[Trevor Wilson]

"ScottW2" wrote in message
...
On Jul 29, 4:21 pm, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in
...
On Jul 29, 3:44 pm, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:





"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in
...
On Jul 28, 8:20 pm, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

**It would seem so. He sure has some odd ideas. He claims to
understand
science and then places his faith in some water diviner. He's a lot
like
Arny. He pays lip-service to science. He doesn't really accept or
understand
any of it.

Too easy. If we understand something it necessarily follows the Laws
of Science. If we don't understand something it's God's Will.

Did you have any other questions today?

**Well, yes. One more.

I don't understand Quantum Mechanics. Does that mean I have to assume
that
it is "God's Will", or do I accept the word of the scientists that do
understand it?

I meant "we as mankind". For example, "We do not fully understand the
beginnings of the universe. Therefore, there is a God and the universe
is God's will".

The imbeciles among us (here in the US they strongly tend to be
republicans) try to sow confusion by applying the "God's Will"
argument to well-known and well-accepted science. See "Intelligent
Design proponents" as an example.

In 2pid's case "God's Will" applies to "absolutely everything".

**Ah, that all makes sense.

Welcome to the world of Shhtard. Nothing is real, nothing is true.
Enjoy it. You fit right in.


**I'm still waiting for you to man up and admit your errors. I provided you
with the science and I shredded the reputation of your alleged "expert" (the
water diviner supporter) and you just scurry away. SOP.

Or will you just emulate Bret and pretend that I don't exist. It seems to
fit in with his (and your) delusions.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jul 29, 7:10*pm, ScottW2 wrote:
On Jul 29, 4:21*pm, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:





"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in ....
On Jul 29, 3:44 pm, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in
...
On Jul 28, 8:20 pm, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

**It would seem so. He sure has some odd ideas. He claims to understand
science and then places his faith in some water diviner. He's a lot like
Arny. He pays lip-service to science. He doesn't really accept or
understand
any of it.

Too easy. If we understand something it necessarily follows the Laws
of Science. If we don't understand something it's God's Will.

Did you have any other questions today?

**Well, yes. One more.

I don't understand Quantum Mechanics. Does that mean I have to assume that
it is "God's Will", or do I accept the word of the scientists that do
understand it?

I meant "we as mankind". For example, "We do not fully understand the
beginnings of the universe. Therefore, there is a God and the universe
is God's will".

The imbeciles among us (here in the US they strongly tend to be
republicans) try to sow confusion by applying the "God's Will"
argument to well-known and well-accepted science. See "Intelligent
Design proponents" as an example.

In 2pid's case "God's Will" applies to "absolutely everything".

**Ah, that all makes sense.

Welcome to the world of Shhtard. *Nothing is real, nothing is true.
Enjoy it. * You fit right in.

Would you care to discuss the proper usage of CAS in a
counterinsurgency...again?

LoL. The only phrase that "nothing is real" applies to is "2pid has a
functioning brain". LoL.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jul 29, 7:28*pm, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

It seems to fit in with his (and your) delusions.

Delusions or imbecility? Either way, it's clearly and obviously "God's
Will". ;-)

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jul 29, 7:37*pm, ScottW2 wrote:

As far as *"shredding" the reputation
of an expert, well that is just laughable by a non-expert like
yourself.

LoL.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jul 29, 7:42*pm, ScottW2 wrote:
On Jul 29, 5:30*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"





wrote:
On Jul 29, 7:10*pm, ScottW2 wrote:

On Jul 29, 4:21*pm, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in ...
On Jul 29, 3:44 pm, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in
...
On Jul 28, 8:20 pm, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

**It would seem so. He sure has some odd ideas. He claims to understand
science and then places his faith in some water diviner. He's a lot like
Arny. He pays lip-service to science. He doesn't really accept or
understand
any of it.

Too easy. If we understand something it necessarily follows the Laws
of Science. If we don't understand something it's God's Will.

Did you have any other questions today?

**Well, yes. One more.

I don't understand Quantum Mechanics. Does that mean I have to assume that
it is "God's Will", or do I accept the word of the scientists that do
understand it?

I meant "we as mankind". For example, "We do not fully understand the
beginnings of the universe. Therefore, there is a God and the universe
is God's will".

The imbeciles among us (here in the US they strongly tend to be
republicans) try to sow confusion by applying the "God's Will"
argument to well-known and well-accepted science. See "Intelligent
Design proponents" as an example.

