Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
On Fri, 10 Apr 2020 21:50:23 -0700, Phil Allison wrote:
Trevor Wilson is Pathetic wrote:
------------------------------
Reducing CO2 emissions is critical to the future of our
civilisation.
Bullshit.
**Really? I take it that you disagree with these guys?
www.ipcc.ch
** Bet TW is so stupid he trusts the WHO too, with its commie ratbag
leader.
FYI:
The IPCC is a massively corrupt POLITICAL organisation without a single
clue.
Wanna present your alternate (peer-reviewed) theory?
** Be like Satan informing us how nice it is down here in hell.
Jeesus, EVERYONE has marketing, even SloMo,
Rod Speed wrote
Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
Phil Allison wrote
Max wrote
Reducing CO2 emissions is critical to the future of our civilisation.
Bullshit.
Really?
I take it that you disagree with these guys?
www.ipcc.ch
Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
Phil Allison wrote
Max wrote
Reducing CO2 emissions is critical to the future of our civilisation.
Bullshit.
Really?
Yep, really.
I take it that you disagree with these guys?
www.ipcc.ch
Even they donât even try to claim that reducing CO2
emissions is critical to the future of our civilisation.
Wanna present your alternate (peer-reviewed) theory?
You made that stupid claim.
You get to do that.
Thatâs how it works.
** Bet TW is so stupid he trusts the WHO too, with its commie
ratbag leader.
**I certainly don't trust the Chinese government.
The IPCC is a massively corrupt POLITICAL organisation without
a single clue.
**Really?
Present your proof.
Present your alternate (peer-reviewed) evidence to show that the IPCC is
wrong.
You think you know more about climate science than all those people?
You are dreaming.
On 11/04/2020 5:35 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
Phil Allison wrote
Max wrote
Reducing CO2 emissions is critical to the future of our civilisation.
Bullshit.
Really?
Yep, really.
I take it that you disagree with these guys?
www.ipcc.ch
Even they donât even try to claim that reducing CO2
emissions is critical to the future of our civilisation.
Really? Have you read the IPCC documents?
Start here:
https://archive.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg2/WGIIAR5-IntegrationBrochure_FINAL.pdf
Wanna present your alternate (peer-reviewed) theory?
You made that stupid claim.
Umm, nope.
You get to do that.
Thatâs how it works.
I cited the IPCC documents.
Trevor Wilson Is a Massive TROLL:
-------------------------------
** Bet TW is so stupid he trusts the WHO too, with its commie
ratbag leader.
**I certainly don't trust the Chinese government.
** Not what I suggetested.
WHO, like Scooter, reacted far too slowly.
** Totally avoids the point.,
I bet you think Trump is a genius.
** Absurd straw man.
The IPCC is a massively corrupt POLITICAL organisation without
a single clue.
**Really?
Present your proof.
** Of which claim?
Only a pig arrogant nut like you thinks it is a scientific body.
Present your alternate (peer-reviewed) evidence to show that the IPCC is
wrong.
** Only time proves false predictions wrong.
The IPCC is just playing politics, very fast and very loose.
You think you know more about climate science than all those people?
** There is nothing to know, since it is merely a hypothesis.
You are dreaming.
** TW makes me laugh out loud,
everything he says is SOOO fucking stupid.
"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:hfdh8aF71nU1@mid.individual.net...
On 11/04/2020 5:35 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
Phil Allison wrote
Max wrote
Reducing CO2 emissions is critical to the future of our civilisation.
Bullshit.
Really?
Yep, really.
I take it that you disagree with these guys?
www.ipcc.ch
Even they donât even try to claim that reducing CO2
emissions is critical to the future of our civilisation.
Really? Have you read the IPCC documents?
Yep.
I suggest you read them.
Already have done.
Start here:
https://archive.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg2/WGIIAR5-IntegrationBrochure_FINAL.pdf
Try quoting where they say anything like your stupid claim that
reducing CO2 emissions is critical to the future of our civilisation.
And even if they did, and they donât, have fun explaining
how our civilisation somehow managed to cope with
a change of sea level of hundreds of feet, and somehow
managed to cope with a significant drop in climate from when
the romans grew wine in england and the current climate.
And moved millions halfway around the world and arguable
produce a massive improvement in civilisation with the PC
etc as a result too.
Wanna present your alternate (peer-reviewed) theory?
You made that stupid claim.
Umm, nope.
Yep.
I cited the IPCC documents.
Which donât actually make your stupid claim that reducing
CO2 emissions is critical to the future of our civilisation.
You claim to know more than all the world's climate scientists.
All the worlds climate scientists donât make that stupid claim.
Prove it.
Having fun thrashing that straw man ?
You get to do that.
Thatâs how it works.
I cited the IPCC documents.
Which donât make that stupid claim.
