What is the Greenhouse Effect?

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > What is the Greenhouse Effect? > Page 4

Page 4 of 5

26-08-2017 22:18
GreenMan ★★★☆☆ (661)	Into the Night wrote: GreenMan wrote: Into the Night wrote: GreenMan wrote: Wake wrote: GreenMan wrote: And that is why I took the time and made the effort to understand Global Warming and Climate Change. I didn't do that by simply reading other people's opinions. I researched their data and built a Climate Model that proves beyond a doubt how Greenhouse Gases affect the climate of our planet. Tell us - did you build that model out of Balsa wood? Built a model. Tell us all how you did that. Perhaps you made a drawing? Or used the fake data that Dr. Mann used? That alone nullifies every single thing you've had to say. No, I didn't use the same data that Dr. Mann used. I think he went with tree ring data. I went with ice core data. Or maybe he used ice core data, too. Doesn't matter. I didn't consult him or use his data. I used data from EPICA Dome C. It is still available, if you want to check my math or something. Of course, you aren't interested in checking nobody's math, because that would require using some intelligence. What little you have is precious to you, so you will just sit this one out, and come up with something stupid to say, that you think is brilliant. Math error. Statistical selection by opportunity. Manufactured data. Failure to normalize against paired randR. Failure to calculate margin of error. Assumption of data aspect. Ice cores do not indicate the temperature of the Earth. There...your math is checked. Ice cores make a good proxy for the average temperature of the earth, because the poles follow the earth's increases and decreases in average temperature. No they don't. The weather at a pole is just like anywhere else on Earth. It is different from the weather elsewhere. GreenMan wrote: You can see that, if you compare the average antarctic temperature with the average earth temperature for the years that we have records of them both. You don't HAVE records for them both. You don't HAVE records for either one. GreenMan wrote: There is some deviation, but it's just a few degrees, like what is going on now, with the polar regions warming about 3C more than the rest of the world. Argument from randU. GreenMan wrote: As far as all those math errors you think you found, you must be nuts, lol. It is obvious you do not understand the mathematics of random numbers, probability, or statistics. GreenMan wrote: You can say what ever you want, but it is meaningless unless you put forth a little effort. No, this is effort YOU have to put in. YOU are the only one that can take the time and effort to learn this stuff. I can't just pour knowledge into your head. Personally, I think you're lazy and arrogant. It prevents you from learning these branches of mathematics. Look Dumbass, you can't just dismiss data that doesn't fit into your version of reality. You need to learn from it, and maybe then your version of reality will harmonize with universal reality [what things really are]. Until then, you are just a drowning swimmer, flailing his arms wildly. All you have to do is focus, and you could swim to shore. The data from ice cores is compressed, so it provides averages over time, naturally. It doesn't show rapid variations, like we see in day to day temperature changes. Think, "natural averages." But by all means, think. Stop wasting your time trying to convince other people that you are brilliant. Instead, think. People will either realize it or not, based on what you think, because what you do is a reflection of what you think about, or what you don't think about. Think about it. ~~ GreenMan ~~ https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
26-08-2017 22:34
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	GreenMan wrote: Into the Night wrote: GreenMan wrote: Into the Night wrote: GreenMan wrote: Wake wrote: GreenMan wrote: And that is why I took the time and made the effort to understand Global Warming and Climate Change. I didn't do that by simply reading other people's opinions. I researched their data and built a Climate Model that proves beyond a doubt how Greenhouse Gases affect the climate of our planet. Tell us - did you build that model out of Balsa wood? Built a model. Tell us all how you did that. Perhaps you made a drawing? Or used the fake data that Dr. Mann used? That alone nullifies every single thing you've had to say. No, I didn't use the same data that Dr. Mann used. I think he went with tree ring data. I went with ice core data. Or maybe he used ice core data, too. Doesn't matter. I didn't consult him or use his data. I used data from EPICA Dome C. It is still available, if you want to check my math or something. Of course, you aren't interested in checking nobody's math, because that would require using some intelligence. What little you have is precious to you, so you will just sit this one out, and come up with something stupid to say, that you think is brilliant. Math error. Statistical selection by opportunity. Manufactured data. Failure to normalize against paired randR. Failure to calculate margin of error. Assumption of data aspect. Ice cores do not indicate the temperature of the Earth. There...your math is checked. Ice cores make a good proxy for the average temperature of the earth, because the poles follow the earth's increases and decreases in average temperature. No they don't. The weather at a pole is just like anywhere else on Earth. It is different from the weather elsewhere. GreenMan wrote: You can see that, if you compare the average antarctic temperature with the average earth temperature for the years that we have records of them both. You don't HAVE records for them both. You don't HAVE records for either one. GreenMan wrote: There is some deviation, but it's just a few degrees, like what is going on now, with the polar regions warming about 3C more than the rest of the world. Argument from randU. GreenMan wrote: As far as all those math errors you think you found, you must be nuts, lol. It is obvious you do not understand the mathematics of random numbers, probability, or statistics. GreenMan wrote: You can say what ever you want, but it is meaningless unless you put forth a little effort. No, this is effort YOU have to put in. YOU are the only one that can take the time and effort to learn this stuff. I can't just pour knowledge into your head. Personally, I think you're lazy and arrogant. It prevents you from learning these branches of mathematics. Look Dumbass, you can't just dismiss data that doesn't fit into your version of reality. I can dismiss data for whatever reason I want to. As far as what data I accept, I set a high standard for it. For details on what those standards are, see the first few posts of the Data Mine thread. I am not going to repeat them here. GreenMan wrote: You need to learn from it, There is nothing to learn from manufactured data. GreenMan wrote: and maybe then your version of reality will harmonize with universal reality [what things really are]. I'm going to ignore your lame attempts at philosophy at this time, other than to state there is no Universal Reality. You don't even know what 'real' is. GreenMan wrote: Until then, you are just a drowning swimmer, flailing his arms wildly. All you have to do is focus, and you could swim to shore. No, your are confused. YOU can't cope with the deep water I am happily swimming in. GreenMan wrote: The data from ice cores is compressed, Just like the ice cords themselves! Amazing! GreenMan wrote: so it provides averages over time, naturally. Big hairy deal. You are still ignoring location grouping, the margin of error calculation, the assumption of data aspects the ice core itself presents, and the demands of statistical math. GreenMan wrote: It doesn't show rapid variations, like we see in day to day temperature changes. It's ice, stupid. GreenMan wrote: Think, "natural averages." As opposed to "unnatural averages"? GreenMan wrote: But by all means, think. Stop wasting your time trying to convince other people that you are brilliant. Instead, think. People will either realize it or not, based on what you think, because what you do is a reflection of what you think about, or what you don't think about. Think about it. I refuse to sit in your Church and meditate. I am an Outsider, remember? The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
