bpnjensen wrote:

On May 9, 10:02 pm, John Smith wrote:
On 5/9/2011 9:49 PM, hroedrank wrote:

...
Be its cigarette smoking, or co2 output, they both not politically
correct, and therefore on the left it's far too much to hope and assume
that an intelligent debate that puts the risk into reasonably
intelligent terms once again shows the dishonesty of the left and
socialists in this regards.

Super Turtle

Yeah, I think many toxins are hidden within the "toxic cigarette smoke"
verbiage ... now it will have to make room for the radiation coming from
Japan which we are still breathing and which will still be being created
for sometime to come as the nuclear plant continues releasing tremendous
quantities of deadly toxins to drift over here, to the USA.

Regards,
JS

This is BS. This "scientist" does not even have the balls to use his
real name to stand behind his bogus assertion.

You fell for the action of a troll.
1) Take a thread that has morphed into something else. (This gives you a
subject)
2) Take a message from that thread and reply to it (this adds the the
'somebody wrote')
3) Delete all but a statement posted by someone else.
4) Add his own spin which is unrelated all of the above.
5) Post it to a bunch of groups unrelated to the original thread.

Super Turtle is probably not hroedrank and neither are the MIT Scientist.

If you look at he original thread, you'll see a lot of ignorant arguments.

I don't consider anything JS posts to be relevant.

On 5/11/2011 10:49 AM, joe wrote:
bpnjensen wrote:

On May 9, 10:02 pm, John wrote:
On 5/9/2011 9:49 PM, hroedrank wrote:

...
Be its cigarette smoking, or co2 output, they both not politically
correct, and therefore on the left it's far too much to hope and assume
that an intelligent debate that puts the risk into reasonably
intelligent terms once again shows the dishonesty of the left and
socialists in this regards.

Super Turtle

Yeah, I think many toxins are hidden within the "toxic cigarette smoke"
verbiage ... now it will have to make room for the radiation coming from
Japan which we are still breathing and which will still be being created
for sometime to come as the nuclear plant continues releasing tremendous
quantities of deadly toxins to drift over here, to the USA.

Regards,
JS

This is BS. This "scientist" does not even have the balls to use his
real name to stand behind his bogus assertion.

You fell for the action of a troll.
1) Take a thread that has morphed into something else. (This gives you a
subject)
2) Take a message from that thread and reply to it (this adds the the
'somebody wrote')
3) Delete all but a statement posted by someone else.
4) Add his own spin which is unrelated all of the above.
5) Post it to a bunch of groups unrelated to the original thread.

Super Turtle is probably not hroedrank and neither are the MIT Scientist.

If you look at he original thread, you'll see a lot of ignorant arguments.

I don't consider anything JS posts to be relevant.


I am afraid, I am left unimpressed with all of that ... others may
choose for themselves ... just to reference proper perspective.

Regards,
JS

On May 11, 11:20*am, John Smith wrote:
On 5/11/2011 10:49 AM, joe wrote:





bpnjensen wrote:

On May 9, 10:02 pm, John *wrote:
On 5/9/2011 9:49 PM, hroedrank wrote:

...
Be its cigarette smoking, or co2 output, they both not politically
correct, and therefore on the left it's far too much to hope and assume
that an intelligent debate that puts the risk into reasonably
intelligent terms once again shows the dishonesty of the left and
socialists in this regards.

Super Turtle

Yeah, I think many toxins are hidden within the "toxic cigarette smoke"
verbiage ... now it will have to make room for the radiation coming from
Japan which we are still breathing and which will still be being created
for sometime to come as the nuclear plant continues releasing tremendous
quantities of deadly toxins to drift over here, to the USA.

Regards,
JS

This is BS. *This "scientist" does not even have the balls to use his
real name to stand behind his bogus assertion.

You fell for the action of a troll.
1) Take a thread that has morphed into something else. (This gives you a
subject)
2) Take a message from that thread and reply to it (this adds the the
'somebody wrote')
3) Delete all but a statement posted by someone else.
4) Add his own spin which is unrelated all of the above.
5) Post it to a bunch of groups unrelated to the original thread.

Super Turtle is probably not hroedrank and neither are the MIT Scientist.

On 05/11/2011 11:40 AM, bpnjensen wrote:
On May 11, 11:20 am, John wrote:
On 5/11/2011 10:49 AM, joe wrote:





bpnjensen wrote:

On May 9, 10:02 pm, John wrote:
On 5/9/2011 9:49 PM, hroedrank wrote:

...
Be its cigarette smoking, or co2 output, they both not politically
correct, and therefore on the left it's far too much to hope and assume
that an intelligent debate that puts the risk into reasonably
intelligent terms once again shows the dishonesty of the left and
socialists in this regards.

Super Turtle

Yeah, I think many toxins are hidden within the "toxic cigarette smoke"
verbiage ... now it will have to make room for the radiation coming from
Japan which we are still breathing and which will still be being created
for sometime to come as the nuclear plant continues releasing tremendous
quantities of deadly toxins to drift over here, to the USA.

Regards,
JS

This is BS. This "scientist" does not even have the balls to use his
real name to stand behind his bogus assertion.

You fell for the action of a troll.
1) Take a thread that has morphed into something else. (This gives you a
subject)
2) Take a message from that thread and reply to it (this adds the the
'somebody wrote')
3) Delete all but a statement posted by someone else.
4) Add his own spin which is unrelated all of the above.
5) Post it to a bunch of groups unrelated to the original thread.

Super Turtle is probably not hroedrank and neither are the MIT Scientist.

If you look at he original thread, you'll see a lot of ignorant arguments.

I don't consider anything JS posts to be relevant.

I am afraid, I am left unimpressed with all of that ... others may
choose for themselves ... just to reference proper perspective.

Regards,
JS- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You are generally unimpressed with anything that resembles sound
reasoning. Joe is right. You are, at your core, just an idiot troll.

On 5/11/2011 11:40 AM, bpnjensen wrote:
On May 11, 11:20 am, John wrote:
On 5/11/2011 10:49 AM, joe wrote:





bpnjensen wrote:

On May 9, 10:02 pm, John wrote:
On 5/9/2011 9:49 PM, hroedrank wrote:

...
Be its cigarette smoking, or co2 output, they both not politically
correct, and therefore on the left it's far too much to hope and assume
that an intelligent debate that puts the risk into reasonably
intelligent terms once again shows the dishonesty of the left and
socialists in this regards.

Super Turtle

Yeah, I think many toxins are hidden within the "toxic cigarette smoke"
verbiage ... now it will have to make room for the radiation coming from
Japan which we are still breathing and which will still be being created
for sometime to come as the nuclear plant continues releasing tremendous
quantities of deadly toxins to drift over here, to the USA.

Regards,
JS

This is BS. This "scientist" does not even have the balls to use his
real name to stand behind his bogus assertion.

You fell for the action of a troll.
1) Take a thread that has morphed into something else. (This gives you a
subject)
2) Take a message from that thread and reply to it (this adds the the
'somebody wrote')
3) Delete all but a statement posted by someone else.
4) Add his own spin which is unrelated all of the above.
5) Post it to a bunch of groups unrelated to the original thread.

Super Turtle is probably not hroedrank and neither are the MIT Scientist.

If you look at he original thread, you'll see a lot of ignorant arguments.

I don't consider anything JS posts to be relevant.

I am afraid, I am left unimpressed with all of that ... others may
choose for themselves ... just to reference proper perspective.

Regards,
JS- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You are generally unimpressed with anything that resembles sound
reasoning. Joe is right. You are, at your core, just an idiot troll.

I have never seen documented idiots and morons like you represent.

You constantly seem to have to state your opinions, revelations,
spiritually generated premonitions and visions, etc. And, the personal
attack is the most used weapon in your toolbox ...

Why you can't stand in a 3rd party mode and look at yourself and
recognize the insanity you elude in your text and fantasies is a wonder
to behold ... if a learned trait, or a genetic defect, who knows?

Regards,
JS

..

On May 11, 11:54*am, dave wrote:
On 05/11/2011 11:40 AM, bpnjensen wrote:







On May 11, 11:20 am, John *wrote:
On 5/11/2011 10:49 AM, joe wrote:

bpnjensen wrote:

On May 9, 10:02 pm, John * *wrote:
On 5/9/2011 9:49 PM, hroedrank wrote:

...
Be its cigarette smoking, or co2 output, they both not politically
correct, and therefore on the left it's far too much to hope and assume
that an intelligent debate that puts the risk into reasonably
intelligent terms once again shows the dishonesty of the left and
socialists in this regards.

Super Turtle

Yeah, I think many toxins are hidden within the "toxic cigarette smoke"
verbiage ... now it will have to make room for the radiation coming from
Japan which we are still breathing and which will still be being created
for sometime to come as the nuclear plant continues releasing tremendous
quantities of deadly toxins to drift over here, to the USA.

