Ass Tickling Mansion (Gay Stables #2)

Bad Astronomy

---

Perhaps there is a way to do this that involves no value judgement, but all I can think of right now is to respond only if the person requesting the data has some legitimate affiliation such as a relevant academic or government department.

In the absence of unlimited time in which to understand all the relevant mechanisms, the very worst thing to do is nothing. The time to act over AGW was Had we acted — globally — then to limit GHG emissions, we would have been in a far better position now, with only very modest changes to our lifestyles and business practices. Even so, the sooner we do something to reduce human-originated GHG emissions, the better.

At least some of the consequences of AGW are now inevitable. But not all of the possible copnsequences are inevitable. The sooner we act, the more we avoid. I notice no where do you even mention evidence. That is what matters here. If denialists actually had something substantial to offer, we would listen. I would like to thank you all. You are doing a great service for the world and for the cause of climate science awareness.

Like many people who try to think for themselves rather than accept the ready-made answers of others, I read a lot about a great variety of subjects and do my best to find accurate and useful information before coming to any conclusions. You brave, honest skeptics have demonstrated again here what I see in every single Climate Change thread on this website…. Not one of you can offer anything other than insulting accusations of completely unevidenced conspiracy in support of your own various unevidenced conspiracy theories.

Normally, I would ask you to please study the available evidence, and thoughtfully and honestly reconsider your opinions like a reasonable adult. You are making sure that people like me get a good solid idea of just how silly you are. A couple of notes…Peter Pserp, it really seems like your heart is in the right place….

It makes you look like you could benefit from deep-breathing meditation exercises and counseling. Remember guys, life is not an episode of the X-Files. Grow the hell up or prepare to spend the rest of your life being justly eye-rolled and ignored. Someone here said that scientists are not supposed to be impartial, that only science is.

I am a moderate skeptic and accept the possibility that man-made global warming is real, even if my main worry is an impending glacial era astronomically due at any time now. If it happens to be right, it would be like a fast clock that is correct twice a day. Any faux scientist involved in this Climagate belongs in oblivion forever.

Surely there must be better warmist out there. Welcome to the cold, miserable business of politics. I want something I can tell parliament! This is the price of the politicisation of science. And please do not pretend that this has not happened. Consider the case of people like Lovelock etc. Now, chaps like Scottar are not trying to win a scientific, but a political debate — a debate about the real power over human lives. All you seem to have there is a wild conspiracy theory with absolutely no evidence to support it. And please, I beg you, check the quote with a non-denialist source to see if it is being misrperesented.

It has been a couple days, how is the analysis of the data I linked to going? It took two days for another group to reproduce the results, surely after demanding the data so fervently you have at least started looking at it. Uniformity in science is but a temporary thing and it is perhaps the best indicator for the health of the discipline as one can have. It suggests that the disciplines ability to challenge itself and its base assumptions is rather limited and will remain so until someone upsets the apple cart.

In short, it suggests that the discipline has perhaps stagnated. Einstein upset more than years of accepted doctrine and revolutionized his own field and many of the physical sciences. He even upset some of those in the political realm with the concept of relativeness of all things. In my view, consensus does not make for healthy science; openness and competition among competing ideas does.

Sadly, there can be no true debate or dialogue between warring camps of true believers, which aptly describes the relationship between those who favour the theory of anthropomorphic climate change and those that do not. The debate gets us no where. Or you could just try reading the papers and understanding the science behind it all. Obviously, expertise in a field counts for something. Ignore the use of models for a moment. These are predictive issues. Focus on the previous data sets: Take the data up to this second, and it shows an increase in temperature.

Want to learn more about dinosaurs? Sheesh, you are more and more sounding like a crank by the minute. I love how you back this up with sources. I seriously need one large bumper sticker here… [citation needed]. Yet another talking point. Yes, we do know. Having spent a lot of time correcting people about copyright on the net, I think it just never occurs to the deniers that it might exist for scienitific data.

I do agree though, this point is often not only overlooked but completely ignored. How big is big? And you say the science should be the best possible, but then also state that expecting perfection is unreasonable….