27-08-2017 14:03
GreenMan ★★★☆☆ (661)	Into the Night wrote: GreenMan wrote: Into the Night wrote: GreenMan wrote: Into the Night wrote: GreenMan wrote: Wake wrote: GreenMan wrote: And that is why I took the time and made the effort to understand Global Warming and Climate Change. I didn't do that by simply reading other people's opinions. I researched their data and built a Climate Model that proves beyond a doubt how Greenhouse Gases affect the climate of our planet. Tell us - did you build that model out of Balsa wood? Built a model. Tell us all how you did that. Perhaps you made a drawing? Or used the fake data that Dr. Mann used? That alone nullifies every single thing you've had to say. No, I didn't use the same data that Dr. Mann used. I think he went with tree ring data. I went with ice core data. Or maybe he used ice core data, too. Doesn't matter. I didn't consult him or use his data. I used data from EPICA Dome C. It is still available, if you want to check my math or something. Of course, you aren't interested in checking nobody's math, because that would require using some intelligence. What little you have is precious to you, so you will just sit this one out, and come up with something stupid to say, that you think is brilliant. Math error. Statistical selection by opportunity. Manufactured data. Failure to normalize against paired randR. Failure to calculate margin of error. Assumption of data aspect. Ice cores do not indicate the temperature of the Earth. There...your math is checked. Ice cores make a good proxy for the average temperature of the earth, because the poles follow the earth's increases and decreases in average temperature. No they don't. The weather at a pole is just like anywhere else on Earth. It is different from the weather elsewhere. GreenMan wrote: You can see that, if you compare the average antarctic temperature with the average earth temperature for the years that we have records of them both. You don't HAVE records for them both. You don't HAVE records for either one. GreenMan wrote: There is some deviation, but it's just a few degrees, like what is going on now, with the polar regions warming about 3C more than the rest of the world. Argument from randU. GreenMan wrote: As far as all those math errors you think you found, you must be nuts, lol. It is obvious you do not understand the mathematics of random numbers, probability, or statistics. GreenMan wrote: You can say what ever you want, but it is meaningless unless you put forth a little effort. No, this is effort YOU have to put in. YOU are the only one that can take the time and effort to learn this stuff. I can't just pour knowledge into your head. Personally, I think you're lazy and arrogant. It prevents you from learning these branches of mathematics. Look Dumbass, you can't just dismiss data that doesn't fit into your version of reality. I can dismiss data for whatever reason I want to. As far as what data I accept, I set a high standard for it. For details on what those standards are, see the first few posts of the Data Mine thread. I am not going to repeat them here. GreenMan wrote: You need to learn from it, There is nothing to learn from manufactured data. GreenMan wrote: and maybe then your version of reality will harmonize with universal reality [what things really are]. I'm going to ignore your lame attempts at philosophy at this time, other than to state there is no Universal Reality. You don't even know what 'real' is. GreenMan wrote: Until then, you are just a drowning swimmer, flailing his arms wildly. All you have to do is focus, and you could swim to shore. No, your are confused. YOU can't cope with the deep water I am happily swimming in. GreenMan wrote: The data from ice cores is compressed, Just like the ice cords themselves! Amazing! GreenMan wrote: so it provides averages over time, naturally. Big hairy deal. You are still ignoring location grouping, the margin of error calculation, the assumption of data aspects the ice core itself presents, and the demands of statistical math. GreenMan wrote: It doesn't show rapid variations, like we see in day to day temperature changes. It's ice, stupid. GreenMan wrote: Think, "natural averages." As opposed to "unnatural averages"? GreenMan wrote: But by all means, think. Stop wasting your time trying to convince other people that you are brilliant. Instead, think. People will either realize it or not, based on what you think, because what you do is a reflection of what you think about, or what you don't think about. Think about it. I refuse to sit in your Church and meditate. I am an Outsider, remember? Unfortunately, for you, it doesn't matter if you are an Outsider. They are going to tax you the same as everyone else. You can reject all the data you want, and it won't help your cause one bit. A boycott will get Trump back to the Climate Change negotiation table, and he of course will just pass the buck. He has no choice, because if he doesn't go along, the US will be bankrupt. Either way, we all lose. So might as well bend over and spread em. ~~ GreenMan ~~ https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
27-08-2017 21:28
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	GreenMan wrote: Unfortunately, for you, it doesn't matter if you are an Outsider. Yes it does. It means I'm not fooled by your predictions of doom and gloom. It means I'm not fooled by your manufactured data. It means I'm not fooled by you confusing your religion with science. GreenMan wrote: They are going to tax you the same as everyone else. Nope. Taxes based on a state religion are illegal in the United States. GreenMan wrote: You can reject all the data you want, Thank you, Oh Ruler of the Universe. I will. GreenMan wrote: and it won't help your cause one bit. Part of my cause is exposing religious idiots like you for what you are. GreenMan wrote: A boycott will get Trump back to the Climate Change negotiation table, HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You don't know him vewy well, do you? GreenMan wrote: and he of course will just pass the buck. If anyone passes the buck, it won't be Trump. It'll be Congress. GreenMan wrote: He has no choice, because if he doesn't go along, the US will be bankrupt. Hello? The United States government is ALREADY bankrupt! They just print their money now! GreenMan wrote: Either way, we all lose. So might as well bend over and spread em. Fortunately, private industry is still working. It allows the US government to continue to steal wealth from them. The free market is immortal, dope. You can't kill it, even if you drive it underground. It is the one market that functions even when there is no organized civilization at all. But you belong the Church of Karl Marx. To you this is evil. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
29-08-2017 06:01
GreenMan ★★★☆☆ (661)	Into the Night wrote: GreenMan wrote: Unfortunately, for you, it doesn't matter if you are an Outsider. Yes it does. It means I'm not fooled by your predictions of doom and gloom. It means I'm not fooled by your manufactured data. It means I'm not fooled by you confusing your religion with science. I'm not confusing religion with science. It is you that keeps trying to run them together, for some kind of association assassination. You think you can say Climate Change Research is a religion long enough, and people will believe you, Parrot. And the big thing is that it doesn't matter if you agree with paying your share to clean this mess up, you get to anyway. Just like everyone else. Eventually. So when you get done with your little tantrum, please bend over and spread em, because it's going it. Might as well accept it gracefully. Into the Night wrote: GreenMan wrote: They are going to tax you the same as everyone else. Nope. Taxes based on a state religion are illegal in the United States. It won't be coming from a state religion, dummy. It will be coming from the Federal Government, which you have no influence over. And it doesn't matter how much time you spend in here, trying to confuse anyone who wants to know what's going on. You are going to eventually lose, because it's getting warming and warmer each year, just like Al said it would. Into the Night wrote: GreenMan wrote: You can reject all the data you want, Thank you, Oh Ruler of the Universe. I will. GreenMan wrote: and it won't help your cause one bit. Part of my cause is exposing religious idiots like you for what you are. GreenMan wrote: A boycott will get Trump back to the Climate Change negotiation table, HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You don't know him vewy well, do you? GreenMan wrote: and he of course will just pass the buck. If anyone passes the buck, it won't be Trump. It'll be Congress. GreenMan wrote: He has no choice, because if he doesn't go along, the US will be bankrupt. Hello? The United States government is ALREADY bankrupt! They just print their money now! GreenMan wrote: Either way, we all lose. So might as well bend over and spread em. Fortunately, private industry is still working. It allows the US government to continue to steal wealth from them. The free market is immortal, dope. You can't kill it, even if you drive it underground. It is the one market that functions even when there is no organized civilization at all. But you belong the Church of Karl Marx. To you this is evil. I'm sure that free enterprise will continue on, as long as there are people who live. It's just nuts like you that made up an excuse to avoid taking responsibility for cleaning up your part of the mess. No one is trying to hurt free enterprise. They are trying to steer free enterprise into developing the solutions we need for this little problem we got. ~~ GreenMan ~~ https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php

29-08-2017 06:29
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (2932)	Greenturd wrote; They are trying to steer free enterprise into developing the solutions we need for this little problem we got. NO! They are trying to legislate (force) us into the "green" products that they are so heavily invested in. It's just like ethanol. Ethanol is not a free enterprise product. It could not fly on it's own. It is heavily subsidized and mandated by the US and state gov. That forces into the tanks because they make it "cheaper" than the other good products. Take the blinders off for 2 seconds and see what's going on!! You said yourself that even if we shut off CO2 tomorrow, we're all doomed anyway for up to 1000 years. How does a little ethanol fix anything? (provided there is a problem, which their isn't) Edited on 29-08-2017 06:32
29-08-2017 07:17
litesong ★★★★★ (2297)	"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner gazzed & guzzling" guffed: Ethanol... When only 10% ethanol is blended into 100% gasoline, E0, (making, E10---10% ethanol blend gasoline), MILES PER GALLON is reduced 8% to 5%, compared to E0, when used (not burned efficiently) in gasoline engines. Now ethanol, when used in high compression ratio (16:1) ethanol engines, gives excellent power (as in INDY engines). As stated tho, ethanol can't give its energy output efficiently, when used in gasoline engines, with compression ratios of 9:1 to 11:1.
29-08-2017 07:42
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (2932)	I apologize to everyone for bringing up ethanol, as it always triggers a copynpaste from chief litehead. Litebrain, would you like to comment on Gov subsidies and mandates of a "green" product? There are plenty to chose from.
29-08-2017 07:56
GreenMan ★★★☆☆ (661)	GasGuzzler wrote: Greenman wrote; They are trying to steer free enterprise into developing the solutions we need for this little problem we got. NO! They are trying to legislate (force) us into the "green" products that they are so heavily invested in. Who are the "they" that you are talking about? Do you mean the UN and the IPCC? Didn't know they were invested in anything but world domination and figuring out what to do about Global Warming. So you must be talking about some other they. Could you be more specific about who you think is steering the world towards using green products? GasGuzzler wrote: It's just like ethanol. Ethanol is not a free enterprise product. It could not fly on it's own. It is heavily subsidized and mandated by the US and state gov. That forces into the tanks because they make it "cheaper" than the other good products. No, it's not just like Ethanol. It's not even in the same ball field. We can thank the regimes that thought we were running out of oil for Ethanol. I think that started with Jimmy Carter. I remember him saying we needed to look at freeing ourselves from a dependency on oil with the moral equivalent of war. Or something like that. Then the gas lines started out in California, and swept across the nation. Nothing like a little panic to get people in line. GasGuzzler wrote: Take the blinders off for 2 seconds and see what's going on!! You said yourself that even if we shut off CO2 tomorrow, we're all doomed anyway for up to 1000 years. How does a little ethanol fix anything? (provided there is a problem, which their isn't) Ethanol doesn't fix anything. I think fracking fixed the oil shortage problem. And it still produces CO2 when burned, so it's the same as good ole dinosaur turds. I don't wear blinders. Those are for your church members. I try my best to see reality. And just because the CO2 will be around for a long long time, that doesn't mean that we should just throw our hands up and say "Oh well," and go on producing it like it's free. The sooner we free ourselves from using CO2 producing methods for energy, the sooner our planet begins to heal, and the less impact we will have on the future. And we have to do it anyway, so we might as well begin living as a non-CO2 producing society, as soon as possible. You might as well accept it. It's not going away. ~~ GreenMan ~~ https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
29-08-2017 14:52
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (2932)	YOU define who THEY are! It's your quote!!
29-08-2017 22:30
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	GreenMan wrote: Into the Night wrote: GreenMan wrote: Unfortunately, for you, it doesn't matter if you are an Outsider. Yes it does. It means I'm not fooled by your predictions of doom and gloom. It means I'm not fooled by your manufactured data. It means I'm not fooled by you confusing your religion with science. I'm not confusing religion with science. Yes you are. All religions are based on an initial circular argument. The Church of Global Warming is no exception. GreenMan wrote: It is you that keeps trying to run them together, for some kind of association assassination. The Church of Global Warming doesn't use any science. GreenMan wrote: You think you can say Climate Change Research is a religion long enough, and people will believe you, Parrot. If what you argue is based on a circular argument, it is a religion. The other word for the circular argument is 'faith'. While not a fallacy in and of itself, failing to recognize it is. GreenMan wrote: And the big thing is that it doesn't matter if you agree with paying your share to clean this mess up, you get to anyway. There is no mess. GreenMan wrote: Into the Night wrote: GreenMan wrote: They are going to tax you the same as everyone else. Nope. Taxes based on a state religion are illegal in the United States. It won't be coming from a state religion, dummy. If such a tax comes, yes it will. GreenMan wrote: It will be coming from the Federal Government, which you have no influence over. It is illegal for the Federal Government to have a state religion. GreenMan wrote: And it doesn't matter how much time you spend in here, trying to confuse anyone who wants to know what's going on. You are going to eventually lose, because it's getting warming and warmer each year, just like Al said it would. You don't know the temperature of the Earth. Argument from randU fallacy. GreenMan wrote: Into the Night wrote: [quote]GreenMan wrote: You can reject all the data you want, Thank you, Oh Ruler of the Universe. I will. GreenMan wrote: and it won't help your cause one bit. Part of my cause is exposing religious idiots like you for what you are. GreenMan wrote: A boycott will get Trump back to the Climate Change negotiation table, HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You don't know him vewy well, do you? GreenMan wrote: and he of course will just pass the buck. If anyone passes the buck, it won't be Trump. It'll be Congress. GreenMan wrote: He has no choice, because if he doesn't go along, the US will be bankrupt. Hello? The United States government is ALREADY bankrupt! They just print their money now! GreenMan wrote: Either way, we all lose. So might as well bend over and spread em. Fortunately, private industry is still working. It allows the US government to continue to steal wealth from them. The free market is immortal, dope. You can't kill it, even if you drive it underground. It is the one market that functions even when there is no organized civilization at all. But you belong the Church of Karl Marx. To you this is evil. GreenMan wrote: I'm sure that free enterprise will continue on, as long as there are people who live. It's just nuts like you that made up an excuse to avoid taking responsibility for cleaning up your part of the mess. There is no mess. GreenMan wrote: No one is trying to hurt free enterprise. You are. GreenMan wrote: They are trying to steer free enterprise into developing the solutions we need No one 'steers' free enterprise. If someone is 'steering it' it is no longer free. GreenMan wrote: for this little problem we got. There is no problem. Your religion is based on a circular argument, like all religions. You have not been able to even define what 'global warming' or 'climate change' is without using circular definitions. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
29-08-2017 22:32
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	GasGuzzler wrote: Greenturd wrote; They are trying to steer free enterprise into developing the solutions we need for this little problem we got. NO! They are trying to legislate (force) us into the "green" products that they are so heavily invested in. It's just like ethanol. Ethanol is not a free enterprise product. It could not fly on it's own. It is heavily subsidized and mandated by the US and state gov. That forces into the tanks because they make it "cheaper" than the other good products. Take the blinders off for 2 seconds and see what's going on!! You said yourself that even if we shut off CO2 tomorrow, we're all doomed anyway for up to 1000 years. How does a little ethanol fix anything? (provided there is a problem, which their isn't) Absolutely correct. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
29-08-2017 22:33
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	litesong wrote: "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner gazzed & guzzling" guffed: Ethanol... When only 10% ethanol is blended into 100% gasoline, E0, (making, E10---10% ethanol blend gasoline), MILES PER GALLON is reduced 8% to 5%, compared to E0, when used (not burned efficiently) in gasoline engines. Now ethanol, when used in high compression ratio (16:1) ethanol engines, gives excellent power (as in INDY engines). As stated tho, ethanol can't give its energy output efficiently, when used in gasoline engines, with compression ratios of 9:1 to 11:1. Gasoline engines can't burn E0. Gasoline without a moderator in gasoline engines detonates. Ethanol has a lower BTU than gasoline. A lot lower. You can't change that by increasing compression. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
29-08-2017 22:34
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	GasGuzzler wrote: I apologize to everyone for bringing up ethanol, as it always triggers a copynpaste from chief litehead. Litebrain, would you like to comment on Gov subsidies and mandates of a "green" product? There are plenty to chose from. No need to apologize for the usual crap from litebeer. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
29-08-2017 22:54
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	GreenMan wrote: GasGuzzler wrote: Greenman wrote; They are trying to steer free enterprise into developing the solutions we need for this little problem we got. NO! They are trying to legislate (force) us into the "green" products that they are so heavily invested in. Who are the "they" that you are talking about? Here in the United States, the Federal government (by exceeding their authority). GreenMan wrote: Do you mean the UN and the IPCC? Didn't know they were invested in anything but world domination and figuring out what to do about Global Warming. So you must be talking about some other they. Could you be more specific about who you think is steering the world towards using green products? You can't steer the world. Nations are independent from each other and each decides whether to make the Church of Global Warming a state religion. GreenMan wrote: GasGuzzler wrote: It's just like ethanol. Ethanol is not a free enterprise product. It could not fly on it's own. It is heavily subsidized and mandated by the US and state gov. That forces into the tanks because they make it "cheaper" than the