Jo wrote:

Andre Jute wrote:
Hey, Jo, I enjoyed reading your clever wriggling in your efforts to
make plainasthenoseonyourface statistics say something else than what
they plainly say. But, in the end, when one series lags another and
there is a causal connection, the plain truth is always that the
lagged series, in this case CO2 levels in the atmosphere, are caused
by the leading series, in this case global warming.


Yes, global warming events can be triggered by factors other than CO2
emissions. For example, many of these trigger events were small increases of
solar flux due to Milankovitch cycles. However, once an initial warming has
occurred and caused some greenhouse enhancing CO2 release there are several
strong positive feedback systems which ensure that the temperatures and CO2
levels will continue to rise long after the initial trigger event has ended.

Okay. So now you admit Mother Nature causes global warming, which is
what the statistics tell us.

The current trigger event is, itself, a significant release of CO2 caused by
human activities.

Prove it. The actual fact is that there is zero correlation between
high levels of human activity and global temperature and that the
Greenies try to make their lies stick by choosing tiny shortrun
ripples which fade into the background noise of all statistics when
relevant long-term series are considered.

Repeat: Global warming causes CO2 emissions. CO2 emissions do not,
repeat not, cause global warming. Whole "environmentally concerned"
empires fall on that truth.

Repeating something does not make it true.

Repetition is required because you appear to think that global warming
is caused by CO2 emissions which happened 700 years *after* the global
warming you are trying to claim it caused. There's dumb, and there's
dumber, and there're environmentalists, who are off the scale of
dumbness.

The greenhouse properties of CO2 can easily be demonstrated in any
reasonably equipped physics lab and are also well explained at the molecular
level. So, perhaps you could explain the mechanism that prevents CO2, a
known greenhouse gas, from acting as a greenhouse gas ?

It's for this sort of irrelevant smoke-blowing and incompetent
weaseling that I compare environmentalists to their cousins in
irrationality and deceit, the marxists. The question is not whether
CO2 is a greenhouse gas but whether it initiates global warming or
whether global warming releases the CO2. Clearly, the statistics tell
us global warming from solar activity releases the CO2. To say
different is to lie, and the statistics prove that the
environmentalists have been deliberately and systematically lying for
decades.

The vastly destructive Kyoto Agreement is based on this lie; the money
spent on that lie for Kyoto alone will cause hundreds of millions to
starve when we could have fed them and lifted them out of poverty and
disease and still have had some money left over for AIDS research.

Even after you prove, which you haven't yet, that CO2 causes global
warming, you still have to prove people are responsible. The
statistics tell us that humans are by far not the greatest producers
of greenhouse gases (cows probably are...). Nor can greenhouse gas
levels be linked to periods of greater human activity -- the
statistics give the lie to that claim.

Your entire environmental belief is unscientificically based on faith
alone, Jo; well, actually, also on a whole scad of shameful lies. And
it is motivated by the same despicable urge that drove the Marxists,
the desire to control the actions of your fellow humans without
submitting yourself, because you know that on the (non-existent)
merits of your argument you are unelectable, to democractic process
and scrutiny.

Jo

Personally, I think the environmentalists are a worse danger to the
future of humanity than a few thousand disturbed ragheads; we have a
"Muslim terrorist threat" only because the Americans overreacted to
9/11, hardly on a world scale a significant body count. We have been
successfully putting down raghead fanatics for centuries without ever
breaking sweat but environmentalism is a virulent disease with which
we have infected ourselves, caused by the same tendency to wallow in
vicarious guilt that turned the intellectual classes commie for most
of the last century, including well after it became abundantly clear
to anyone with two brain cells to rub together that Marxism was built
on a big, murderous lie. Environmentalism stands on the same cusp as
Communism circa 1937, where the intelligent and observant can already
see the lie but the destruction and the cost in lives is still veiled
except to those who study the lessons of history with open minds.

Andre Jute
People before control freaks

PS Hands up those who think I should cut Jo a break because she's a
girl. Now hands up those who think I should step on Jo hard because
women are intrinsically more intelligent than men and therefore more
despicable when they weasel like Jo does. Now hands up the vast
majority who think I should stomp Jo terminally because a girl has no
place on an audio conference... a right bunch of fascists you are!

Hands up if you'd like Jute to stop writing!

In fairness, there always seems to be someone in his role for every
forum.

The interesting part about global warming (for whatever the reason) is
that some places will be getting worse and some better as a result of
it.

I've never seen a projected map of the areas likely to improve as a
result of global warming. I understand Greenland might become green
again.

On Jan 21, 11:04*am, " wrote:

Hands up if you'd like Jute to stop writing!

Never happen. There is no anti-diarrheal strong enough to block his
spewing.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

On Jan 21, 4:04*pm, " wrote:
Hands up if you'd like Jute to stop writing!

Jawohl, Herr Gruppenfuhrer. Ve vill take ze cosmpolitan Jute und
immediately shoooot him.