** Totally avoids the point.,
**Nope. I stated the facts. WHO responded too slowly. Why they responded
too slowly is something I don't know. Perhaps they are too close to the
Chinese government. Perhaps they were over-cautious. Perhaps they were
trying to appease Trump. I sure as hell don't know.
The IPCC is a massively corrupt POLITICAL organisation without
a single clue.
Only a pig arrogant nut like you thinks it is a scientific body.
**It is,
** Only time proves false predictions wrong.
**And yet,
The IPCC is just playing politics, very fast and very loose.
**Prove it.
You think you know more about climate science than all those people?
** There is nothing to know, since it is merely a hypothesis.
**Ummm, no. It is well past an hypothesis.
** TW makes me laugh out loud,
everything he says is SOOO fucking stupid.
**OK, I'll bite: Present your explanation for the warming
On 12/04/2020 2:59 am, Rod Speed wrote:
"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:hfdh8aF71nU1@mid.individual.net...
On 11/04/2020 5:35 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
Phil Allison wrote
Max wrote
Reducing CO2 emissions is critical to the future of our
civilisation.
Bullshit.
Really?
Yep, really.
I take it that you disagree with these guys?
www.ipcc.ch
Even they donât even try to claim that reducing CO2
emissions is critical to the future of our civilisation.
Really? Have you read the IPCC documents?
Yep.
Clearly, you have not.
I suggest you read them.
Already have done.
Start here:
https://archive.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg2/WGIIAR5-IntegrationBrochure_FINAL.pdf
Try quoting where they say anything like your stupid claim that
reducing CO2 emissions is critical to the future of our civilisation.
They did not use those exact words,
but their conclusions indicate significant problems for many populations
around the planet.
Places like The Netherlands, London, FLorida, NYC, Bangladesh and others
will be in serious trouble,
And even if they did, and they donât, have fun explaining
how our civilisation somehow managed to cope with
a change of sea level of hundreds of feet, and somehow
managed to cope with a significant drop in climate from when
the romans grew wine in england and the current climate.
Our civilisation never had to cope with sea level changes of "hundreds of
feet"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Past_sea_level
"The last time the sea level was higher than today was during the Eemian,
about 130,000 years ago.[2]"
130,000 years ago, was not a time noted for sophisticated human
civilisation.
And moved millions halfway around the world and arguably produced a
massive improvement in civilisation with the PC etc as a result too.
Wanna present your alternate (peer-reviewed) theory?
You made that stupid claim.
Umm, nope.
Yep.
I cited the IPCC documents.
Which donât actually make your stupid claim that reducing
CO2 emissions is critical to the future of our civilisation.
Not in those precise words.
The implications of what the IPCC did say is obvious to anyone who has
actually read the IPCC documents.
You claim to know more than all the world's climate scientists.
All the worlds climate scientists donât make that stupid claim.
Again: Not in those simplistic terms.
Prove it.
Having fun thrashing that straw man ?
You get to do that.
Thatâs how it works.
I cited the IPCC documents.
Which donât make that stupid claim.
Read the documents.
Trevor Wilson is an Insane TROLL wrote:
----------------------------------------
** Totally avoids the point.,
**Nope. I stated the facts. WHO responded too slowly. Why they responded
too slowly is something I don't know. Perhaps they are too close to the
Chinese government. Perhaps they were over-cautious. Perhaps they were
trying to appease Trump. I sure as hell don't know.
** The you need to shut the fuck up.
The IPCC is a massively corrupt POLITICAL organisation without
a single clue.
Only a pig arrogant nut like you thinks it is a scientific body.
**It is,
** That is *insane* beyond all belief.
The IPCC is an entirely *political* entity set up and charged to finding evidence suppoting AGW.
If asked to find evidence for life on Mars, they would have as well.
** Only time proves false predictions wrong.
**And yet,
** Snip insane TW crap.
The IPCC is just playing politics, very fast and very loose.
**Prove it.
** Only the terminally stupid and willfully blind could even imagine it was otherwise. Fuckwits like TW.
You think you know more about climate science than all those people?
** There is nothing to know, since it is merely a hypothesis.
**Ummm, no. It is well past an hypothesis.
** Like hell it is.
The issue is the AGW hypothesis, for which there is simply NO proof.
** TW makes me laugh out loud,
everything he says is SOOO fucking stupid.
**OK, I'll bite: Present your explanation for the warming
** There is SFA warming.
The idea we are causing it is sheer paranoia.
For raving lunatics like TW.
"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:hfes1cF96laU1@mid.individual.net...
On 12/04/2020 2:59 am, Rod Speed wrote:
"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:hfdh8aF71nU1@mid.individual.net...
On 11/04/2020 5:35 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
Phil Allison wrote
Max wrote
Reducing CO2 emissions is critical to the future of our
civilisation.