other good products. No, it's not just like Ethanol. It's not even in the same ball field. It is just like ethanol. It IS the ball field. GreenMan wrote: We can thank the regimes that thought we were running out of oil for Ethanol. Ethanol does not replace oil. GreenMan wrote: I think that started with Jimmy Carter. I remember him saying we needed to look at freeing ourselves from a dependency on oil with the moral equivalent of war. Yes. I remember this idiot. Like anyone that favored fascism, he decided to try to implement price controls on gasoline. GreenMan wrote: Then the gas lines started out in California, and swept across the nation. Price controls never work. They always create shortages. Gasoline was no exception. GreenMan wrote: Nothing like a little panic to get people in line. No got in line. After the release of price controls, people went out and bought SUVs, almost like a protest. GreenMan wrote: GasGuzzler wrote: Take the blinders off for 2 seconds and see what's going on!! You said yourself that even if we shut off CO2 tomorrow, we're all doomed anyway for up to 1000 years. How does a little ethanol fix anything? (provided there is a problem, which their isn't) Ethanol doesn't fix anything. Ethanol does act as a moderator for gasoline. It is more expensive than tetraethyl lead and doesn't do as good a job. It is hard on gaskets. It is also hydroscopic, causing corrosion in engines and phase separation problems. It is why ethanol is not used for aircraft. GreenMan wrote: I think fracking fixed the oil shortage problem. And it still produces CO2 when burned, so it's the same as good ole dinosaur turds. Oil doesn't come from dinosaurs. It is a renewable resource. The Earth itself continually makes the stuff naturally. GreenMan wrote: I don't wear blinders. But you do. You just don't KNOW you are wearing blinders. GreenMan wrote: Those are for your church members. There is no Church of AGW deniers. The Outsider's arguments are not based on circular arguments. GreenMan wrote: I try my best to see reality. You don't know what 'reality' is. You are illiterate in philosophy. GreenMan wrote: And just because the CO2 will be around for a long long time, that doesn't mean that we should just throw our hands up and say "Oh well," and go on producing it like it's free. The sooner we free ourselves from using CO2 producing methods for energy, the sooner our planet begins to heal, and the less impact we will have on the future. And we have to do it anyway, so we might as well begin living as a non-CO2 producing society, as soon as possible. You don't know how long any bit of CO2 is in the air. It may get absorbed by a plant. It may get absorbed into the ground and help produce oil. It may get absorbed by the sea. It may get extracted out of the air, liquefied, and sold. CO2 is essential for life on Earth. It is not Plutonium. GreenMan wrote: You might as well accept it. It's not going away. Why would anyone want it to? CO2 is not harmful. It is essential. It does not warm the Earth. It can't. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan

30-08-2017 17:03
litesong ★★★★★ (2297)	Into the Night wrote: litesong wrote: "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner gazzed & guzzling" guffed: Ethanol... When only 10% ethanol is blended into 100% gasoline, E0, (making, E10---10% ethanol blend gasoline), MILES PER GALLON is reduced 8% to 5%, compared to E0, when used (not burned efficiently) in gasoline engines. Now ethanol, when used in high compression ratio (16:1) ethanol engines, gives excellent power (as in INDY engines). As stated tho, ethanol can't give its energy output efficiently, when used in gasoline engines, with compression ratios of 9:1 to 11:1. Gasoline engines can't burn E0. Gasoline engines run with E0, smoother than with E10. My last 5 cars burning E0, compared to E10, gave mpg increases of 8%, 8%, 7%-8%, 7% & 5%. Two of our non-diesel, non-turbo, non- hybrid cars, bad-mouthed by lead-footers for poor mpg, averaged 36-39mpg. Both Elantras, when on the road, have hit 45mpg.
30-08-2017 17:22
litesong ★★★★★ (2297)	"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" bluffed: Ethanol has a lower BTU than gasoline. A lot lower. You can't change that by increasing compression. Tell that to the INDY car drivers & engineers who used 16:1 high compression ratio ethanol engines to run ethanol in INDY cars at 230mph.
30-08-2017 22:00
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	litesong wrote: "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" bluffed: Ethanol has a lower BTU than gasoline. A lot lower. You can't change that by increasing compression. Tell that to the INDY car drivers & engineers who used 16:1 high compression ratio ethanol engines to run ethanol in INDY cars at 230mph. Don't need to. They already understand what I just said. Apparently you didn't. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
31-08-2017 04:58
litesong ★★★★★ (2297)	"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" bluffed: litesong wrote: "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" bluffed: Ethanol has a lower BTU than gasoline. A lot lower. You can't change that by increasing compression. Tell that to the INDY car drivers & engineers who used 16:1 high compression ratio ethanol engines to run ethanol in INDY cars at 230mph. Don't need to. They already understand what I just said. Apparently you didn't. Apparently, I did & you didn't. Yeah, ethanol has less BTUs per gallon than 100% gasoline. AND INCREASING compression ratios(9:1 to 11:1) for gasoline engines to 16:1, as in ethanol engines, allows INDY cars using ethanol, to run 230mph. Edited on 31-08-2017 05:00
31-08-2017 11:47
GreenMan ★★★☆☆ (661)	Into the Night wrote: GreenMan wrote: GasGuzzler wrote: Greenman wrote; They are trying to steer free enterprise into developing the solutions we need for this little problem we got. NO! They are trying to legislate (force) us into the "green" products that they are so heavily invested in. Who are the "they" that you are talking about? Here in the United States, the Federal government (by exceeding their authority). So the Federal government is "heavily invested in" "green products" are they? I thought the only products the feds were invested in were the Make America Great caps that your hero wore. Maybe you should read what you are responding to, before responding to it? Here it is again, so you don't have to scroll back up. Jizz Guzzler said: "They are trying to legislate (force) us into the "green" products that they are so heavily invested in." So I am going to guess that Jizzy wan't talking about the federal government. And if he was, then he is just as inept as you are regarding what the federal government does with our money. Into the Night wrote: GreenMan wrote: Do you mean the UN and the IPCC? Didn't know they were invested in anything but world domination and figuring out what to do about Global Warming. So you must be talking about some other they. Could you be more specific about who you think is steering the world towards using green products? You can't steer the world. Nations are independent from each other and each decides whether to make the Church of Global Warming a state religion. GreenMan wrote: GasGuzzler wrote: It's just like ethanol. Ethanol is not a free enterprise product. It could not fly on it's own. It is heavily subsidized and mandated by the US and state gov. That forces into the tanks because they make it "cheaper" than the other good products. No, it's not just like Ethanol. It's not even in the same ball field. It is just like ethanol. It IS the ball field. GreenMan wrote: We can thank the regimes that thought we were running out of oil for Ethanol. Ethanol does not replace oil. It is mixed with gasoline, in most cases, to reduce the amount of oil needed to make a gallon of gasoline. So in a sense, yes it does replace oil, because it is used to replace some oil. You knew that, Liar. Into the Night wrote: GreenMan wrote: I think that started with Jimmy Carter. I remember him saying we needed to look at freeing ourselves from a dependency on oil with the moral equivalent of war. Yes. I remember this idiot. Like anyone that favored fascism, he decided to try to implement price controls on gasoline. GreenMan wrote: Then the gas lines started out in California, and swept across the nation. Price controls never work. They always create shortages. Gasoline was no exception. GreenMan wrote: Nothing like a little panic to get people in line. No got in line. After the release of price controls, people went out and bought SUVs, almost like a protest. GreenMan wrote: GasGuzzler wrote: Take the blinders off for 2 seconds and see what's going on!! You said yourself that even if we shut off CO2 tomorrow, we're all doomed anyway for up to 1000 years. How does a little ethanol fix anything? (provided there is a problem, which their isn't) Ethanol doesn't fix anything. Ethanol does act as a moderator for gasoline. It is more expensive than tetraethyl lead and doesn't do as good a job. It is hard on gaskets. It is also hydroscopic, causing corrosion in engines and phase separation problems. It is why ethanol is not used for aircraft. GreenMan wrote: I think fracking fixed the oil shortage problem. And it still produces CO2 when burned, so it's the same as good ole dinosaur turds. Oil doesn't come from dinosaurs. It is a renewable resource. The Earth itself continually makes the stuff naturally. GreenMan wrote: I don't wear blinders. But you do. You just don't KNOW you are wearing blinders. GreenMan wrote: Those are for your church members. There is no Church of AGW deniers. The Outsider's arguments are not based on circular arguments. GreenMan wrote: I try my best to see reality. You don't know what 'reality' is. You are illiterate in philosophy. GreenMan wrote: And just because the CO2 will be around for a long long time, that doesn't mean that we should just throw our hands up and say "Oh well," and go on producing it like it's free. The sooner we free ourselves from using CO2 producing methods for energy, the sooner our planet begins to heal, and the less impact we will have on the future. And we have to do it anyway, so we might as well begin living as a non-CO2 producing society, as soon as possible. You don't know how long any bit of CO2 is in the air. It may get absorbed by a plant. It may get absorbed into the ground and help produce oil. It may get absorbed by the sea. It may get extracted out of the air, liquefied, and sold. CO2 is essential for life on Earth. It is not Plutonium. GreenMan wrote: You might as well accept it. It's not going away. Why would anyone want it to? CO2 is not harmful. It is essential. It does not warm the Earth. It can't. It is harmful in large enough concentrations. The amount of CO2 we have currently will eventually push the planet's temperature way beyond what we can tolerate. ~~ GreenMan ~~ https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
31-08-2017 15:11
litesong ★★★★★ (2297)	GreenMan wrote: It(ethanol) is mixed with gasoline, in most cases, to reduce the amount of oil needed to make a gallon of gasoline. So in a sense, yes it does replace oil.... No, high octane ethanol can't replace low octane oil, as used in low compression ratio gasoline engines. More low octane oil energy is needed to grow plants, process plants to pure ethanol, & transport ethanol to blending industries, than high octane ethanol energy can be produced when used in low compression ratio gasoline engines. High octane ethanol needs high compression ratio ethanol engines to efficiently produce ethanol energy. As stated often: When only 10% ethanol is blended into 100% gasoline (E0), making E10 (10% ethanol blend gasoline), MILES PER GALLON is reduced 8% to 5%, compared to E0, when used (not burned efficiently) in low compression ratio gasoline engines. Now ethanol, when used in high compression ratio (16:1) ethanol engines, gives excellent power (as in INDY engines). As stated tho, ethanol can't give its energy output efficiently, when used in gasoline engines, with compression ratios of 9:1 to 11:1.
31-08-2017 20:44
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	litesong wrote: "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" bluffed: litesong wrote: "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" bluffed: Ethanol has a lower BTU than gasoline. A lot lower. You can't change that by increasing compression. Tell that to the INDY car drivers & engineers who used 16:1 high compression ratio ethanol engines to run ethanol in INDY cars at 230mph. Don't need to. They already understand what I just said. Apparently you didn't. Apparently, I did & you didn't. Yeah, ethanol has less BTUs per gallon than 100% gasoline. AND INCREASING compression ratios(9:1 to 11:1) for gasoline engines to 16:1, as in ethanol engines, allows INDY cars using ethanol, to run 230mph. It's not the type of fuel that does that. It's the engine design and the car design. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
31-08-2017 20:53
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	GreenMan wrote: Into the Night wrote: GreenMan wrote: GasGuzzler wrote: Greenman wrote; They are trying to steer free enterprise into developing the solutions we need for this little problem we got. NO! They are trying to legislate (force) us into the "green" products that they are so heavily invested in. Who are the "they" that you are talking about? Here in the United States, the Federal government (by exceeding their authority). So the Federal government is "heavily invested in" "green products" are they? I thought the only products the feds were invested in were the Make America Great caps that your hero wore. Yes. They invest in 'green' projects. Projects like wind farms that use a lot of acreage to produce piddle power (and that often go bankrupt), forcing GM to make electric cars (that aren't as 'green' as claimed), forcing products off the market that are not 'green' (like incandescent light bulbs or coal), and a host of others. Don't deny it, idiot. GreenMan wrote: Maybe you should read what you are responding to, before responding to it? Here it is again, so you don't have to scroll back up. Jizz Guzzler said: "They are trying to legislate (force) us into the "green" products that they are so heavily invested in." So I am going to guess that Jizzy wan't talking about the federal government. And if he was, then he is just as inept as you are regarding what the federal government does with our money. Their budget is released to the public every year. Maybe you should read it once in awhile. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
