Remember me
▼ Content

The Stench from the EPA, NASA and NOAA



Page 1 of 3123>
The Stench from the EPA, NASA and NOAA28-10-2017 22:35
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
http://thedeepstate.com/acid-rain-playbook/

The Environmentalists have simply taken over the entire government network of science. There is no reliable science coming from Federal government any longer.
29-10-2017 02:17
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" woofed: The Environmentalists have simply taken over the entire government network of science. There is no reliable science coming from Federal government any longer.

"wake-me-up" woofs the standard oil, coal, energy, re-pubic-lick-un PR propaganda AGW denier liar whiner "sigh-ants".
Of course, the "sigh-ants" of "don'T rump" gov't will have great doubt thrown on its diverging conclusions.
29-10-2017 04:04
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
Wake wrote:
http://thedeepstate.com/acid-rain-playbook/

The Environmentalists have simply taken over the entire government network of science. There is no reliable science coming from Federal government any longer.


People like you are called gullible. You really think someone's opinion about Acid Rain is somehow related to Climate Change. The whole thing is totally bizarre. The article you quote, even says that power stations do make the rain more acid.

http://thedeepstate.com/acid-rain-playbook/Said:
Yes, power-station emissions make rain more acidic—rain is naturally acidic, and more so during thunderstorms—but changes to ecosystems, the report said, were mainly caused by changes in land use. The felling of trees and the burning of stumps in the Adirondacks had reduced the acidity of the forest floor. After conservationists put a stop to it, the soil gradually returned to its previous acidity


Did you miss that? The author of that opinion included that he knew that power-station emissions make rain more acidic, and still tried to argue that other things make the rain more acid too. So that somehow make it ok to continue making the rain more acid?

I guess if you extend that line of reasoning to include Global Warming, that other things besides CO2 make the planet warmer, so it's ok to keep producing it, as we fuel our king of the world lifestyles.

That's not quite as bad as your 1941 Department of Agriculture report saying that people should disregard all the hype lately about the production of CO2, because it had no effect on the climate. At least this one doesn't go to extremes to mislead people.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
29-10-2017 19:55
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
GreenMan wrote:
Wake wrote:
http://thedeepstate.com/acid-rain-playbook/

The Environmentalists have simply taken over the entire government network of science. There is no reliable science coming from Federal government any longer.


People like you are called gullible. You really think someone's opinion about Acid Rain is somehow related to Climate Change.

Environmentalists have made EXACTLY that claim. So has the Church of Global Warming.
GreenMan wrote:
The whole thing is totally bizarre. The article you quote, even says that power stations do make the rain more acid.

That was the point of quoting the article. Pay attention. It's an article about the EPA.
GreenMan wrote:
The author of that opinion included that he knew that power-station emissions make rain more acidic, and still tried to argue that other things make the rain more acid too. So that somehow make it ok to continue making the rain more acid?

Acidic rain does not mean acidic soil, acidic oceans, etc. See basic chemistry about buffering of solutions.
GreenMan wrote:
I guess if you extend that line of reasoning to include Global Warming, that other things besides CO2 make the planet warmer,

CO2 does not have the ability to warm the planet. No gas has.
GreenMan wrote:
so it's ok to keep producing it, as we fuel our king of the world lifestyles.

You seem to be worried about 0.04% of the atmosphere. A part of the atmosphere that does contribute to the acidity of rain, which doesn't matter because of what happens when that rain hits the surface.
GreenMan wrote:
That's not quite as bad as your 1941 Department of Agriculture report saying that people should disregard all the hype lately about the production of CO2, because it had no effect on the climate. At least this one doesn't go to extremes to mislead people.

Define 'climate change' without using circular definitions. CO2 does not affect something you can't define.


The Parrot Killer
29-10-2017 20:07
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
GreenMan wrote:
Wake wrote:
http://thedeepstate.com/acid-rain-playbook/

The Environmentalists have simply taken over the entire government network of science. There is no reliable science coming from Federal government any longer.


People like you are called gullible. You really think someone's opinion about Acid Rain is somehow related to Climate Change. The whole thing is totally bizarre. The article you quote, even says that power stations do make the rain more acid.

http://thedeepstate.com/acid-rain-playbook/Said:
Yes, power-station emissions make rain more acidic—rain is naturally acidic, and more so during thunderstorms—but changes to ecosystems, the report said, were mainly caused by changes in land use. The felling of trees and the burning of stumps in the Adirondacks had reduced the acidity of the forest floor. After conservationists put a stop to it, the soil gradually returned to its previous acidity


Did you miss that? The author of that opinion included that he knew that power-station emissions make rain more acidic, and still tried to argue that other things make the rain more acid too. So that somehow make it ok to continue making the rain more acid?

I guess if you extend that line of reasoning to include Global Warming, that other things besides CO2 make the planet warmer, so it's ok to keep producing it, as we fuel our king of the world lifestyles.

That's not quite as bad as your 1941 Department of Agriculture report saying that people should disregard all the hype lately about the production of CO2, because it had no effect on the climate. At least this one doesn't go to extremes to mislead people.


I'm gullible by your lights and you're a moron by mine. Somehow the entire government science establishment is totally wrong - to the point that they are 180 degrees out of whack - but you believe they are correct on this point which even the NASA PAPER on the subject says that at the present level we are of CO2 even 10 times more CO2 couldn't raise the temperature at all.

You are so stupid I can hardly believe it.
30-10-2017 01:33
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Wake wrote:
http://thedeepstate.com/acid-rain-playbook/

The Environmentalists have simply taken over the entire government network of science. There is no reliable science coming from Federal government any longer.