Bullshit.
Really?
Yep, really.
I take it that you disagree with these guys?
www.ipcc.ch
Even they donât even try to claim that reducing CO2
emissions is critical to the future of our civilisation.
Really? Have you read the IPCC documents?
Yep.
Clearly, you have not.
You never could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag.
I suggest you read them.
Already have done.
Start here:
https://archive.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg2/WGIIAR5-IntegrationBrochure_FINAL.pdf
Try quoting where they say anything like your stupid claim that
reducing CO2 emissions is critical to the future of our civilisation.
They did not use those exact words,
Or anything even remotely like them either.
but their conclusions indicate significant problems for many
populations around the planet.
Thatâs nothing even remotely like your original
stupid claim that reducing CO2 emissions is
critical to the future of our civilisation.
Places like The Netherlands, London, FLorida, NYC, Bangladesh and
others will be in serious trouble,
Bullshit with the Netherlands which has worked
out how to deal with using land which is below
sea level and can continue to do that even if
that does happen some more in the future.
or completely uninhabitable.
That report says nothing even remotely like that either.
Yes, some islands may indeed become completely
uninhabitable, but thatâs nothing even remotely
like your original stupid claim about critical to
the future of our civilisation or even of theirs.
And even if they did, and they donât, have fun explaining
how our civilisation somehow managed to cope with
a change of sea level of hundreds of feet, and somehow
managed to cope with a significant drop in climate from when
the romans grew wine in england and the current climate.
Our civilisation never had to cope with sea level changes of "hundreds
of feet"
Of corse it did if you go back far enough.
(see if you can manage to use Metric units in future -
Go and fuck yourself.
no one bothers with imperial measurements anymore):
Even a terminal fuckwit such as yourself
should have noticed that the yanks still do,
and so do the poms.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Past_sea_level
"The last time the sea level was higher than today was during the
Eemian, about 130,000 years ago.[2]"
Irrelevant to the fact that sea levels have risen
by hundreds of feet during the time that humans
have been around and is the reason why the
abo's ancestors could walk here and to england
and cant to that any longer. With those civilisations
handling that fine.
130,000 years ago, was not a time noted for sophisticated human
civilisation.
You didnât say sophisticated you
pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist.
And the netherlands proves that a
sophisticated civilisation can do a lot more
than just accept sea level change too.
And moved millions halfway around the world and arguably produced a
massive improvement in civilisation with the PC etc as a result too.
Wanna present your alternate (peer-reviewed) theory?
You made that stupid claim.
Umm, nope.
Yep.
I cited the IPCC documents.
Which donât actually make your stupid claim that reducing
CO2 emissions is critical to the future of our civilisation.
Not in those precise words.
And nothing even remotely like that either.
The implications of what the IPCC did say is obvious to anyone who has
actually read the IPCC documents.
And that is nothing even remotely like your original stupid claim.
You claim to know more than all the world's climate scientists.
All the worlds climate scientists donât make that stupid claim.
Again: Not in those simplistic terms.
Again: And nothing even remotely like it either.
However, their meaning in clear and unequivocal.
And nothing even remotely like your original stupid claim.
Prove it.
Having fun thrashing that straw man ?
You get to do that.
Thatâs how it works.
I cited the IPCC documents.
Which donât make that stupid claim.
Read the documents.
Read them thanks. They say nothing even
remotely like your original stupid claim.
** Then you need to shut the fuck up.
**About what?
Only a pig arrogant nut like you thinks it is a scientific body.
**It is,
** That is *insane* beyond all belief.
**Then what, exactly, are all those scientists employed by and
contributing to the IPCC doing?
The IPCC is an entirely *political* entity set up and charged to finding evidence suppoting AGW.
**Wrong. It's right there in the name.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change
Now, let's see your proof of your claim:
"The IPCC is a massively corrupt POLITICAL organisation without a single
clue."
If asked to find evidence for life on Mars, they would have as well.
**Prove it.
The IPCC is just playing politics, very fast and very loose.
**Prove it.
** Only the terminally stupid and willfully blind could even imagine it was otherwise. Fuckwits like TW.
**Then prove your claim:
** There is nothing to know, since it is merely a hypothesis.
**Ummm, no. It is well past an hypothesis.
** Like hell it is.
The issue is the AGW hypothesis, for which there is simply NO proof.
**Here is the section you snipped:
** Yawnnnnnn - totally irrelevent.
**AGW is well past hypothesis and is comfortably in the theory stage.
** There is SFA warming.
**Is there?
What do you make of this:
So, if there is no warming, why do we see a warming trend?
Try and submit some facts for a change.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
On 12/04/2020 8:38 am, Rod Speed wrote:
"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:hfes1cF96laU1@mid.individual.net...