Bestselling Series

Your first paragraph, if not, is hilariously wrong — not even wrong… Sigh… speaking of regurgitating talking points. La la la is right. Actually what it means is that the majority of climate scientists have reviewed the evidence and find the evidence compelling in one direction. Come back when you have some evidence that will upset the cart. Sadly, no one seems to be producing any science that does compete, maybe because the evidence lines up? Like I said, create your own data and then come back and argue about it.

Tried I tried to send my rebuttal but the Discovery moderator seems to have an objection for ball nailing responses. So I will greatly summarize my response:.

What is Kobo Super Points?

Phil, thanks for your thoughts — guarantee there will be no dirty laundry in the open. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process. Or at least you young ones should. What you want to be doing is convincing your cohorts to take of their sweaters, and not because of global warming, mind.

In fact, I well remember the 70s and those damned winters filled with snow and ice. Yeah, why actually use data when we can just pull stuff out of thing air? Why bother to look at the data we have on solar output which has either been steady or slightly decreasing over the time period? Why try to measure the various inputs and outputs and see what is going on? The best way to make progress is just to make stuff up and stick to it no matter what the evidence says. That is how we got our technology so advanced, right? Ignore the facts, ignore the data, just go on gut feeling. Because technological and social progress reigns high at the bottom of a bleg post, mostly.

And some do protest a bit much. Miscanthus is green energy. And the feds pay for it. Keep up the good work scaring everyone. Way to completely avoid the point. Would you be happy if you found out your architect built your house based on gut feeling rather than actually doing the calculations regarding the weights and stresses? What if the breaks on your car were designed based solely on gut feeling rather than calculations of the friction and torque involved?

Yet you are willing to settle an issue that affects every human being on the planet with nothing more than a hunch. How does that make any sense whatsoever? You seem to know a thing or two…. The parable also taking to the water droplets in clouds do not seem to be when applied to CO2 gas. We get excuses instead of answers and explanations from scientists on this crucial issue and that is why I and many others, concluded that global warming theory is not sensible, and it can be relegated to the pile of nonsense-science, together with the already discarded the theory of global cooling, which we were served thirty years ago.

Then talk about how you have measured this and with what measurement accuracy. And how have you in this case, pure and isolated the effect of cloud formation and sunspots effect? And then it has to be properly interpreted.

Top Authors

Also overlooked is the humidity of the air temp mass. Water vapor contains much energy and has to be part of the factored data. Temp alone is not an accurate representation of climate change. The burden of proof lies with you and those who claim that CO2 gas has a greenhouse effect because they did not present any intelligible mechanism or process that explains how CO2 gas in the atmosphere increases heat on earth. Of course they did. They presented it well over years ago.

This is basic stuff everyone should have learned in middle school, high school at the latest. If someone wants to overturn our fundamental understanding of how atoms work, then the burden of proof is on them to do so. That is what this person is suggesting: You really think you have the burden of proof to prove basic chemistry? That is the basic idea of a scientific consensus.

But it does mean that anyone trying to overturn the scientific consensus on an issue has the burden of proof on them to do so. That is because the vast majority of the relevant experts already feel the burden of proof has been met. Anyone trying to oveturn plate tectonics has the burden of proof on them. The same is true of AGW. The vast majority of relevant experts feel the burden of proof has been met, so if you want to convince them the burden of proof is on you to do so. This person clearly has not bothered to read anything besides denialists talking points. The basic science of how CO2 can increase global temperatures is the absolute first thing every introductory overview of global warming science covers.

If this person had bothered to read even the first page of any explanation of global warming from anyone but denialists he or she would have an answer to the question. The claim that there are no answers to this basic question is a completely and utter lie. I could easily find a dozen links in about 10 seconds covering this, but that would get my post stuck in the moderating filter. This is probably the fourth or fifth thing any basic overview of AGW covers.

Global cooling was almost entirely a media issue, even at that time most scientists were convinced that AGW was the correct, there were only a handful of very tentative papers saying that global cooling might even be possible, and they were pretty entirely rejected by other climatologists. I would tell the person this: You need to read the first-hand explanations written by the scientists themselves. What is the mechanism of carbon dioxide famous thermogenic effect. It is really quite simple. The short version is that sunlight largely passes through the atmosphere, since gasses in the atmosphere like CO2 are mostly tansparent to light in those frequencies.