People like you are called gullible. You really think someone's opinion about Acid Rain is somehow related to Climate Change. The whole thing is totally bizarre. The article you quote, even says that power stations do make the rain more acid.

http://thedeepstate.com/acid-rain-playbook/Said:
Yes, power-station emissions make rain more acidic—rain is naturally acidic, and more so during thunderstorms—but changes to ecosystems, the report said, were mainly caused by changes in land use. The felling of trees and the burning of stumps in the Adirondacks had reduced the acidity of the forest floor. After conservationists put a stop to it, the soil gradually returned to its previous acidity


Did you miss that? The author of that opinion included that he knew that power-station emissions make rain more acidic, and still tried to argue that other things make the rain more acid too. So that somehow make it ok to continue making the rain more acid?

I guess if you extend that line of reasoning to include Global Warming, that other things besides CO2 make the planet warmer, so it's ok to keep producing it, as we fuel our king of the world lifestyles.

That's not quite as bad as your 1941 Department of Agriculture report saying that people should disregard all the hype lately about the production of CO2, because it had no effect on the climate. At least this one doesn't go to extremes to mislead people.


I'm gullible by your lights and you're a moron by mine. Somehow the entire government science establishment is totally wrong - to the point that they are 180 degrees out of whack - but you believe they are correct on this point which even the NASA PAPER on the subject says that at the present level we are of CO2 even 10 times more CO2 couldn't raise the temperature at all.

You are so stupid I can hardly believe it.


Wow, I just got called stupid, by someone that thinks because things other than power plant emissions cause rain to be acidic, proves something about the validity of Climate Change.

The opinion you are going off about today doesn't even mention NASA or NOA, so you are extrapolating quite a lot to being them into this one.

And you don't mind sharing the link to the NASA PAPER that you are misreading, do you? I find it's a lot easier to get to the bottom of whatever you are making your case with by reading it for myself, because I've noticed that you miss important bits of information, like the one where the author of this opion admits that he knows that power plant emissions do cause the rain to be more acidic.

I'm surprised you made it through yet another day.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
30-10-2017 06:21
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
GreenMan wrote:
Wow, I just got called stupid, by someone that thinks because things other than power plant emissions cause rain to be acidic, proves something about the validity of Climate Change.

The opinion you are going off about today doesn't even mention NASA or NOA, so you are extrapolating quite a lot to being them into this one.

And you don't mind sharing the link to the NASA PAPER that you are misreading, do you? I find it's a lot easier to get to the bottom of whatever you are making your case with by reading it for myself, because I've noticed that you miss important bits of information, like the one where the author of this opion admits that he knows that power plant emissions do cause the rain to be more acidic.

I'm surprised you made it through yet another day.


Wow, you got called stupid because being fooled once shame on you and you don't want to be shamed twice. So you simply deny it.
30-10-2017 18:24
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reporbate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" woofed:....don't want to be shamed twice.

However, "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reporbate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" loves continuous attachment to, shame & rolling in oil, coal, energy, & re-pubic-lick-un PR propaganda poop.
30-10-2017 20:08
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
GreenMan wrote:
Wow, I just got called stupid, by someone that thinks because things other than power plant emissions cause rain to be acidic, proves something about the validity of Climate Change.


Define 'climate change' without using circular definitions.

Go learn at least a little chemistry, dope. Rain easily becomes acidic. Just falling through the 0.04% of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere produces a bit of carbonic acid. Go figure out what buffering means in chemistry.

Slightly acidic rain means essentially nothing when it hits the ground.


The Parrot Killer
31-10-2017 02:08
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Wow, I just got called stupid, by someone that thinks because things other than power plant emissions cause rain to be acidic, proves something about the validity of Climate Change.


Define 'climate change' without using circular definitions.

Go learn at least a little chemistry, dope. Rain easily becomes acidic. Just falling through the 0.04% of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere produces a bit of carbonic acid. Go figure out what buffering means in chemistry.

Slightly acidic rain means essentially nothing when it hits the ground.


I'm not the slightest bit interested in acid rain, so I think I'll pass on researching it. I'll be glad to take your word for it through, since you apparently have dug into it, and I don't see any reason for you to lie about it, like you do about Global Warming, Climate Change, and Greenhouse Gases.

You are apparently hung up on the definition of things, which are difficult to define. Seems like something that is as easy to say, like the earth's surface is getting warmer each year, because of an increase in gases that warm the planet a little more by their presence, should also be easy to define. But I suppose if you are talking to someone with their finger crammed into their ears up the third knuckle, it's a mute point.

That's what it is like talking to you, Parrot. You cram your fingers in your ears, to prevent uptake of knowledge that goes against your version of reality. It's a self defense mechanism, built in all humans. And is why we lie. Regardless of what we do, good or even horribly bad, we can justify doing it, at least to ourselves. And we even try to justify it to others. Doing that helps to prevent us from going insane. Apparently, we can't handle knowing that we are not perfect. If we are wrong about something, it shames us. And other people use that as an excuse to not trust our opinion in the future, which feeds on our natural desire to hide the fact of our imperfection, by lying.

And, we subconsciously turn that characteristic around, and try to use it to disprove something we don't want to be real, like Global Warming. We point out all the mistakes we think we know about where scientists who study climate or other things that might be related, were wrong about, in the hopes of justifying our desire to ignore them. And the more the merrier, so people like you go around trying to convince others to take your position. When someone does take your side, it gives you the feeling of confidence that you desire, to boost your ego, and even convinces you that you might be right, even though deep down, you know that you are just a scared boy, lying through is teeth, because he is scared of the truth.

