On Thu, 12 Jan 2023 09:33:44 +1100, Fran
<gettingmoredelusionalbythedayistheforger@nutcasewannabeFran.com>
wrote:

>On 12/01/2023 12:05 am, KKKernal Corn wrote:
>> On Wed, 11 Jan 2023 09:55:08 +1100, Fran
>> <gettingmoredelusionalbythedayistheforger@nutcasewannabeFran.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/01/2023 9:30 am, KKKernal Corn wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 11 Jan 2023 08:46:14 +1100, Fran
>>>> <gettingmoredelusionalbythedayistheforger@nutcasewannabeFran.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 11/01/2023 7:56 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/01/2023 12:01 am, KKKernal Corn wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 6 Jan 2023 19:24:38 +1100, Trevor Wilson
>>>>>>> <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> **Prove that the IPCC reports are in error. You can insult and demean
>>>>>>>>>> the UN all you wish, but you need to provide some proof that the IPCC
>>>>>>>>>> reports are wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Over to you dickhead: PROVE IT. Prove that the IPCC reports are wrong.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No, over to YOU, shithead.  Prove they're worth any more than any
>>>>>>>>> other UN excrement.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> **YOU are the one claiming that all the peer-reviewed science in the
>>>>>>>> IPCC reports is wrong, yet you offer ZERO proof of your claim.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You haven't even READ the IPCC reports. That much is obvious.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> **I have read MUCH of the IPCC reports. I have not read ALL the reports
>>>>>> in their entirety.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> YOU, OTOH, have read not one word of the IPCC reports.
>>>>>
>>>>> :-)))))) His ignorance of the contents won't stop him.
>>>>
>>>> Lick, Lick. SLURP.
>>>
>>> Yes,
>>
>> Yes!
>>
>>> I'm sure that is how you eat.
>>
>> I KNOW that's how you suck Twevor's rear end.
>
>By now everyone has figured out that are a liar. You have never read
>any IPCC glossary, and can't read for comprehension.

Says an ignorant cunt who doesn't even know which glossary is being
referred to.

>You clearly have no idea what is meant by the term "glacial period" and
>when that is made plural and becomes "glacial periods" you are still
>lost. Your failure to understand doesn't stop you digging yourself
>further into a hole. Find an adult who can read to explain the
>following to you

Twevor can't explain it because he KNOWS "The history of glacial
periods is less than 1 million years" is a load of shite. In fact, the
history of glacial periods is more like 2.4 BILLION years. Perhaps YOU
can explain that to him?

>* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
> >> Message-Id: <k1gte6FnsslU1@mid.individual.net>
> >>
> >> **Points:
> >>
> >> * We don't know if glaciations are cyclical or not.
> >> * The regularity of glaciations is highly variable (+/- 50kyr).
> >> * The history of this planet stretches to around 4.5 billion years.
> >> The history of glacial periods is less than 1 million years.
> >> * We need a great deal more information to determine if there is a
> >> cyclical nature to glaciations.
> >>
> >> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>
>
>It's quite clear and it's VERY easy to understand but you just don't get
>it.

You're as fucking stupid as Twevor. Neither of you convict spawn
dimwits has a clue.

On Thu, 12 Jan 2023 09:43:54 +1100, Fran
<gettingmoredelusionalbythedayistheforger@nutcasewannabeFran.com>
wrote:

>On 11/01/2023 11:41 pm, KKKernal Corn wrote:
>> On Wed, 11 Jan 2023 08:42:23 +1100, Fran
>> <gettingmoredelusionalbythedayistheforger@nutcasewannabeFran.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/01/2023 12:02 am, KKKernal Corn wrote:
>>
>> <b'rissed>
>>
>>>>>>>> Listen here, convict spawn:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yep. Having had British convicts shipped to our shores is a history we
>>>>>>> share with the US which also had convicts shipped to the shores of it's[sic]
>>>>>>> colonies.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nothing on the scale of Oztralia's transportations.
>>>>>
>>>>> ?????? Nothing I wrote referred to number of convicts transported. But
>>>>> then you never can read well.
>>>>
>>>> ALL of Oztralia's original 'immigrants' were convicts. Most of the
>>>> recent ones have been too!
>>>
>>> Korn, your ignorance is already well proven so there is no need for yo
>>> to keep parading it.
>>
>> Cunt, your shitty little island's history is already well known.
>> There's no point trying to deny it.
>
>Learn to read. I denied nothing. I do keep pointing out your
>ignornace. You keep proving your ignornace and gutter breeding.

Gutter breeding? Ironic coming from a cunt descended from convicts
and prostitutes. Their defective DNA has carried forward to yours.

>>>>> And illiteracy
>>>>>> noted.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Oztralian immigration officer to new arrival: Do you have a criminal
>>>>>> record?
>>>>>> New arrival: I didn't know that was still a requirement.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nah, that was the immigration officer at Ellis Island.
>>>>
>>>> Nah, it wasn't.
>>>>
>>>>>>> It's amazing how many Americans are ignorant of their nation's convict
>>>>>>> history. They parade their ignorance when they try to insult
>>>>>>> Australians about our convict past.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> STFU, convict spawn.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope. Sadly I don't have a single convict ancestor. They are highly
>>>>> desirable to have in one's tree.
>>>>
>>>> Bad blood is inherited.
>>>
>>> I'm sure you have lots of it.
>>>
>>> Only a bunch of retards on that silly little
>>>> upside down island of yours would find it 'desirable'.
>>>
>>> Yes,
>>
>> I'm glad we agree on that, then.
>
>You need reading lessons.

Hardly. But it seems that you do.

>>> provincial and insular septics often make such ignorant comments.
>>> Americans should get out more but passpost ownership in the US has
>>> always been low when compared to more outward looking less parochial and
>>> narrow minded nations.
>>
>> Why bother going to all these shitholes when all the information (and
>> more) is available on the Internet?
>
>Except it's not.

It certainly is.
>>>>> I see that you haven't added a single comment
>>>>>> relevant to climate change or Ice Ages.
>>>>>
>>>>> Neither have you so it's not a requirement.
>>>>
>>>> Yes I have, you lying cunt.
>>>
>>> No, you haven't. You think your braying comments to Trevor are
>>> meaningful but all you contribute is trolling and ignorance.
>>
>> I have exposed your anilingus beneficiary Twevor as an ignorant and
>> pompous twat who knows jack shit.
>
>No you haven't. You've revealed your inability to read. You keep
>braying your ignorance. Hint: 'glacial period' vs 'glacial periods'
>Further hint, duration of one vs the other.

Here's what Twevor wrote:

"Just because this planet has seen a million years of glacial periods,
does not mean we will continue to experience glacial periods.
Particularly in light of the fact that the planet is 4.5 BILLION years
old, a million years represents a minute fraction of the age of the
planet. Additionally, we have accumulated almost 8 billion humans
since the last ice age. The CO2 emitted by 8 billion humans has
altered the climate."

In comparison, here are the FACTS:

"The five major ice ages in the paleo record include the Huronian
glaciation (2.4 billion to 2.1 billion years ago), the Cryogenian
glaciation (720 million to 635 million years ago), the Andean-Saharan
glaciation (450 million to 420 million years ago), the Late Paleozoic
ice age (335 million to 260 million years ago) and the Quaternary
glaciation (2.7 million years ago to present).

Get it now? Geez, you fucking people are thick.

>> Now tell us what YOU know (LOL) about climate change and Ice Ages!
>
>When you do, I will. Now go and learn to read.

You know jack shit about either. Ask me how I know.