However, once it is absorbed, a significant fraction of the light is re-emitted at lower frequencies mostly infra-red. At these frequencies, CO2 and some other gasses absorb much more of the light, converting the energy of the light into heat and thus increasing the temperature of the air. The more CO2, the more of the energy is converted to heat and the more the temperature increases.

It is actually a bit more complicated, since as their temperature increases CO2 also emits more infra-red energy. What happens is that at a certain point it reaches a threshold where the energy emitted matches the energy absorbed, and the temperature stops increasing. The process then repeats for CO2 at higher altitudes. At a certain point the CO2 concentration drops to the point where this no longer happens.

As the CO2 concentrations increase, this point moves to higher and higher altitudes, meaning the atmosphere absorbs more total energy. Of course this is basic atomic physics, but it has been directly measured with satellites that can measure how much energy at different frequencies is escaping the Earth. There is a drop in the energy leaving the Earth at the frequencies that CO2 absorbs, sufficient to largely account for the warming we see.

I am not exactly sure what he means, but we can measure the amount of energy reaching the Earth from the sun, so that is not a major issue. Water vapor is a feedback, it increases or decreases based on other temperature changes so does CO2, but we can measure the isotope ratios of the CO2 so we know the vast majority of the current change is due to human-released CO2 , but water vapor levels are not directly changed. So it serves to amplify existing changes rather than cause changes on its own. This is because if there is too much water vapor it just falls out as precipitation, while the processes that remove CO2 are much, much slower working on time scales of decades rather than hours or days.

Standard denialist sort of list. A lot of letters to the editor which often have little or no peer review , a lot of really old papers, papers in random irrelevant journals like Iron and Steel, some newsletters, lots of reviews with cursory or tortured analyses. Anything even mentining the medieval warm period or the little ice age is automatically taken as being against AGW.

Politcal reviews of climategate are included in the list. But in terms of actual research, there appears to be very little if any that actually is against AGW. It does do a very good job of disproving your claim that there is a conspiracy to cover up opposing views, though. As for your quotes, I suggest the same thing I always suggest: RealClimate has posts from the people themselves explaining the full context of those quotes and why they are presented deceptively by the denialists.

As do denialists, as your list amply demonstrates. Why does this rule not apply to the emails? Denialsts are kings of cherry-picking, it is one of their defining features. So says the guy who posted a link with a long list of gargbage, tortured re-interpretation of original research. Of course so do the oceans, so do numerous other things that are taken into account. But water vapor is itself a greenhouse gas, further increasing the warming. This is all well-known and is a critical component to the analysis. You would be aware of that if you have read anything other than denialists talking points.

Given your statements so far it seems that you are quite careful to avoid looking at what the scientists themselves say and instead just believe anything denialists tell you. Otherwise you would not make such clearly wrong statements. Your instant canned reactions to any story potentially damaging to AGW are looking increasingly out of touch with reality.

This is pure sock puppet journalism. To take just one point: How do you know the emails were stolen? If you have any evidence to support this, please contact the british police who have been investigating the original release of emails, if not then stick to the facts. Thank you so much for your answers!

Do you even understand what a sock puppet is? Every explanation you see from us is in our own words. Yeah, it takes a lot of effort to debunk the screed you guys post here. If you have any evidence it was in inside job you should be the one contacting the police, since they are currently convinced it was done by an outsider.

Or do you know more about the case than they do? I can probably guess. Science is never set in stone, it is always being tested against new findings.

Go here to get the real science on climate and CO2. The Hard Bit http: The climate system has various feedback system that moderate changes. The difference is significant because temperatures in the lower few meters vary considerably as research has shows. You did not really read my links and are going off the same old circular assumptions. What has this got to do with Real Climate? I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about here. Then you should send it as an email. You posted in a public comment section of a public blog, that means other people are likely to respond.

In fact, doing it this way means it is much more likely that someone other than Phil is going to respond, since I doubt he is still reading a comment thread this long, nor is he likely to waste his time on comments as utterly devoid of any useful content as yours. Ah, that makes sense. You have not bothered to do even the most basic research on what transpired, yet still feel justified in criticizing others who have done the research.

