How illustrative, A's messages can't go into the archive, I wonder why that is.
> A reduction of one ton of CO2 in the atmosphere would reduce the > temperature > on Earth by one measly deg. F. (0.56 deg. C).
Oh really, at what time scale is that? And what about climate inertia? The thing keeps on rolling but lord Monckton doesn't tell you that, because, he doesn't want to hear the real message.
Discussions with climate skeptics is like trying to boot an ancient PDP-11/40:
Once it works, it gets instable afeter 15 minutes, it shuts down, and, you've to rush to the console to give it a kick.
> And it would take 33 years for that one ton to be reduced--and everyone on > Earth would have to give up their cars, trucks, buses, trains, planes and > practically all of industry to attain that massive CO2 reduction with > people > shoved back into the Stone Age in economic regression with many more deaths > from starvation and disease than ever would be the most extreme prediction > from a possible G.W. affect.
> The above was proven last night (Fri. Nov. 6) by Lord Christopher Monckton, > former science advisor to Margaret Thatcher.
> Al Gore and the whole warming frenzied hysteria is just another con job on > people for the benefit of the One World Government, socialist agenda crowd.
> Al Gore has personally made $ 1 bil. on his warming extravaganza over the > years, and refuses to debate Lord Monckton on the whole G.W. fraud con job.
> G.W. is a massive wealth transfer from the industrialized nations to the > backwards third world countries that refuse to modernize with free markets, > capital accumulation, savings, and proper incentives for entrepreneurs to > create new wealth.
> We burn (release) 30 bil. tons per year of CO2 into the atmosphere, > worldwide. Equivalent to 2 parts per mil. per year in the atmosphere. > Or 15 bil. tons of CO2 per ppm every year.
> U.N. says we will increase CO2 by 468 ppm in the next century (100 years). > Equals 7 trillion tons of CO2 (468 x 15 bil.). Which will cause 7 deg. F of > warming. > (wrong, but that is the G.W.'s figuring on CO2 increaing for the next > century, 100 years, so let's assume the UN figuring) > To forestall 1 deg. F = 1 tril. tons reduction.
> For only 1 deg. F. would then take: 1 tril. tons reduction / 30 bil. > tons per year = 33 years to > do that!
> That requires: no hospitals, no factories, no electricity, planes, trucks, > buses, automobilies, etc.
>> A reduction of one ton of CO2 in the atmosphere would reduce the >> temperature >> on Earth by one measly deg. F. (0.56 deg. C).
>Oh really, at what time scale is that? And what about climate inertia? >The thing keeps on rolling but lord Monckton doesn't tell you that, >because, he doesn't want to hear the real message.
>Discussions with climate skeptics is like trying to boot an ancient >PDP-11/40:
>Once it works, it gets instable afeter 15 minutes, it shuts down, and, >you've to rush to the console to give it a kick.
>> And it would take 33 years for that one ton to be reduced--and everyone on >> Earth would have to give up their cars, trucks, buses, trains, planes and >> practically all of industry to attain that massive CO2 reduction with >> people >> shoved back into the Stone Age in economic regression with many more deaths >> from starvation and disease than ever would be the most extreme prediction >> from a possible G.W. affect.
>Made up shit.
>> The above was proven last night (Fri. Nov. 6) by Lord Christopher Monckton, >> former science advisor to Margaret Thatcher.
>> Al Gore and the whole warming frenzied hysteria is just another con job on >> people for the benefit of the One World Government, socialist agenda crowd.
>> Al Gore has personally made $ 1 bil. on his warming extravaganza over the >> years, and refuses to debate Lord Monckton on the whole G.W. fraud con job.
>> G.W. is a massive wealth transfer from the industrialized nations to the >> backwards third world countries that refuse to modernize with free markets, >> capital accumulation, savings, and proper incentives for entrepreneurs to >> create new wealth.
>> We burn (release) 30 bil. tons per year of CO2 into the atmosphere, >> worldwide. Equivalent to 2 parts per mil. per year in the atmosphere. >> Or 15 bil. tons of CO2 per ppm every year.
>> U.N. says we will increase CO2 by 468 ppm in the next century (100 years). >> Equals 7 trillion tons of CO2 (468 x 15 bil.). Which will cause 7 deg. F of >> warming. >> (wrong, but that is the G.W.'s figuring on CO2 increaing for the next >> century, 100 years, so let's assume the UN figuring) >> To forestall 1 deg. F = 1 tril. tons reduction.
>> For only 1 deg. F. would then take: 1 tril. tons reduction / 30 bil. >> tons per year = 33 years to >> do that!
>> That requires: no hospitals, no factories, no electricity, planes, trucks, >> buses, automobilies, etc.