A mature person acknowledges when there is danger ahead, and takes appropriate action to prevent that danger from becoming harmful. Or they run like hell. A child will simply stand there and cry until their mommy comes to get them.

What are you going to do Parrot? Do you really think that standing there crying will fix anything? It's not going away, because it's not a hoax. The sooner you open your mind to what is going on, the sooner you can come up with your own plan to prevent this from becoming a tragedy for your family. Well, you might not have a family, for all I know. I have a gay nephew, and he is accepted in my family as he is. But all families are not like that, and a lot of gay guys just have their partners. Of course, there isn't much chance of having kids, so you don't have that to worry about.

Ah, that's it, isn't it? The reason you think it's ok to not only ignore, but adamantly oppose the understanding we have of Climate Change, is that you could care less about the future of humanity, because you have no offspring. And never will. You know that when your gay ass dies, that's the end of it, because you are also a Christian, who believes that you just have this one life, and after that is Judgement, and Eternal Life in Heaven with God.

I hope that works out for you, but you probably need to do a little research yourself into that matter. Taking other people's word for things that affect your spiritual well being doesn't make a lot of sense, if you think about it.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
31-10-2017 02:24
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Wow, I just got called stupid, by someone that thinks because things other than power plant emissions cause rain to be acidic, proves something about the validity of Climate Change.


Define 'climate change' without using circular definitions.

Go learn at least a little chemistry, dope. Rain easily becomes acidic. Just falling through the 0.04% of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere produces a bit of carbonic acid. Go figure out what buffering means in chemistry.

Slightly acidic rain means essentially nothing when it hits the ground.


I'm not the slightest bit interested in acid rain, so I think I'll pass on researching it. I'll be glad to take your word for it through, since you apparently have dug into it, and I don't see any reason for you to lie about it, like you do about Global Warming, Climate Change, and Greenhouse Gases.

Not lying about 'global warming', 'climate change', or 'greenhouse gases'.

You can't even define 'global warming' or 'climate change' without resorting to circular definitions. That means all you have a void argument. Science has no theories based on void arguments.

There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse' gas. That's not a lie either. All you have is descriptions on 'how it all works' that violate theories of science.

GreenMan wrote:
You are apparently hung up on the definition of things, which are difficult to define.
To point out a) that no science can come from it until you define it, and b) to show that what you are pushing as 'science' is the religion of Global Warming.
GreenMan wrote:
Seems like something that is as easy to say, like the earth's surface is getting warmer each year, because of an increase in gases that warm the planet a little more by their presence, should also be easy to define.
Circular definition. Try again. You can't define 'global warming' by 'global warming'. You still just have a void argument.
GreenMan wrote:
But I suppose if you are talking to someone with their finger crammed into their ears up the third knuckle, it's a mute point.
Fallacy fallacy.

...deleted psychobabble and long winded Pascal's Wager fallacy...


The Parrot Killer
31-10-2017 05:31
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Wow, I just got called stupid, by someone that thinks because things other than power plant emissions cause rain to be acidic, proves something about the validity of Climate Change.


Define 'climate change' without using circular definitions.

Go learn at least a little chemistry, dope. Rain easily becomes acidic. Just falling through the 0.04% of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere produces a bit of carbonic acid. Go figure out what buffering means in chemistry.

Slightly acidic rain means essentially nothing when it hits the ground.


I'm not the slightest bit interested in acid rain, so I think I'll pass on researching it. I'll be glad to take your word for it through, since you apparently have dug into it, and I don't see any reason for you to lie about it, like you do about Global Warming, Climate Change, and Greenhouse Gases.

Not lying about 'global warming', 'climate change', or 'greenhouse gases'.

You can't even define 'global warming' or 'climate change' without resorting to circular definitions. That means all you have a void argument. Science has no theories based on void arguments.

There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse' gas. That's not a lie either. All you have is descriptions on 'how it all works' that violate theories of science.

GreenMan wrote:
You are apparently hung up on the definition of things, which are difficult to define.
To point out a) that no science can come from it until you define it, and b) to show that what you are pushing as 'science' is the religion of Global Warming.
GreenMan wrote:
Seems like something that is as easy to say, like the earth's surface is getting warmer each year, because of an increase in gases that warm the planet a little more by their presence, should also be easy to define.
Circular definition. Try again. You can't define 'global warming' by 'global warming'. You still just have a void argument.
GreenMan wrote:
But I suppose if you are talking to someone with their finger crammed into their ears up the third knuckle, it's a mute point.
Fallacy fallacy.

...deleted psychobabble and long winded Pascal's Wager fallacy...


You keep resorting to the same bull shit about greenhouse gases violating the laws of physics, when they are supported by those laws. You can't just say something is breaking a law, and then give no justification for saying it. You have to show the law, and then show how it is being broken. You can't do that, because absorption of energy is not preventing the emission of that energy. So that law isn't broken. And slowing down the cooling of a surface is supported by the other law that you claim is broken.

Neither of your arguments related to the law of physics is valid.

Accusing people of not accepting your version of physics of rejecting science doesn't help your position either.

And I suppose you need to take your other argument about circular definitions up with someone who gives a shit about following your rules of understanding things.