On Thu, 12 Jan 2023 10:04:15 +1100, Trevor Wilson
<trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

>On 11/01/2023 11:44 pm, KKKernal Corn wrote:
>> On Wed, 11 Jan 2023 08:58:35 +1100, Trevor Wilson
>> <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/01/2023 8:35 am, KKKernal Corn wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 11 Jan 2023 07:58:22 +1100, Trevor Wilson
>>>> <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 10/01/2023 11:59 pm, KKKernal Corn wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 7 Jan 2023 09:03:02 +1100, Trevor Wilson
>>>>>> <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 6/01/2023 10:23 am, KKKernal Corn wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 13:15:53 +0000, KKKernal Corn <vet@invalid.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <b'rissed>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> WHY is Twevor Wilson ignoring this FACT?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> **I ignore nothing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am, however, STILL waiting for you to provide your proof that:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> * Arrhenius was wrong.
>>>>>>> * The IPCC reports are wrong.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You have failed miserably in supporting your claims.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You haven't even read the IPCC reports. If you had, you wouldn't have
>>>>>> claimed that Ice Ages only covered the last million years.
>>>>>
>>>>> **Did I make such a claim?
>>>>>
>>>>> Cite.
>>>>
>>>> I already did that <sigh>. Here it is again:
>>>>
>>>> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>>>> Message-Id: <k1gte6FnsslU1@mid.individual.net>
>>>>
>>>> **Points:
>>>>
>>>> * We don't know if glaciations are cyclical or not.
>>>> * The regularity of glaciations is highly variable (+/- 50kyr).
>>>> * The history of this planet stretches to around 4.5 billion years.
>>>> The history of glacial periods is less than 1 million years.
>>>> * We need a great deal more information to determine if there is a
>>>> cyclical nature to glaciations.
>>>>
>>>> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>>>>
>>>> You see where it says 1 million years? Explain your way out of that,
>>>> shithead.
>>>
>>> **Read what I wrote. CAREFULLY.
>>
>> Explain what you think you wrote. CAREFULLY.
>
>**No, you did not. Read it again.

I could read it fifty times, it'd still be horseshit.

> Everyone can see what
>> you DID write.
>>
>> How about starting with "What I really meant to say was..."?
>>
>> This should be good.
>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>> "The five major ice ages in the paleo record include the Huronian
>>>>>>>> glaciation (2.4 billion to 2.1 billion years ago), the Cryogenian
>>>>>>>> glaciation (720 million to 635 million years ago), the Andean-Saharan
>>>>>>>> glaciation (450 million to 420 million years ago), the Late Paleozoic
>>>>>>>> ice age (335 million to 260 million years ago) and the Quaternary
>>>>>>>> glaciation (2.7 million years ago to present)."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The polar ice caps are proof that we are still in a mega Ice Age.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> **Ummm, nope. We are in a cool period, but the planet is warming
>>>>>>> rapidly. As Arrhenius predicted and as the IPCC has reported.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Idiot. Every mega Ice Age had a warming period as it waned.
>>>>>
>>>>> **Explain how the planet can enter an ice age, if the planet is warming.
>>>>
>>>> Every mega ICE AGE has a cooling period followed by a warming period.
>>>> We are LEAVING the current mega ice age. The real question is how soon
>>>> we will have a mini ice age similar to those in the Middle Ages when
>>>> the Thames would regularly freeze over.
>>>
>>> **Explain how the planet can enter an ice age, if the planet is warming.
>>>
>>> I don't want a history lesson. I want to hear your scientific
>>> explanation of how it can occur.
>>
>> Read it again. We are not ENTERING an Ice Age, we are LEAVING the
>> current (Quaternary) one: the warming period always follows the
>> cooliing period. I want to hear your scientific explanation of how
>> you can't understand that.
>
>**And again: Explain how the planet can enter an ice age, if the planet
>is warming.

It's not ENTERING one, it's LEAVING one! Duh. Can't you fucking
READ???

>I don't want a history lesson.

You desperately NEED one.

>I want to know where the IPCC and Arrhenius got it wrong (according to
>you) and how the planet can enter an ice age, whilst the temperature is
>RISING.