On 12/04/2020 2:59 am, Rod Speed wrote:
"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:hfdh8aF71nU1@mid.individual.net...
On 11/04/2020 5:35 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
Phil Allison wrote
Max wrote
Reducing CO2 emissions is critical to the future of our
civilisation.
Bullshit.
Really?
Yep, really.
I take it that you disagree with these guys?
www.ipcc.ch
Even they donât even try to claim that reducing CO2
emissions is critical to the future of our civilisation.
Really? Have you read the IPCC documents?
Yep.
Clearly, you have not.
You never could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag.
I suggest you read them.
Already have done.
Start here:
https://archive.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg2/WGIIAR5-IntegrationBrochure_FINAL.pdf
Try quoting where they say anything like your stupid claim that
reducing CO2 emissions is critical to the future of our civilisation.
They did not use those exact words,
Or anything even remotely like them either.
but their conclusions indicate significant problems for many populations
around the planet.
Thatâs nothing even remotely like your original
stupid claim that reducing CO2 emissions is
critical to the future of our civilisation.
Places like The Netherlands, London, FLorida, NYC, Bangladesh and others
will be in serious trouble,
Bullshit with the Netherlands which has worked
out how to deal with using land which is below
sea level and can continue to do that even if
that does happen some more in the future.
or completely uninhabitable.
That report says nothing even remotely like that either.
Yes, some islands may indeed become completely
uninhabitable, but thatâs nothing even remotely
like your original stupid claim about critical to
the future of our civilisation or even of theirs.
And even if they did, and they donât, have fun explaining
how our civilisation somehow managed to cope with
a change of sea level of hundreds of feet, and somehow
managed to cope with a significant drop in climate from when
the romans grew wine in england and the current climate.
Our civilisation never had to cope with sea level changes of "hundreds
of feet"
Of corse it did if you go back far enough.
Really? When was that?
(see if you can manage to use Metric units in future -
Go and fuck yourself.
Great retort.
You keep using obsolete units of measurements and I will continue to point
out your stupidity.
no one bothers with imperial measurements anymore):
Even a terminal fuckwit such as yourself
should have noticed that the yanks still do,
and so do the poms.
No one uses imperial measurements anymore.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Past_sea_level
"The last time the sea level was higher than today was during the
Eemian, about 130,000 years ago.[2]"
Irrelevant to the fact that sea levels have risen
by hundreds of feet during the time that humans
have been around and is the reason why the
abo's ancestors could walk here and to england
and cant to that any longer. With those civilisations
handling that fine.
**I'll ask again: WHEN were sea levels "hundreds of feet" higher than they
are today? How many years ago?
130,000 years ago, was not a time noted for sophisticated human
civilisation.
You didnât say sophisticated you
pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist.
I said "CIVILISATION".
And the netherlands proves that a
sophisticated civilisation can do a lot more
than just accept sea level change too.
If you imagine The Netherlands can cope with a (say) 7 Metre sea level
rise (the amount that sea levels will rise when Greenland melts),
And moved millions halfway around the world and arguably produced a
massive improvement in civilisation with the PC etc as a result too.
Wanna present your alternate (peer-reviewed) theory?
You made that stupid claim.
Umm, nope.
Yep.
I cited the IPCC documents.
Which donât actually make your stupid claim that reducing
CO2 emissions is critical to the future of our civilisation.
Not in those precise words.
And nothing even remotely like that either.
The implications of what the IPCC did say is obvious to anyone who has
actually read the IPCC documents.
And that is nothing even remotely like your original stupid claim.
You claim to know more than all the world's climate scientists.
All the worlds climate scientists donât make that stupid claim.
Again: Not in those simplistic terms.
Again: And nothing even remotely like it either.
However, their meaning in clear and unequivocal.
And nothing even remotely like your original stupid claim.
Prove it.
Having fun thrashing that straw man ?
You get to do that.
Thatâs how it works.
I cited the IPCC documents.
Which donât make that stupid claim.
Read the documents.
Read them thanks. They say nothing even
remotely like your original stupid claim.
OK. I accept your accusation of my hyperbole.
Trevor Wilson is a LUNATIC
--------------------------
** Then you need to shut the fuck up.
**About what?
** Everything.
Only a pig arrogant nut like you thinks it is a scientific body.
**It is,
** That is *insane* beyond all belief.
**Then what, exactly, are all those scientists employed by and
contributing to the IPCC doing?
** FFS they are NOT not the ones running things and cherry picking who gets employed or trusted. You ridiculous ass.
The IPCC is an entirely *political* entity set up and charged to finding evidence suppoting AGW.
**Wrong. It's right there in the name.
** The name is misleading you colossal ASS.
The IPCC was set to investigate
CLIMATE CHANGE, why the climate was changing,
** Bullshit - cos it isn't.
Their mission tasks was as I stated.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change
Now, let's see your proof of your claim:
** The very first line of the link PROVES my assertion, not yours.
FFS TW cannot even read.