To me, it is not circular. I can see that the entire globe is warming over time. I can see that regional climates are changing around the world, as the world gets warmer. I can investigate the causes of the warming, and relate it directly to gases, which warm the air. I can equate that an increase in those gases will cause a further increase int he warming that is already in progress.

I don't need some educated idiot telling me to ignore the things I see, and plan my life according to his fantasy. No one else does either.

People need to know the truth, Parrot, regardless of how much it hurts them to know it.

It's time for people to man up to this problem, and those of you who want to hide behind mommy's skirt are welcome to do so. Just do it quietly.

I wish I could say it will all be over soon, but it won't be. We have set something in motion that just keeps slowly rolling along, regardless of the pain it causes people. It doesn't stop until the force which propels it is no longer present.

The earth will shake the parasitic humans from the planet, like a dog shakes the fleas from its back.

I'm thinking the best thing to do is figure out how not to be a parasite.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
31-10-2017 17:23
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
GreenMan wrote: I'm not the slightest bit interested in acid rain, so I think I'll pass on researching it.


The fact is that you aren't the slightest bit interested in researching anything. You have the mental of a 17 year old with it's same ignorance and bias.

But we DO love to see you post. You can't believe how many people have stopped believing in man-made global warming after reading the ignorance displayed by the AGW True Believers here.
31-10-2017 18:55
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Wow, I just got called stupid, by someone that thinks because things other than power plant emissions cause rain to be acidic, proves something about the validity of Climate Change.


Define 'climate change' without using circular definitions.

Go learn at least a little chemistry, dope. Rain easily becomes acidic. Just falling through the 0.04% of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere produces a bit of carbonic acid. Go figure out what buffering means in chemistry.

Slightly acidic rain means essentially nothing when it hits the ground.


I'm not the slightest bit interested in acid rain, so I think I'll pass on researching it. I'll be glad to take your word for it through, since you apparently have dug into it, and I don't see any reason for you to lie about it, like you do about Global Warming, Climate Change, and Greenhouse Gases.

Not lying about 'global warming', 'climate change', or 'greenhouse gases'.

You can't even define 'global warming' or 'climate change' without resorting to circular definitions. That means all you have a void argument. Science has no theories based on void arguments.

There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse' gas. That's not a lie either. All you have is descriptions on 'how it all works' that violate theories of science.

GreenMan wrote:
You are apparently hung up on the definition of things, which are difficult to define.
To point out a) that no science can come from it until you define it, and b) to show that what you are pushing as 'science' is the religion of Global Warming.
GreenMan wrote:
Seems like something that is as easy to say, like the earth's surface is getting warmer each year, because of an increase in gases that warm the planet a little more by their presence, should also be easy to define.
Circular definition. Try again. You can't define 'global warming' by 'global warming'. You still just have a void argument.
GreenMan wrote:
But I suppose if you are talking to someone with their finger crammed into their ears up the third knuckle, it's a mute point.
Fallacy fallacy.

...deleted psychobabble and long winded Pascal's Wager fallacy...


You keep resorting to the same bull shit about greenhouse gases violating the laws of physics, when they are supported by those laws.

They are NOT supported by any theory of science.
GreenMan wrote:
You can't just say something is breaking a law, and then give no justification for saying it.

I gave justification. I explained the theory and the law.
GreenMan wrote:
You have to show the law, and then show how it is being broken.

I have.
GreenMan wrote:
You can't do that,

I already HAVE done that.
GreenMan wrote:
because absorption of energy is not preventing the emission of that energy.

Did you know the emission of energy cools the substance?
GreenMan wrote:
So that law isn't broken. And slowing down the cooling of a surface is supported by the other law that you claim is broken.

No, it is not. You are STILL trying to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics. You can't decrease entropy in a system...ever.
GreenMan wrote:
Neither of your arguments related to the law of physics is valid.

Denying science again?
GreenMan wrote:
Accusing people of not accepting your version of physics of rejecting science doesn't help your position either.

Not my version. The ONLY authoritative reference for a theory of science is the author(s) of the theory. I only state the theory and why you are violating it.
GreenMan wrote:
And I suppose you need to take your other argument about circular definitions up with someone who gives a shit about following your rules of understanding things.

Theories of science are not circular arguments.
GreenMan wrote:
To me, it is not circular. I can see that the entire globe is warming over time.

Circular argument. You have no data. It is not possible to determine the temperature of the globe.
GreenMan wrote:
I can see that regional climates are changing around the world, as the world gets warmer.

Circular argument. You have no data. It is not possible to determine the temperature of regions that large.
GreenMan wrote:
I can investigate the causes of the warming, and relate it directly to gases, which warm the air.

Extension of initial circular argument. Religious statement.
GreenMan wrote:
I can equate that an increase in those gases will cause a further increase int he warming that is already in progress.

Extension of initial circular argument. Religious statement.
GreenMan wrote:
I don't need some educated idiot telling me to ignore the things I see,

You don't see them, except in your head.
GreenMan wrote:
and plan my life according to his fantasy.

You would rather plan your life according to yours, eh?
GreenMan wrote:
No one else does either.

Argument from randU.
GreenMan wrote:
People need to know the truth,

A fair number of people DO know the truth. That is why they are rejecting your message.
GreenMan wrote:
It's time for people to man up to this problem,

There is no problem.
GreenMan wrote:
I wish I could say it will all be over soon, but it won't be. We have set something in motion that just keeps slowly rolling along, regardless of the pain it causes people. It doesn't stop until the force which propels it is no longer present.

There is no force propelling a problem. There is no problem.
GreenMan wrote:
The earth will shake the parasitic humans from the planet, like a dog shakes the fleas from its back.