Not ENTER an Ice Age, idiot, LEAVE the current Quaternary Ice Age!

>Give us your considered scientific opinion (with supporting evidence, of
>course) on these matters.
>
>You've made some big claims about some very credible climate scientists.
>Those big claims need some big evidence.
>
>Over to you.
>
>I bet you continue to dodge my requests, like you always have.

I bet you continue to claim that glaciations only happened in the last
million years. Which is obviously total CRAP.

On Thu, 12 Jan 2023 10:01:11 +1100, Fran
<gettingmoredelusionalbythedayistheforger@nutcasewannabeFran.com>
wrote:

>On 11/01/2023 11:44 pm, KKKernal Corn wrote:
>> On Wed, 11 Jan 2023 08:58:35 +1100, Trevor Wilson
>> <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/01/2023 8:35 am, KKKernal Corn wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 11 Jan 2023 07:58:22 +1100, Trevor Wilson
>>>> <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 10/01/2023 11:59 pm, KKKernal Corn wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 7 Jan 2023 09:03:02 +1100, Trevor Wilson
>>>>>> <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 6/01/2023 10:23 am, KKKernal Corn wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 13:15:53 +0000, KKKernal Corn <vet@invalid.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>
>>>> I already did that <sigh>. Here it is again:
>>>>
>>>> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>>>> Message-Id: <k1gte6FnsslU1@mid.individual.net>
>>>>
>>>> **Points:
>>>>
>>>> * We don't know if glaciations are cyclical or not.
>>>> * The regularity of glaciations is highly variable (+/- 50kyr).
>>>> * The history of this planet stretches to around 4.5 billion years.
>>>> The history of glacial periods is less than 1 million years.
>>>> * We need a great deal more information to determine if there is a
>>>> cyclical nature to glaciations.
>>>>
>>>> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>>>>
>>>> You see where it says 1 million years? Explain your way out of that,
>>>> shithead.
>>>
>>> **Read what I wrote. CAREFULLY.
>>
>> Explain what you think you wrote. CAREFULLY. Everyone can see what
>> you DID write.
>
>FFS Korn!!!! You really are THE most stupid person! Stop digging and
>READ what he wrote!!!!! When you've read it once, REREAD it!!!!!!!

FFS cunt!!! You're as stupid as that other convict spawn Twevor!!!!

>Hint: How long is a glacial period?
>How many glacial periods have there been?
>What has been the duration of each of these glacial periods?

BIG hint: the history of glacial periods is NOT less than 1 million
years. In fact it's more like 2.4 BILLION years!

>Your stupidity is astounding.

Your ignorance is overwhelming. I don't see any cure.

>If you STILL don't understand it even after my hints, find someone who
>can explain it to you.

Your 'hints' merely reflect Twevor's blunder. He also said THIS:

"Just because this planet has seen a million years of glacial periods,
does not mean we will continue to experience glacial periods.
Particularly in light of the fact that the planet is 4.5 BILLION years
old, a million years represents a minute fraction of the age of the
planet. Additionally, we have accumulated almost 8 billion humans
since the last ice age. The CO2 emitted by 8 billion humans has
altered the climate."

A million years??? More like 2.4 BILLION fucking years!

>> How about starting with "What I really meant to say was..."?
>>
>> This should be good.
>
>FFS!!! The ONLY person who has trouble understanding what he said is
>you. Try harder. Once the penny finally drops (hint; 'period' vs
>'periods') go get some remedial reading lessons. You're just a silly
>and ignorant fool.

You're just a stupid ignorant cunt who can't get her tongue out of
Twevor's anus.