"The IPCC is a massively corrupt POLITICAL organisation without a single
clue."
** Politics is ALWAYS corrupt and those playing that game are invariably clueless. Like you.
If asked to find evidence for life on Mars, they would have as well.
**Prove it.
** It an explanatory comment - you fucking ass.
The IPCC is just playing politics, very fast and very loose.
**Prove it.
** Only the terminally stupid and willfully blind could even imagine it was otherwise. Fuckwits like TW.
**Then prove your claim:
** That YOU are stupid, blind and crazy has been proved THOUSANDS of times in public - by you .
** There is nothing to know, since it is merely a hypothesis.
**Ummm, no. It is well past an hypothesis.
** Like hell it is.
The issue is the AGW hypothesis, for which there is simply NO proof.
**Here is the section you snipped:
** Yawnnnnnn - totally irrelevent.
**AGW is well past hypothesis and is comfortably in the theory stage.
** TW had no idea what a scientific theory even is.
The dude is poorly educated, suffering from a rampant ASD and possessed by a bloated ego.
** There is SFA warming.
**Is there?
What do you make of this:
** Try making making you own points.
I am not falling for anyone posting links and CLAIMING proof is in there somewhere. That is the greatest CROCK of SHIT out.
So, if there is no warming, why do we see a warming trend?
** The is no trend and no sigificant warming.
Try and submit some facts for a change.
** I see none from you or anyone on the topic.
Just hunches and vague predictions backed with fake data.
Might as well be coming form Nostradamus.
"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:hff1r4Fabk1U1@mid.individual.net...
On 12/04/2020 8:38 am, Rod Speed wrote:
"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:hfes1cF96laU1@mid.individual.net...
On 12/04/2020 2:59 am, Rod Speed wrote:
"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:hfdh8aF71nU1@mid.individual.net...
On 11/04/2020 5:35 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
Phil Allison wrote
Max wrote
Reducing CO2 emissions is critical to the future of our
civilisation.
Bullshit.
Really?
Yep, really.
I take it that you disagree with these guys?
www.ipcc.ch
Even they donât even try to claim that reducing CO2
emissions is critical to the future of our civilisation.
Really? Have you read the IPCC documents?
Yep.
Clearly, you have not.
You never could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag.
I suggest you read them.
Already have done.
Start here:
https://archive.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg2/WGIIAR5-IntegrationBrochure_FINAL.pdf
Try quoting where they say anything like your stupid claim that
reducing CO2 emissions is critical to the future of our civilisation.
They did not use those exact words,
Or anything even remotely like them either.
but their conclusions indicate significant problems for many
populations around the planet.
Thatâs nothing even remotely like your original
stupid claim that reducing CO2 emissions is
critical to the future of our civilisation.
Places like The Netherlands, London, FLorida, NYC, Bangladesh and
others will be in serious trouble,
Bullshit with the Netherlands which has worked
out how to deal with using land which is below
sea level and can continue to do that even if
that does happen some more in the future.
or completely uninhabitable.
That report says nothing even remotely like that either.
Yes, some islands may indeed become completely
uninhabitable, but thatâs nothing even remotely
like your original stupid claim about critical to
the future of our civilisation or even of theirs.
And even if they did, and they donât, have fun explaining
how our civilisation somehow managed to cope with
a change of sea level of hundreds of feet, and somehow
managed to cope with a significant drop in climate from when
the romans grew wine in england and the current climate.
Our civilisation never had to cope with sea level changes of
"hundreds of feet"
Of corse it did if you go back far enough.
Really? When was that?
Go and look it up for yourself.
(see if you can manage to use Metric units in future -
Go and fuck yourself.
Great retort.
What you deserve.
You keep using obsolete units of measurements and I will continue to
point out your stupidity.
Yanks and poms too eh ? Yeah, right.
no one bothers with imperial measurements anymore):
Even a terminal fuckwit such as yourself
should have noticed that the yanks still do,
and so do the poms.
No one uses imperial measurements anymore.
So yanks and poms are no one eh ?
reams of even sillier shit flushed where it belongs
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Past_sea_level
"The last time the sea level was higher than today was during the
Eemian, about 130,000 years ago.[2]"
Irrelevant to the fact that sea levels have risen
by hundreds of feet during the time that humans
have been around and is the reason why the
abo's ancestors could walk here and to england
and cant to that any longer. With those civilisations
handling that fine.
**I'll ask again: WHEN were sea levels "hundreds of feet" higher than
they are today? How many years ago?
I say again: Go and look it up for yourself.
130,000 years ago, was not a time noted for sophisticated human
civilisation.
You didnât say sophisticated you
pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist.
I said "CIVILISATION".