The reason this is relevant is because whoever took the emails also tried to hack into realclimate and use their servers to host the emails. Also, the emails were not taken from the normal email server which insiders would have had easier access to , but instead from a less-secure backup server. So if it was an insider, the insider decided to hack the backup server rather than leak emails they had direct access to, which is both stupid and would mean it is still a hack. Considering those who know the most, most likely including details not released to the public, think it is an outside effort, Phil is fully justified in beliving them.

If you want to argue the police are wrong, the burden of proof is on you to do so. No, I just feel obliged to know a little something about the subject before I start criticizing people on it. It was either the same person or someone closely affilited with them, since the climategate hack was attempted before the emails were posted elsewhere.

Once again, you would know this if you had bothered to read even a brief timeline of events. If it is a leak, then by definition it is by someone who has access to them. Whether the hacker worked at CMU or not they broke the law by carrying out unauthorized access of a computer and illegal release of personal information.

Glory Holes, Ass Tickling Mansion and Ultimate Gay (Gay Stables #1, #2 and #3)

It, by definition, is stealing and hacking if the emails were taken by someone who did not have authorized access to them. Of course the police can also just look at the logs from the server to see what happened to it. Surely Professor Jones can explain to us the correct context in which it is acceptable to:. If you send someone an email while at work is that email your property? What if it is part of your work? What if the public are paying your wages?

What if you get an FOI for their contents? It is not a simple issue. How awful of me to actually want to know something about a subject before forming a strong opinion. You were criticizing Phil for jumping to conclusions and that he should inform the police, despite the fact the he was only listening to what the police said. You can try to move the goalposts all you want, but the fact is that Phil is perfectly justified in listening to what the police say on the matter.

The burden of proof is on you to prove the police wrong. Let me refresh your memory. The exact quote I was responding to was:. Let me spell this out for you: Even if they were inside CMU, then they still stole the emails. They hacked into a backup server. How many times do I have to repeat this before you actually listen? How would something that is evidence when you actually bother to think about it not be evidence? I wonder how long it will take to get through the remaining 20, emails that are coming next from the climategate whistleblower. This blog is not written nor controlled by discover magazine.

You also seemed to fail to notice that the hackers themselves provided a list of what they considered to be the most important emails, which is what Phil not discover magazine is discussing. Pilots sometimes spreading liquid CO2 over the clouds to induce rain. If it could happen naturally, it would seem the warming theory. Hope it makes sense, I translated from Swedish. I would say two words: That means that sunlight can get into the atmosphere, but once it is absorbed by the land and re-emitted as infra-red light, it has a much harder time getting out.

The more CO2, the less of the infra-red light makes it back out of the atmosphere and thus the more energy is trapped within the atmosphere. I have not idea how this person got the idea that liquid CO2 has anything whatsoever to do with this. But as I showed you in the links, if you even bothered to go to the websites, the absorption spectrum of CO2 is a decreasing logarithmic effect where it has to double again to get the same temperature effect.

If this was not so the Earth would have experienced a greenhouse runaway effect long ago. And this is not the only place I have seen this. And they has a table of what the baseline temperature would be with gases present or lacking. The most effect was H2o. Water is both a GHG in vapor state and moderator in transitioning to water or cloud. The large bodies of water act as either a cooling or heating radiator effect depending or local conditions.

And it takes a lot of heat or melt ice when you look at the phase change caloric requirements. As a cloud it can act as a blanket and reflector. If clouds come in late in the day they can impede the heat emissions from the warmed Earth. Light clouds can act like a semi transparent window in moderating temps. Stratospheric thunderhead clouds act like heat pipes with the warm moist air rising in the center and when it condenses the heat is released to the stratosphere at the top boundary interface.

Heated air over water has negligible effect, just try heating a bathtub of water with a hair dryer, zilch. Water absorbs the suns energy directly. You response indicates you are either misrepresenting the science or dysfunctional in science and physics. Also overlooked is the various components of the suns energy effect the various layers of the Atmosphere. The infrared portion of the sun effects the upper portion directly.

Scientist are finding out the atmosphere is more complex then they originally thought but that is how science proceeds. As new tools are implemented by technological progress new revelations and discoveries are gained. Re-read the part about the altitude issue. The logarithmic decrease is only an issue if you pretend the atmosphere is infinitely thin. Increasing CO2 concentrations means more energy is absorbed at higher altitudes where the logarithmic decrease is much smaller. Once again, you need to understand the basics of the science, which you obviously have not bothered to do.