On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 7:42:02 PM UTC+11, Daniel65 wrote:
> petzl wrote on 6/1/23 9:44 pm:
> > On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 7:33:51 PM UTC+11, Daniel65 wrote:
> >> Petzl wrote on 6/1/23 11:29 am:
> >>> On Fri, 6 Jan 2023 11:02:14 +1100, abc <automa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> On 12/24/22 08:39, Petzl wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Tiberius Caesar who reigned for 22 years,
> >>>> and his last year was AD 37. wrote:
> >>>> "The extremities of Spain, the various parts of Gaul, the regions of
> >>>> Britain which have never been penetrated by Roman arms, have received
> >>>> the religion of Christ."
> >>>>
> >>>> No - that cant be true. That is only 5 or 10 years after the death of
> >>>> Christ. It spread fast, but cant have spread that fast.
> >>>>
> >>> The Vatican first believed the scroll real, but could not verify it
> >>> was 100% genuine, but probably is.
> >>> The same for the Shroud of Christ
> >>>
> >> What "scroll", Petzl!!
> >>
> > One of a number unearthed by archeologists believed written by
> > Tiberius Caesar and given to the Vatican.
> >
> Ah, so you don't know, Petzl.
? Only what Pope John Paul's Newsletter told me around 1990
<https://www.catholicnewsagency.com>
--
Petzl
Jesus “taught with authority” (Matthew 7:29), and the risen Lord gave
his Apostles a share in his authority when he commissioned them to
make disciples from all the nations by teaching what he had commanded
them (Matthew 28:18–20).

Tiberius Caesar who reigned for 22 years,
and his last year was AD 37. wrote:
"The extremities of Spain, the various parts of Gaul, the regions of
Britain which have never been penetrated by Roman arms, have received
the religion of Christ."

On 6/01/2023 12:15 am, KKKernal Corn wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Jan 2023 08:56:48 +1100, Trevor Wilson
> <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>
>> On 4/01/2023 11:12 pm, KKKernal Corn wrote:
>>> On Wed, 4 Jan 2023 10:49:39 +1100, Trevor Wilson
>>> <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4/01/2023 9:38 am, KKKernal Corn wrote:
>>>
>>> <b'rissed>
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yea.. somehow I find you a far less creditable source than all the
>>>>>>>>>>> massive amounts of data and resource by educated, trained and
>>>>>>>>>>> experiences people who you say haven't proven anything.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> **You mean like the guys who work with:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> www.ipcc.ch
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You're losing it, cobber. Best lie down.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> **I realise that you have no functioning neurons left in your noggin. I
>>>>>>>> suggest you listen to those who know more than you do (which is mostly
>>>>>>>> everyone).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You don't even realiise that there's an Ice Age coming!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> **What evidence do you magically possess to suggest that an ice age is
>>>>>> coming, despite the fact that average temperatures are rising.
>>>>>
>>>>> Historical evidence.
>>>>
>>>> **Historical evidence is just that: HISTORICAL evidence. It is not proof
>>>> of a future occurrence.
>>>
>>> So many prior cycles and now you imagine they will suddenly stop?
>>
>> **How many prior cycles? The cycles you speak of represent approximately
>> 1/4,500th of the entire history of this planet.
>
> Horseshit. I've already named the previous Ice Ages going back 2+
> billion years. Here they are again:
>
> From livescience.com:
>
> "The five major ice ages in the paleo record include the Huronian
> glaciation (2.4 billion to 2.1 billion years ago), the Cryogenian
> glaciation (720 million to 635 million years ago), the Andean-Saharan
> glaciation (450 million to 420 million years ago), the Late Paleozoic
> ice age (335 million to 260 million years ago) and the Quaternary
> glaciation (2.7 million years ago to present).
>
>> Bitcoin has seen some cycles of up and down. Will you sell your house
>> and put all your money into Bitcoin?
>
> Strawman.
>
>> I agree that there has been a few ice ages over the past million years
>> or so. I don't know if there will be another and YOU don't know either.
>> Moreover, human release of CO2 emissions has ensured that an ice age is
>> far less likely to occur.
>
> Another blunder. Billions of years not million years.
>
>>>> I've already mentioned Milankovic's hypothesis:
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> **I am well aware of Milankovic Cycles. They are certainly an
>>>> hypothesis. They are not fact. Hell, they have yet to advance to a theory.
>>>
>>> Hell, better than anything you have presented.
>>>
>>>>> "As the planet circles the sun, three factors affect how much sunlight
>>>>> it gets: its tilt (which ranges from 24.5 degrees to 22.1 degrees on a
>>>>> 41,000-year cycle); its eccentricity (the changing shape of its orbit
>>>>> around the sun, which ranges from a near-circle to an oval-like
>>>>> shape); and its wobble (one full wobble, which looks like a slowly
>>>>> spinning top, happens every 19,000 to 23,000 years), according to
>>>>> Milankovitch.
>>>>>
>>>>> In 1976, a landmark paper in the journal Science provided evidence
>>>>> that these three orbital parameters explained the planet's glacial
>>>>> cycles, Sandstrom said."
>>>>>
>>>>> Care to refute that with your own hypothesis?
>>>>
>>>> **I don't need to. The planet is warming. You can't have an ice age,
>>>> when the planet is warming.
>>>
>>> Until it starts to cool down again.
>>
>> **OK then. YOU tell us: When will the planet begin to cool.
>
> LOL. Do you want an exact date and time?