All humans are some form of civilisation, fuckwit.
And the netherlands proves that a
sophisticated civilisation can do a lot more
than just accept sea level change too.
If you imagine The Netherlands can cope with a (say) 7 Metre sea level
rise (the amount that sea levels will rise when Greenland melts),
It won't.
And moved millions halfway around the world and arguably produced a
massive improvement in civilisation with the PC etc as a result too.
Wanna present your alternate (peer-reviewed) theory?
You made that stupid claim.
Umm, nope.
Yep.
I cited the IPCC documents.
Which donât actually make your stupid claim that reducing
CO2 emissions is critical to the future of our civilisation.
Not in those precise words.
And nothing even remotely like that either.
The implications of what the IPCC did say is obvious to anyone who
has actually read the IPCC documents.
And that is nothing even remotely like your original stupid claim.
You claim to know more than all the world's climate scientists.
All the worlds climate scientists donât make that stupid claim.
Again: Not in those simplistic terms.
Again: And nothing even remotely like it either.
However, their meaning in clear and unequivocal.
And nothing even remotely like your original stupid claim.
Prove it.
Having fun thrashing that straw man ?
You get to do that.
Thatâs how it works.
I cited the IPCC documents.
Which donât make that stupid claim.
Read the documents.
Read them thanks. They say nothing even
remotely like your original stupid claim.
OK. I accept your accusation of my hyperbole.
Wild and flagrantly dishonest exaggeration in fact.
Fortunately no one who matters takes any notice of
fools like you. Cant imagine why for the life of me.
On 12/04/2020 12:15 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:hff1r4Fabk1U1@mid.individual.net...
On 12/04/2020 8:38 am, Rod Speed wrote:
"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:hfes1cF96laU1@mid.individual.net...
On 12/04/2020 2:59 am, Rod Speed wrote:
"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:hfdh8aF71nU1@mid.individual.net...
On 11/04/2020 5:35 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
Phil Allison wrote
Max wrote
Reducing CO2 emissions is critical to the future of our
civilisation.
Bullshit.
Really?
Yep, really.
I take it that you disagree with these guys?
www.ipcc.ch
Even they donât even try to claim that reducing CO2
emissions is critical to the future of our civilisation.
Really? Have you read the IPCC documents?
Yep.
Clearly, you have not.
You never could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag.
I suggest you read them.
Already have done.
Start here:
https://archive.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg2/WGIIAR5-IntegrationBrochure_FINAL.pdf
Try quoting where they say anything like your stupid claim that
reducing CO2 emissions is critical to the future of our civilisation.
They did not use those exact words,
Or anything even remotely like them either.
but their conclusions indicate significant problems for many
populations around the planet.
Thatâs nothing even remotely like your original
stupid claim that reducing CO2 emissions is
critical to the future of our civilisation.
Places like The Netherlands, London, FLorida, NYC, Bangladesh and
others will be in serious trouble,
Bullshit with the Netherlands which has worked
out how to deal with using land which is below
sea level and can continue to do that even if
that does happen some more in the future.
or completely uninhabitable.
That report says nothing even remotely like that either.
Yes, some islands may indeed become completely
uninhabitable, but thatâs nothing even remotely
like your original stupid claim about critical to
the future of our civilisation or even of theirs.
And even if they did, and they donât, have fun explaining
how our civilisation somehow managed to cope with
a change of sea level of hundreds of feet, and somehow
managed to cope with a significant drop in climate from when
the romans grew wine in england and the current climate.
Our civilisation never had to cope with sea level changes of "hundreds
of feet"
Of corse it did if you go back far enough.
Really? When was that?
Go and look it up for yourself.
I note your inability to support your claim.
You keep using obsolete units of measurements and I will continue to
point out your stupidity.
Yanks and poms too eh ? Yeah, right.
Yanks. The Poms have been officially a Metric nation for yonks.
And the netherlands proves that a
sophisticated civilisation can do a lot more
than just accept sea level change too.
If you imagine The Netherlands can cope with a (say) 7 Metre sea level
rise (the amount that sea levels will rise when Greenland melts),
It won't.
Correct. The Dutch civilisation will be screwed.
And moved millions halfway around the world and arguably produced a
massive improvement in civilisation with the PC etc as a result too.
OK. I accept your accusation of my hyperbole.
Wild and flagrantly dishonest exaggeration in fact.
Fortunately no one who matters takes any notice of
fools like you. Can't imagine why for the life of me.
"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:hffonoFemf3U1@mid.individual.net...
On 12/04/2020 12:15 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:hff1r4Fabk1U1@mid.individual.net...
On 12/04/2020 8:38 am, Rod Speed wrote:
"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:hfes1cF96laU1@mid.individual.net...
On 12/04/2020 2:59 am, Rod Speed wrote:
"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:hfdh8aF71nU1@mid.individual.net...