In 2pid's case "God's Will" applies to "absolutely everything".

**Ah, that all makes sense.

Welcome to the world of Shhtard. *Nothing is real, nothing is true.
Enjoy it. * You fit right in.

Would you care to discuss the proper usage of CAS in a
counterinsurgency...again?

We already did that multiple times. *Everytime you misrepresented my
position and morphed yours as it became obviously untenable.

Really. Go back to 2005 or 2006 and point out where this has occurred.
Show me where I've changed positions on CAS even once. LoL.

Remember "eyes on target", "absolute positive target ID", "any
civilian casuaties are counterproductive", "there are almost always
alternatives to engaging with lethal force including withdrawal", "use
minimum force", & etc. & etc.?

Of course you don't. That's because your a imbecile and a complete
know-nothing on military tactics, planning, mission success and every
other military topic I've had the misfortune of attempting with you.
LoL.

Oh well. Army leadership always agrees with me. Isn't that aggregious
of them? LoL.

PS, 2pid: the CG in Afghanistan doesn't agree with your "leave it to
the troops on the ground" statement either. LoL.

Do you really think you'll do anything different this time?
I don't.

Me either as I've been absolutely consistent for four years.

LoL. The only phrase that "nothing is real" applies to is "2pid has a
functioning brain". LoL.

*Good proof of your ability to discuss anything. *

Been there, done that.

Thanks.

Your welcome.

[Trevor Wilson]

"ScottW2" wrote in message
...
On Jul 29, 5:28 pm, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:
"ScottW2" wrote in message

...
On Jul 29, 4:21 pm, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:





"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in
...
On Jul 29, 3:44 pm, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in
...
On Jul 28, 8:20 pm, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

**It would seem so. He sure has some odd ideas. He claims to
understand
science and then places his faith in some water diviner. He's a lot
like
Arny. He pays lip-service to science. He doesn't really accept or
understand
any of it.

Too easy. If we understand something it necessarily follows the Laws
of Science. If we don't understand something it's God's Will.

Did you have any other questions today?

**Well, yes. One more.

I don't understand Quantum Mechanics. Does that mean I have to assume
that
it is "God's Will", or do I accept the word of the scientists that do
understand it?

I meant "we as mankind". For example, "We do not fully understand the
beginnings of the universe. Therefore, there is a God and the universe
is God's will".

The imbeciles among us (here in the US they strongly tend to be
republicans) try to sow confusion by applying the "God's Will"
argument to well-known and well-accepted science. See "Intelligent
Design proponents" as an example.

In 2pid's case "God's Will" applies to "absolutely everything".

**Ah, that all makes sense.

Welcome to the world of Shhtard. Nothing is real, nothing is true.
Enjoy it. You fit right in.

**I'm still waiting for you to man up and admit your errors. I provided
you
with the science and I shredded the reputation of your alleged "expert"
(the
water diviner supporter) and you just scurry away. SOP.

I walked away from your disjointed unindented response.
As far as "shredding" the reputation
of an expert, well that is just laughable by a non-expert like
yourself.

**Your "expert" supports water divining. Clearly, your "expert" has serious
problems with what constitutes real science. As do you. Your "expert" is an
idiot. As are you, for your support of water divining.

Can you refute his point that IPCC has cherry picked data to prove
it's claim?

**I refute his claim that water divining has any basis in reality. I refute
his claim that sea levels are not rising. I provided proof of this from
Australia's peak scientific body - The CSIRO. I cannot provide proof that
water divining is bunk, as there is zero evidence to suport such nonsense.

Obviously not.

**That you failed to read any of my cites is now abundantly clear. You seem
to prefer to place your faith with those who believe in water divining. Says
it all really.

Instead you want to argue by reputation.

**Those who support water divining and the supernatural are idiots.

Reputations don't make the wise decision when it comes to something
like energy policy.

**Nor do water diviners. They're charlatans.


Meanwhile your charts still shows Co2 is a lagging indicator in spite
of all your ridiculous pontificating to the contrary.