But ice reflects a lot more energy than liquid water does, so when the ice melts it increases temperatures further. Once again, it is a feedback. The warming will stop when and only when the amount of energy coming in matches the amount of energy going out. This is basic, basic stuff you would get just from spending 5 minutes reading non-denialists sources. You simply have no clue about even the most basic aspects of the subject. Is this supposed to be a surprise?

Once again, this is the absolute most basic stuff. The fact that you think this is even remotely original or surprising just shows again that you have not bothered to look at all at what non-denialists are saying. Water has higher heat capacity than air, but the energy does not just disappear, the energy will cause the water heat up just more slowly than the air.

If the water is warmer than the air, energy will flow from the water to the air, heating the air. If the air is warmer than the water, the opposite will occur. Energy will flow in such a way to make the temperature in two bodies equal. As I already explained, this will only slow things down temporarily, in the end the temperature of the air will still rise and the result will be the same. It is the energy in the air that ultimately determines when the temperature increase will end, not the energy in the water.

That is why scientists are trying hard to figure out how much energy is being absorbed by the water, and it looks like the water is absorbing less and less energy as time goes on. So although the water has reducing masking the effects of AGW up until now, with that effect decreasing the temperature increase will accelerate.

The water also absorbs CO2, but the amount of CO2 it can hold decreases as the water temperature increases. This means that as the water warms up, it will dump more CO2 into the air, further increasing the greenhouse effect. The only one overlooking that effect is you, as I already pointed out.

Alle artikelen van Dick Powers

Once again, the one over-simplifying the atmosphere is you and whoever you got your ideas from. The more we learn about the atmosphere, the more clear and large the warming appears. Our increase in knowledge is not helping your case, it is hurting it. Total bull, typical of AGW religious believers. Well that is what the CRU emails are trying to hide, what do you think the hockystick was really about?

And they are biased. That is what the IPCC and official consensus science organizations do, they put out a request for papers and except only what supports their joke of a peer review process. If they present the truth then people would go- hohum, another science project, give them some crumbs. Besides, CO2 is the heaviest substance in the air so it would have a tenancy to collect in the lower portion of the atmosphere.

Your stuck on year old science. And as I have explained the degree and type of feedback is what is in contention. But satellite research shows that the water vapor has decreased this past decade. Therefor this assumption must be bogus. So water must be more of a moderator to prevent runaway. I was alluding to the fact that ice in the Antarctic is increasing over land. The ice lost on the Wester self occurs periodically and is most due to warm water upwelling near the Western peninsula and the ring of fire runs around there, aka underwater volcanic activity. This fear of the ice melting in areas of Antarctica and Greenland is largely exaggerated and misreported.

AGWers do it continuously. While there was a significant increase in Global Ocean Heat Content over the term of the data, Global Ocean Heat Content has flattened in recent years. And look at the IPCCs projection on that, clearly they overemphasized the feedback from CO2, only the sun could heat the oceans like that. You forget that the ocean sequesters CO2 through calcium carbonate which ends up on the ocean floor. One researcher projected that after a couple of million years most of the CO2 would be sequestered and the water vapor would decrease leaving a cold ice ball.

So fossil burning is a good thing. And another researcher showed water vapor had decreased over the past decade opposite what the IPCC claimed. Two new papers, published today in Geophysical Research Letters. Recent results from CERN provide strong evidence that the sun did influence this cooling, and might very well produce cooling again if the sun dips into another Grand Minimum. The interannual variability of column ozone over the northern polar region is, as expected, highly correlated with the corresponding year-to-year variability of the seasonally-averaged temperatures in the lower stratosphere.

In other words, the ozone hole over the Arctic is due to annual temperature changes. Colder weather will increase the size of the ozone hole. You can be quite certain that anyone citing WUWT as a source is only recycling denialist talking points. We have, in fact, been experiencing abnormal cooling for the past few years due to one of the most extended solar minimums in a long time. The other consequences of at least 2 deg C of warming will all be negative, some devastatingly so, like severe drought, more severe storms, and rising sea levels.