On 11/04/2020 5:35 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
Phil Allison wrote
Max wrote
Reducing CO2 emissions is critical to the future of our
civilisation.
Bullshit.
Really?
Yep, really.
I take it that you disagree with these guys?
www.ipcc.ch
Even they donât even try to claim that reducing CO2
emissions is critical to the future of our civilisation.
Really? Have you read the IPCC documents?
Yep.
Clearly, you have not.
You never could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag.
I suggest you read them.
Already have done.
Start here:
https://archive.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg2/WGIIAR5-IntegrationBrochure_FINAL.pdf
Try quoting where they say anything like your stupid claim that
reducing CO2 emissions is critical to the future of our
civilisation.
They did not use those exact words,
Or anything even remotely like them either.
but their conclusions indicate significant problems for many
populations around the planet.
Thatâs nothing even remotely like your original
stupid claim that reducing CO2 emissions is
critical to the future of our civilisation.
Places like The Netherlands, London, FLorida, NYC, Bangladesh and
others will be in serious trouble,
Bullshit with the Netherlands which has worked
out how to deal with using land which is below
sea level and can continue to do that even if
that does happen some more in the future.
or completely uninhabitable.
That report says nothing even remotely like that either.
Yes, some islands may indeed become completely
uninhabitable, but thatâs nothing even remotely
like your original stupid claim about critical to
the future of our civilisation or even of theirs.
And even if they did, and they donât, have fun explaining
how our civilisation somehow managed to cope with
a change of sea level of hundreds of feet, and somehow
managed to cope with a significant drop in climate from when
the romans grew wine in england and the current climate.
Our civilisation never had to cope with sea level changes of
"hundreds of feet"
Of corse it did if you go back far enough.
Really? When was that?
Go and look it up for yourself.
I note your inability to support your claim.
More of your flagrant dishonesty.
And since this lying shit is the best you can manage,
here goes the chain on the rest of your shit and lies.
You keep using obsolete units of measurements and I will continue to
point out your stupidity.
Yanks and poms too eh ? Yeah, right.
Yanks. The Poms have been officially a Metric nation for yonks.
But still use imperial units for some stuff like with miles, fuckwit.
And the netherlands proves that a
sophisticated civilisation can do a lot more
than just accept sea level change too.
If you imagine The Netherlands can cope with a (say) 7 Metre sea
level rise (the amount that sea levels will rise when Greenland melts),
It won't.
Correct. The Dutch civilisation will be screwed.
Only in your pathetic little drug crazed
drunken dole bludger fantasyland.
Even the ipcc doesnât predict that that will happen
you pathetic excuse for a lying bullshit artist.
And moved millions halfway around the world and arguably produced
a massive improvement in civilisation with the PC etc as a result
too.
Ignoring that wont make it go away, you pathetic excuse for a bullshit
artist.
OK. I accept your accusation of my hyperbole.
Wild and flagrantly dishonest exaggeration in fact.
Fortunately no one who matters takes any notice of
fools like you. Can't imagine why for the life of me.
** The very first line of the link PROVES my assertion, not yours.
FFS TW cannot even read.
**The first sentence proves my point:
"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is an
intergovernmental body of the United Nations[1][2] that is dedicated to
providing the world with objective, scientific information relevant to
understanding the scientific basis of the risk of human-induced[3]
climate change, its natural, political, and economic impacts and risks,
and possible response options.[4]"
You can assert anything you want, but without proof, it is a meaningless
claim.
If asked to find evidence for life on Mars, they would have as well.
**Prove it.
** It an explanatory comment - you fucking ass.
**IOW: You made it up.
"Thing is this: Until another, more plausible theory, can be presented
to explain the warming, the AGW theory is the best we have.
planet's climate scientists agree that Fourier was, essentially,
correct. So, unless you have a better theory to explain the warming, you
need to accept what all the planet's climate scientists and my favourite
mathematician (Fourier) have told us: The planet is warming at a rate
that is more than 100 times faster than at any time in the past million
years or so and human release of CO2 is the primary driver.
So, what is YOUR explanation? What is Scooter's explanation? Trump's?
Abbott's? All the other denier idiots'?"
**AGW is well past hypothesis and is comfortably in the theory stage. No
other theory fits the facts as well as AGW. Why don't you present your
theory to counter AGW theory. Give us all a good laugh. Why do you think
the planet is warming?
**AGW is well past hypothesis and is comfortably in the theory stage.
** TW had no idea what a scientific theory even is.
The dude is poorly educated, suffering from a rampant ASD and possessed by a bloated ego.
**Unlike you, I have educated myself in the area of AGW theory. You
display monumental ignorance. Then, you go on to lie about the IPCC.