**Go look at the ****ing graphs again. You are wrong. However, feel free to
cite the dates that you think I got wrong.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Clyde Slick]

On 29 iul., 21:07, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:


**Go look at the ****ing graphs again. You are wrong. However, feel free to
cite the dates that you think I got wrong.

--


ok, ok. Here's your ****ing graph

http://soc101.files.wordpress.com/20...ntercourse.jpg

[Trevor Wilson]

"ScottW2" wrote in message
...
On Jul 29, 6:07 pm, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:
"ScottW2" wrote in message

...
On Jul 29, 5:28 pm, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:





"ScottW2" wrote in message

...
On Jul 29, 4:21 pm, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in
...
On Jul 29, 3:44 pm, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in
...
On Jul 28, 8:20 pm, "Trevor Wilson"

wrote:

**It would seem so. He sure has some odd ideas. He claims to
understand
science and then places his faith in some water diviner. He's a
lot
like
Arny. He pays lip-service to science. He doesn't really accept or
understand
any of it.

Too easy. If we understand something it necessarily follows the Laws
of Science. If we don't understand something it's God's Will.

Did you have any other questions today?

**Well, yes. One more.

I don't understand Quantum Mechanics. Does that mean I have to
assume
that
it is "God's Will", or do I accept the word of the scientists that
do
understand it?

I meant "we as mankind". For example, "We do not fully understand the
beginnings of the universe. Therefore, there is a God and the universe
is God's will".

The imbeciles among us (here in the US they strongly tend to be
republicans) try to sow confusion by applying the "God's Will"
argument to well-known and well-accepted science. See "Intelligent
Design proponents" as an example.

In 2pid's case "God's Will" applies to "absolutely everything".

**Ah, that all makes sense.

Welcome to the world of Shhtard. Nothing is real, nothing is true.
Enjoy it. You fit right in.

**I'm still waiting for you to man up and admit your errors. I provided
you
with the science and I shredded the reputation of your alleged "expert"
(the
water diviner supporter) and you just scurry away. SOP.

I walked away from your disjointed unindented response.
As far as "shredding" the reputation
of an expert, well that is just laughable by a non-expert like
yourself.

**Your "expert" supports water divining. Clearly, your "expert" has
serious
problems with what constitutes real science. As do you. Your "expert" is
an
idiot. As are you, for your support of water divining.

Can you refute his point that IPCC has cherry picked data to prove
it's claim?

**I refute his claim that water divining has any basis in reality.

I'll take that as as "No, I can't substantially refute his position".

**You may misread my words any way you wish. Here is what I actually wrote
(and I meant EXACTLY what I wrote, not what you imagined):

"**I refute his claim that water divining has any basis in reality. I refute
his claim that sea levels are not rising. I provided proof of this from
Australia's peak scientific body - The CSIRO. I cannot provide proof that
water divining is bunk, as there is zero evidence to suport such nonsense."

If you can supply any evidence which proves that the CSIRO is wrong, then
supply it.



I refute
his claim that sea levels are not rising. I provided proof of this from
Australia's peak scientific body - The CSIRO. I cannot provide proof that
water divining is bunk, as there is zero evidence to suport such nonsense.

Obviously not.

**Water divining is bunk.


**That you failed to read any of my cites is now abundantly clear. You
seem
to prefer to place your faith with those who believe in water divining.
Says
it all really.

Instead you want to argue by reputation.

**Water diviners are charlatans. Your expert is a charlatan.


**Those who support water divining and the supernatural are idiots.

Reputations don't make the wise decision when it comes to something
like energy policy.

**Nor do water diviners. They're charlatans.

Meanwhile your charts still shows Co2 is a lagging indicator in spite
of all your ridiculous pontificating to the contrary.

**Read the damned graphs again. You're wrong. Look at the following dates:

0 years
-16ky
-89ky
-165ky
-184ky
-203ky
-222ky
-245ky
-260ky
-295ky
-305ky
-334ky
-352ky
-393ky



**Go look at the ****ing graphs again. You are wrong. However, feel free
to
cite the dates that you think I got wrong.

All of them. Perhaps you're color blind?

**Nope. My vision is perfect. Moreover, I know how to read graphs. You do
not.


Here's an article that even supports AGW while explaining why C02 lags
temps.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...l-warming.html


**I don't give a crap about your article. The ice core data shows that CO2
can lead AND lag temperature rise. Examine the following dates:

0 years
-16ky
-89ky
-165ky
-184ky
-203ky
-222ky
-245ky
-260ky
-295ky
-305ky
-334ky
-352ky
-393ky


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[hophead]

In article ,
says...