Gay Stables Series

I guess your right. I always thinks TheBlackCat seems to be to one explaining things in the best way. Thanks so much for your recommendations! Blackcat claims that the extra anthropogenic CO2 rise is the main cause global warming. That this addition is driving and accelerating the climate change to dangerously projected future heat levels that are forecast by climate models. Really, CO2 is only about. And as I pointed out CO2 is the heaviest component of the Atmosphere. Water vapor is the lightest which is why clouds form.

There is a significant difference between land and water. Downwelling longwave has little effect over the ocean. The primary means of heating and cooling over land is radiative, absorption of shortwave by day and emission of longwave day and night. The ocean is different. Land gives up this heat very quickly at night. Because downwelling longwave cannot penetrate water beyond a depth of a few micrometers the primary effect of downwelling longwave radiation from low clouds or CO2 is increased evaporation rate. This new paper by Richard P. While Dessler and Trenberth among others claim clouds have an overall positive feedback warming effect upon climate due to the long-wave back-radiation, this new paper shows that clouds have a large net cooling effect by blocking incoming solar radiation and increasing radiative cooling outside the tropics.

This is key, because since clouds offer a negative feedback as shown by this paper and Spencer and Braswell plus Lindzen and Choi, it throws a huge monkey wrench in climate model machinery that predict catastrophic levels of positive feedback enhanced global warming due to increased CO2. So clouds are largely negative in their feedback. And where do clouds come from, why water vapor of course. But what causes clouds formation and condensation? Dr Henrik Svensmark of the Danish National Space Centre in Copenhagen has pioneered the study of the effects of cosmic rays on cloud formation.

Tthe latest research from the CERN cloud seeding experiment that confirms the Svensmark claim that cosmic particles form condensation nuclei CN in the lower atmosphere. This creates the low clouds that controls the amount of cloud cover and thereby the global temperature; like a screen in a greenhouse. The IPCC consistently ignore the relationship between sunspot and global temperature. The IPCC proponents claimed there was no evidence that cosmic radiation was creating as condensation nuclei in the atmosphere.

The problem was given to a supposedly neutral agency. However, an important part of the discovery is missed, partly because of lack of focus on water vapor and precipitation, but mostly because the IPCC control of climate science blocked knowledge and advances for 30 years. A major problem in early meteorology and weather and climate research was there were more clouds than nuclei. Evaporation occurs when water molecules use energy from the Sun to escape from a surface. This is a phase change, as water in liquid form becomes a gas, water vapor.

The energy is not lost but becomes latent heat in the water vapor. If the air temperature is cooled below the Dew Point Temperature then a reverse phase change occurs called condensation and water vapor becomes liquid. The latent heat is released, which is why temperatures usually rise when precipitation occurs. The problem is this process requires a critical component, a solid surface.

In the atmosphere this is provided by the CN. Water vapor condenses on to them to form water droplets, which are microscopic. The majority of CN were salt particles, kaolinite, the smallest clay particles and other particulates. Now the CT provides the missing nuclei. In the atmosphere the cosmic rays become muons or heavy electrons that penetrate to sea level. Ass Tickling Mansion Gay Stables 2 3. Ultimate Gay Gay Stables 3 4. Rent An Ass Gay Stables 4 5. World Class Spread Gay Stables 5 6.

Butts Up Gay Stables 6 7. Magician's Ass Friend Gay Stables 7 8. Ass Classic Gay Stables 9 Ass Passion Gay Stables 10 Going Gay Gay Stables 11 Collection 1 Stories -- Gay Stables: Collection 2 Stories -- Gay Stables: Collection 3 Stories Total Packages: The Total Package Stories Also by This Author. Also by This Publisher. Shelve World Class Spread. Butts Up by Dick Powers. Find all 12 stories in Gay Stables: The Total Pa… More. Magician's Ass Friend by Dick Powers.

Shelve Magician's Ass Friend. Shelve Boating In Ass Land. Ass Classic by Dick Powers. Ass Passion by Dick Powers. Tom Stables is stepping in to help on a porn film… More. Going Gay by Dick Powers.

• agawaichirowononijikanndeikkinichoushu (Japanese Edition)
• GANGBANG THE WHITE GIRL (An Interracial Erotic Novella)
• DARKWOOD by J. Landon Ferguson
• Go Tax-FREE
• A Clean, Well-Lighted Place
• The Chrysalis
• Martina Finds a Shiny Coin