31-08-2017 21:03
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	GreenMan wrote: Into the Night wrote: Ethanol does not replace oil. It is mixed with gasoline, in most cases, to reduce the amount of oil needed to make a gallon of gasoline. So in a sense, yes it does replace oil, because it is used to replace some oil. You knew that, Liar. No, it does not reduce the amount of oil needed to make a gallon of gasoline. It is added as a moderator to the gasoline. It is used to replace the TEL that used to be used (but isn't a 'green' chemical). Yet another example of the federal government taking my money by force so it can spend it on 'green' products. But I already knew you were illiterate in chemistry and automotive engineering. GreenMan wrote: Into the Night wrote: CO2 is not harmful. It is essential. It does not warm the Earth. It can't. It is harmful in large enough concentrations. Only by displacing oxygen. That concentration is far higher than is possible in an open environment like the Earth's atmosphere and oceans. GreenMan wrote: The amount of CO2 we have currently will eventually push the planet's temperature way beyond what we can tolerate. CO2 does not warm the planet. It can't. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
31-08-2017 21:04
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	litesong wrote: GreenMan wrote: It(ethanol) is mixed with gasoline, in most cases, to reduce the amount of oil needed to make a gallon of gasoline. So in a sense, yes it does replace oil.... No, high octane ethanol can't replace low octane oil, as used in low compression ratio gasoline engines. More low octane oil energy is needed to grow plants, process plants to pure ethanol, & transport ethanol to blending industries, than high octane ethanol energy can be produced when used in low compression ratio gasoline engines. High octane ethanol needs high compression ratio ethanol engines to efficiently produce ethanol energy. As stated often: When only 10% ethanol is blended into 100% gasoline (E0), making E10 (10% ethanol blend gasoline), MILES PER GALLON is reduced 8% to 5%, compared to E0, when used (not burned efficiently) in low compression ratio gasoline engines. Now ethanol, when used in high compression ratio (16:1) ethanol engines, gives excellent power (as in INDY engines). As stated tho, ethanol can't give its energy output efficiently, when used in gasoline engines, with compression ratios of 9:1 to 11:1. Ethanol doesn't have an octane rating. It is not a hydrocarbon. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
31-08-2017 21:07
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (2932)	ITN wrote; Yes. They invest in 'green' projects. Projects like wind farms that use a lot of acreage to produce piddle power (and that often go bankrupt), forcing GM to make electric cars (that aren't as 'green' as claimed), forcing products off the market that are not 'green' (like incandescent light bulbs or coal), and a host of others. Don't deny it, idiot. DO NOT forget about new crap coming down the pipeline. Wait till they put the entire indoor climate control on a gov grid. Don't think they'll do it? Do some research on a nasty little fellow named Jeffery Immelt. If Siri can control your thermostat, so can Uncle Sam.
31-08-2017 23:54
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	GasGuzzler wrote: ITN wrote; Yes. They invest in 'green' projects. Projects like wind farms that use a lot of acreage to produce piddle power (and that often go bankrupt), forcing GM to make electric cars (that aren't as 'green' as claimed), forcing products off the market that are not 'green' (like incandescent light bulbs or coal), and a host of others. Don't deny it, idiot. DO NOT forget about new crap coming down the pipeline. Wait till they put the entire indoor climate control on a gov grid. Heh. It would be entertaining to see them try THAT! GasGuzzler wrote: Don't think they'll do it? Do you think they can? They can't find their own butts. GasGuzzler wrote: Do some research on a nasty little fellow named Jeffery Immelt. He's not particularly little. He does a decent job running GE. GasGuzzler wrote: If Siri can control your thermostat, so can Uncle Sam. I prefer the Echo myself. I think it has better voice recognition. The government can't the devices that Siri or Echo can. They don't have the credentials to get through the encryption of traffic through systems at Apple or Amazon, There is no 'backdoor' since that encryption is controlled through a myriad of certificates set up individually by the device manufactures, Amazon and Apple, an unknown thousands of developers, and the homeowner themselves when they install these devices (though a bit automated to make it easier). Most communications with these devices remains behind your local NAT (your wireless or cable modem). Nothing gets through the NAT from outside unless you expressly authorize it, either by originating the conversation, or allowing specific traffic. Assuming the government even DID magickally have this capability, all people would do is disconnect it and throw away their Siri or Echo. Done. We just go back to the isolated systems we had before. The Internet of Things is nothing more than what we've been doing since we've had computers: Connect them together so they can communicate stuff. Computer controlled outlets, thermostats (these days are small computers in themselves all the time anyway to run that fancy digital display), washing machines and dryers, dishwashers, and a whole host of appliances in your house are commonplace now. Amazon and Apple won't let the government do it. They are not stupid. They know they will lose their business from it. In brief, things like Siri or Echo do NOT give the government any kind of control. There really is nothing to fear from this technology. Like most things of this sort, the public doesn't realize how difficult such control would be to implement. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 31-08-2017 23:58
01-09-2017 00:03
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (2932)	I should've been more clear. I didn't mean the gov would do it on the sly through a phone hack. I'm talking years down the road when gov has taken control of all energy and rationing in the name of global warming. It was a dream of Jeffery and Obama's. By the way, yes, he's 6'4". I guess my point is, even though Trump is in office now, the dems are not harmless. They are off quietly planning how to get back in power and implement things they are now working on in the dark.
01-09-2017 00:21
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (2932)	ITN wrote I prefer the Echo myself. I think it has better voice recognition. I don't have Siri either, and I can tell you the voice recognition was perfect a couple days ago when I was driving and voice texting my mother when some woman never looked and pulled out in front of me. My text read like this.... Yes that sounds good. We'll be over around 5:00 you stupid F-ing bitch. I rarely proof read when driving and this was no exception.