**Real helpful. I believe Free Agent is no longer available.

Try Microplanet Gravity. It's free, and vastly more functional than OE
for usenet. As an added bonus, it quotes correctly.

http://mpgravity.sourceforge.net/

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

hophead said:

**Real helpful. I believe Free Agent is no longer available.

Try Microplanet Gravity. It's free, and vastly more functional than OE
for usenet. As an added bonus, it quotes correctly.
http://mpgravity.sourceforge.net/

Trevor is sulking now. He'll reply later on, probably after downing his second
six-pack.

[Trevor Wilson]

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...


hophead said:

**Real helpful. I believe Free Agent is no longer available.

Try Microplanet Gravity. It's free, and vastly more functional than OE
for usenet. As an added bonus, it quotes correctly.
http://mpgravity.sourceforge.net/

Trevor is sulking now. He'll reply later on, probably after downing his
second
six-pack.

**Idiot. We don't have "six-packs" over here. We have 'slabs'. 24 cans. It's
12:30PM over here. I've already started my second slab.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Trevor Wilson]

"ScottW2" wrote in message
...
On Jul 29, 7:08 pm, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:
"ScottW2" wrote in message

...
On Jul 29, 6:07 pm, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:





"ScottW2" wrote in message

...
On Jul 29, 5:28 pm, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

"ScottW2" wrote in message

...
On Jul 29, 4:21 pm, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in
...
On Jul 29, 3:44 pm, "Trevor Wilson"

wrote:

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in
...
On Jul 28, 8:20 pm, "Trevor Wilson"

wrote:

**It would seem so. He sure has some odd ideas. He claims to
understand
science and then places his faith in some water diviner. He's a
lot
like
Arny. He pays lip-service to science. He doesn't really accept
or
understand
any of it.

Too easy. If we understand something it necessarily follows the
Laws
of Science. If we don't understand something it's God's Will.

Did you have any other questions today?

**Well, yes. One more.

I don't understand Quantum Mechanics. Does that mean I have to
assume
that
it is "God's Will", or do I accept the word of the scientists that
do
understand it?

I meant "we as mankind". For example, "We do not fully understand
the
beginnings of the universe. Therefore, there is a God and the
universe
is God's will".

The imbeciles among us (here in the US they strongly tend to be
republicans) try to sow confusion by applying the "God's Will"
argument to well-known and well-accepted science. See "Intelligent
Design proponents" as an example.

In 2pid's case "God's Will" applies to "absolutely everything".

**Ah, that all makes sense.

Welcome to the world of Shhtard. Nothing is real, nothing is true.
Enjoy it. You fit right in.

**I'm still waiting for you to man up and admit your errors. I
provided
you
with the science and I shredded the reputation of your alleged
"expert"
(the
water diviner supporter) and you just scurry away. SOP.

I walked away from your disjointed unindented response.
As far as "shredding" the reputation
of an expert, well that is just laughable by a non-expert like
yourself.

**Your "expert" supports water divining. Clearly, your "expert" has
serious
problems with what constitutes real science. As do you. Your "expert" is
an
idiot. As are you, for your support of water divining.

Can you refute his point that IPCC has cherry picked data to prove
it's claim?

**I refute his claim that water divining has any basis in reality.

I'll take that as as "No, I can't substantially refute his position".

**You may misread my words any way you wish. Here is what I actually wrote
(and I meant EXACTLY what I wrote, not what you imagined):

"**I refute his claim that water divining has any basis in reality. I
refute
his claim that sea levels are not rising. I provided proof of this from
Australia's peak scientific body - The CSIRO. I cannot provide proof that
water divining is bunk, as there is zero evidence to suport such
nonsense."

Which obviously does not address the cherry picking of the IPCC.

**I am SPECIFICALLY referring to the data supplied by the CSIRO. I note that
you are unable to refute their data.


If you can supply any evidence which proves that the CSIRO is wrong, then
supply it.

I did.

**Well, no, you did not. Place your alternate data he

----



----

You can't refute it beyond attacking reputations.

**Sure I can. I supplied the CSIRO data. It has been peer-reviewed and is
accurate. You supply non-peer-reviewed nonsense which has been sprouted by a
water diviner supporter. The CSIRO does not support water diviners.



I refute
his claim that sea levels are not rising. I provided proof of this from
Australia's peak scientific body - The CSIRO.

Which speaks to your countries ability as most of their output is to
regurgitate someone elses data.

**The CSIRO gathers their own data, as well as data from other reputable
(non-water diviner) sources.


I cannot provide proof that
water divining is bunk, as there is zero evidence to suport such
nonsense.

Obviously not.