I would say it is YOU that is the parasite, sponging off of others to fulfill your dream.
GreenMan wrote:
I'm thinking the best thing to do is figure out how not to be a parasite.

Guess what? You are.


The Parrot Killer
31-10-2017 21:38
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" bluffed:
GreenMan wrote:I'm thinking the best thing to do is figure out how not to be a parasite.

Guess what? You are.

..... says someone named ""old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight".
Edited on 31-10-2017 21:39
01-11-2017 00:48
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
GreenMan wrote:
You keep resorting to the same bull shit about greenhouse gases violating the laws of physics, when they are supported by those laws. You can't just say something is breaking a law, and then give no justification for saying it. You have to show the law, and then show how it is being broken. You can't do that, because absorption of energy is not preventing the emission of that energy. So that law isn't broken. And slowing down the cooling of a surface is supported by the other law that you claim is broken.

Neither of your arguments related to the law of physics is valid.

Accusing people of not accepting your version of physics of rejecting science doesn't help your position either.

And I suppose you need to take your other argument about circular definitions up with someone who gives a shit about following your rules of understanding things.

To me, it is not circular. I can see that the entire globe is warming over time. I can see that regional climates are changing around the world, as the world gets warmer. I can investigate the causes of the warming, and relate it directly to gases, which warm the air. I can equate that an increase in those gases will cause a further increase int he warming that is already in progress.

I don't need some educated idiot telling me to ignore the things I see, and plan my life according to his fantasy. No one else does either.

People need to know the truth, Parrot, regardless of how much it hurts them to know it.

It's time for people to man up to this problem, and those of you who want to hide behind mommy's skirt are welcome to do so. Just do it quietly.

I wish I could say it will all be over soon, but it won't be. We have set something in motion that just keeps slowly rolling along, regardless of the pain it causes people. It doesn't stop until the force which propels it is no longer present.

The earth will shake the parasitic humans from the planet, like a dog shakes the fleas from its back.

I'm thinking the best thing to do is figure out how not to be a parasite.


Firstly there is NO theory of greenhouse gases that is accurate or honest. They do NOTHING they are claimed to do. Even the government knew that and published it in a pamphlet in 1941.

Even the so-called "proof" in another NASA paper said that CO2 had a saturation point and that it had been reached and that 10 times the amount of CO2 present would not change the temperature.

Sorry but you won't live long enough to see the end of the world.
01-11-2017 06:16
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote:

I'm thinking the best thing to do is figure out how not to be a parasite.


Firstly there is NO theory of greenhouse gases that is accurate or honest. They do NOTHING they are claimed to do. Even the government knew that and published it in a pamphlet in 1941.

Even the so-called "proof" in another NASA paper said that CO2 had a saturation point and that it had been reached and that 10 times the amount of CO2 present would not change the temperature.

Sorry but you won't live long enough to see the end of the world.


Wake, you keep trying to use bullshit denier urban legends as some kind of "proof." And you are so dense that you think a pamphlet published in 1941, by the US Department of Agriculture saying that the hype about CO2 causing Global Warming is wrong, and to not worry about it.

Have you thought about how stupid that sounds? For starters, no one was concerned about Global Warming or CO2 back in 1941, even though it was getting hot as hell back then. And if a farmer saw that phamphlet, he would have wondered what the hell was CO2, and threw it away, because he had no idea it was what is coming out of his exhaust on his new International Harvester. In fact, I'm thinking that back in those days, there was still a lot of mules pulling plows.

And, even if that story is real, and they really did issue a phamphlet saying CO2 does not cause Global Warming, it means nothing, because there was absolutely no research going on back then about Climate Change. And since then, there has been a lot. So I'm going to go with what we know now, and not with what you think.

And I still want to see the link to where I can read up on the NASA paper that said increasing CO2 will not cause additional warming, because CO2 is already in saturation. I know why you haven't produced that link even though I asked for it earlier. It's because you don't have a link. You are referring to yet another urban legend, that is without base.

I'm sure you are right about me not living long enough to see the end of the world, since there is no such thing as the end of the world. That's just a stupid expression the Christians made up, because they are too lazy to figure out what the term, "End of Days" really means.

But if you want me to take that as a threat from you, then ok. [laughs like hell]

Wake, I'm thinking that even if you had a gun, your hands are too feeble to hold it steady enough to hit anything. I can see you being attacked on the street by a thug, and you shooting 14 people before the thug takes your gun away and runs like hell with it.

You are the most serious joke I have ever came across.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
01-11-2017 15:31
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
GreenMan wrote:You("wake-me-up") are the most serious joke I have ever came across.

Don' know 'bout joke, but "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" is an old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner.
01-11-2017 17:18
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
GreenMan wrote:
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote:

I'm thinking the best thing to do is figure out how not to be a parasite.


Firstly there is NO theory of greenhouse gases that is accurate or honest. They do NOTHING they are claimed to do. Even the government knew that and published it in a pamphlet in 1941.

Even the so-called "proof" in another NASA paper said that CO2 had a saturation point and that it had been reached and that 10 times the amount of CO2 present would not change the temperature.

Sorry but you won't live long enough to see the end of the world.


Wake, you keep trying to use bullshit denier urban legends as some kind of "proof." And you are so dense that you think a pamphlet published in 1941, by the US Department of Agriculture saying that the hype about CO2 causing Global Warming is wrong, and to not worry about it.