01-09-2017 01:28
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	GasGuzzler wrote: I should've been more clear. I didn't mean the gov would do it on the sly through a phone hack. They can't do it through any kind of backdoor access either. There just isn't one. GasGuzzler wrote: I'm talking years down the road when gov has taken control of all energy and rationing in the name of global warming. Rationing of energy has already been tried...by Jimmy Carter. He implemented price controls on gasoline. The result was the same predictable shortages. He tried to force the fuel companies to sell at a loss anyway. The fuel companies told Carter to go stuff it up his left nostril. Government really can't control energy that tightly. Any attempt along these lines will only result in people going around it, either by providing a different form of energy, or by producing the energy anyway and telling the government to stuff it; possibly by not selling any fuel to the government anymore (there goes the usefulness of THAT army jeep or fighter jet!) GasGuzzler wrote: It was a dream of Jeffery and Obama's. By the way, yes, he's 6'4". GE isn't the entire world. Neither is Obama. Obama is now out of office and is trying to influence things behind the scenes. Jeffery cannot do anything of the sort without the stockholders suing his lights out. GasGuzzler wrote: I guess my point is, even though Trump is in office now, the dems are not harmless. Frankly, the longer they keep up these ridiculous tin foil hat attacks on Trump, the better the chances of Trump getting re-elected. For being secretive, they are doing a LOUSY job! GasGuzzler wrote: They are off quietly planning how to get back in power and implement things they are now working on in the dark. No, they are attacking Trump in any way they can. Nothing else fits in their tiny mind like the anger they have for Trump. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan

01-09-2017 01:30
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	GasGuzzler wrote: ITN wrote I prefer the Echo myself. I think it has better voice recognition. I don't have Siri either, and I can tell you the voice recognition was perfect a couple days ago when I was driving and voice texting my mother when some woman never looked and pulled out in front of me. My text read like this.... Yes that sounds good. We'll be over around 5:00 you stupid F-ing bitch. I rarely proof read when driving and this was no exception. Wow. THAT was ill timed! Did your mother stop talking to you, or did you explain the circumstances to her in time? The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
01-09-2017 01:33
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (2932)	She had questions and I had answers. All good.
01-09-2017 01:53
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	GasGuzzler wrote: She had questions and I had answers. All good. Bet you both had a good laugh over it when all was said and done! That will be a story to tell to your kids about the dangers of voice recognition! The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
10-09-2017 23:49
James_ ★★★★★ (2225)	litesong wrote: James_ wrote: litesong wrote: James & "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig gazzed & guzzling" don't know what AGW scientists know. Which goal of theirs should I support ? Need to ask questions AND UNDERSTAND answers from the AGW scientists. That would be one of the purposes of the experiment that I've been pursuing. It might help to clarify things.
11-09-2017 04:08
litesong ★★★★★ (2297)	"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" barfed: better the chances of Trump getting re-elected. ..... says "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight". "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" is hopin' the kkk(always small letters) & the neo-nazis (always small letters) have "united the white" behind "don'T rump", who ascended to the the toilet throne of the kkk (always small letters), becoming the "grand wizard". Edited on 11-09-2017 04:16
11-09-2017 04:54
James_ ★★★★★ (2225)	litesong wrote: "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" barfed: better the chances of Trump getting re-elected. ..... says "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight". "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" is hopin' the kkk(always small letters) & the neo-nazis (always small letters) have "united the white" behind "don'T rump", who ascended to the the toilet throne of the kkk (always small letters), becoming the "grand wizard". This is where I think you are ITN's wife. Yet he claims to hate Europeans while also claiming to be educated while showing where science is falsified. You do need to hate someone, don't you ? It's okay. I hope to move to another country so I can have a life. I hear the same things from you and your husband as I do from Americans and yet I am an American. Have a service connected hearing loss. If it makes you feel better even Christians think I'm a bad person because I have a hearing loss. Kind of why I've taken the time to learn. And even that bothers people.
11-09-2017 07:32
litesong ★★★★★ (2297)	James_ wrote: litesong wrote:"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" is hopin' the kkk(always small letters) & the neo-nazis (always small letters) have "united the white" behind "don'T rump", who ascended to the the toilet throne of the kkk (always small letters), becoming the "grand wizard". I hope to move to another country so I can have a life. Many people have to leave the U.S. to have better lives, with "don'T rump" as the "grand wizard" of the U.S.
11-09-2017 16:38
James_ ★★★★★ (2225)	litesong wrote: James_ wrote: litesong wrote:"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" is hopin' the kkk(always small letters) & the neo-nazis (always small letters) have "united the white" behind "don'T rump", who ascended to the the toilet throne of the kkk (always small letters), becoming the "grand wizard". I hope to move to another country so I can have a life. Many people have to leave the U.S. to have better lives, with "don'T rump" as the "grand wizard" of the U.S. It'd actually be to get away from people like you, etc. When I post in an Australian forum people aren't out to get someone.
11-09-2017 17:35
litesong ★★★★★ (2297)	James_ wrote: When I post in an Australian forum people aren't out to get someone. I only "get" after old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiners.
11-09-2017 20:37
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	James_ wrote: litesong wrote: "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" barfed: better the chances of Trump getting re-elected. ..... says "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight". "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" is hopin' the kkk(always small letters) & the neo-nazis (always small letters) have "united the white" behind "don'T rump", who ascended to the the toilet throne of the kkk (always small letters), becoming the "grand wizard". This is where I think you are ITN's wife. You really haven't paying attention, have you? James_ wrote: Yet he claims to hate Europeans I don't. It is YOU that making the bigoted statement here. James_ wrote: while also claiming to be educated while showing where science is falsified. Science cannot be falsified. James_ wrote: You do need to hate someone, don't you ? You really haven't paying attention, have you? James_ wrote: It's okay. I hope to move to another country so I can have a life. How does that give you a life? Are you trying to run away from the internet? James_ wrote: I hear the same things from you and your husband as I do from Americans and yet I am an American. Have a service connected hearing loss. This is the printed word. You don't have to hear anything. James_ wrote: If it makes you feel better even Christians think I'm a bad person because I have a hearing loss. I could give a rat's ass whether you have hearing loss or not. Why are you using this as an excuse? James_ wrote: Kind of why I've taken the time to learn. You haven't. You so far have taken the time to dream, but you have not learned anything. Considering this last post, I'm not sure your are fully aware of your own surroundings. James_ wrote: And even that bothers people. I want people to learn. You are not learning. You have become paranoid. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan

Page 4 of 5

Join the debate What is the Greenhouse Effect?:

Threads	Replies	Last post
The "radiative Greenhouse effect" does not exist	140	15-04-2024 19:43
'Greenhouse' Effect?	49	30-11-2023 06:45
The SCIENCE of the "Greenhouse Effect"	291	05-11-2023 22:46
Nitrate Reduction - Powerful Greenhouse Gas Emission AND Alkalinity	102	05-06-2023 13:19
Greenhouse gases cool better and cause lower surface temperature of earth than non greenhouse gases	3	10-05-2023 08:27