**Water divining is bunk.

**Water divining is bunk.




**That you failed to read any of my cites is now abundantly clear. You
seem
to prefer to place your faith with those who believe in water divining.
Says
it all really.

Instead you want to argue by reputation.

**Water diviners are charlatans. Your expert is a charlatan.

You are a charlatan....and touched deeply by GWB.

**Prove your claim.

Does that enhnace your credibility?

**Prove your claim.




**Those who support water divining and the supernatural are idiots.

Reputations don't make the wise decision when it comes to something
like energy policy.

**Nor do water diviners. They're charlatans.

Meanwhile your charts still shows Co2 is a lagging indicator in spite
of all your ridiculous pontificating to the contrary.

**Read the damned graphs again. You're wrong. Look at the following dates:

0 years
-16ky

Looks like temps started rising at -23K years and CO2 trended lower
until -16k
when both C02 and temps started up.

**CO2 starte rising at around -16ky. Temperature rose soon after. If you
refer to the next page (which you clearly have not, despite my suggestion
that you do so), you will note that CO2 levels began rising again around 200
years ago and temperatures followed suit. READ THE WHOLE SITE.


-89ky

Temps started rising at -91ky and C02 at -89.
Data is very clear temps lead. The avg lead time according to most
analysis is 800 years. This particular time segment looks to be
closer to 2000 years.

**It is clear that CO2 levels began rising at around -89ky and temperatures
at around -85ky.

I'll let you review the rest before you ...uh...embarrass yourself
further.

**Unlike you, I can read a graph. I suggest you get some help.


Here's an article that even supports AGW while explaining why C02 lags
temps.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...hs-ice-cores-s...

**I don't give a crap about your article.

Which shows your myopia is complete. In such a state you cannot
learn.

**I've provided clear proof that CO2 levels can lead AND lag temperatures. I
don't give a crap what anyone else claims. The ice core data does not lie.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Clyde Slick]

On 29 iul., 22:36, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:


**Idiot. We don't have "six-packs" over here. We have 'slabs'. 24 cans. It's
12:30PM over here. I've already started my second slab.

--
Trevor Wilsonwww.rageaudio.com.au

here (up over), a slab is what you lie on when you are in the autopsy
room.

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article
,
Clyde Slick wrote:

On 29 iul., 22:36, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:


**Idiot. We don't have "six-packs" over here. We have 'slabs'. 24 cans. It's
12:30PM over here. I've already started my second slab.

--
Trevor Wilsonwww.rageaudio.com.au

here (up over), a slab is what you lie on when you are in the autopsy
room.

Or a serving of ribs.

[Trevor Wilson]

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...
On 29 iul., 22:36, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:


**Idiot. We don't have "six-packs" over here. We have 'slabs'. 24 cans.
It's
12:30PM over here. I've already started my second slab.

--
Trevor Wilsonwww.rageaudio.com.au

here (up over), a slab is what you lie on when you are in the autopsy
room.

**Then here is where you need to start:

http://www.koalanet.com.au/australian-slang.html

Search for 'slab'.

Once you understand the terms:

Slab
Shout
Septic

You'll be 'apples'.

I note that 'septic' is not in the dictionary. I will translate for you:

septic = septic tank = yank = American.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Trevor Wilson said:

Trevor is sulking now. He'll reply later on, probably after downing his
second six-pack.

**Idiot. We don't have "six-packs" over here. We have 'slabs'. 24 cans. It's
12:30PM over here. I've already started my second slab.

With a beer budget like that, it's no wonder you can't scrape together a
tenner to buy a proper piece of software.

[Clyde Slick]

On 29 iul., 23:58, Jenn wrote:
In article
,
*Clyde Slick wrote:

On 29 iul., 22:36, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

**Idiot. We don't have "six-packs" over here. We have 'slabs'. 24 cans. It's
12:30PM over here. I've already started my second slab.

--
Trevor Wilsonwww.rageaudio.com.au

here (up over), a slab is what you lie on when you are *in the autopsy
room.

Or a serving of ribs.

one will get you the other.

[Clyde Slick]

On 30 iul., 00:18, George M. Middius wrote:
Trevor Wilson said:

Trevor is sulking now. He'll reply later on, probably after downing his
second six-pack.

**Idiot. We don't have "six-packs" over here. We have 'slabs'. 24 cans. It's
12:30PM over here. I've already started my second slab.

With a beer budget like that, it's no wonder you can't scrape together a
tenner to buy a proper piece of software.

Especially since he imports his favorite Iron City.

