From: mrbawana2u on
On Apr 22, 5:58 am, josephus <dogb...(a)earthlink.net> wrote:
> Benj wrote:
> > On Apr 22, 2:01 am, josephus<dogb...(a)earthlink.net>  wrote:
>
> >> right and his disproven paper too.  the problem here is that IPCC is
> >> science and not really deep political.  certain real science will be
> >> used by govenments.  that is why it was created in the first place.   so
> >> denier sentiments are just that, opinions and worth the stuff in my
> >> outhouse. (or catbox)   it is necessary to have evidence.  I have
> >> noticed that evidence is specifically ignored.  they dont have the skill
> >> set to read the papers, they dont believe the stuff we translate for
> >> them.  they are lame and think they are sceptics because they are
> >> ignorant and dont know anything. I have actully heard people say that
> >> they dont need no education,  they have street smarts.
>
> > Oh sure. And we are supposed to beleive that you are so smart that
> > simply your WORD should stand as proof to the world!  As the world
> > freezes all you can do is repeat your policitical propaganda lies over
> > and over and over. It is your opinion that has been shown to the world
> > as fabricated prevarications.  Why don't you just hit all us
> > "deniers" [Use of the ver WORD proves you have ZERO credibility on
> > this issue] with your "ultimate proof"... The Amazing Randi says that
> > AGW is real!  And say hello to your bosses at the Club of Rome who
> > invented all this bullshit.
>
> > idiot.
>
>   i dont have to invent anything, [lies flushed]

You're way too stupid to invent anything.
Most lib-turds are.
That's why they become wards of the state.
That's why the fraud Bareback Insane O'bungler is their messiah.
From: spudnik on
much more important then "fossilized fuels (tm);"
they come out of the ground, under pressure, and
are essentially biomass.

> > Early last decade, the world’s tree coverage dropped by more than 3%.

thusNso:

the introduction sounded good; I'll read it, later.
http://research.physics.illinois.edu/qi/photonics/papers/QuantumCakes...

thusNso:
ladies & germs, nature abhors a refractive index equal to 1.0000...,
and I thank Pascal for his dyscovery of it, and
damn Einstein for his damn "photon" reification
of Newton's God-am corpuscle -- so,
let's get on with it!

thusNso:
Michelson and Morely did not get no results,
as has been amply demonstrated by follow-on researchers,
and documented by "surfer" herein.

Minkowsi's silly statement about time & space
--then, he died-- has been hobbling minds, ever since;
it is just a phase-space, clearly elaborated with quaternions
(and the language of "vectors" that Hamilton created thereby .-)

thusNso:
clearly, NeinStein#9 doesn't know what *mathematica* is;
it's not just a "visualization programme" from the Wolframites!
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/LightMill/light-mill.html

Dear Editor;
The staff report on plastic bags, given when SM considered a ban,
before, refused to list the actual fraction of a penny, paid for them
by bulk users like grocers & farmers at markets. Any rational EIR
would show that, at a fraction of a gram of "fossilized fuel (TM)" per
bag, a)
they require far less energy & materiel than a paper bag, and b)
that recycling them is impractical, beyond reusing the clean ones for
carrying & garbage,
as many responsible folks do.

As I stated at that meeting, perhaps coastal communities *should* ban
them -- except at farmers' markets -- because they are such efficient
examples of "tensional integrity," that they can clog stormdrains by
catching all sorts of leaves, twigs & paper. But, a statewide ban is
just too much of an environmental & economic burden.

--Stop British Petroleum's capNtrade rip-off;
tell your legislators, a tiny tax on carbon could achieve the result,
instead of "let the arbitrageurs/hedgies/daytrippers make
as much money as they can on CO2 credits!"
http://wlym.com