Discussion:
Why AGW Might Not Be No Bigly Problem After All
Add Reply
Bret Cahill
2017-08-11 18:52:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/even-limited-nuclear-war-could-144500918.html
Kym Horsell
2017-08-11 22:03:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bret Cahill
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/even-limited-nuclear-war-could-144500918.html
Watch out for those fake sunglasses.
The best thing is to turn your back to the flash.
For those people sensitive enough to feel the X-rays warming their
kidneys, wait until that stop before turning around to look at the clouds.
Wally W.
2017-08-12 02:34:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bret Cahill
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/even-limited-nuclear-war-could-144500918.html
Didn't you read Kymmie-bot's post?
Post by Bret Cahill
"Climate change is the most urgent issue facing the world today,
What kind of heretic are you?
Bret Cahill
2017-08-12 03:57:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bret Cahill
"Climate change is the most urgent issue facing the world today,
That's assuming crazy dictators like Kim Jung & tRUMP don't get everyone nuked.
Wally W.
2017-08-12 04:13:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Bret Cahill
"Climate change is the most urgent issue facing the world today,
That's assuming crazy dictators like Kim Jung & tRUMP don't get everyone nuked.
A few mushroom clouds wouldn't reduce the CO2 in the atmosphere.

And CO2 is ***the*** problem ... even worse than radioactive fallout
could be, right?
Bret Cahill
2017-08-12 04:20:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Wally W.
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Bret Cahill
"Climate change is the most urgent issue facing the world today,
That's assuming crazy dictators like Kim Jung & tRUMP don't get everyone nuked.
A few mushroom clouds wouldn't reduce the CO2 in the atmosphere.
Target enough extraction sites, industry and power plants and it'll certainly reduce the _increase_ in CO2.

But that dodges the issue: Will tRUMP provide the opportunity to test the denier theory that nuke winter can exactly cancel out AGW?

<CIA>
Wally W.
2017-08-12 04:31:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Wally W.
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Bret Cahill
"Climate change is the most urgent issue facing the world today,
That's assuming crazy dictators like Kim Jung & tRUMP don't get everyone nuked.
A few mushroom clouds wouldn't reduce the CO2 in the atmosphere.
Target enough extraction sites, industry and power plants and it'll certainly reduce the _increase_ in CO2.
But that dodges the issue: Will tRUMP provide the opportunity to test the denier theory that nuke winter can exactly cancel out AGW?
<CIA>
No crickets would be chirping at ground zero.
AlleyCat
2017-08-12 05:51:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 11 Aug 2017 21:20:40 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill says...
Post by Bret Cahill
Target enough extraction sites, industry and power plants and it'll
certainly reduce the _increase_ in CO2.
Dear Canadian Redneck,

Are you being this big an idiot on purpose?

=====

The Carbon Footprint Of Nuclear War

Almost 700m tonnes of CO2 would be released into the Earth's atmosphere by
even the SMALLEST nuclear conflict, according to a US study that compares
the environmental costs of developing various power sources

Just when you might have thought it was ethically sound to unleash a
nuclear attack on a nearby city, along comes a pesky scientist and points
out that atomic warfare is bad for the climate. According to a new paper
in the journal Energy & Environmental Science, even a very LIMITED nuclear
exchange, using just a THOUSANDTH of the weaponry of a full-scale nuclear
war, would cause up to 690m tonnes of CO2 to enter the atmosphere - more
than UK's annual total.

The paper's author, Mark Z Jacobson, a professor of civil and
environmental engineering at Stanford University, calculated the emissions
of such a conflict by totting up the burn rate and carbon content of the
fabric of our cities. "Materials have the following carbon contents:
plastics, 38-92%; tyres and other rubbers, 59-91%; synthetic fibres, 63-
86%; woody biomass, 41-45%; charcoal, 71%; asphalt, 80%; steel, 0.05-2%.
We approximate roughly the carbon content of all combustible material in a
city as 40-60%."

But why would a Stanford engineer bother calculating such a thing? Given
that the nuclear exchange would also kill up to 17 million people, who's
going to be thinking about the impact on global warming?

The purpose of the paper is to compare the total human and environmental
costs of a wide range of different power sources, from solar and wind to
nuclear and biofuels. One of the side-effects of nuclear power, the report
argues, is an increased risk of nuclear war: "Because the production of
nuclear weapons material is occurring only in countries that have
developed civilian nuclear energy programs, the risk of a limited nuclear
exchange between countries or the detonation of a nuclear device by
terrorists has increased due to the dissemination of nuclear energy
facilities worldwide."

"As such," Jacobson continues, "it is a valid exercise to estimate the
potential number of immediate deaths and carbon emissions due to the
burning of buildings and infrastructure associated with the proliferation
of nuclear energy facilities and the resulting proliferation of nuclear
weapons ... Although concern at the time of an explosion will be the
deaths and not carbon emissions, policy makers today must weigh all the
potential future risks of mortality and carbon emissions when comparing
energy sources."

I'm not a huge fan of nuclear energy, and I agree that a large roll-out of
atomic power must on some level increase the likelihood of nuclear
terrorism or war. However, it does strike me as faintly absurd to try and
quantify this risk - particularly the way Jacobson does it. Here's how he
crunches the numbers:

"If one nuclear exchange as described above occurs over the next 30 years,
the net carbon emissions due to nuclear weapons proliferation caused by
the expansion of nuclear energy worldwide would be 1.1-4.1g CO2 per kWh,
where the energy generation assumed is the annual 2005 generation for
nuclear power multiplied by the number of year being considered."

In other words, if nuclear power leads one exchange of fifty 15 kilotonne
nuclear devices over 30 years, then that equates to 4.1 grams of extra CO2
for each kilowatt of nuclear energy produced. Why, you might ask, has
Jacobson chosen one exchange, 50 nuclear war heads and 30 years? Good
question. Those figures, as far as I can tell, are entirely arbitrary, and
as such I'm rather surprised that the Royal Society for Chemistry are
prepared to publish them in their journal.

Putting those doubts to one side for a moment, it's interesting to note
that nuclear looks very bad in the report even if you ignore the warfare
component of the carbon footprint. Far more serious (by a factor of 15 to
25) is nuclear's opportunity cost: the emissions savings lost during the
decades of planning and building of each nuclear station. Once again,
however, there's no explanation about how these figures are calculated, so
it's hard to know whether they're valid.

Either way, nuclear doesn't come out as badly as first- or second-
generation biofuels. These, the author remarks, are "ranked lowest overall
and with respect to climate, air pollution, land use, wildlife damage, and
chemical waste," and may actually "worsen climate and air pollution"
relative to fossil fuels. Carbon capture and storage also gets a thumbs
down. By contrast, wind, solar and marine energy score well on the wide-
ranging criteria, which include carbon emissions, land demands and even
thermal pollution.

As the first study to compare energy sources in so many different ways,
the report is both interesting and welcome. Unfortunately, it's unlikely
to make much of an impact - not just because there's no mention of the
economics of each energy source, but because the half-baked quantification
of nuclear war's climate impact makes the whole study seem somewhat
unconvincing.

Gawd, you're stupid.
Wally W.
2017-08-12 15:12:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by AlleyCat
along comes a pesky scientist and points
out that atomic warfare is bad for the climate.
Oh ... how helpful that a *scientist* (aka modern day greenie-priest)
told us the reason why we shouldn't engage in atomic warfare.

Never mind the loss of life, maiming, persistent health threats from
radioactive fallout, etc. ... the *real* reason we shouldn't engage in
atomic warfare is because it "is bad for the climate."
Post by AlleyCat
Given that the nuclear exchange would also kill up to 17 million people, who's going to be thinking about the impact on global warming?
"Climate change is the most urgent issue facing the world today,
<http://www.ruthfullyyours.com/2014/11/09/robert-zubrin-accepting-the-ipcc-climate-change-program-would-necessitate-eliminating-90-of-the-worlds-population/>

http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/merchants-of-despair
Merchants of Despair
Radical Environmentalists,
Criminal Pseudo-Scientists,
and the Fatal Cult of Antihumanism
Rudy Canoza
2017-08-12 17:42:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
[...]
Every word you write about global warming is bullshit. You don't know a
fucking thing about the subject, and you don't know anyone who does.
What you know about are right-wingnut fake news sites that specialize in
fooling gullible fat fucks like you.

Fuck off.
Wally W.
2017-08-12 17:50:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rudy Canoza
[...]
Every word you write about global warming is bullshit. You don't know a
fucking thing about the subject, and you don't know anyone who does.
What you know about are right-wingnut fake news sites that specialize in
fooling gullible fat fucks like you.
Fuck off.
Oh, look ... someone knows how to delete text. And they know how to
copy and paste their own previous spew.

Surely, they have refuted the post to which they "replied," and
provided evidence that we should trust their abusive denunciations.
/sarc
Rudy Canoza
2017-08-12 18:02:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Wally W.
Post by Rudy Canoza
[...]
Every word you write about global warming is bullshit. You don't know a
fucking thing about the subject, and you don't know anyone who does.
What you know about are right-wingnut fake news sites that specialize in
fooling gullible fat fucks like you.
Fuck off.
Oh, look ...
Fuck off, impotent cocksucker.
Wally W.
2017-08-12 18:07:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Wally W.
Post by Rudy Canoza
[...]
Every word you write about global warming is bullshit. You don't know a
fucking thing about the subject, and you don't know anyone who does.
What you know about are right-wingnut fake news sites that specialize in
fooling gullible fat fucks like you.
Fuck off.
Oh, look ...
Fuck off, impotent cocksucker.
Rudy displays his brilliance again.

How *did* you become so learned?
Rudy Canoza
2017-08-12 18:21:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Wally W.
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Wally W.
Post by Rudy Canoza
[...]
Every word you write about global warming is bullshit. You don't know a
fucking thing about the subject, and you don't know anyone who does.
What you know about are right-wingnut fake news sites that specialize in
fooling gullible fat fucks like you.
Fuck off.
Oh, look ...
Fuck off, impotent cocksucker.
Rudy displays his brilliance again.
No, not yet. I have plenty of other times, though.
Enki
2017-08-12 18:25:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Wally W.
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Wally W.
Post by Rudy Canoza
[...]
Every word you write about global warming is bullshit. You don't know a
fucking thing about the subject, and you don't know anyone who does.
What you know about are right-wingnut fake news sites that
specialize in
fooling gullible fat fucks like you.
Fuck off.
Oh, look ...
Fuck off, impotent cocksucker.
Rudy displays his brilliance again.
No, not yet. I have plenty of other times, though.
Here's some data on YOU little man Ball:


11 years ago, while posting under this current nym, Rudy Canoza, we had a
discussion about a revised marketing claim concerning grass-fed beef from
USDA. You claimed that you had written to and received a reply from
William T.
Sessions, Associate Deputy Administrator, Livestock and Seed Program. Here
below is the post you wrote using the nym Rudy Canoza containing your
correspondence with William Sessions.

[start- Jon to me]
Eat shit and bark at the moon, Dreck - the proposed
standard has NOT been adopted. I wrote to William
Sessions, the associate deputy administrator (how's
that for a title) at the Livestock and Seed Program at
USDA that is in charge of writing the standard for the
"meat marketing claims"; his name, title and e-mail
address are at a web page whose URL I gave yesterday,
http://www.fass.org/fasstrack/news_item.asp?news_id=1152

Here's his reply:

From: "Sessions, William" <***@usda.gov>
To: <jonball@[...]>
Mr. Ball: Thanks for your message. The marketing claim
standards are still under review by USDA. Accordingly, the
standards have not been published in a final form for use. I
hope this information is helpful.
Please let me know if further information is needed.
Thanks,
William T. Sessions
Associate Deputy Administrator
Livestock and Seed Program

-----Original Message-----
From: jonball@[...]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 11:38 AM
To: Sessions, William
Subject: 2003 proposed standards for meat marketing claims

I have read about the proposed standards, and I've seen
many of the public comments sent to USDA. I cannot find
anything to indicate if the standards were adopted.
Were the standards as proposed in 2003 adopted?

Thanks in advance.
Jonathan Ball
Pasadena, CA
___________________________________________________
Jonathan Ball aka Rudy Canoza 08 Sep 2005 http://bit.ly/2cYknsh
[end]

Jonathan Ball. Pasadena, CA. Priceless! That email, posted from Jonathan
Ball,
you, and the return email sent to Jonathan Ball proves beyond all doubt that
you are Jonathan Ball. Of course, you don't live in Pasadena since moving to
5327 Shepard Ave Sacramento, CA 95819-1731

Here's the proof Jonathan D Ball http://bit.ly/1LFy9t8
Post by Rudy Canoza
and I won't die soon.
Yeah you will. You're an old man who hasn't looked after himself. I wouldn't
go around goading people if I was as small and as puny as you are, liar Jon.
You ought to be very careful.
Post by Rudy Canoza
You certainly have no means to hasten my death.
Are you really serious, weed? you're just over 5 feet tall and 64 years old.
You'll be 65 on December 2nd. You've got to stop threatening people and
goading them to come after you. You're pathetic.
Enki
2017-08-12 18:16:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rudy Canoza
Fuck off, impotent cocksucker.
Here's some data on YOU little man Ball:


11 years ago, while posting under this current nym, Rudy Canoza, we had a
discussion about a revised marketing claim concerning grass-fed beef from
USDA. You claimed that you had written to and received a reply from
William T.
Sessions, Associate Deputy Administrator, Livestock and Seed Program. Here
below is the post you wrote using the nym Rudy Canoza containing your
correspondence with William Sessions.

[start- Jon to me]
Eat shit and bark at the moon, Dreck - the proposed
standard has NOT been adopted. I wrote to William
Sessions, the associate deputy administrator (how's
that for a title) at the Livestock and Seed Program at
USDA that is in charge of writing the standard for the
"meat marketing claims"; his name, title and e-mail
address are at a web page whose URL I gave yesterday,
http://www.fass.org/fasstrack/news_item.asp?news_id=1152

Here's his reply:

From: "Sessions, William" <***@usda.gov>
To: <jonball@[...]>
Mr. Ball: Thanks for your message. The marketing claim
standards are still under review by USDA. Accordingly, the
standards have not been published in a final form for use. I
hope this information is helpful.
Please let me know if further information is needed.
Thanks,
William T. Sessions
Associate Deputy Administrator
Livestock and Seed Program

-----Original Message-----
From: jonball@[...]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 11:38 AM
To: Sessions, William
Subject: 2003 proposed standards for meat marketing claims

I have read about the proposed standards, and I've seen
many of the public comments sent to USDA. I cannot find
anything to indicate if the standards were adopted.
Were the standards as proposed in 2003 adopted?

Thanks in advance.
Jonathan Ball
Pasadena, CA
___________________________________________________
Jonathan Ball aka Rudy Canoza 08 Sep 2005 http://bit.ly/2cYknsh
[end]

Jonathan Ball. Pasadena, CA. Priceless! That email, posted from Jonathan
Ball,
you, and the return email sent to Jonathan Ball proves beyond all doubt that
you are Jonathan Ball. Of course, you don't live in Pasadena since moving to
5327 Shepard Ave Sacramento, CA 95819-1731

Here's the proof Jonathan D Ball http://bit.ly/1LFy9t8
Post by Rudy Canoza
and I won't die soon.
Yeah you will. You're an old man who hasn't looked after himself. I wouldn't
go around goading people if I was as small and as puny as you are, liar Jon.
You ought to be very careful.
Post by Rudy Canoza
You certainly have no means to hasten my death.
Are you really serious, weed? you're just over 5 feet tall and 64 years old.
You'll be 65 on December 2nd. You've got to stop threatening people and
goading them to come after you. You're pathetic.
SeaSnake
2017-08-12 18:02:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rudy Canoza
Every word you write about global warming is bullshit
I KNOW!

The southern hemisphere has been COOLING!


https://www.sott.net/article/353204-Southern-Hemisphere-cooling-trend-is-now-apparent

David Archibald has today given the most up to date information on our
Sun entering a grand solar minimum and the State of the Sun, now with
the past 5 winters under our belts we can look for trends. I present to
you the trend of a cooling Southern Hemisphere.


Ya know, a planet has TWO hemispheres.

HTH, little man Ball.
Bret Cahill
2017-08-12 18:11:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by AlleyCat
Post by Bret Cahill
Target enough extraction sites, industry and power plants and it'll
certainly reduce the _increase_ in CO2.
Dear Canadian Redneck,
Are you being this big an idiot on purpose?
=====
The Carbon Footprint Of Nuclear War
Almost 700m tonnes of CO2 would be released into the Earth's atmosphere by
even the SMALLEST nuclear conflict, according to a US study that compares
the environmental costs of developing various power sources
Deniers think extraction sites & carbon plants are located in the financial districts of cities?

<CIA>
AlleyCat
2017-08-12 20:47:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 12 Aug 2017 11:11:51 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill says...
Post by Bret Cahill
Deniers think extraction sites & carbon plants are located in the
financial districts of cities?
No... leftist anti-capitalist (other than for his own gain), NATURAL
climate denier TELLS you that there are "extraction sites" located in the
cities. WHO said anything about "financial districts", liar?

Loading Image...

<CIA>

Why don't you get in contact with this fellow climate hysteric,
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Z._Jacobson), and tell him what you
think about his study and his lack of knowledge of what constitutes CO²
"extraction sites and plants".

"Jacobson has also said that soot from diesel engines, coal-fired power
plants and burning wood is a "bigger cause of global warming than
previously thought, and is the major cause of the rapid melting of the
Arctic's sea ice"."

Yeah... he'll appreciate your denial of his studies in CO² release from
the use of nuclear weapons.

I look forward to seeing your correspondence remitted here.

<CIA>

=====

Dear Canadian Redneck,

Are you being this big an idiot on purpose?

=====

The Carbon Footprint Of Nuclear War

The paper's author, Mark Z Jacobson, a professor of civil and
environmental engineering at Stanford University, calculated the emissions
of such a conflict by totting up the burn rate and carbon content of the
fabric of our cities. "Materials have the following carbon contents:
plastics, 38-92%; tyres and other rubbers, 59-91%; synthetic fibres, 63-
86%; woody biomass, 41-45%; charcoal, 71%; asphalt, 80%; steel, 0.05-2%.
We approximate roughly the carbon content of all combustible material in a
city as 40-60%."
Rudy Canoza
2017-08-12 21:02:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
[...]
Every word you write about global warming is bullshit. You don't know a
fucking thing about the subject, and you don't know anyone who does.
What you know about are right-wingnut fake news sites that specialize in
fooling gullible fat fucks like you.

Fuck off.
SeaSnake
2017-08-12 21:29:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rudy Canoza
Every word you write about global warming is bullshit. You don't know
I KNOW!

The southern hemisphere has been COOLING!


https://www.sott.net/article/353204-Southern-Hemisphere-cooling-trend-is-now-apparent

David Archibald has today given the most up to date information on our
Sun entering a grand solar minimum and the State of the Sun, now with
the past 5 winters under our belts we can look for trends. I present to
you the trend of a cooling Southern Hemisphere.


Ya know, a planet has TWO hemispheres.

HTH, little man Ball.
Bret Cahill
2017-08-12 22:17:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by AlleyCat
Post by Bret Cahill
Target enough extraction sites, industry and power plants and it'll
certainly reduce the _increase_ in CO2.
. . .
Post by AlleyCat
The Carbon Footprint Of Nuclear War
Almost 700m tonnes of CO2 would be released into the Earth's atmosphere by
even the SMALLEST nuclear conflict, according to a US study that compares
the environmental costs of developing various power sources
Deniers think extraction sites & carbon plants are located in the financial districts of cities?

<CIA>

<CAP>
Post by AlleyCat
Post by Bret Cahill
Deniers think extraction sites & carbon plants are located in the
financial districts of cities?
No...
Here, try again:

Deniers think targeting extraction sites, industry and coal power plants _increases_ CO2?

<CIA2>
AlleyCat
2017-08-12 23:28:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 12 Aug 2017 15:17:05 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill says...
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by AlleyCat
Post by Bret Cahill
Target enough extraction sites, industry and power plants and it'll
certainly reduce the _increase_ in CO2.
. . .
Post by AlleyCat
The Carbon Footprint Of Nuclear War
Almost 700m tonnes of CO2 would be released into the Earth's atmosphere by
even the SMALLEST nuclear conflict, according to a US study that compares
the environmental costs of developing various power sources
Deniers think extraction sites & carbon plants are located in the financial districts of cities?
Here, try again:

No... leftist anti-capitalist (other than for his own gain), NATURAL
climate denier TELLS you that there are "extraction sites" located in the
cities. WHO said anything about "financial districts", liar?

http://i.imgur.com/iVqWQ0q.jpg

<CIA>

Why don't you get in contact with this fellow climate hysteric,
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Z._Jacobson), and tell him what you
think about his study and his lack of knowledge of what constitutes CO²
"extraction sites and plants".

"Jacobson has also said that soot from diesel engines, coal-fired power
plants and burning wood is a "bigger cause of global warming than
previously thought, and is the major cause of the rapid melting of the
Arctic's sea ice"."

Yeah... he'll appreciate your denial of his studies in CO² release from
the use of nuclear weapons.

I look forward to seeing your correspondence remitted here.

<CIA>

=====

Dear Canadian Redneck,

Are you being this big an idiot on purpose?

=====

The Carbon Footprint Of Nuclear War

The paper's author, Mark Z Jacobson, a professor of civil and
environmental engineering at Stanford University, calculated the emissions
of such a conflict by totting up the burn rate and carbon content of the
fabric of our cities. "Materials have the following carbon contents:
plastics, 38-92%; tyres and other rubbers, 59-91%; synthetic fibres, 63-
86%; woody biomass, 41-45%; charcoal, 71%; asphalt, 80%; steel, 0.05-2%.
We approximate roughly the carbon content of all combustible material in a
city as 40-60%."
--
alt.politics.liberalism,alt.politics.democrats, alt.politics.republican,
alt.politics.usa.republican, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, can.politics
Billy Bob
2017-08-13 00:36:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by AlleyCat
On Sat, 12 Aug 2017 15:17:05 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
says...
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by AlleyCat
Post by Bret Cahill
Target enough extraction sites, industry and power
plants and it'll certainly reduce the _increase_ in CO2.
. . .
Post by AlleyCat
The Carbon Footprint Of Nuclear War
Almost 700m tonnes of CO2 would be released into the
Earth's atmosphere by even the SMALLEST nuclear conflict,
according to a US study that compares the environmental
costs of developing various power sources
Deniers think extraction sites & carbon plants are located
in the financial districts of cities?
No... leftist anti-capitalist (other than for his own gain),
NATURAL climate denier TELLS you that there are "extraction
sites" located in the cities. WHO said anything about
"financial districts", liar?
I remember back in the 1960s. NYC is not southern friendly
because it has all these rich white people (mostly from the
North) who went to University working on Wall Street. Our so-
called financial district!

In my day it was typical. Joe Buck (Jon Voight), a young Texan
working as a dishwasher, dresses in new cowboy clothing, packs
a suitcase and quits his job. Then becomes a Rent Boy! That
blow job scene was just so good! Noted Republican Jon Voight
did a great job on that scene, just like it was real!
SeaSnake
2017-08-13 15:21:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Billy Bob
Noted Republican Jon Voight
did a great job on that scene, just like it was real!
Um...he is a professional ACTOR, so wtf did you expect, albasani whore?

Now bugger off, Ratso.
Bret Cahill
2017-08-12 23:40:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by AlleyCat
Post by Bret Cahill
Target enough extraction sites, industry and power plants and it'll
certainly reduce the _increase_ in CO2.
. . .
Post by AlleyCat
The Carbon Footprint Of Nuclear War
Almost 700m tonnes of CO2 would be released into the Earth's atmosphere by
even the SMALLEST nuclear conflict, according to a US study that compares
the environmental costs of developing various power sources
Deniers think extraction sites & carbon plants are located in the financial districts of cities?
<CIA>
<CAP>
Post by AlleyCat
Post by Bret Cahill
Deniers think extraction sites & carbon plants are located in the
financial districts of cities?
No...
Deniers think targeting extraction sites, industry and coal power plants _increases_ CO2?
<CIA2>
<CAP2>
Bret Cahill
2017-08-12 23:41:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by AlleyCat
Post by Bret Cahill
Target enough extraction sites, industry and power plants and it'll
certainly reduce the _increase_ in CO2.
Dear Canadian Redneck,
Are you being this big an idiot on purpose?
=====
The Carbon Footprint Of Nuclear War
Deniers think only nukes can target extraction sites?

<CIA>
AlleyCat
2017-08-12 23:46:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 12 Aug 2017 16:41:03 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill says...
Post by Bret Cahill
Deniers think only nukes can target extraction sites?
<CIA>
Here, try again:

No... leftist anti-capitalist (other than for his own gain), NATURAL
climate denier TELLS you that there are "extraction sites" located in the
cities. WHO said anything about "financial districts", liar?

http://i.imgur.com/iVqWQ0q.jpg

<CIA>

Why don't you get in contact with this fellow climate hysteric,
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Z._Jacobson), and tell him what you
think about his study and his lack of knowledge of what constitutes CO²
"extraction sites and plants".

"Jacobson has also said that soot from diesel engines, coal-fired power
plants and burning wood is a "bigger cause of global warming than
previously thought, and is the major cause of the rapid melting of the
Arctic's sea ice"."

Yeah... he'll appreciate your denial of his studies in CO² release from
the use of nuclear weapons.

I look forward to seeing your correspondence remitted here.

<CIA>

=====

Dear Canadian Redneck,

Are you being this big an idiot on purpose?

=====

The Carbon Footprint Of Nuclear War

The paper's author, Mark Z Jacobson, a professor of civil and
environmental engineering at Stanford University, calculated the emissions
of such a conflict by totting up the burn rate and carbon content of the
fabric of our cities. "Materials have the following carbon contents:
plastics, 38-92%; tyres and other rubbers, 59-91%; synthetic fibres, 63-
86%; woody biomass, 41-45%; charcoal, 71%; asphalt, 80%; steel, 0.05-2%.
We approximate roughly the carbon content of all combustible material in a
city as 40-60%."


--
Rudy Canoza
2017-08-13 01:48:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
[...]
Every word you write about global warming is bullshit. You don't know a
fucking thing about the subject, and you don't know anyone who does.
What you know about are right-wingnut fake news sites that specialize in
fooling gullible fat fucks like you.

Fuck off.
SeaSnake
2017-08-13 15:21:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rudy Canoza
Every word you write about global warming is bullshit. You don't know a
fucking thing about
I KNOW!

The southern hemisphere has been COOLING!


https://www.sott.net/article/353204-Southern-Hemisphere-cooling-trend-is-now-apparent

David Archibald has today given the most up to date information on our
Sun entering a grand solar minimum and the State of the Sun, now with
the past 5 winters under our belts we can look for trends. I present to
you the trend of a cooling Southern Hemisphere.


Ya know, a planet has TWO hemispheres.

HTH, little man Ball.

Bret Cahill
2017-08-13 00:09:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by AlleyCat
Post by Bret Cahill
Target enough extraction sites, industry and power plants and it'll
certainly reduce the _increase_ in CO2.
Dear Canadian Redneck,
Are you being this big an idiot on purpose?
=====
The Carbon Footprint Of Nuclear War
Deniers think only nukes can target extraction sites?
<CIA>
<CAP>

crickets as perdicted
Loading...