Have you thought about how stupid that sounds? For starters, no one was concerned about Global Warming or CO2 back in 1941, even though it was getting hot as hell back then. And if a farmer saw that phamphlet, he would have wondered what the hell was CO2, and threw it away, because he had no idea it was what is coming out of his exhaust on his new International Harvester. In fact, I'm thinking that back in those days, there was still a lot of mules pulling plows.

And, even if that story is real, and they really did issue a phamphlet saying CO2 does not cause Global Warming, it means nothing, because there was absolutely no research going on back then about Climate Change. And since then, there has been a lot. So I'm going to go with what we know now, and not with what you think.

And I still want to see the link to where I can read up on the NASA paper that said increasing CO2 will not cause additional warming, because CO2 is already in saturation. I know why you haven't produced that link even though I asked for it earlier. It's because you don't have a link. You are referring to yet another urban legend, that is without base.

I'm sure you are right about me not living long enough to see the end of the world, since there is no such thing as the end of the world. That's just a stupid expression the Christians made up, because they are too lazy to figure out what the term, "End of Days" really means.

But if you want me to take that as a threat from you, then ok. [laughs like hell]

Wake, I'm thinking that even if you had a gun, your hands are too feeble to hold it steady enough to hit anything. I can see you being attacked on the street by a thug, and you shooting 14 people before the thug takes your gun away and runs like hell with it.

You are the most serious joke I have ever came across.


Tell you what Greenman, come to Oakland and see if I need any sort of weapon to take care of you. You can prove to everyone how feeble I am and then laugh about it on line.

But I will guarantee you will be laughing from an emergency room.

I rode with the old farts last Saturday and they decided to remind me of what I did to drivers that tried to frighten groups of riders. I still don't remember doing that or the things that they claim I did. But I do remember hospitalizing people like you. One is permanently crippled. And I wouldn't have much trouble breaking the back of someone like you that obviously doesn't know how to fight.

By all means come here and let's see you "[laughs like hell]". You know, I ride through the worst parts of the ghettos and no one bothers me. Do you think that's some sort of accident? There are plenty of people who could beat me. But they would suffer for it. At my age I'm supposed to have my bone density going down. I just had it tested and it isn't going down. It's still well above normal size and density. But hey man, I look thin, like most good cyclists, so gee you can take your shot.

You aren't going to be able to see the end of your idea of an Earth. You ain't taking it with you. Things are going to go right along without you as happily as it did before you. And a hell of a lot better off than when you were here.
01-11-2017 20:10
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
GreenMan wrote:
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote:

I'm thinking the best thing to do is figure out how not to be a parasite.


Firstly there is NO theory of greenhouse gases that is accurate or honest. They do NOTHING they are claimed to do. Even the government knew that and published it in a pamphlet in 1941.

Even the so-called "proof" in another NASA paper said that CO2 had a saturation point and that it had been reached and that 10 times the amount of CO2 present would not change the temperature.

Sorry but you won't live long enough to see the end of the world.


Wake, you keep trying to use bullshit denier urban legends as some kind of "proof." And you are so dense that you think a pamphlet published in 1941, by the US Department of Agriculture saying that the hype about CO2 causing Global Warming is wrong, and to not worry about it.

Have you thought about how stupid that sounds? For starters, no one was concerned about Global Warming or CO2 back in 1941, even though it was getting hot as hell back then.

What about Arrhenius?? Did you forget about him? What about James Hansen? Ever hear of him?

It wasn't getting hot either. German troops were stopped by an exceptionally COLD winter in Russia. Weather at Pearl Harbor was nice and clear, even though a major storm front existed to the west. England enjoyed warmer weather, but wetter than normal that year.

GreenMan wrote:
And if a farmer saw that phamphlet, he would have wondered what the hell was CO2, and threw it away, because he had no idea it was what is coming out of his exhaust on his new International Harvester.

Of course he knew. You think farmers are stupid? Now you're just showing your bigotry.
GreenMan wrote:
In fact, I'm thinking that back in those days, there was still a lot of mules pulling plows.

A plow is not a harvester. Guess you need to learn how a farm works, you moronic city slicker.
GreenMan wrote:
And, even if that story is real, and they really did issue a phamphlet saying CO2 does not cause Global Warming, it means nothing, because there was absolutely no research going on back then about Climate Change.
What about James Hansen? What about Arrhenius? Did you forget them again?
GreenMan wrote:
And since then, there has been a lot.

Nope. Same Church of Global Warming. Same scripture.
GreenMan wrote:
So I'm going to go with what we know now, and not with what you think.
The Church of Global Warming doesn't know anything.


The Parrot Killer
01-11-2017 20:12
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
Wake wrote:
Tell you what Greenman, come to Oakland and see if I need any sort of weapon to take care of you. You can prove to everyone how feeble I am and then laugh about it on line.

But I will guarantee you will be laughing from an emergency room.


Stop threatening people, idiot. You get banned from various forums for that sort of shit, you know.


The Parrot Killer
02-11-2017 04:46
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote:

I'm thinking the best thing to do is figure out how not to be a parasite.


Firstly there is NO theory of greenhouse gases that is accurate or honest. They do NOTHING they are claimed to do. Even the government knew that and published it in a pamphlet in 1941.

Even the so-called "proof" in another NASA paper said that CO2 had a saturation point and that it had been reached and that 10 times the amount of CO2 present would not change the temperature.

Sorry but you won't live long enough to see the end of the world.


Wake, you keep trying to use bullshit denier urban legends as some kind of "proof." And you are so dense that you think a pamphlet published in 1941, by the US Department of Agriculture saying that the hype about CO2 causing Global Warming is wrong, and to not worry about it.