** There is SFA warming.
**Is there?
What do you make of this:
** What do you make of this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#/media/File:Global_Temperature_And_Forces.svg
And this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#/media/File:Common_Era_Temperature.svg
And some local effects:
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/index.shtml#tabs=Tracker&tracker=timeseries
And this is some evidence to ponder:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#/media/File:Carbon_Dioxide_800kyr.svg
So, if there is no warming, why do we see a warming trend?
What do YOU think is causing the warming trend (that you claim doesn't
exist)?
** Try making making you own points.
**I am, unlike you, providing hard, irrefutable DATA to prove my case.
You just spin, spin, spin, then lie.
I am not falling for anyone posting links and CLAIMING proof is in there somewhere. That is the greatest CROCK of SHIT out.
**Then prove your claims. Cite your evidence.
So, if there is no warming, why do we see a warming trend?
** The is no trend and no sigificant warming.
**There is a clearly observable warming trend. The significance of that
warming trend is demonstrated by the observed effects.
Try and submit some facts for a change.
**Huh? Because, unlike Abbott, Trump, ScoMo and, apparently, yourself, I
accept science has explained the reasons for the warming? Is that your
claim? You think Abbott, Trump, ScoMo are correct?
** I see none from you or anyone on the topic.
**Liar.
Just hunches and vague predictions backed with fake data.
**Liar.
Might as well be coming form Nostradamus.
**You are a liar.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Trevor Wilson
This FUCKHEAD is not worth ANY of my time.
---------------------------------------
** The very first line of the link PROVES my assertion, not yours.
FFS TW cannot even read.
**The first sentence proves my point:
"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is an
intergovernmental body of the United Nations[1][2] that is dedicated to
providing the world with objective, scientific information relevant to
understanding the scientific basis of the risk of human-induced[3]
climate change, its natural, political, and economic impacts and risks,
and possible response options.[4]"
** The para speaks only of "risk".
So contradicts you completely.
You can assert anything you want, but without proof, it is a meaningless
claim.
** There is no proof for ANY of yours.
So " no case to answer".
If asked to find evidence for life on Mars, they would have as well.
**Prove it.
** It an explanatory comment - you fucking ass.
**IOW: You made it up.
** Fuck me, this nut case IDIOT is dumb !!
"Thing is this: Until another, more plausible theory, can be presented
to explain the warming, the AGW theory is the best we have.
** It is NOT a scientific *theory*.
FFS Google the difference you pig ignorant CUNT !!
ALL the
planet's climate scientists agree that Fourier was, essentially,
correct. So, unless you have a better theory to explain the warming, you
need to accept what all the planet's climate scientists and my favourite
mathematician (Fourier) have told us: The planet is warming at a rate
that is more than 100 times faster than at any time in the past million
years or so and human release of CO2 is the primary driver.
So, what is YOUR explanation? What is Scooter's explanation? Trump's?
Abbott's? All the other denier idiots'?"
**AGW is well past hypothesis and is comfortably in the theory stage. No
other theory fits the facts as well as AGW. Why don't you present your
theory to counter AGW theory. Give us all a good laugh. Why do you think
the planet is warming?
**AGW is well past hypothesis and is comfortably in the theory stage.
** TW had no idea what a scientific theory even is.
The dude is poorly educated, suffering from a rampant ASD and possessed by a bloated ego.
**Unlike you, I have educated myself in the area of AGW theory. You
display monumental ignorance. Then, you go on to lie about the IPCC.
** There is SFA warming.
**Is there?
What do you make of this:
** What do you make of this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#/media/File:Global_Temperature_And_Forces.svg
And this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#/media/File:Common_Era_Temperature.svg
And some local effects:
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/index.shtml#tabs=Tracker&tracker=timeseries
And this is some evidence to ponder:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#/media/File:Carbon_Dioxide_800kyr.svg
So, if there is no warming, why do we see a warming trend?
What do YOU think is causing the warming trend (that you claim doesn't
exist)?
** Try making making you own points.
**I am, unlike you, providing hard, irrefutable DATA to prove my case.
You just spin, spin, spin, then lie.
I am not falling for anyone posting links and CLAIMING proof is in there somewhere. That is the greatest CROCK of SHIT out.
**Then prove your claims. Cite your evidence.
So, if there is no warming, why do we see a warming trend?
** The is no trend and no sigificant warming.
**There is a clearly observable warming trend. The significance of that
warming trend is demonstrated by the observed effects.
Try and submit some facts for a change.
**Huh? Because, unlike Abbott, Trump, ScoMo and, apparently, yourself, I
accept science has explained the reasons for the warming? Is that your
claim? You think Abbott, Trump, ScoMo are correct?
** I see none from you or anyone on the topic.
**Liar.
Just hunches and vague predictions backed with fake data.
**Liar.
Might as well be coming form Nostradamus.
**You are a liar.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au