature will increase too." is only one
of his idiotic statements. Even IPCC does not admit it.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas, moron. *Of course* the IPCC attributes
global temperature rise to increased atmospheric CO2 levels.

Heard something about CO2 lag before? No?

Yes, but unlike you I understood what it meant. That's because you are a
microcephalic ****wit.

"Pyriform" wrote
Peter Muehlbauer wrote:
"Pyriform" wrote
Peter Muehlbauer wrote:
If you think the science is false you are an idiot with no
knowledge of science.

Al Bore is disproved in more than 35 points by hundreds of
scientists.

Cretin. Gore did not invent global warming, nor has he done any of
the research. You may, if you wish, entertain us by listing these 35
points on which AGW (presumably) is "disproved".

Anyway, you are able to use Google?
http://www.google.de/search?hl=de&q=...le-Suche&meta=
Ergebnisse 1 - 10 von ungefähr 45.000 für "Al Gore" disproved

Well, that's certainly a convincing argument! You ask me to search for other
idiots saying the same idiotic thing as you. Denialist research in action! I
can use google to find you an endless supply of idiots insisting that
creationism is true, that the Sun revolves around the Earth, or that they've
been anally probed by space aliens...

But maybe you will start with this
http://home.earthlink.net/~ponderthemaunderg/

Another piece of crap from a not-especially-bright 15-year-old American kid
with delusions of competence.

She has more savvy than you at all.
So debating with a brainless stupid idiot like you leads to nowhere
and is only wasting my time.

Go away and get some life, kook.

Peter Muehlbauer wrote:
"Pyriform" wrote
Peter Muehlbauer wrote:
"Pyriform" wrote
Peter Muehlbauer wrote:
If you think the science is false you are an idiot with no
knowledge of science.

Al Bore is disproved in more than 35 points by hundreds of
scientists.

Cretin. Gore did not invent global warming, nor has he done any of
the research. You may, if you wish, entertain us by listing these
35 points on which AGW (presumably) is "disproved".

Anyway, you are able to use Google?
http://www.google.de/search?hl=de&q=...le-Suche&meta=
Ergebnisse 1 - 10 von ungefähr 45.000 für "Al Gore" disproved

Well, that's certainly a convincing argument! You ask me to search
for other idiots saying the same idiotic thing as you. Denialist
research in action! I can use google to find you an endless supply
of idiots insisting that creationism is true, that the Sun revolves
around the Earth, or that they've been anally probed by space
aliens...

But maybe you will start with this
http://home.earthlink.net/~ponderthemaunderg/

Another piece of crap from a not-especially-bright 15-year-old
American kid with delusions of competence.

She has more savvy than you at all.
So debating with a brainless stupid idiot like you leads to nowhere
and is only wasting my time.

Oh, were we "debating"? I thought you were just saying a selection of very
stupid things and I was pointing that out for the general amusement of
readers!

In article , Pyriform wrote:
But maybe you will start with this
http://home.earthlink.net/~ponderthemaunderg/

Another piece of crap from a not-especially-bright 15-year-old American kid*
with delusions of competence. I ploughed my way through her earlier high*
school project in which she took on the might of the world's climate*
scientists. She demonstrated then that she had no more than a superficial*
understanding of science (her description of how the greenhouse effect works*
was particularly comic), and I see that her knowledge hasn't improved since*
then.

I note that this article is about somebody who is said to have attended a
"Divinity and Law" School, and cannot help wondering what a qualification in
this combination of subjects (had he stayed to complete it) enables one to say
with any authority about science.

Rod.

In article , Peter Muehlbauer wrote:
Anyway, if I would be in this position, I would prefer to live in a tent 100
miles
inland, instead of rebuilding my house in such a dangerous region.

They *are* inland. I think that's the problem. These places are all in valleys
surrounded by hills, so when it rains they end up with more water than what
falls directly on them. Anybody who gets rained upon anywhere else only gets
their own share, so to speak.

Rod.

Alan wrote:

In message , Bill Wright
wrote


What a totally stupid and ignorant remark! I wish I could take you to meet
the people of Toll Bar, and let you spout such ****e! You wouldn't last ten
seconds mate!

For **** sake it's a minor bit of local flooding that the press, as
usual, have made a major disaster. It may a bit of a problem for those
affected but in the scale of world problems, and even the rest of the
UK, it is insignificant.

It won't be insignificant when food prices rocket as a result of this
year's ruined harvest over much of central and southern England.

The worst hit are farmers, they don't receive any compensation and crop
failure is uninsurable.

All we are getting now is that the rest of us who have paid spent their
hard earned cash on household insurance should now pay for those who
cannot be bothered to do the same.

This does seem to make a nonsense of insuring.

Why should compensation be handed out just because flooding occured on a
large scale? The pain is the same for one victim of one flooded house in
an obscure village as for a victim in Toll Bar.

--

Immunity is better than innoculation.

Peter

On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 13:35:55 +0100, Alan
wrote:

All we are getting now is that the rest of us who have paid spent their
hard earned cash on household insurance should now pay for those who
cannot be bothered to do the same.

In many cases it's a question that they *couldn't* get insurance
rather than wouldn't. The insurance companies knew that the houses
were likely to flood and refused. Which should, perhaps have rung a
few alarm bells with the owners of such property.

--
Cynic