Have you thought about how stupid that sounds? For starters, no one was concerned about Global Warming or CO2 back in 1941, even though it was getting hot as hell back then. And if a farmer saw that phamphlet, he would have wondered what the hell was CO2, and threw it away, because he had no idea it was what is coming out of his exhaust on his new International Harvester. In fact, I'm thinking that back in those days, there was still a lot of mules pulling plows.

And, even if that story is real, and they really did issue a phamphlet saying CO2 does not cause Global Warming, it means nothing, because there was absolutely no research going on back then about Climate Change. And since then, there has been a lot. So I'm going to go with what we know now, and not with what you think.

And I still want to see the link to where I can read up on the NASA paper that said increasing CO2 will not cause additional warming, because CO2 is already in saturation. I know why you haven't produced that link even though I asked for it earlier. It's because you don't have a link. You are referring to yet another urban legend, that is without base.

I'm sure you are right about me not living long enough to see the end of the world, since there is no such thing as the end of the world. That's just a stupid expression the Christians made up, because they are too lazy to figure out what the term, "End of Days" really means.

But if you want me to take that as a threat from you, then ok. [laughs like hell]

Wake, I'm thinking that even if you had a gun, your hands are too feeble to hold it steady enough to hit anything. I can see you being attacked on the street by a thug, and you shooting 14 people before the thug takes your gun away and runs like hell with it.

You are the most serious joke I have ever came across.


Tell you what Greenman, come to Oakland and see if I need any sort of weapon to take care of you. You can prove to everyone how feeble I am and then laugh about it on line.

But I will guarantee you will be laughing from an emergency room.

I rode with the old farts last Saturday and they decided to remind me of what I did to drivers that tried to frighten groups of riders. I still don't remember doing that or the things that they claim I did. But I do remember hospitalizing people like you. One is permanently crippled. And I wouldn't have much trouble breaking the back of someone like you that obviously doesn't know how to fight.

By all means come here and let's see you "[laughs like hell]". You know, I ride through the worst parts of the ghettos and no one bothers me. Do you think that's some sort of accident? There are plenty of people who could beat me. But they would suffer for it. At my age I'm supposed to have my bone density going down. I just had it tested and it isn't going down. It's still well above normal size and density. But hey man, I look thin, like most good cyclists, so gee you can take your shot.

You aren't going to be able to see the end of your idea of an Earth. You ain't taking it with you. Things are going to go right along without you as happily as it did before you. And a hell of a lot better off than when you were here.


It occurred to me that many people might not know what I meant when I called you a joke, but thank you for mansplaining what a "joke" is, because that is what you just did. It's a term we used when I was a kid, to describe someone who always tried to act bad assed, but was really a wimp. I'm thinking it's probably a southern term, so you wouldn't understand.

You do point out one thing that I am aware of, and that is the length of time that the changes will take. And you are correct, I will not likely be alive when this thing is over. I do not count on being alive when this thing is over, either. My goal is to do the right thing while I am alive, and that way, if I am right about karma, then when I come back, I will come back to my family, which I have taught what to do. They will teach me, and I will continue my quest for survival on earth.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
02-11-2017 05:03
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote:

I'm thinking the best thing to do is figure out how not to be a parasite.


Firstly there is NO theory of greenhouse gases that is accurate or honest. They do NOTHING they are claimed to do. Even the government knew that and published it in a pamphlet in 1941.

Even the so-called "proof" in another NASA paper said that CO2 had a saturation point and that it had been reached and that 10 times the amount of CO2 present would not change the temperature.

Sorry but you won't live long enough to see the end of the world.


Wake, you keep trying to use bullshit denier urban legends as some kind of "proof." And you are so dense that you think a pamphlet published in 1941, by the US Department of Agriculture saying that the hype about CO2 causing Global Warming is wrong, and to not worry about it.

Have you thought about how stupid that sounds? For starters, no one was concerned about Global Warming or CO2 back in 1941, even though it was getting hot as hell back then.

What about Arrhenius?? Did you forget about him? What about James Hansen? Ever hear of him?

It wasn't getting hot either. German troops were stopped by an exceptionally COLD winter in Russia. Weather at Pearl Harbor was nice and clear, even though a major storm front existed to the west. England enjoyed warmer weather, but wetter than normal that year.

GreenMan wrote:
And if a farmer saw that phamphlet, he would have wondered what the hell was CO2, and threw it away, because he had no idea it was what is coming out of his exhaust on his new International Harvester.

Of course he knew. You think farmers are stupid? Now you're just showing your bigotry.
GreenMan wrote:
In fact, I'm thinking that back in those days, there was still a lot of mules pulling plows.

A plow is not a harvester. Guess you need to learn how a farm works, you moronic city slicker.
GreenMan wrote:
And, even if that story is real, and they really did issue a phamphlet saying CO2 does not cause Global Warming, it means nothing, because there was absolutely no research going on back then about Climate Change.
What about James Hansen? What about Arrhenius? Did you forget them again?
GreenMan wrote:
And since then, there has been a lot.

Nope. Same Church of Global Warming. Same scripture.
GreenMan wrote:
So I'm going to go with what we know now, and not with what you think.
The Church of Global Warming doesn't know anything.


Parrot, you are such an idiot. And you exhibit the same characteristic that Wake does, in calling other people what you really are, when you can't figure out what else to say. I'm as far from being a "city-slicker" as anyone can be, almost. I do have a few red neck friends who still haven't made it into the next country successfully, so I'm not the king of Mudville, but I can smell him from where I sit.