>> On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 09:09:31 +0100, BDR529 <jake.> wrote:
>> >A wrote: >> >> x-no-archive: yes
>> >How illustrative, A's messages can't go into the archive, I wonder why >> >that is.
>> Of course it will, stupid. You made it possible.
> It will in any case. > The x-no-archive flag has to be located in the message header to be > processed by the nntp server. > Writing it into the message body should not have any effect. > See RFC977/3977 Network News Transfer protocol. > However, if there are some homebrew servers with weak implementation > of the RFCs, you are right. > A quoted reply would supersede the flag written in the body by it's > own header. > Thus the reply is archived now :-)
There has never been valid, usable RFCs for Usenet. Tons of undocumented stuff. The x-no-archive is always recognized in the body, nobody puts in the header.
>> A did not type the no-archive, his new editor > puts that in all messages unless the user knows how > to disable it.
WTF is a "new editor"? Only kooks add x-no-archive.
>>> On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 09:09:31 +0100, BDR529 <jake.> wrote:
>>> >A wrote: >>> >> x-no-archive: yes
>>> >How illustrative, A's messages can't go into the archive, I wonder why >>> >that is.
>>> Of course it will, stupid. You made it possible.
>> It will in any case. >> The x-no-archive flag has to be located in the message header to be >> processed by the nntp server. >> Writing it into the message body should not have any effect. >> See RFC977/3977 Network News Transfer protocol. >> However, if there are some homebrew servers with weak implementation >> of the RFCs, you are right. >> A quoted reply would supersede the flag written in the body by it's >> own header. >> Thus the reply is archived now :-)
>There has never been valid, usable RFCs for Usenet. Tons of undocumented stuff. >The x-no-archive is always recognized in the body, nobody puts in the header.
>>> A did not type the no-archive, his new editor >> puts that in all messages unless the user knows how >> to disable it.
>WTF is a "new editor"? Only kooks add x-no-archive.
Sorry, my a, e, s, and i keys don't always make contact, time to change keyboards.
I think I remember tin or nn or whatever the unix newsreaders are has the parameter, and if set to on, stays on until turned off.
Why not take the author's word if he says he didn't type it in?
Leave it up to the clueless AGW parrots to grasp for any straw to keep the gossip fad going, I suspect Google archives everything anyway.
> A reduction of one ton of CO2 in the atmosphere would reduce the temperature > on Earth by one measly deg. F. (0.56 deg. C).
> And it would take 33 years for that one ton to be reduced--and everyone on > Earth would have to give up their cars, trucks, buses, trains, planes and > practically all of industry to attain that massive CO2 reduction with people > shoved back into the Stone Age in economic regression with many more deaths > from starvation and disease than ever would be the most extreme prediction > from a possible G.W. affect.
> The above was proven last night (Fri. Nov. 6) by Lord Christopher Monckton, > former science advisor to Margaret Thatcher.
Who has no education, no degree, and no experience in science. This is your science expert?
> Al Gore and the whole warming frenzied hysteria is just another con job on > people for the benefit of the One World Government, socialist agenda crowd.
OK, Idiot alert!
> Al Gore has personally made $ 1 bil. on his warming extravaganza over the > years, and refuses to debate Lord Monckton on the whole G.W. fraud con job.
Idiot alert raised to orange!
> G.W. is a massive wealth transfer from the industrialized nations to the > backwards third world countries that refuse to modernize with free markets, > capital accumulation, savings, and proper incentives for entrepreneurs to > create new wealth.
> We burn (release) 30 bil. tons per year of CO2 into the atmosphere, > worldwide. Equivalent to 2 parts per mil. per year in the atmosphere. > Or 15 bil. tons of CO2 per ppm every year.
> U.N. says we will increase CO2 by 468 ppm in the next century (100 years). > Equals 7 trillion tons of CO2 (468 x 15 bil.). Which will cause 7 deg. F of > warming. > (wrong, but that is the G.W.'s figuring on CO2 increaing for the next > century, 100 years, so let's assume the UN figuring) > To forestall 1 deg. F = 1 tril. tons reduction.
> For only 1 deg. F. would then take: 1 tril. tons reduction / 30 bil. tons > per year = 33 years to > do that!
> That requires: no hospitals, no factories, no electricity, planes, trucks, > buses, automobilies, etc.
<erschroedin...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Nov 8, 2:47 am, "A" <a...@att.net> wrote: > > The above was proven last night (Fri. Nov. 6) by Lord Christopher Monckton, > > former science advisor to Margaret Thatcher.
> Who has no education, no degree, and no experience in science. This > is your science expert?
Don't be absurd. Lloyd, the fact is you have no dispute with anything he is saying. Why don't you just stop the charade and admit that AGW is a big lie.
|