[Clyde Slick]

On 30 iul., 00:08, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message

...

On 29 iul., 22:36, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

**Idiot. We don't have "six-packs" over here. We have 'slabs'. 24 cans..
It's
12:30PM over here. I've already started my second slab.

--
Trevor Wilsonwww.rageaudio.com.au

here (up over), a slab is what you lie on when you are *in the autopsy
room.

**Then here is where you need to start:

http://www.koalanet.com.au/australian-slang.html

Search for 'slab'.

Once you understand the terms:

Slab
Shout
Septic

You'll be 'apples'.

I note that 'septic' is not in the dictionary. I will translate for you:

septic = septic tank = yank = American.


Whatever, considering that crap comes from a drongo ABC poofter

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Clyde Slick said:

hatever, considering that crap comes from a drongo ABC poofter

Who said this?

"I don't hate anybody."

[Clyde Slick]

On 30 iul., 02:03, George M. Middius wrote:
Clyde Slick said:

hatever, considering that crap comes from a drongo ABC poofter

Who said this?

"I don't hate anybody."

Not even you, Georgiepoo

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article
,
ScottW2 wrote:

On Jul 30, 9:17*pm, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

Try using google groups if, like me, you won't waste a nickel on
usenet.

Or eternal-september.org

[Trevor Wilson]

"ScottW2" wrote in message
...
On Jul 30, 9:55 pm, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

Long disjointed posts give me a headache. So I'll just break this down
to simple
points you might consider...though I doubt it.

How about between -280ky and -270ky where temps fell dramatically
while C02 was roughly flat?

**What about it? What point are you trying to make? Are trying to suggest
that _I_ am claiming that CO2 is the sole driver of temperature rise? Or
are
you attempting to make some other obscure point?

So if temps can fall why C02 is flat can temps be flat while C02
rises?

**I'll ask the questions one more time:
What about it?
What point are you trying to make?
Are trying to suggest that _I_ am claiming that CO2 is the sole driver of
temperature rise?
Or are you attempting to make some other obscure point?

Answer my questions and I'll answer yours.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article
,
ScottW2 wrote:

On Jul 30, 9:50*pm, Jenn wrote:
In article
,

*ScottW2 wrote:
On Jul 30, 9:17*pm, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

*Try using google groups if, like me, you won't waste a nickel on
usenet.

Or eternal-september.org

That "private project" doesn't explain why a valid e-mail is required
in posts nor overtly declare, that I can see, that they aren't selling
same.

ScottW

I've using it and they haven't tried to sell me anything.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jul 31, 1:10*pm, ScottW2 wrote:

* Duh.

LoL. That's the first honest thing you've said here. LoL.

[Trevor Wilson]

"ScottW2" wrote in message
...
On Jul 30, 10:21 pm, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:
"ScottW2" wrote in message

...
On Jul 30, 9:55 pm, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

Long disjointed posts give me a headache. So I'll just break this down
to simple
points you might consider...though I doubt it.



How about between -280ky and -270ky where temps fell dramatically
while C02 was roughly flat?

**What about it? What point are you trying to make? Are trying to
suggest
that _I_ am claiming that CO2 is the sole driver of temperature rise? Or
are
you attempting to make some other obscure point?

So if temps can fall why C02 is flat can temps be flat while C02
rises?

**I'll ask the questions one more time:
What about it?

It brings into doubt all these climate models predicting catastrophic
rises of temp with C02.....something that current trends aren't
upholding.

**No, it does not. CO2 is not the sole driver of climate on this planet. It
is *one* of the drivers.


**Here are my questions again:

What about it?
What point are you trying to make?
Are trying to suggest that _I_ am claiming that CO2 is the sole driver of
temperature rise?
Or are you attempting to make some other obscure point?

Answer my questions and I'll answer yours.



--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[John A. Sinsabaugh]

This is Supposed to be an Audio Group. Where is the Moderator. Enough of
this political junk!




"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
...
On Jul 31, 1:10 pm, ScottW2 wrote:

Duh.

LoL. That's the first honest thing you've said here. LoL.

[Clyde Slick]

On 4 aug., 23:26, "John A. Sinsabaugh" wrote:


.. *Where is the Moderator. *

We took him out back and shot him

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Clyde Slick said:

. *Where is the Moderator. *

We took him out back and shot him

That's not how I remember it. I remember a frenzy of horrific barking and
snarling, followed by screaming, then rapid digging.