Anthropogenic global warming theory says that human produced
greenhouse gases trap heat by re-radiation of absorbed IR. OK,
reasonable theory IF it was upheld by temp data.
Giving them the benefit of the doubt for the sake of argument, I will
use the warmies own data to show that their own theory violates
conservation of energy. Their own data shows warming attributed to
AGW from about 1970 till the late 1990s. Then, their own data shows
the temps level off or even drop till now. THIS IS NOT POSSIBLE from
their own theory if they accept conservation of energy. The heat
input from the sun according to them is constant so the temps should
constant rise although the slope may change some. Levelling off or
drops in temps violate conservation of energy in their theory.

Frogwatch wrote:
Anthropogenic global warming theory says that human produced
greenhouse gases trap heat by re-radiation of absorbed IR. OK,
reasonable theory IF it was upheld by temp data.
Giving them the benefit of the doubt for the sake of argument, I will
use the warmies own data to show


You couldn't show bunny silhouettes on a white sheet background using
your hand and a flashlight. You're just another science defrauder like
SW Tom.

On Jan 7, 11:19*am, Frogwatch wrote:
Anthropogenic global warming theory says that human produced
greenhouse gases trap heat by re-radiation of absorbed IR. *OK,
reasonable theory IF it was upheld by temp data.
Giving them the benefit of the doubt for the sake of argument, I will
use the warmies own data to show that their own theory violates
conservation of energy. *Their own data shows warming attributed to
AGW from about 1970 till the late 1990s. *Then, their own data shows
the temps level off or even drop till *now. *THIS IS NOT POSSIBLE from
their own theory if they accept conservation of energy. *The heat
input from the sun according to them is constant so the temps should
constant rise although the slope may change some. *Levelling off or
drops in temps violate conservation of energy in their theory.

Bull**** piled on bull****.

On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 08:53:21 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote:

On Jan 7, 11:19*am, Frogwatch wrote:
Anthropogenic global warming theory says that human produced
greenhouse gases trap heat by re-radiation of absorbed IR. *OK,
reasonable theory IF it was upheld by temp data.
Giving them the benefit of the doubt for the sake of argument, I will
use the warmies own data to show that their own theory violates
conservation of energy. *Their own data shows warming attributed to
AGW from about 1970 till the late 1990s. *Then, their own data shows
the temps level off or even drop till *now. *THIS IS NOT POSSIBLE from
their own theory if they accept conservation of energy. *The heat
input from the sun according to them is constant so the temps should
constant rise although the slope may change some. *Levelling off or
drops in temps violate conservation of energy in their theory.

Bull**** piled on bull****.

That was a good, well thought out argument, Loogy.

John H wrote:
On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 08:53:21 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote:

On Jan 7, 11:19 am, Frogwatch wrote:
Anthropogenic global warming theory says that human produced
greenhouse gases trap heat by re-radiation of absorbed IR. OK,
reasonable theory IF it was upheld by temp data.
Giving them the benefit of the doubt for the sake of argument, I will
use the warmies own data to show that their own theory violates
conservation of energy. Their own data shows warming attributed to
AGW from about 1970 till the late 1990s. Then, their own data shows
the temps level off or even drop till now. THIS IS NOT POSSIBLE from
their own theory if they accept conservation of energy. The heat
input from the sun according to them is constant so the temps should
constant rise although the slope may change some. Levelling off or
drops in temps violate conservation of energy in their theory.
Bull**** piled on bull****.

That was a good, well thought out argument, Loogy, and at least as good as any I've ever made here.

On Jan 7, 1:06*pm, John H wrote:
On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 08:53:21 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker





wrote:
On Jan 7, 11:19 am, Frogwatch wrote:
Anthropogenic global warming theory says that human produced
greenhouse gases trap heat by re-radiation of absorbed IR. OK,
reasonable theory IF it was upheld by temp data.
Giving them the benefit of the doubt for the sake of argument, I will
use the warmies own data to show that their own theory violates
conservation of energy. Their own data shows warming attributed to
AGW from about 1970 till the late 1990s. Then, their own data shows
the temps level off or even drop till now. THIS IS NOT POSSIBLE from
their own theory if they accept conservation of energy. The heat
input from the sun according to them is constant so the temps should
constant rise although the slope may change some. Levelling off or
drops in temps violate conservation of energy in their theory.