Tell us, Mayberry, what did your psychiatrist say when you confessed
that in the Spring your thoughts turn congenitally towards aiming your
tanks at Moscow?

(Answer for those who don't know yet, the psychiatrist told his wife:
"Don't worry about it darling, that poor blustering **** can't even
point to Las Vegas on a map of the United States. How do you think he
will ever find Moscow?")

The interesting part about global warming (for whatever the reason) is
that some places will be getting worse and some better as a result of
it.

So, Mayberry, now you're another dumb impressionable sheep who buys
into what "scientists" tell you. It figures. Or do you have
"credentials" which permit you to interpret the ecosphere to us?

I've never seen a projected map of the areas likely to improve as a
result of global warming. * *I understand Greenland might become green
again.

What a parochial jerk-off you are, Mayberry. Yo, you dumb, untravelled
illiterate, Greenland doesn't need to *become* green. The southern
part of the island is not covered by a glacier and in the summer,
every summer, is notably one of the greenest places on earth. You
really are thick. There is no *again* about it either. When an
ancestor of mine sailed west from Iceland to discover and name and
settle Greenland, it was already green, and he named it for its
greenery. When I sailed my "City of Germiston" up there nearly four
decades ago on a pilgrimage, I was struck by the fact that it is
another green and beloved island (literary reference; look it up if
you know how). Down the Carbery Coast here live at least a dozen
sailors who have also made passage to Greenland and would laugh in
your face for your ignorance.

Every time you open your mouth about me, Mayberry, your ignorance
sprays across us like spittle; I can only hope you don't have a
socially contagious disease.

Unsigned out of contempt for a transparent fool

On Jan 21, 9:58*am, Andre Jute wrote:

Please cut the crap - if you can't cut the crap, please cut the cross-
posting. If you can't do either, just go away. And if you can't do
that, you confirm every bad opinion as was ever expressed about you.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

"Andre Jute" wrote in message
...
Jo wrote:

Andre Jute wrote:
Hey, Jo, I enjoyed reading your clever wriggling in your efforts to
make plainasthenoseonyourface statistics say something else than what
they plainly say. But, in the end, when one series lags another and
there is a causal connection, the plain truth is always that the
lagged series, in this case CO2 levels in the atmosphere, are caused
by the leading series, in this case global warming.

**Yes and, no. Increased temperatures certainly DO cause the oceans to
release CO2 (thus leading to more warming). However, there is no reason to
think that warming was not due to other factors in the past. What scientists
are certain of is the CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Adding more greenhouse gases
to the troposphere is causing the present warming. Of that, science is
certain. As the planet warms, the ocean will release more CO2, thus
compounding the effect still further.




Yes, global warming events can be triggered by factors other than CO2
emissions. For example, many of these trigger events were small increases
of
solar flux due to Milankovitch cycles. However, once an initial warming
has
occurred and caused some greenhouse enhancing CO2 release there are
several
strong positive feedback systems which ensure that the temperatures and
CO2
levels will continue to rise long after the initial trigger event has
ended.

Okay. So now you admit Mother Nature causes global warming, which is
what the statistics tell us.

**Nature _can_ cause global warming. At present, however, it is mankind that
is causing the warming.


The current trigger event is, itself, a significant release of CO2 caused
by
human activities.

Prove it.

**Are you serious? That humans have increased CO2 levels is beyond any
doubt.

The actual fact is that there is zero correlation between
high levels of human activity and global temperature

**Incorrect. There is not only a very high correlation, but there is
certainty amongst all but the fossil fuel apologists.

and that the
Greenies try to make their lies stick by choosing tiny shortrun
ripples which fade into the background noise of all statistics when
relevant long-term series are considered.

**I'll remind you of that when most of Florida, London, Bangladesh and
Sydney CBD is under a few Metres of sea water.


Repeat: Global warming causes CO2 emissions. CO2 emissions do not,
repeat not, cause global warming. Whole "environmentally concerned"
empires fall on that truth.

Repeating something does not make it true.

Repetition is required because you appear to think that global warming
is caused by CO2 emissions which happened 700 years *after* the global
warming you are trying to claim it caused. There's dumb, and there's
dumber, and there're environmentalists, who are off the scale of
dumbness.

**There is a saying in the financial world, which sees appropriate:

"Do not judge future returns by past performance."

At no time in the past has there been 6 BILLION humans on this planet. At no
time in the past have fossil fuels been burnt at a rate which is 1 million
times faster than at the rate those fuels were deposited. At no time in the
past, has global warming occured as fast as it is now. CO2 levels are
presently higher than at any time in the last 400,000 years.


The greenhouse properties of CO2 can easily be demonstrated in any
reasonably equipped physics lab and are also well explained at the
molecular
level. So, perhaps you could explain the mechanism that prevents CO2, a
known greenhouse gas, from acting as a greenhouse gas ?

It's for this sort of irrelevant smoke-blowing and incompetent
weaseling that I compare environmentalists to their cousins in
irrationality and deceit, the marxists. The question is not whether
CO2 is a greenhouse gas but whether it initiates global warming or
whether global warming releases the CO2.

**Both.

Clearly, the statistics tell
us global warming from solar activity releases the CO2.

**I suggest you do some more study on this. Your abilities are clearly
lacking. The forcing effects, due to Solar irradiance, amounts to less than
0.05oC. The rest is due to CO2.

To say
different is to lie, and the statistics prove that the
environmentalists have been deliberately and systematically lying for
decades.

**Nope. The facts tell us that there are a large number of poorly educated
people (such as yourself), who have bought the fairy tale handed to you by
the fossil fuel apologists. People like Lindzen, who were the first to
defend the tobacco industry, are also supporters of the fossil fuel lobby.


The vastly destructive Kyoto Agreement is based on this lie; the money
spent on that lie for Kyoto alone will cause hundreds of millions to
starve when we could have fed them and lifted them out of poverty and
disease and still have had some money left over for AIDS research.

**A drop in the ocean, if/when the ocean levels rise. If you're so worried
about poverty/AIDS, et al, then complain about the Iraq war. That war,
alone, could have solved world poverty for the next few generations.


Even after you prove, which you haven't yet, that CO2 causes global
warming, you still have to prove people are responsible. The
statistics tell us that humans are by far not the greatest producers
of greenhouse gases (cows probably are...). Nor can greenhouse gas
levels be linked to periods of greater human activity -- the
statistics give the lie to that claim.

**What planet are you from?


Your entire environmental belief is unscientificically based on faith
alone, Jo; well, actually, also on a whole scad of shameful lies. And
it is motivated by the same despicable urge that drove the Marxists,
the desire to control the actions of your fellow humans without
submitting yourself, because you know that on the (non-existent)
merits of your argument you are unelectable, to democractic process
and scrutiny.

Jo

Personally, I think the environmentalists are a worse danger to the
future of humanity than a few thousand disturbed ragheads; we have a
"Muslim terrorist threat" only because the Americans overreacted to
9/11, hardly on a world scale a significant body count. We have been
successfully putting down raghead fanatics for centuries without ever
breaking sweat but environmentalism is a virulent disease with which
we have infected ourselves, caused by the same tendency to wallow in
vicarious guilt that turned the intellectual classes commie for most
of the last century, including well after it became abundantly clear
to anyone with two brain cells to rub together that Marxism was built
on a big, murderous lie. Environmentalism stands on the same cusp as
Communism circa 1937, where the intelligent and observant can already
see the lie but the destruction and the cost in lives is still veiled
except to those who study the lessons of history with open minds.

Andre Jute
People before control freaks

PS Hands up those who think I should cut Jo a break because she's a
girl. Now hands up those who think I should step on Jo hard because
women are intrinsically more intelligent than men and therefore more
despicable when they weasel like Jo does. Now hands up the vast
majority who think I should stomp Jo terminally because a girl has no
place on an audio conference... a right bunch of fascists you are!


**You need to educate yourself. You are seriously deluded and on very shaky
scientific ground.

Trevor Wilson

On Jan 21, 4:12*pm, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

**You need to educate yourself. You are seriously deluded and on very shaky
scientific ground.

That has never stopped Andre from anything... Why should this time be
any different? However, he has met his goal by crossposting a thread
started elsewhere, brought here by him for his amusement.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

"Peter Wieck" wrote in message
...
On Jan 21, 4:12 pm, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

**You need to educate yourself. You are seriously deluded and on very
shaky
scientific ground.

That has never stopped Andre from anything... Why should this time be
any different? However, he has met his goal by crossposting a thread
started elsewhere, brought here by him for his amusement.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

Why don't you get a job instead of your wife being the only bread winner so
you will not have all this time on your hands. I wish I had a wife like
yours so that she can support me and I could make believe that I was rich.
The only thing is that she has to be ugly (from what someone told me when
you published a pix of your family). Oh well there's always Jack Daniels and
paper bags. :-(

On Jan 30, 11:10*pm, "West" wrote:
"Peter Wieck" wrote in message

...
On Jan 21, 4:12 pm, "Trevor Wilson"



wrote:
**You need to educate yourself. You are seriously deluded and on very
shaky
scientific ground.

That has never stopped Andre from anything... Why should this time be
any different? However, he has met his goal by crossposting a thread
started elsewhere, brought here by him for his amusement.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

Why don't you get a job instead of your wife being the only bread winner so
you will not have all this time on your hands. I wish I had a wife like
yours so that she can support me and I could make believe that I was rich.
The only thing is that she has to be ugly (from what someone told me when
you published a pix of your family). Oh well there's always Jack Daniels and
paper bags. :-(

Not bad from a shoe salesman.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA