dear warm c02 breather

you rote..<<>.Its not\just NASA>>

a govt agency\that costs a hammer$=in hundreds of dollrs?
the same natzie'S/ROCKETERS..:././forgiven their..war-crimes in the 3 rd reicke/SO USA\COULD INSTANTLY GET..A ROCKETRY INDUSTRY?

dependant\on accurate weather/for launching?
not telling what The..'climate' wilL be doing\in 30 years/but tomorrow..at the launch/or nexT-monday week/window

[its/all hot air]
C02 EX HALER[WHEN/C02~LIMITS/COME-TO ZERO[STOP/BREATHING-OR/ELSE~!

but ignore/that airospace/is big money
built by natzie$

<<>.that thinks[IS-PAID/TO;THINK]climate change is happening>>

and have raped plenty\of the 40 bilion spent on buying the reSeAchers-off

<<>.. it is every scientific[LOL]..body
LOL..*from every*country
LOL..*bar one.>>

mate every ScienCe body..LOL./[is a big call]
norh korea as i recall say kimelson makes the climate/mate

why you greenies so love
to sex up..[sorry egzadgurate..sorry again
why~DO~you greenies so easilly lie?

<<..On top of that>>lie/\<<..most *>>
lol..not~all?..<<..of the worlds-*largest companies\agree as well.>>

yes so..do most of the economists/bankers/investers/suppliers..

dont that make ya think?
why should all them rich business/want
the extra..\lol/..clean-green/fat-free/diet_eco*business..[as usual~!*

?..lol,,or want..[sek/loby\lie/spin..*to put themselves
lol..*out of business..lol..*[to buy a better busneswith/free-green*CREDITS*$$$$$s

mate/[its about moneY
SORRY/CREDIT..\VERSUS/..DISS-CREDIT

y?
they long wanted an enegy curency[see electro]
ans a weightless[LOL]....invisable gas..LOL..taxed by the ton*
makes perfect sense..for economistsAND BIGGER BUSINESS/once ya factor in the reducing*O'supply'F DISPENSATIONS,..

and reduced supply means shortage/
LOL..EXCLUSIVE LICENCE/TO POLUTE/WHAT BUSINESScould refuse?

in an expanding universe
LES/POLUTION-PERMIT$$$..each year
plus/nice-buy-back/and scamers/applenty

but the last thing they expected was we would simply reduce ur usage by one quarter/but green credit power supply is mandated to a fixed 20 hellof alot of free subsidy cash buy back/to matES/IE THE BIG SYSTEMS NEEDING BIG MONEY TO GET THE GOVT BIG CASH/PLUS ENDLESS CASH FLOW

OF COURSE BIG BUSINESS LOVE IT
ITS IN BUSINESS TO BUiLD SYSTEMS THAT TRIPPLE THE PRICE OF POWER
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/05/enron-2-0-wall-street-wants-manipulate-state-energy-markets-just-like-manipulates-every-market.html
AND rig everything in a scam that usualy ends in grat depressions
once a disaster arives/and busts up some solar systems with hail
or a reverse powers surge shorts out the system

at night we all use xcoal
so drop ya smug guilt trips
the sky isnt falling the ice isnt melting its cooling not waming and powEr use has dropped by one quarter/the sceme/scam..holds little water.

I am sure that you believe you are clever, warmair, using the expression as defined by IPCC to make the fraudulent assertion of human caused climate change. Neither you, nor the mendacious IPCC or any other entity, have any scientific basis to assert any measurable human caused effect on climate. Climate change in the normal definition of the English words, is occurring. Climate change, as fraudulently defined by the IPCC is not occurring.
As to the fraudulent assertions by scientific bodies that human caused climate change is occurring, we need a Royal Commission to ascertain by whom and by what means such statements are procured, from the otherwise reputable bodies. In the meantime, only dishonest people,. like yourself, will rely on them.

There is no science to show any measurable effect of human emissions on climate. Your assertion is baseless and fraudulent.

Leo the bottom line is you have been seriously misled by others, and it is simply sad that you have been taken in by a load of charlatans. I and others have provided you with all the information you need to confirm that AGW is a fact. Claiming it is a fraud as you do in all your posts, is both insulting to the scientists and just plain wrong.

Thanks, warmair, I take that as confirmation that you have no science to justify your position, and persist with it despite being well aware that it is fraudulent.

If scientists who are dishonest enough to support fraud, feel insulted when they are exposed as fraudulent, then it is inappropriate. They should feel shame.

You make the baseless statement that I have been misled. Show me the science which demonstrates any measurable effect of human emissions on climate, or acknowledge the fact that you are attempting to mislead, by backing the baseless fraud of AGW.

The problem Leo is I am well aware that AGW it is not fraudulent,end of story.

We could continue with I am right your wrong, but I think this thread has reached its use by date.

Where is OUG when you need him to end a thread ?

We know that you have no scientific basis, warmair, but only you can tell us whether your belief is sustained by ignorance, stupidity or dishonesty. You have told us you are not stupid or ignorant, so you are precluded from denying dishonesty, the only other possible basis for your support of AGW .Goodbye, warmair.