Regards,
JS

This is BS. *This "scientist" does not even have the balls to use his
real name to stand behind his bogus assertion.

You fell for the action of a troll.
1) Take a thread that has morphed into something else. (This gives you a
subject)
2) Take a message from that thread and reply to it (this adds the the
'somebody wrote')
3) Delete all but a statement posted by someone else.
4) Add his own spin which is unrelated all of the above.
5) Post it to a bunch of groups unrelated to the original thread.

Super Turtle is probably not hroedrank and neither are the MIT Scientist.

If you look at he original thread, you'll see a lot of ignorant arguments.

I don't consider anything JS posts to be relevant.

I am afraid, I am left unimpressed with all of that ... others may
choose for themselves ... just to reference proper perspective.

Regards,
JS- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You are generally unimpressed with anything that resembles sound
reasoning. *Joe is right. *You are, at your core, just an idiot troll.

Dave,
-wrt- We have half a million years of climate data in Antarctic ice
and... The Earth's Gonna Do What The Earth's Gonna Do !
Critical 'Climate Change' Factor # 1 = The Sun
Major 'Climate Change' Factor # 2 = The Earth {Itself}
Minor 'Climate Change' Factor #............13 = Humanity {Us}
-oops- another inconvenient 'climate change' truth

OK - Dave so that would be 500K Years -versus- 1K
Years of Man's Industrial Age.
-oops- another inconvenient 'climate change' reality

What Do Those 'Other' 499K Years Show : Lots of
'Climate Change' and in-fact Greater 'Climate Change's
"Pre" Man's Industrial Age.
* Real Hot Spells {not just Warming; but "Hot"}
* Real Cold Spells {not just Cool; but "Ice Ages"}
and... All Without Man-Kind.
-oops- another inconvenient 'climate change' fact

That's Naturally Evolving as in a Living Planet :
'Climate Change' -yes-the-earth-is-a-living-planet-
-oops- another inconvenient 'climate change' reality

Dave even the Obama-Regime No Longer Calls the
Decade/Century Long-Term Changing Weather Pattern
"Global Warming" -a-la- Al Gore -but- Simple "Climate
Change".
-oops- another inconvenient 'climate change' truth

On 05/11/2011 06:18 PM, RHF wrote:

What Do Those 'Other' 499K Years Show : Lots of
'Climate Change' and in-fact Greater 'Climate Change's
"Pre" Man's Industrial Age.
* Real Hot Spells {not just Warming; but "Hot"}
* Real Cold Spells {not just Cool; but "Ice Ages"}
and... All Without Man-Kind.
-oops- another inconvenient 'climate change' fact

The PPM for CO2 has never been above 290 until we started pumping coal
smoke into the air. It's been higher in the distant past, but never this
high with humans around.

http://artofteachingscience.org/images/arton2481.jpg

On 5/12/2011 5:09 AM, dave wrote:
On 05/11/2011 06:18 PM, RHF wrote:

What Do Those 'Other' 499K Years Show : Lots of
'Climate Change' and in-fact Greater 'Climate Change's
"Pre" Man's Industrial Age.
* Real Hot Spells {not just Warming; but "Hot"}
* Real Cold Spells {not just Cool; but "Ice Ages"}
and... All Without Man-Kind.
-oops- another inconvenient 'climate change' fact

The PPM for CO2 has never been above 290 until we started pumping coal
smoke into the air. It's been higher in the distant past, but never this
high with humans around.

http://artofteachingscience.org/images/arton2481.jpg

Where did you get that information at?

http://www.ff.org/centers/csspp/libr...18/dioxide.htm

The spreading of false data is not a good thing ...

Regards,
JS

On May 12, 5:09*am, dave wrote:
On 05/11/2011 06:18 PM, RHF wrote:

What Do Those 'Other' 499K Years Show : Lots of
'Climate Change' and in-fact Greater 'Climate Change's
"Pre" Man's Industrial Age.
* Real Hot Spells {not just Warming; but "Hot"}
* Real Cold Spells {not just Cool; but "Ice Ages"}
and... All Without Man-Kind.
-oops- another inconvenient 'climate change' fact

The PPM for CO2 has never been above 290 until we started pumping coal
smoke into the air. It's been higher in the distant past, but never this
high with humans around.

http://artofteachingscience.org/images/arton2481.jpg

Dave - Re-Read Your Own Source Evidence {Chart}
2~3 Peaks as High or Higher.