Bull**** piled on bull****.

That was a good, well thought out argument, Loogy.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It's the only one available for the drivel posted.

On Jan 7, 1:41*pm, Loogypicker wrote:
On Jan 7, 1:06*pm, John H wrote:



On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 08:53:21 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker

wrote:
On Jan 7, 11:19 am, Frogwatch wrote:
Anthropogenic global warming theory says that human produced
greenhouse gases trap heat by re-radiation of absorbed IR. OK,
reasonable theory IF it was upheld by temp data.
Giving them the benefit of the doubt for the sake of argument, I will
use the warmies own data to show that their own theory violates
conservation of energy. Their own data shows warming attributed to
AGW from about 1970 till the late 1990s. Then, their own data shows
the temps level off or even drop till now. THIS IS NOT POSSIBLE from
their own theory if they accept conservation of energy. The heat
input from the sun according to them is constant so the temps should
constant rise although the slope may change some. Levelling off or
drops in temps violate conservation of energy in their theory.

Bull**** piled on bull****.

That was a good, well thought out argument, Loogy.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It's the only one available for the drivel posted.

Nobody expects warmies to be able to reason, after all, AGW is nothing
but a religious cult. They believe the Goracle speaks the divinely
inspired truth.

John H wrote:
On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 08:53:21 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote:

On Jan 7, 11:19 am, Frogwatch wrote:
Anthropogenic global warming theory says that human produced
greenhouse gases trap heat by re-radiation of absorbed IR. OK,
reasonable theory IF it was upheld by temp data.
Giving them the benefit of the doubt for the sake of argument, I will
use the warmies own data to show that their own theory violates
conservation of energy. Their own data shows warming attributed to
AGW from about 1970 till the late 1990s. Then, their own data shows
the temps level off or even drop till now. THIS IS NOT POSSIBLE from
their own theory if they accept conservation of energy. The heat
input from the sun according to them is constant so the temps should
constant rise although the slope may change some. Levelling off or
drops in temps violate conservation of energy in their theory.
Bull**** piled on bull****.

That was a good, well thought out argument, Loogy.

A multi layered one at that!

In article 60d1ea16-0b76-487a-8409-3e27d451c44d@
21g2000yqj.googlegroups.com, says...

On Jan 7, 1:41*pm, Loogypicker wrote:
On Jan 7, 1:06*pm, John H wrote:



On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 08:53:21 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker

wrote:
On Jan 7, 11:19 am, Frogwatch wrote:
Anthropogenic global warming theory says that human produced
greenhouse gases trap heat by re-radiation of absorbed IR. OK,
reasonable theory IF it was upheld by temp data.
Giving them the benefit of the doubt for the sake of argument, I will
use the warmies own data to show that their own theory violates
conservation of energy. Their own data shows warming attributed to
AGW from about 1970 till the late 1990s. Then, their own data shows
the temps level off or even drop till now. THIS IS NOT POSSIBLE from
their own theory if they accept conservation of energy. The heat
input from the sun according to them is constant so the temps should
constant rise although the slope may change some. Levelling off or
drops in temps violate conservation of energy in their theory.

Bull**** piled on bull****.

That was a good, well thought out argument, Loogy.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It's the only one available for the drivel posted.

Nobody expects warmies to be able to reason, after all, AGW is nothing
but a religious cult. They believe the Goracle speaks the divinely
inspired truth.

It' so funny how so many of these types are absolutely appalled by the
idea of "organized religion"! Pffffttttt...

On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 17:46:49 -0500, I am Tosk wrote:

snip to save on paper and because I can

It' so funny how so many of these types are absolutely appalled by the
idea of "organized religion"! Pffffttttt...

which one do you belong to, Scientology or Hare Krishnah?
Perhaps we wouldn't be a bit surprized.