And by the way, an International Harvester is a brand name. They make tractors and harvesters. You can put a plow behind your International Harvester, or pull a harvester with it. In fact, the first harvesters were pulled by mule. Nowadays they got these giant things that look like they came from Mars, with all the lights and bells and buzzers and automatic lifting and pulling and tugging things all over it. And things that will chew you up, if you get in the way, so don't get in the way, or at least don't fall down as you scramble like hell to get out of the way.

So, city slicker super sucker, you think Wake's 1941 US Department of Agriculture pamphlet is genuine? Do you really believe that it happened?

I'm thinking neither of you can prove it, or the other one about NASA's admission that increasing CO2 will not cause an increase in the average global temperature.

Link, anyone? Come on Jizzy, your hero's are struggling.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
02-11-2017 16:38
L8112
★☆☆☆☆
(106)
Into the night, wake, and a few other people on here are mentally ill.
Edited on 02-11-2017 16:38
02-11-2017 17:11
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
L8112 wrote: Into the night, wake, and a few other people on here are mentally ill.

Mental illness could explain why "badnight", "wake-me-up", & others are also old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiners.
However, I believe "badnight", "wake-me-up" & others, LOVE being old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiners.
02-11-2017 17:32
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
litesong wrote:
L8112 wrote: Into the night, wake, and a few other people on here are mentally ill.

Mental illness could explain why "badnight", "wake-me-up", & others are also old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiners.
However, I believe "badnight", "wake-me-up" & others, LOVE being old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiners.


So then - what explains you telling us that you're an American Indian? It takes a lot of nerve to lie like that. What explains your claim that someone here threatened your wife when we ALL suspect you're as gay as they come?
02-11-2017 17:35
L8112
★☆☆☆☆
(106)
wake is NOT white, so therefore he is either black, mexican, indian, or chinese...hahaha paints a funny picture.
02-11-2017 17:42
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
L8112 wrote:
wake is NOT white, so therefore he is either black, mexican, indian, or chinese...hahaha paints a funny picture.
02-11-2017 17:44
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
L8112 wrote:
wake is NOT white, so therefore he is either black, mexican, indian, or chinese...hahaha paints a funny picture.


The American Indian came east across the land bridge. My race which is the same went west across the Asian steppes.
02-11-2017 17:48
L8112
★☆☆☆☆
(106)
ok..? idc what 'race' or flesh vehicle you inhabit, youre still a dickhead
02-11-2017 18:09
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
L8112 wrote: ok..? idc what 'race' or flesh vehicle you inhabit, youre still a dickhead


It's really painful for you to look into a mirror and see a loser isn't it? You could have become someone but you chose ignorance over knowledge.
02-11-2017 18:25
L8112
★☆☆☆☆
(106)
you are really bad at the insults, sound like a 4 year old.
02-11-2017 18:31
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
L8112 wrote: you are really bad at the insults, sound like a 4 year old.


And you're still a loser.
02-11-2017 18:36
L8112
★☆☆☆☆
(106)
and youre still a total prick with a huge ego
02-11-2017 18:44
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
L8112 wrote: and youre still a total prick with a huge ego


And you're still a loser that can only sooth your soul by blaming everyone else for your being a loser.
02-11-2017 18:46
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1307)
Wake wrote:
L8112 wrote: and youre still a total prick with a huge ego


And you're still a loser that can only sooth your soul by blaming everyone else for your being a loser.


Bingo! Nailed it.
02-11-2017 19:06
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
[b]Wake wrote:.... the Asian steppes.

Can hear the strains of Borodin's "In the Steppes of Centra Asia", now.... with prominent displays for my favorite instrument, the oboe.
02-11-2017 19:08
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
litesong wrote:
[b]Wake wrote:.... the Asian steppes.
Can hear the strains of Borodin's "In the Steppes of Centra Asia", now.... with prominent displays for my favorite instrument, the oboe.


We should have known that your favorite instrument is one with a penis shaped reed.
02-11-2017 19:14
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
Wake wrote: It takes a lot of nerve to lie like that. What explains your claim that someone here threatened your wife when we ALL suspect you're as gay as they come?
The above accusations are made (& now repeated) by someone named, "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier LIAR whiner wake-me-up".
Another emphasis on part of its name, "LIAR", is that "wake-me-up" proudly stated it would NOT pay attention to me, anymore.
Edited on 02-11-2017 19:15
02-11-2017 19:26
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
litesong wrote:
Wake wrote: It takes a lot of nerve to lie like that. What explains your claim that someone here threatened your wife when we ALL suspect you're as gay as they come?
The above accusations are made (& now repeated) by someone named, "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier LIAR whiner wake-me-up".
Another emphasis on part of its name, "LIAR", is that "wake-me-up" proudly stated it would NOT pay attention to me, anymore.


And you're the one telling us that your favorite "instrument" is an oboe.
Page 1 of 3123>





Join the debate The Stench from the EPA, NASA and NOAA:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Why did Obama EPA classify CO2 as toxic?128-05-2019 20:24
Satellite confirms key NASA temperature data: The planet is warming — and fast422-05-2019 18:30
New EPA document tells communities to brace for climate change impacts101-05-2019 21:16
EPA chief says water issues a bigger crisis than climate change621-03-2019 21:01
10 years ago, Marxist Obama declared CO2 was a poison gas in EPA to bankrupt215-02-2019 04:37
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact