Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
Biology
BiologyBotanyMicrobiologyEntomologyEvolutionPaleontology
Chemistry
General ChemistryAnalytical ChemistryElectrochemistryOrganic Synthesis
Earth Science
GeologyMineralogyOceanographyMeteorologyEarthquakes
Physics
General PhysicsResearchRelativityParticle PhysicsElectromagnetismFusionOpticsAcousticsNew Theories

Natural Science Forum / Physics / General Physics / July 2008



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Algore's Trial for Crimes against Humanity

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
kdthrge@yahoo.com - 17 Jun 2008 14:04 GMT
Algore's Trial for Crimes against Humanity

Algore's mommie should have taught him some basic honesty. It is not
right to other people and it is self-destructive to lie, distort the
truth, or omit facts which promotes false beliefs. In human
interaction, by law in many circumstances, such deception is a crime.

Algore has an agenda in which he uses his money and influence to
promote severe programs upon the economy, government and people of the
US. At any point in his discourse he must check his facts and be
valid. Failure to do so, and conscious intent to deceive, can and will
be construed as criminal according to the effect this may have upon
people's lives. While now he can state his invalidities under
protection of free speech and freedom of religion, in governmental
proceedings these falsities can and will be considered a very serious
crime.

Just to point out and document Algore's present status with his
agenda, he recently paid for and wrote a series of commercials. These
commercials can be directly proved to be propaganda, as they promote
and state clearly provable lies, and are designed for their effect to
promote false beliefs.

The first of these lies is the omission of his name on these
commercials. This is only his normal manner of partial
presentation of facts for desired effect upon people's beliefs. He
should clearly sign his name to his commercials and would if his
intent were not to promote a false belief that some organization were
responsible for these commercials in which he did not have complete
executive authority and authorship.

Secondly he incorporates two lies into his statement, 'we can solve
the climate crisis'.

There is no scientific indication of a climate crisis. Temperatures of
today are concurrent with temperatures of the 1930's. It is common for
the fraud of AGW, to take temperature statistics only back to the
1950's, which did have a dip in temperatures. Any current readings of
average temperature fluctuation are not shown to be abnormal by valid
climatology.

Between 900-1100 AD, there is very clear record both by proxies and
historical record of a warm period with temperatures much warmer than
present. There are no recent temperature fluctuation which in any way
can be construed to be abnormal, therefore Algore has absolutely no
scientific basis for his term of 'climate crisis'. This is a
fraudulent term of his propaganda.

The chief meteorologist of the UN has stated that temperature's have
plateau over the last ten years. This is not conducive to the
alarmists belief of the effect of minute quantities of CO2 in the
atmosphere, which must have a continual rise in temperature according
to the levels of CO2.

Likewise, recent studies of ocean temperatures, show a marked cooling
in almost all regions of the oceans of the past several years,
according to recently released NASA statistics. This is a serious blow
to the theoretical estimations of the AGW climatologists, for they
have no explanation for the lack of heat that has supposedly been
retained by the supposed and fraudulent statistics of CO2 increase
since human industrialization.

The only climate crisis is in Algore's tormented logic and personal
attachment to the idea. In the early 1990's he predicted
measurable and important effect to be seen by 2015. His predictions
are a failure, as of yet. His crisis is to get his program into law
before the science shows that his terms of 'emergency' and 'crisis'
are fraudulent.

Secondly there is no program of reduced emissions by the US that can
in any way have any actual effect upon the actual
concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere. This in mainly because of the
great quantities of CO2 that naturally exist in the environment. It is
also scare mongering to present the idea that humans could release
enough CO2 to affect the environment.

Perhaps the continual burning of the tropical jungle could have some
effect, as this reduces the absorption of CO2 from the atmosphere,
which is then transported by the organic material in the rivers into
the ocean. Even this burning puts about 1/4 of all human produced CO2
into the atmosphere, which is more than all of the world's
transportation, according to the British Royal Society.

Petroleum comes from algae which grew in the surface waters of the
ocean, and became deposited upon the ocean floor. This algae consumed
the CO2 in the water which was absorbed from the atmosphere. No
overload of the environment can be achieved by human release of CO2
for this reason.

When liquids are in the presence of any gases, there exist which is
called in chemistry, 'vapor pressure'. This means that an equilibrium
will be achieved between the number of molecules of a gas which
collide and are absorbed into the liquid, and with the number of
molecules which escape from the surface of the gas. This means that
the equilibrium of the CO2 in the ocean and atmosphere, primarily
dictates the concentrations in the environment. Much organic material
falls to the bottom of the ocean, where there is little oxygen and it
cannot decompose into CO2.

Ice core studies show very clearly that CO2 levels rise about 900 yrs
after warming trends. It is probably the heightened currents from the
warming trends that brings either oxygen to this carbon, or brings
this carbon up from the depths to water with more oxygen in it.

Although a British judge even ruled that Algore was invalid with his
use of temperature and CO2 graphs to draw a correlation to CO2 and
effect on temperature, and the fact that all scientific studies show
the CO2 lags the temperature increase and that no effect upon the
temperature gradient can be identified with the rising CO2, Algore
refuses to accept these scientific facts and continues in his dictated
dogma to use his false readings from his impartial science to promote
this clearly provable and fraudulent tenet of his propaganda.

Any calculation of the effect of elimination of portions of the CO2
output of the US, must be considered with the  degree that portions of
this rise are natural and not affected by human involvement. By valid
science it can be proved that complete elimination of US CO2 would
have no effect upon actual concentration in the air. This is without
even considering the rapid increase of CO2 from the developing
countries of China and India.

This means that Algore's program is of the highest order of fraud, and
his refusal to accept or regard valid science makes his fraud a crime
of the highest order. The proposed result of saving the environment
from harmful effects of the use of carbon fuels by his interference
with economies and people's lives, of reducing or restricting CO2
concentrations in the air cannot be achieved by any means regardless
of the money that is exchanged and the impact this may have upon
simple people's live, for which the high criminal Algore has no
empathy.

It should be recorded at this time that Algore is acting upon his own
free will. He could desist from his agenda and call for honest
scientific inquiry, beginning with the very basics and taking no
presumptions to be accepted science. His failure to do so must at some
time result in his trial for his very serious crimes of fraud and
crimes against humanity and the nation and people of the United
States, either with him in person while he is still alive or in
absentia by future courts.

KDeatherage
Kurt Lochner - 17 Jun 2008 15:19 GMT
Kent Death-Rage <kdthrge@earthlink.net> whined obsessively:

>Algore's Trial for Crimes against Humanity

Oh, puh-lease..

>Algore's mommie should have taught him some basic honesty. It is
>not right to other people and it is self-destructive to lie, distort
>the truth, or omit facts which promotes false beliefs.

You've got three fingers pointed back at yourself, homey..

--Have your mother check that ego-diaper of yours, it stinks..
Ouroboros_Rex - 17 Jun 2008 15:33 GMT
> Algore's Trial for Crimes against Humanity

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH HAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!!!!!!
James - 17 Jun 2008 16:36 GMT
> Algore's Trial for Crimes against Humanity
>
[quoted text clipped - 137 lines]
>
> KDeatherage

USSR = Lysenkoism
USA  = Goreism

Those damn Russians ain't seen nuthin yet.
Dan Luke - 17 Jun 2008 21:09 GMT
> USSR = Lysenkoism
> USA  = Goreism
>
> Those damn Russians ain't seen nuthin yet.

Says the dimwit creationist who thinks coal is a "mystery."

Just wait 'til Mike Huckabee is President some day.  Then we'll see some
real science!

BWAW-HAW-HAW-HAW-HAW!
James - 17 Jun 2008 21:51 GMT
>> USSR = Lysenkoism
>> USA  = Goreism
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> BWAW-HAW-HAW-HAW-HAW!

You wouldn't know science if it bit you on the a.s Dan. You don't now.
Better you quote Al Gore on your delusions.
hhc314@yahoo.com - 17 Jun 2008 16:48 GMT
On Jun 17, 9:04 am, kdth...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Algore's Trial for Crimes against Humanity
>
> Algore's mommie should have taught him some basic honesty. It is not
> right to other people and it is self-destructive to lie, distort the
> truth, or omit facts which promotes false beliefs. In human
> interaction, by law in many circumstances, such deception is a crime.

Who the heck is Algore?

Harry C.
Spaceman - 17 Jun 2008 16:58 GMT
> On Jun 17, 9:04 am, kdth...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> Algore's Trial for Crimes against Humanity
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> Who the heck is Algore?

Maybe it is a trianglular cut (gore) of a Albacore tuna?
so.. Algore?
(sorry, could not resist)
:)

Signature

James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman

hhc314@yahoo.com - 17 Jun 2008 21:44 GMT
On Jun 17, 11:58 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
wrote:
> hhc...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Jun 17, 9:04 am, kdth...@yahoo.com wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> James M Driscoll Jr
> Spaceman

Jim, at first read I assumed that Algore may have been some French
writer of, like Voltaire (whose actual name was Arouet) who wrote some
pretty colorful stories, Candide for example (a truly wonderful tale
which should sometime be someday turned into a film -- The movie could
be titled "My Half-Assed Girlfriend" with the title being quite
literal.  It could draw in millions at the box office!)

Guess what James, Drexel required us to read this stuff, between
repairing old cars and radio transmitters to eat and pay tuition,  in
order to earn a degree in, guess what, Physics!  I suppose that in
those days the educational philosopy was something like "No pain, no
gain".

Sure, I finally figured out that the OP meant Al Gore, but I suppose
that the space bar on his keyboard was non-functional.

Harry C.
Spaceman - 18 Jun 2008 04:34 GMT
> On Jun 17, 11:58 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 25 lines]
> be titled "My Half-Assed Girlfriend" with the title being quite
> literal.  It could draw in millions at the box office!)

LOL

> Guess what James, Drexel required us to read this stuff, between
> repairing old cars and radio transmitters to eat and pay tuition,  in
> order to earn a degree in, guess what, Physics!  I suppose that in
> those days the educational philosopy was something like "No pain, no
> gain".

Still the same in most places, too bad some are more like
"read this and repeat it forever" and I will give you a diploma.
What is needed is more of the "what do you think causes this" before
they make them read the books at all.
:)

> Sure, I finally figured out that the OP meant Al Gore, but I suppose
> that the space bar on his keyboard was non-functional.

Well, it does not have the word "space" on it.
It is as bad as that "any" key.
:)

Signature

James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman

Ouroboros_Rex - 18 Jun 2008 17:41 GMT
> On Jun 17, 11:58 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 36 lines]
>
> Harry C.

"Algore" is secret code for dittoheads, it's a limbaughism.  lol
Benj - 19 Jun 2008 01:14 GMT
On Jun 17, 11:48 am, "hhc...@yahoo.com" <hhc...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Who the heck is Algore?
>
> Harry C.

None other that Nobel prize and Oscar winning inventor of the Internet
and Anthropogenic Global Warming!

Moron.
Dan Luke - 19 Jun 2008 01:22 GMT
>> Who the heck is Algore?
>>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> Moron.

You believe the lie about Gore claiming to have invented the internet.

You think Gore invented Anthropogenic Global Warming.

And you call someone else a moron?

BWAW-HAW-HAW-HAW-HAW!
Tartarus - 22 Jun 2008 16:43 GMT
On Jun 17, 9:48 am, "hhc...@yahoo.com" <hhc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jun 17, 9:04 am, kdth...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> Harry C.

Algore is the name used by dittoheads for Al Gore. They think it is
humorous, but cannot say why.

Tartarus
CharlesTheCurmudgeon - 22 Jun 2008 16:55 GMT
> On Jun 17, 9:48 am, "hhc...@yahoo.com" <hhc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 17, 9:04 am, kdth...@yahoo.com wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>
> Tartarus

You obviously missed the joke at the beginning of the Clinton
Administration.  AlGore is a parody of Igor, and implies that AlGore is
about as intelligent as Frankenstein's monster.  It's not true.  He's less
intelligent than the muster.

Charles the Curmudgeon
Starkiller - 22 Jun 2008 16:56 GMT
>On Jun 17, 9:48 am, "hhc...@yahoo.com" <hhc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 17, 9:04 am, kdth...@yahoo.com wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>
>Tartarus

No more humorous than the silly assed little name games you all play
with any conservative.
Ya'll were playing games with the names Reagan and Bush a long time
before anyone simply took the space from between Al Gore.
But thanks for showing your hypocrisy though.
kdthrge@yahoo.com - 23 Jun 2008 05:20 GMT
> On Jun 17, 9:48 am, "hhc...@yahoo.com" <hhc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>
> Tartarus

Just as the believers in the religion and false science of AGW
instantly call anyone a 'denialist' who challenges their beliefs which
they cannot support.

In the US, there is a petition of 30,000 scientists who have looked at
the supposed science of AGW and can see that it is invalid and fraud.
Yet the politicians still use Algore's propaganda slogan that the
'debate is over' and that the science is all decided.

Yet the believers use their word, denialist, in order that they may
effectively calm their mind from the anxiety of basing their beliefs
on non science. Even top level greenie wienies feel it appropiate to
use this term. Yet if the greenie wienies could come up with some
direct science, this word would not be needed.

The greenie wienies are true wienies with their 'denialist' term and
petulant insults and their mentality which only functions in stock
phrases and propaganda slogans. They are greenies because they falsly
associate themselves with actual environmental issues. So the proper
term for the twirps that lash out with their 'denialist' insult, is
'greenie wienie'.

So what is the price of a pound of greenie wienies on the market
today? The quantity of greenie wienies that BELIEVE with them is the
only reference in their stock phrases for their actual scientific
basis.

KD
Kurt Lochner - 23 Jun 2008 16:32 GMT
kdthrge@yahoo.com whined, like a frustrated four-year old:

> > On Jun 17, 9:48 am, "hhc...@yahoo.com" <hhc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
. . .
> > > Who the heck is Algore?
> >
> > Algore is the name used by dittoheads for Al Gore. They think it is
> > humorous, but cannot say why.
>
>Just as the believers in the religion and false science of AGW

Prove that the 'anthropocentric global warming' hypothesis is false..

>In the US, there is a petition of 30,000 scientists

Prove that, too..

Otherwise, your mawkish semi-literate diatribes are but the mouthing
of words others have written, if only to support your silly tantrums..

Examples follow..

>Yet the believers use their word, denialist,
..
>The greenie wienies are true wienies with their 'denialist' term
..
>So what is the price of a pound of greenie wienies

--Get a life, at your earliest possible inconvenience..
Dan Luke - 17 Jun 2008 21:13 GMT
> Algore's mommie should have taught him some basic honesty. It is not
> right to other people and it is self-destructive to lie, distort the
> truth, or omit facts which promotes false beliefs. In human
> interaction, by law in many circumstances, such deception is a crime.

Followed by 18 paragraphs of lies, distortions and omissions, not to mention
character assassination and sheer ignorance.

Criminal.
hhc314@yahoo.com - 17 Jun 2008 21:50 GMT
> <kdth...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> Criminal.

Hey Dan, lighten up.  Realize that 95% of the posts in today's
sci.physics are nothing but total nonsense having nothing to do with
physics.

Just go with the flow.  Trust that when someone actually posts a
serious question on physics, they will received a responsible answer
from at least one real physicist. I've heard that there may be as many
as 3 physicists still lurking here.

Harry C.
Dan Luke - 17 Jun 2008 22:17 GMT
> Hey Dan, lighten up.  Realize that 95% of the posts
> in today's sci.physics are nothing but total nonsense
> having nothing to do with physics.

My apologies; forgot to cut the cross-posts.
John - 17 Jun 2008 22:53 GMT
On Jun 17, 7:04 am, kdth...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Algore's Trial for Crimes against Humanity
>
> Algore's mommie should have taught him some basic honesty.

She probably did.  At least she taught him to respect other people and
not try and use thier names to make a stupid political point.

>It is not
> right to other people and it is self-destructive to lie, distort the
> truth, or omit facts which promotes false beliefs. In human
> interaction, by law in many circumstances, such deception is a crime.

Okay, this makes no sense.  Methinks the author forgot at least one
word and possibly more.  It is not right to do what to other people?
And where has the former VP of the US lied, distorted the truth, or
anything else you accuse him of in any greater detail than the current
administration?

> Algore has an agenda in which he uses his money and influence to
> promote severe programs upon the economy, government and people of the
> US.

And others don't?  Is Al Gore the ONLY one who does this?  Doesn't
Rush do this with his radio show?  How about Bill Bennett?  And what
does "promote severe programs" actually mean?  Are his programs severe
as in drastic?  Severe as in humorless?  Learn to use the English
language before you go making a fool out of yourself again.

>At any point in his discourse he must check his facts and be
> valid.

He must be valid or his facts must be valid?  You should clarify
this.  As a human being, he is considered valid.  As for the facts,
many, if not most, Climatologists believe that his facts are valid--
even if they are presented in an alarmist way--primarily for effect.

>Failure to do so, and conscious intent to deceive, can and will
> be construed as criminal according to the effect this may have upon
> people's lives.

Please state which facts he presented show a "conscious intent to
decieve."  I won't bother to say that this sentence is not
grammatically correct.

>While now he can state his invalidities

Huh?  This is not a word.

>under
> protection of free speech and freedom of religion,

Last I knew, Gore was Baptist and did not belong to any other church.
Scientific facts are not a religion (unless you've read "The Stars, My
Destination, by Alfred Bester, and I recommend you do).

>in governmental
> proceedings these falsities can and will be considered a very serious
> crime.

What crime is that?

> Just to point out and document Algore's present status with his
> agenda, he recently paid for and wrote a series of commercials. These
> commercials can be directly proved to be propaganda, as they promote
> and state clearly provable lies, and are designed for their effect to
> promote false beliefs.

So go ahead and point out the falsehoods in those commercials.  You
can't write a coherent sentence; this should be amusing.

> The first of these lies is the omission of his name on these
> commercials. This is only his normal manner of partial
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> responsible for these commercials in which he did not have complete
> executive authority and authorship.

Please cite the law you must be refering to.  No law, no crime.

> Secondly he incorporates two lies into his statement, 'we can solve
> the climate crisis'.

No lie.  We can solve or reverse the current climate changing events.

> There is no scientific indication of a climate crisis. Temperatures of
> today are concurrent with temperatures of the 1930's. It is common for
> the fraud of AGW, to take temperature statistics only back to the
> 1950's, which did have a dip in temperatures. Any current readings of
> average temperature fluctuation are not shown to be abnormal by valid
> climatology.

And yet, a majority of climatologists who have weighed in on this
subject all believe that Al Gore is correct.  If there is a silent
majority out there that believe he is wrong then they should speak up
or be thought as being in agreement with the current scientific
thinking.

> Between 900-1100 AD, there is very clear record both by proxies and
> historical record of a warm period with temperatures much warmer than
> present. There are no recent temperature fluctuation which in any way
> can be construed to be abnormal, therefore Algore has absolutely no
> scientific basis for his term of 'climate crisis'. This is a
> fraudulent term of his propaganda.

Please cite the work you have just shown.  Please direct us to studies
showing that the current thinking is wrong.  If you have no studies
then you are making this up and we should pay no attention to you.

> The chief meteorologist of the UN has stated that temperature's have
> plateau over the last ten years.

Temps have "what" over the last ten years?  You probably meant
"plateaued."

>This is not conducive to the
> alarmists belief of the effect of minute quantities of CO2 in the
> atmosphere, which must have a continual rise in temperature according
> to the levels of CO2.

Please provide a cite.

> Likewise, recent studies of ocean temperatures, show a marked cooling
> in almost all regions of the oceans of the past several years,
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> retained by the supposed and fraudulent statistics of CO2 increase
> since human industrialization.

Please provide a cite.

> The only climate crisis is in Algore's tormented logic and personal
> attachment to the idea. In the early 1990's he predicted
> measurable and important effect to be seen by 2015. His predictions
> are a failure, as of yet.

So huge chunks of the Antarctic shelf breaking off are not a
measurable effect?  The Arctic Ocean being ice-free in the winter,
thereby creating the fabled Northwest Passage, is not a measurable
effect?  Thawing of the permafrost is not a measurable effect?  Then
what, in your feeble mind, wuold be a measurable effect?

>His crisis is to get his program into law
> before the science shows that his terms of 'emergency' and 'crisis'
> are fraudulent.

Or not, because you have not provided any backing for your words.
Gore at least provided back-ups for his graphs and charts.

> Secondly there is no program of reduced emissions by the US that can
> in any way have any actual effect upon the actual
> concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere. This in mainly because of the
> great quantities of CO2 that naturally exist in the environment. It is
> also scare mongering to present the idea that humans could release
> enough CO2 to affect the environment.

Please provide a cite for your statements.  Reducing/eliminating
emmissions in automobiles could very well reduce CO2 in the
atmosphere.

> Perhaps the continual burning of the tropical jungle could have some
> effect, as this reduces the absorption of CO2 from the atmosphere,
> which is then transported by the organic material in the rivers into
> the ocean. Even this burning puts about 1/4 of all human produced CO2
> into the atmosphere, which is more than all of the world's
> transportation, according to the British Royal Society.

So stop burning the Rain Forest and plant more trees to reduce
greenhouse gasses.  And please provide a cite for your statements
about the Bruitish Royal Society.  I'd like to check you work.

> Petroleum comes from algae which grew in the surface waters of the
> ocean, and became deposited upon the ocean floor. This algae consumed
> the CO2 in the water which was absorbed from the atmosphere. No
> overload of the environment can be achieved by human release of CO2
> for this reason.

Please provide a cite for these statements.  I don't believe them and
would like further clarification.

> When liquids are in the presence of any gases, there exist which is
> called in chemistry, 'vapor pressure'. This means that an equilibrium
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> falls to the bottom of the ocean, where there is little oxygen and it
> cannot decompose into CO2.

And that means exactly what in reference to global climate change?

> Ice core studies show very clearly that CO2 levels rise about 900 yrs
> after warming trends. It is probably the heightened currents from the
> warming trends that brings either oxygen to this carbon, or brings
> this carbon up from the depths to water with more oxygen in it.

Please provide a cite for those studies.

> Although a British judge even ruled that Algore was invalid with his
> use of temperature and CO2 graphs to draw a correlation to CO2 and
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> dogma to use his false readings from his impartial science to promote
> this clearly provable and fraudulent tenet of his propaganda.

You did not read the judge's decision, did you?  You just read what
someone posted to Usenet.  Please read a balanced report of that
decision here.  http://www.coanews.org/node/231/print

> Any calculation of the effect of elimination of portions of the CO2
> output of the US, must be considered with the  degree that portions of
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> even considering the rapid increase of CO2 from the developing
> countries of China and India.

Please give a cite for those statements.  Show that they are backed up
by sound science.

> This means that Algore's program is of the highest order of fraud,

Or not, as the British judge you mentioned earlier pointed out.

>and
> his refusal to accept or regard valid science makes his fraud a crime
> of the highest order.

Or not, as the British judge you mentioned earlier pointed out.

>The proposed result of saving the environment
> from harmful effects of the use of carbon fuels by his interference
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> simple people's live, for which the high criminal Algore has no
> empathy.

Or not.  There are many things we can do to reduce greenhouse gasses
in the atmosphere.  It only makes sense to do whatever is humanly
possible to live as cleanly as possible.  Do you disagree with that
statement?

> It should be recorded at this time that Algore is acting upon his own
> free will. He could desist from his agenda and call for honest
> scientific inquiry, beginning with the very basics and taking no
> presumptions to be accepted science.

His movie was based on exhaustive scientific studies as the British
judge you cited earlier pointed out.

>His failure to do so must at some
> time result in his trial for his very serious crimes of fraud and
> crimes against humanity and the nation and people of the United
> States, either with him in person while he is still alive or in
> absentia by future courts.

Except he has not failed to do so.  What you have failed to do is
raise a substantiative argument that Al Gore knowingly lied or
presented falsehoods during either his movie or his subsequent
lectures.  That may constitute slander or libel on your part.   You
should be careful about what you write and say unless you have proof
of your argument.  You have not shown any proof in this posting.

> KDeatherage
kdthrge@yahoo.com - 18 Jun 2008 00:57 GMT
> You did not read the judge's decision, did you?  You just read what
> someone posted to Usenet.  Please read a balanced report of that
> decision here.  http://www.coanews.org/node/231/print

How about the actual court papers written by the judge. Notice
paragraph 28.
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2007/2288.html

intelllectual greenie wienies doing their normal thing about evading
direct truths. The truth here is that Algore is a stinking liar. The
truth here is that he has no actual science upon which to stand. The
fact here is that the movement of AGW can meet no burden of proof
needed to impose their beliefs upon US law.

But the religous faithful academics who derive their sustenance as
parasites to a healthy economy, continue to process their attacks upon
american society. Being the wienies that you are, you entirely do not
expect the people upon whom you parasite and seek to rob by cold
blooded fraud of human caused global warming, to ever fight back.

Good luck in hell, greenie wienie. You are so concerned with my
vernacular, yet your science and mathematics which you allow in your
religion is full of holes, and can be proved to be so although perhaps
not to the dishonest twits such as yourself.

My favorite thing about your petulant beliefs and mentality upon which
you childiish twits have agreed upon, is that you need no burden of
proof. That your scientific statements have any value without burden
of proof.
Be guaranteed, in your prosecution the burden of proof will be fully
met.

KD
Kurt Lochner - 18 Jun 2008 05:03 GMT
Kent Death-Rage <kdthrge@earthlink.net> whined petulantly:

> > You did not read the judge's decision, did you?  You just read what
> > someone posted to Usenet.  Please read a balanced report of that
> > decision here.  http://www.coanews.org/node/231/print
>
>How about the actual court papers written by the judge. Notice
>paragraph 28.

Try paragraph 17, Kent Death-Rage..  It says the same thing..

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2007/2288.html

"The Film advances four main scientific hypotheses, each of which
is very well supported by research published in respected,
peer-reviewed journals and accords with the latest conclusions
of the IPCC:

(1) global average temperatures have been rising significantly
    over the past half century and are likely to continue to
    rise ("climate change");

(2) climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions of
    carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide ("greenhouse gases");

(3) climate change will, if unchecked, have significant adverse
    effects on the world and its populations; and

(4) there are measures which individuals and governments can take
    which will help to reduce climate change or mitigate its effects."

These propositions, Mr Chamberlain submits (and I accept),
are supported by a vast quantity of research published in
peer-reviewed journals worldwide and by the great majority
of the world's climate scientists."

Now, to counter-argue against this legal opinion, you've stated..

>intelllectual greenie wienies [..]
..
>But the religous faithful academics [..]
..
>Good luck in hell, greenie wienie [..]
..
>My favorite thing about your petulant beliefs and mentality [..]
..
>Be guaranteed, in your prosecution the burden of proof will be
>fully met.

*>LOL!<*  Your anti-intellectual venomous spewage won't avail
you in your hypothetical courtroom, so maybe you should think
twice ab out making such grand pronouncements..

--It could be your own undoing, Kent..
hhc314@yahoo.com - 18 Jun 2008 07:11 GMT
On Jun 18, 12:57 am, Kurt Lochner <kurt_loch...@DONOTSPAMhotmail.com>
wrote:
> Kent Death-Rage <kdth...@earthlink.net> whined petulantly:

Actually Kurt, this is going to be fun for me.  Still, let me ask you
at the outset, what educational degrees do you hold, in what subjects.
and what universities granted them?  Same questions that I would ask
Al Gore.

> "The Film advances four main scientific hypotheses, each of which
>  is very well supported by research published in respected,
>  peer-reviewed journals and accords with the latest conclusions
>  of the IPCC:

This is you first error.  Films are produced for entertainment, not
enlightinment. The often twist facts in order to increase their
audience appeal. Also, they rarely include reference support for any
of the claims made.

>  (1) global average temperatures have been rising significantly
>      over the past half century and are likely to continue to
>      rise ("climate change");

Fact: Roughly 2 years ago a very large number of networked temperature
sensors were deployed in the earth's oceans.  They were expected to
show increasing sea temperatures, but the information that they
supplied indicated decreasing sea temperatures.

>  (2) climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions of
>      carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide ("greenhouse gases");

Most serious physical scienctists dispute this, and ten to believe
that the atmospheric contributions produced by man are in fact
insignificant.

>  (3) climate change will, if unchecked, have significant adverse
>      effects on the world and its populations; and

How in the Hell do you plan to have any measurable effect on the
climate.  Climate change is due to a number of factors, least of which
is man. Hasn't your education told you about the ice age, or when the
Sahara desert was once tropical. Do you really believe that this bit
of history was fabricated?  I wonder if clueless people like you ever
had studied about the glaciers that once covered a a large portion of
north American gouged out the great lakes, and deposited glacial till
all the way down to Princton, NJ.  What in the Hell do you think
caused the glaciers to melt, CO2 emitted from dinosaurs?

>  (4) there are measures which individuals and governments can take
>      which will help to reduce climate change or mitigate its effects."

No, there are not. Anyone that tells you so is either poorly informed
or a confidence artist.

>  These propositions, Mr Chamberlain submits (and I accept),
>  are supported by a vast quantity of research published in
>  peer-reviewed journals worldwide and by the great majority
>  of the world's climate scientists."

Again, an inacurate statement. First, you may want to research your
Mr. Chamberlain and see what credential he holds.  I have frankly
never heard of him, not that this means anything. Second, you may want
to investigate your "peer-reviewed" journals and determine what
scientific authority they have, and what professional scientific
organizations they are a part. Finally, realize that there are no
credentialed "climate scientist", and anyone who claims to be one is a
pretender.

Realize that most people who claim to be "climate scientists are
largely self proclained amateur meterolgist (a physics specialty) who
never managed to obtain a degee in the subject.

Real scientists tend to argue about the subject of global warming, but
for the most part agree that man has only a minimal a minimal
contribution, if any.

The great scientific consensus seem to be a belief that we are likely
moving into another ice age, which is the result of variation and
perturbations of the earth's orbit with respect to the sun, a cyclic
event having a period of thousands of years.

Sleep on that thought, not that it matters.

Harry C.
Kurt Lochner - 18 Jun 2008 15:41 GMT
"hhc314@hsd1.ma.comcast.net" wrote:

> Kurt Lochner indicated the falsehood uttered by:
> >
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
>Actually Kurt, this is going to be fun for me.  

That's good to hear.  Learning new facts and ideas *IS* fun..

>Still, let me ask you at the outset, what educational degree[..]

Physics, engineering and technologies..  What about yours?

> > http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2007/2288.html
> >
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
>This is you first error.  

*>LOL!<*  Really?

>Films are produced for entertainment,

Films are also produced as documentaries, as is the case here..

>The often twist facts in order to increase their audience appeal.
>Also, they rarely include reference support for any of the claims made.

However, your "spinning" aside, even the judge admitted that this
film, in particular, advanced "four main scientific hypotheses,
each of which is very well supported by research published in
respected, peer-reviewed journals and accords with the latest
conclusions of the IPCC"..

> >  (1) global average temperatures have been rising significantly
> >      over the past half century and are likely to continue to
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>sensors were deployed in the earth's oceans.  They were expected to
>show increasing sea temperatures,

I am aware of that study, and the fact remains that those sensors
still indicated "increased sea temperatures"..

>but the information that they supplied indicated decreasing sea
>temperatures.

Incorrect, they indicated the calibration methods were in error..

> >  (2) climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions of
> >      carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide ("greenhouse gases");
>
>Most serious physical scienctists dispute this,

That would be a false generalization on your behalf..

>and ten to believe that the atmospheric contributions produced
>by man are in fact insignificant.

So, you're claiming that man's 'contribution' of 29 billion tons
per year of CO2 is insignificant?  Could you be so kind as to explain
how that is so, in your experience?  And what is your "experience"?

> >  (3) climate change will, if unchecked, have significant adverse
> >      effects on the world and its populations; and
>
>How in the Hell do you plan to have any measurable effect on the
>climate.  

Drive less, burn less, use less stuff, and avoid participating
in the madness of so-called "conservative" political ideologies..

>Climate change is due to a number of factors,

Some of which correspond to the production of CO2 and other
"industrial" waste gasses, since the beginning of the so-called
"Industrial Age" of our current civilization..

>least of which is man.

And, you have data and published studies to support that claim?

I kind of doubt it..

>Hasn't your education told you about the ice age, or when the
>Sahara desert was once tropical.

Hasn't your education told you about using rhetorical questions
sometimes getting your counter-arguments cut off at the knees?

Example follows..

>Do you really believe that this bit of history was fabricated?  

Not at all, I simply suggest that your premise is faulty and
has been considered by many who are much better informed and
lacking a political agenda, when comes to formal sciences..

>I wonder if clueless people like you

Actually, you seem to "wonder" nothing but rhetorical questions
that are based upon false suppositions that are easily demolished..

> >  (4) there are measures which individuals and governments can take
> >      which will help to reduce climate change or mitigate its effects."
>
>No, there are not.

You state that as if it were an "absolute", but then failed to
follow that up with anything that could support that "absolute"..

> >  These propositions, Mr Chamberlain submits (and I accept),
> >  are supported by a vast quantity of research published in
> >  peer-reviewed journals worldwide and by the great majority
> >  of the world's climate scientists."
>
>Again, an inacurate statement.

That would be incorrect on your behalf..

>First, you may want to research your Mr. Chamberlain

That would be of no consequence in regard to the overall matter
of research into the global warming hypothesis, but do continue
to spin your wheels uselessly trying to insinuate otherwise..

I find it amusing that you would make so much "sound and fury"
over what you cannot otherwise refute..

>I have frankly never heard of him, not that this means anything.

That's correct, it means particularly "nothing", coming from you..

>Second, you may want to investigate your "peer-reviewed" journals
>and determine what scientific authority they have, [..]

Plenty more than you have..

>Finally, realize that there are no credentialed "climate scientist",
>and anyone who claims to be one is a pretender.

That would again be a false generalization for your premise, and
as such indicates to me how little you've honestly studied the
matter..

Example follows..

>Realize that most people who claim to be "climate scientists are
>largely self proclained amateur meterolgist (a physics specialty)

That's an example of how little you know, actually..

>Real scientists tend to argue about the subject of global warming,

That would again be a false generalization, as an appeal to belief,
and you have nothing to support that hoped-for "conclusion" but
insinuations and innuendo..

>The great scientific consensus seem to be a belief [...]

That would also be incorrect.  The "concensus' you are referring
to is based upon the correlation of many studies that cite and
prove conclusively the many aspects that are affected directly
by this "global warming" hypothesis.

--Argue however you wish, it won't change the scientific facts..
hhc314@yahoo.com - 18 Jun 2008 21:52 GMT
On Jun 18, 11:36 am, Kurt Lochner <kurt_loch...@DONOTSPAMhotmail.com>
wrote:
> "hhc...@hsd1.ma.comcast.net" wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
>
> Physics, engineering and technologies..  What about yours?

Kurt, where from, and what are the technologies?  Then too, how many
years experience have you had in the real world?

<Snip a whole dung hill pile of meaningless crap>

However, evidently Kurt believe that a court of law has some
mysterious ability to establish scientific fact. I find this a rather
bizarre view to come from someone claiming to be a physicist.

Oh sh.t, I've hit a never with this geenie who likely has most likely
never completed a course in the hard sciences ever.
It fun to do so from time to time. It tends to make them aware of
their inadequacies and gross scientific ignorance.

Unfortunately, other uneducated folks tend to believe their idiotic
nonsense, and that costs all of us.

Also, not Kurt, the ocean temperature array of sensors does continue
to indicate a cooling trend, without exceptions.

Just to add insult to injury, do you realize that Al Gore spends more
each month just to maintain his public relations image that likely to
any 10 readers combined spend for their total heating and colling
expenses?  Also, if you thing Al Gore gives a rat's a.s about the
environmnet, simply take a look at how he travels.

My best guess is that Al Gore is simply a rich SOB living in a
southern mansion, exploiting the tennant farmers that rent land from
him, while he sits in air conditioned comfort inside an estate that
consumes energy like there is no tomorrow.  In fact, All Gore's home
likely consumes more energy than any 10 of his neghbors or tennants
combined.

Damn, I sure wish I was Al Gore!

Unfortunatly, for me it's the harm that he continues to do through
misresentation and outright lies that is troubling. I thank God for
the fact that he was never elected President of our country! I really
would not even want to live anywhere near this guy.  Sadly, I have to
live uncomfortably close to John Kerry here in Massachusetts!  That's
bad eenough.  :-)

Just my opinons.

Harry C.
Ouroboros_Rex - 18 Jun 2008 22:23 GMT
> On Jun 18, 11:36 am, Kurt Lochner <kurt_loch...@DONOTSPAMhotmail.com>
> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 25 lines]
>
> <Snip a whole dung hill pile of meaningless crap>

 What you mean is, snip a whole bunch of responses that knock your d--k in
the dirt.  lol
Kurt Lochner - 19 Jun 2008 01:06 GMT
"hhc314@hsd1.ma.comcast.net" wrote:

> Kurt Lochner restored his original text/context when:
> >
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
>
>Kurt, where from, and what are the technologies?

Nosey, aren't you?  I live in Oklahoma, electronics engineering,
satellite telecommunications, some assembler(s) acquired prior
to the graduation date in 1992, further research into "live"
imaging analysis of electrocardiographic video 'streams',
further studies in engineering physics until fatherhood (2000)
and have since worked as a troubleshooter, video producer and
audio restoration in my capacity as a research assistant to the
dean of research at my little university..

>Then too, how many years experience have you had in the real world?

*>LOL!<*  Your definition of 'real world' lacks a certain clarity..

><Snip a whole dung hill pile of meaningless crap>

Evasions noted and restored text/context as follows..

I'll give you a second chance to run away..  *>chuckling<*

> > > > http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2007/2288.html
> > > >
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
>However, evidently Kurt believe that a court of law has some
>mysterious ability to establish scientific fact.

That would be a false insinuation on your remarkably dishonest behalf,
especially after having been so overly ostentatious in your defense
of physicists being more like an oral tradition.  And all that, simply
because you were being criticized for your personal attacks..

It seems that criticism was well deserved..

Example follows..

>I find this a rather bizarre view to come from someone claiming
>to be a physicist.

I find it rather amusing that your 1960's degree work doesn't
allow for some objective analysis on your behalf, if indeed
Drexler did teach you some proper observational perspectives..

>Oh sh.t, I've hit a never with this geenie who [..]

Would you care to articulate your false premises again, perhaps
with a spelling/grammar analyzer enabled?  Take your time, be
specific and to the point.  Also, your imagination doesn't count..

>Also, not Kurt, the ocean temperature array of sensors does continue
>to indicate a cooling trend, without exceptions.

You're completely incorrect, provided no citations with which to
support your vapid claim, and your condescending tone amuses me..

Suffice to say, I've already looked this up and would counter-argue
that you're simply blowing smoke out of your tired olde orifice(s)..

</recap>

> > > >  (1) global average temperatures have been rising significantly
> > > >      over the past half century and are likely to continue to
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> > I am aware of that study, and the fact remains that those sensors
> > still indicated "increased sea temperatures"..

*>cricket.wav<*

> > >but the information that they supplied indicated decreasing sea
> > >temperatures.
> >
> > Incorrect, they indicated the calibration methods were in error..

*>cricket.wav<*

> > > >  (2) climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions of
> > > >      carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide ("greenhouse gases");
> > >
> > >Most serious physical scienctists dispute this,
> >
> > That would be a false generalization on your behalf..

*>cricket.wav<*

> > >and ten to believe that the atmospheric contributions produced
> > >by man are in fact insignificant.
> >
> > So, you're claiming that man's 'contribution' of 29 billion tons
> > per year of CO2 is insignificant?  Could you be so kind as to explain
> > how that is so, in your experience?  And what is your "experience"?

*>cricket.wav<*

> > > >  (3) climate change will, if unchecked, have significant adverse
> > > >      effects on the world and its populations; and
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> > Drive less, burn less, use less stuff, and avoid participating
> > in the madness of so-called "conservative" political ideologies..

*>cricket.wav<*

> > >Climate change is due to a number of factors,
> >
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> >
> > I kind of doubt it..

*>cricket.wav<*

> > >Hasn't your education told you about the ice age, or when the
> > >Sahara desert was once tropical.
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> > has been considered by many who are much better informed and
> > lacking a political agenda, when comes to formal sciences..

*>cricket.wav<*

> > >I wonder if clueless people like you
> >
> > Actually, you seem to "wonder" nothing but rhetorical questions
> > that are based upon false suppositions that are easily demolished..

*>cricket.wav<*

> > > >  (4) there are measures which individuals and governments can take
> > > >      which will help to reduce climate change or mitigate its effects."
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> > You state that as if it were an "absolute", but then failed to
> > follow that up with anything that could support that "absolute"..

*>cricket.wav<*

> > > >  These propositions, Mr Chamberlain submits (and I accept),
> > > >  are supported by a vast quantity of research published in
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
> >
> > Plenty more than you have..

*>cricket.wav<*

> > >Finally, realize that there are no credentialed "climate scientist",
> > >and anyone who claims to be one is a pretender.
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> > and you have nothing to support that hoped-for "conclusion" but
> > insinuations and innuendo..

*>cricket.wav<*

> > >The great scientific consensus seem to be a belief [...]
> >
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>Just to add insult to injury, do you realize that Al Gore spends more
>each month just to maintain his public relations image [..]

I have no difficulty with what Al Gore spends to meet his own
personal agenda, nor do I have difficulties with how he came by
his office, his income, nor the way in which he presents his case
for anthropocentric global warming..

I *DO* have a problem with the way you attack other people,
as well as myself, personally, instead of challenging the ideas
with a rigorous academic debate of some merit..

Example follows..

>My best guess is that Al Gore is simply a rich SOB [..]

He is also a former Vice-President, and arguably the elected
President of the United States, in spite of your right-wing
and often baseless nay-sayings to the contrary..

Example follows..

>In fact, All Gore's home likely consumes more energy than [..]

It also houses more people than you could factually present..

>Damn, I sure wish I was Al Gore!

I can't see how that would be possible.  While Al Gore isn't a
degreed physicist, he certainly has been more accurate about
the scientific efforts and systematic studies of the Earth's
troposphere than yourself..

>Unfortunatly, for me it's the harm that he continues to do [..]

You are again presenting nothing more than insinuations and
disrespectful negative claims that you couldn't possibly prove
in your quest to speak against the global warming hypothesis.

Example follows..

>I thank God for the fact that he was never elected President [..]

You should thank the Republican aides that stormed the offices
where the first recount efforts were taking shape.  That would
be more accurate and honest, on your behalf.  But, that would
call for you to change a number of your presumptive conclusions,
and I strongly suspect that you've lost sight of an objective
review of your personal opinions..

>Just my opinons.

That would be correct, and as such, your "opinons" have no
validity, so far as the study and continued traditions of
physics is concerned.  You've dishonored that with your
narrow minded personal attacks and evasions.

--And spout the rhetoric of mental midgets..
Ouroboros_Rex - 18 Jun 2008 17:49 GMT
> On Jun 18, 12:57 am, Kurt Lochner <kurt_loch...@DONOTSPAMhotmail.com>
> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> audience appeal. Also, they rarely include reference support for any
> of the claims made.

 The document is referring to a specific film, which it correctly describes
in the paragraph above.

>> (1) global average temperatures have been rising significantly
>> over the past half century and are likely to continue to
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> show increasing sea temperatures, but the information that they
> supplied indicated decreasing sea temperatures.

 Not relevant - satellite measurements confirm warming.

>> (2) climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions of
>> carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide ("greenhouse gases");
>
> Most serious physical scienctists dispute this, and ten to believe
> that the atmospheric contributions produced by man are in fact
> insignificant.

 That is a lie, which you will be unable to prove.

>> (3) climate change will, if unchecked, have significant adverse
>> effects on the world and its populations; and
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> all the way down to Princton, NJ.  What in the Hell do you think
> caused the glaciers to melt, CO2 emitted from dinosaurs?

 Simple irrelevancy.

>> (4) there are measures which individuals and governments can take
>> which will help to reduce climate change or mitigate its effects."
>
> No, there are not. Anyone that tells you so is either poorly informed
> or a confidence artist.

 That is a lie, which you will be unable to prove.

>> These propositions, Mr Chamberlain submits (and I accept),
>> are supported by a vast quantity of research published in
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> credentialed "climate scientist", and anyone who claims to be one is a
> pretender.

 That is a lie, which you will be unable to prove.

> Realize that most people who claim to be "climate scientists are
> largely self proclained amateur meterolgist (a physics specialty) who
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> for the most part agree that man has only a minimal a minimal
> contribution, if any.

 That is a lie, which you will be unable to prove.

> The great scientific consensus seem to be a belief that we are likely
> moving into another ice age, which is the result of variation and
> perturbations of the earth's orbit with respect to the sun, a cyclic
> event having a period of thousands of years.

 None of which, even if true, impacts negatively on GW theory.
Tartarus - 22 Jun 2008 16:47 GMT
On Jun 18, 12:11 am, "hhc...@yahoo.com" <hhc...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> This is you first error.  Films are produced for entertainment, not
> enlightinment.

Not Al Gore's film. I doubt anyone would call it "entertaining".

Tartarus
CharlesTheCurmudgeon - 22 Jun 2008 16:56 GMT
> On Jun 18, 12:11 am, "hhc...@yahoo.com" <hhc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> Tartarus

No, it's pure out and out propaganda.

Charles the Curmudgeon
John - 18 Jun 2008 15:37 GMT
On Jun 17, 5:57 pm, kdth...@yahoo.com wrote:

> > You did not read the judge's decision, did you?  You just read what
> > someone posted to Usenet.  Please read a balanced report of that
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> intelllectual greenie wienies doing their normal thing about evading
> direct truths.

Try looking up Dr. Richard Gallery one of Earth's pre-eminent
glaciologists.  Or Dr, Peter Frumhoff.

>The truth here is that Algore is a stinking liar.

You have presented no proof that Al Gore is a liar.  Prove your case,
don't just state it.

> The
> truth here is that he has no actual science upon which to stand. The
> fact here is that the movement of AGW can meet no burden of proof
> needed to impose their beliefs upon US law.

Prove that his science is faulty.  Cite studies, learned opinions,
SOMETHING, ANYTHING, instead of calling names and acting like a 12-
year old.

> But the religous faithful academics who derive their sustenance as
> parasites to a healthy economy, continue to process their attacks upon
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> religion is full of holes, and can be proved to be so although perhaps
> not to the dishonest twits such as yourself.

So prove to me that the science is full of holes.  Show me where you
get your science.  Tell me why Larsen B broke off in the Antarctic.
Tell me why the rate of Glacier melt in Greenland has more than
doubled in the last 10 years.  Present your rational arguments as to
why this is happening and show that the leading climatologists are
wrong and you are right.

> My favorite thing about your petulant beliefs and mentality upon which
> you childiish twits have agreed upon, is that you need no burden of
> proof. That your scientific statements have any value without burden
> of proof.
> Be guaranteed, in your prosecution the burden of proof will be fully
> met.

Then meet the burden of proof.  I've done nothing in this post but to
try and get you to prove your point (and improve your language and
grammar skills).  You can't and you know it so you evade and call
names.  The burden of proof is on you to show that the scientists are
wrong.  I say go for it.  More studies of this situation are warranted
and necessary.

> KD
kdthrge@yahoo.com - 19 Jun 2008 00:48 GMT
'> >The truth here is that Algore is a stinking liar.

'> You have presented no proof that Al Gore is a liar.  Prove your
case,
'> don't just state it.

I have clearly proved algore a liar. In his film he refers to the ice
cores as evidence of a correlation of CO2 rise to temperature
increase. Early results from ice cores seemed to support this. But as
the full data was collected and refined studies were done, it became
clear that the CO2 lagged the temperature increases by about 900yrs,
and clearly were not a precusor.

Yet algore makes this point in his film, and even since the British
court identified this clear error in his facts, has continued to make
this point his his 'evangelical tour of reviving the hysteria spirit
of the crisis which is boiling only in his dishonest and non-
scientific, rich boy from Tennessee's little mind.

The ice cores are a very important source of data. According to one of
the foremost experts in ice cores, Jaworoski,
http://www.john-daly.com/zjiceco2.htm

The actual concentrations measured in the ice cores are depressed,
which gives a false picture of the increased levels in modern times.
This is due to processes, such as formation of calthrates which
reduces the CO2 in the ice cores.

However, the readings can be used to obtain 'relative' changes in CO2.
This is one of the only direct pieces of science on the possible
effects of CO2 on temperature. The result is entirely negative. If
this evidence is viewed at prima facia value, it proves that CO2 is
not causing any effect upon temperature.

This is the third strike for CO2 and temperature.
A) There is no direct laboratory evidence of the property of
greenhouse gases.
B) It is claimed that CO2 is roughly 1/3 greater than in preindustrial
times. Yet the temperatures of the 30's were concurrent with present
temperatures. Temperature statistics can in no way by shown to be
affected by atmospheric CO2.
C) The direct evidence of CO2 fluctuation and temperature fluctuation
from the ice cores proves that the CO2 does not affect temperature.

Here is one of the proper studies done by NOAA, that determines that
the CO2 lags the temperature by several hundred years.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/taylor/indermuehle00grl.pdf

Here is a graph of the last 18,000 yrs. Look for yourself at the warm
up period of 13,000 yrs ago. When the CO2 begins to rise roughly
1000yrs after the temperature begins to increase, it does not cause
any discernable or abnormal slope to the temperature.
http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/Closer_Look/index.html

The fraud of AGW enjoys the false picture they can paint from the
graph of 650,000 yrs compresed into 1 1/2 inches. Resolution shows a
lag of 1000yrs.

Yet algore in his movie and religous tour, promotes to the public this
clear fraud. Those that believe this lie and do not look at the real
evidence which proves that CO2 is not causing temperature fluctuation,
can still be held criminally liable for imposing laws upon people
which are unfounded. All thanks to their great friend Algore and the
corrupt greenie wienie 'scientists'.

So Greenie Wienies, enjoy your mentor and god, Algore as he leads you
to your destiny, the ultimate elitist that flies on his personal lear
jet which produces more CO2 in 1 flight than an ordinary person
produces in 1 yr of transportation, and heats and cools his mansion
and other houses making more CO2 than several hundred ordinary people.
Since this was exposed several years ago, he claims to have converted
to renewable energy, but this is also a lie. Statistics from the state
where his mansion is located show that he has increased his power
usage by 10% instead of reducing it.

ALGORE IS A STINKING LIAR. HISTORY AND HUMANITY WILL CLEARLY PERCIEVE
THIS TO BE A FACT.

KDeatherage

Oh by the way, mister intellectual, ice takes a long time to melt. The
glacial ice reached to St. Louis 18,000 yrs ago. Present temperatures
were reached about 12,000 yrs ago.

If you put a large block of ice in the sink, it will take several days
to melt. IT IS NO INDICATION THAT THE TEMPERATURE IN THE ROOM IS
INCREASING.

Just another point that algore is guilty of systematic propaganda to
promote false beliefs in peoples mind, for which history and humanity
will hold him in contempt.
Dan Luke - 19 Jun 2008 01:01 GMT
>. it became clear that the CO2 lagged the temperature increases by
> about 900yrs, and clearly were not a precusor.

True.  But you don't understand why, or what role CO2 played then or what is
different about the present situation, do you, denier boi?

> even since the British court identified this clear error in his facts,
> has continued to make this point

What else did the British court say about the basic science behind Gore's
film, liar boi?
Kurt Lochner - 19 Jun 2008 01:23 GMT
Kent Death-Rage <kdthrge@earthlink.net> whined petulantly:

> >Kent Death-Rage <kdthrge@earthlink.net> whined previously:
> > >
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> > Try looking up Dr. Richard Gallery one of Earth's pre-eminent
> > glaciologists.  Or Dr, Peter Frumhoff.

*>cricket.wav<*

> > >The truth here is that Algore is a stinking liar.
> >
> > You have presented no proof that Al Gore is a liar.
> > Prove your case, don't just state it.
>
>I have clearly proved algore a liar.

*>LOL!<*  

You have clearly "proved" that you're a very poor LIAR..

--Keep up the good work..
John - 19 Jun 2008 03:38 GMT
On Jun 18, 5:48 pm, kdth...@yahoo.com wrote:

> '> >The truth here is that Algore is a stinking liar.
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> I have clearly proved algore a liar.

when and where?  Certainly not here in this thread.

>In his film he refers to the ice
> cores as evidence of a correlation of CO2 rise to temperature
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> The ice cores are a very important source of data. According to one of
> the foremost experts in ice cores, Jaworoski,http://www.john-daly.com/zjiceco2.htm

I see your Jaworoski and raise you a Dr. Richard Alley.
http://www7.nationalacademies.org/ocga/testimony/Abrupt_Climate_Change.asp

> The actual concentrations measured in the ice cores are depressed,
> which gives a false picture of the increased levels in modern times.
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
> 1000yrs after the temperature begins to increase, it does not cause
> any discernable or abnormal slope to the temperature.http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/Closer_Look/i...

I guess you missed this last paragraph in your last cite.  I'll
include it here and then you can look and verify if you want to...

As Wallace Broecker likes to say, the Earth's climate system is "an
angry beast" and one that we should not be poking with sticks, which
of course is exactly what we are doing with all our carbon dioxide and
other GTG emissions.  We don't know exactly when or how "the beast"
will react, but we do know that it eventually will.  It's not a matter
of whether, it's only a matter of when and how.  Those of us who live
in geographcal regions affected by the North Atlantic thermohaline
circulation should be especially aware of how sensitive this part of
"the beast's" anatomy is to poking and prodding.

Sure sounds to me like they're making a case that pumping more CO2 in
the air is not a good thing.  You may read it differently.

> The fraud of AGW enjoys the false picture they can paint from the
> graph of 650,000 yrs compresed into 1 1/2 inches. Resolution shows a
> lag of 1000yrs.

I said it was alarmist.  That doesn't necessarily make it false.

> Yet algore in his movie and religous tour, promotes to the public this
> clear fraud. Those that believe this lie and do not look at the real
> evidence which proves that CO2 is not causing temperature fluctuation,
> can still be held criminally liable for imposing laws upon people
> which are unfounded. All thanks to their great friend Algore and the
> corrupt greenie wienie 'scientists'.

Which is a majority of climate scientists.  Doesn't the majority make
the rules?  Suck to be you then, huh?

> So Greenie Wienies, enjoy your mentor and god, Algore as he leads you
> to your destiny, the ultimate elitist that flies on his personal lear
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> where his mansion is located show that he has increased his power
> usage by 10% instead of reducing it.

It's sad to find such bitterness in someone so young.  Jealous?
Envious?  You should be happywith what you have rather than trying to
have what Al Gore has.

> ALGORE IS A STINKING LIAR. HISTORY AND HUMANITY WILL CLEARLY PERCIEVE
> THIS TO BE A FACT.

History will brand GW a liar and traitor long before Al Gore.  And
that's a fact.

> KDeatherage
>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> promote false beliefs in peoples mind, for which history and humanity
> will hold him in contempt.

Is that why Larsen B broke off or is that a lie too?  Is it a lie that
the glaciers of Greenland are melting 8x faster than they were ten
years ago?  Is it a lie that the Antarctic ice shelf is melting
causingthe glaciers to reach the sea faster than any time in recorded
history?  Gald you're only posting on Usenet rather than making
decisions that the health of the US.
Ouroboros_Rex - 18 Jun 2008 17:43 GMT
>> You did not read the judge's decision, did you? You just read what
>> someone posted to Usenet. Please read a balanced report of that
[quoted text clipped - 27 lines]
> Be guaranteed, in your prosecution the burden of proof will be fully
> met.

 The usual utterly delusional droolings of keithy.  lol
Lloyd - 18 Jun 2008 19:01 GMT
On Jun 17, 7:57 pm, kdth...@yahoo.com wrote:

> > You did not read the judge's decision, did you?  You just read what
> > someone posted to Usenet.  Please read a balanced report of that
> > decision here.  http://www.coanews.org/node/231/print
>
> How about the actual court papers written by the judge. Notice
> paragraph 28.http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2007/2288.html

In that opinion:

"although it is clear that it is based substantially on scientific
research and opinion"

"# I turn to AIT, the film. The following is clear:

   i) It is substantially founded upon scientific research and fact,"

      "The Film advances four main scientific hypotheses, each of
which is very well supported by research published in respected, peer-
reviewed journals and accords with the latest conclusions of the IPCC:

       (1) global average temperatures have been rising significantly
over the past half century and are likely to continue to rise
("climate change");

       (2) climate change is mainly attributable to man-made
emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide ("greenhouse
gases");

       (3) climate change will, if unchecked, have significant
adverse effects on the world and its populations; and

       (4) there are measures which individuals and governments can
take which will help to reduce climate change or mitigate its
effects."

These propositions, Mr Chamberlain submits (and I accept), are
supported by a vast quantity of research published in peer-reviewed
journals worldwide and by the great majority of the world's climate
scientists."

"For the purposes of this hearing Mr Downes was prepared to accept
that the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report represented the present
scientific consensus."

"# I have no doubt that Dr Stott, the Defendant's expert, is right
when he says that:

   "Al Gore's presentation of the causes and likely effects of
climate change in the film was broadly accurate."
Spaceman - 18 Jun 2008 19:12 GMT
>         (1) global average temperatures have been rising significantly
> over the past half century and are likely to continue to rise
> ("climate change");

People born vs people that die = people increased = heat increased.
It's peoples fault.
How many people were born vs died last year?
Combine the average total temperature increase of such and see
if it really makes a difference.
Is it really CO2 or just too many people making CO2.
:)
<joke>
Logans Run will take effect in 2012 to stop global warming.
</joke>
:)

>         (2) climate change is mainly attributable to man-made
> emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide ("greenhouse
> gases");

Again, people.
dang little freakin tiny "insignificant to the universe" specs of mostly
water.
:)

Signature

James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman

hhc314@yahoo.com - 18 Jun 2008 22:27 GMT
> On Jun 17, 7:57 pm, kdth...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 47 lines]
>     "Al Gore's presentation of the causes and likely effects of
> climate change in the film was broadly accurate."

No doubt in your mind it was.

Still, scientific facts do not support the conclusion. In science, the
views of a comittee, or a consensus, or a court do not establish
scientific fact.

If you don't comprehend this, you don't understand science.

This is not saying that you are stupid, but only implying that you are
a bit naive.

I have this friend named Gus, who dropped out of school after 3rd
grade, when he was 19.  Gus believes that rats increasing at a rate
that, left unchecked, will kill and eat all human lifeforms.
Surprising, Gus is a commanding speaker, and has now attracted more
than 1,000 followers, some of which actually graduated from grade
school. Most of us who are college educated tend to regard Gus and his
followers as rather stupid people, but here is the rub:  Their vote
counts as much as that of a college graduate.

Next year Gus and his band of idiotic followers are proposing a ban on
any sale, storage, or use of grain or seed in our small community
becaue rats love it. Guess what, that could become law, because our
elected legistators generally don't care, and simply pander to the
wants of any group that can get the re-elected. Also, not to mention
it drives the price of the restricted commodity up 10-fold, just as
what happened with CFCs (freon), so insiders generally make huge
windfall profits based on controlled scarcity.  From the politicians
viewpoint, that's what it is all about.

Show me a liberal do-gooder cause, and I will show you a entire
community of people poised to make profit from it!  I have honestly
never encountered a single exception to this generalization.

Ban CFCs and the chemical companies make huge windfall profits,
because the price on Freon 12 just jumped 10-fold.
Restrict the availability of gasoline and fuel oil, and the oil
company's profits increase by 10-fold.
Focus overly on the dangers of second hand smoke, and Hugh Rodham,
then brother of the Presidents wife, pockets million with little
effort.

Damn, I do love the liberal do-gooders. Unlike the conservative, the
liberals pocket millions of dollars, while appearing to do public
service.

Is that clever, or is it simply sneaky?

Harry C.

p.s., Just thinh about how many billions can be extracted from a
global warming scare.
John - 18 Jun 2008 22:56 GMT
On Jun 18, 3:27 pm, "hhc...@yahoo.com" <hhc...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > On Jun 17, 7:57 pm, kdth...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 53 lines]
> views of a comittee, or a consensus, or a court do not establish
> scientific fact.

So where in the film does he make statements that are not backed up by
science?  Where are there broad statements in his arguments that have
been debunked?  Point them out please.

> If you don't comprehend this, you don't understand science.
>
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
> community of people poised to make profit from it!  I have honestly
> never encountered a single exception to this generalization.

Every cause--liberal or conservative--has a group poised to make a
killing on it.  No matter what laws are made or what ideas are
espoused there is someone or some group out there who will work the
system to make it work for them.  That is human nature.

So even if Gore is utterly and completely wrong (which the science
suggests he is much more right than wrong) doesn't it make sense to
try and stop sending pollution into the air?  Isn't it just a better
idea to try and clean up the atmosphere if for no other reason than
it's the right thing to do?  If not, why not.  If it can be done and
improves the economy and the human lifestyle in the long run (there
may be small shifts in employment patterns and some people will be
hurt by it) shouldn't we do it?

> Ban CFCs and the chemical companies make huge windfall profits,
> because the price on Freon 12 just jumped 10-fold.
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>
> - Show quoted text -
Whata Fool - 19 Jun 2008 00:32 GMT
>So even if Gore is utterly and completely wrong (which the science
>suggests he is much more right than wrong) doesn't it make sense to
>try and stop sending pollution into the air?  

     How can anybody be so dumb to consider CO2 as being "pollution"?

     Oh, what a thought!    Could it be that all those who consider
CO2 to be pollution, are...........
John - 19 Jun 2008 03:13 GMT
> John <dahlgren.j...@gmail.com>  wrote:
> >So even if Gore is utterly and completely wrong (which the science
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>       Oh, what a thought!    Could it be that all those who consider
> CO2 to be pollution, are...........

You knew what I meant, jackass.
Whata Fool - 19 Jun 2008 10:39 GMT
>> John <dahlgren.j...@gmail.com> ?wrote:
>> >So even if Gore is utterly and completely wrong (which the science
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
>You knew what I meant, jackass.

    You wrote pollution, I thought you meant pollution, and since
I am not clairvoyant like climate scientists, I don't assume to have
any idea what you meant other than what you wrote.
John - 19 Jun 2008 15:01 GMT
> John <dahlgren.j...@gmail.com>  wrote:
> >> John <dahlgren.j...@gmail.com> ?wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> I am not clairvoyant like climate scientists, I don't assume to have
> any idea what you meant other than what you wrote.

Where in the statement you quoted from me do I mention CO2?  Please
point that out.  There are other pollutants we put into the air
besides CO2.  And yes, CO2 can be considered pollution, it just
depends on who is in office.  http://environmentalchemistry.com/yogi/environmental/200611CO2globalwarming.html
So, jackass, you want to reconsider your earlier statement?
Cat_in_awe - 19 Jun 2008 19:38 GMT
> Where in the statement you quoted from me do I mention CO2?  Please
> point that out.  There are other pollutants we put into the air
> besides CO2.  And yes, CO2 can be considered pollution, it just
> depends on who is in office.

I love this.  John admits that defining CO2 as 'pollution' is strictly a a
function of politics.  I think that's what we've been trying to tell you
about AGW for a long time...
kdthrge@yahoo.com - 22 Jun 2008 16:39 GMT
> > Where in the statement you quoted from me do I mention CO2?  Please
> > point that out.  There are other pollutants we put into the air
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> function of politics.  I think that's what we've been trying to tell you
> about AGW for a long time...

If CO2 is to be considered harmful, this should be based upon science.
As it is now, the greenie wienies are confident their definition of
CO2 as pollution will always hold and they can bet their life and the
life of their politicians upon this. They tell the politicians that
they are not lying to them about the validity of their science and the
politicians, (being such naive and honest little believers), believe
them. As the testimony that these lawmakers make before congress and
the US people, they continually state what these 'scientists' tell
them and propose the imposition of their criminal fraud upon the US
people.

Very clear record of the recent 'Boxer ammendement' should be made and
documentation of this stated intent to commit this crime against the
US.

Algores' #1 AGWBunnie in California, Arnie, brought the suit to the
supreme court over legislation passed in 1970 that included CO2 in a
list of pollutants. The Bush administration under the guidance of the
NAS, fought this suit only on the basis that CO2 should not be
included with other pollutants, but conceeded the point that it was a
'greenhouse gas'. The supreme court had to rule that if it was harmful
it could be controlled by the EPA.

So now this concept has creeped into law, with no burden of proof and
no scientific basis.

If CO2 were a factor in earth's temperature, it strikes out in 3
categories where there should be empirical data, not just a forlorn
hope of the diseased minds of those craving control and anarchism upon
society.

A) Direct scientific laboratory documentation.

The greenie wienies are DEATHLY silent when this topic is introduced.
Of course in many places the little fraud exhibitions can be found
which falsly portray it's reaction with glass or it's heat capacity,
BUT NO FORMAL SCIENTIFIC DOCUMENTATION OF THIS PROPERTY CAN BE
SUBMITTED. Only a bunch of theory from inept theorists, always working
to their end conclusion.

The fact is that if any of t