**Yes. You claim that it will cool. Tell us when. More importantly: Tell
us by what mechanism, the planet will begin cooling.

>
>> Which history tells us will
>>> always happen.
>>
>> **No. The history tells us that it DID happen. History cannot tell us
>> what WILL happen.
>
> History is a good predictor of what will happen.

**Wrong, moron. History is an excellent indicator of what DID happen.

>
>> Surely you don't think temperatures will keep rising
>>> ad infinitum?
>>
>> **Of course not. I never claimed that they would. That they will rise
>> further is certain though. Depending upon what humans decide to do, will
>> determine how much further the temperatures will rise.
>
> If they're not going to keep rising indefinitely, then they will stop.
> And what happens next? Do they stay the same or do they start to
> fall?

**That would depend on a very wide range of factors. Temperatures may
rise to equal the historical highs of around 10 ~ 14 degrees C above
today's levels. No one knows. Maybe they'll go higher still. No one
knows, as we are entering unknown levels of CO2 concentration. It is
beyond dispute that temperatures will rise to around 1.5 degrees C above
historical average levels and probably 2 degrees. If humans do nothing,
then temperatures will rise further and, if the so-called 'tipping
point' is reached (which most climate scientists believe is a thing),
then nothing we can do will prevent a runaway warming. We are already
witnessing the beginnings of that runaway effect, with the large
releases of methane from Arctic regions.

>
>> What will happen when most of the Earth's population is
>>> dead as a result of 'climate change'?
>>
>> **Unknown.
>
> Just like the rest of your crap.

**Like I said: I accept what the climate scientists tell me.

Why do you ignore them?

>
>> Who is going to produce the CO2
>>> to keep temperatures rising???
>>
>> **Unknown.
>
> Just like the rest of your crap.

**You're posing an idiotic hypothetical. My response was entirely
appropriate.

>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> I assume you are aware that an ice age is impossible if temperatures are
>>>>>> rising?
>>>>>
>>>>> They rise, then they fall...just like they did in previous Ice Ages.
>>>>
>>>> **Except that temperatures are rising. Not falling.
>>>
>>> Rising now, falling later. Do you not get that???
>>
>> **I get that you have ZERO idea when/if temperatures will fall.
>
> Just like you have ZERO idea when they will stop rising.

**Again: It depends on what humans decide to do. The fate of the climate
is entirely in the hands of humans. If we do nothing, temperatures could
rise to more than 10 degrees C above today's levels. If we act quickly
and with purpose, then we may only see a 1.5 degree C rise.

>
>>>>> It's an (extreme) extension of the processes that produce winters
>>>>> after summers.
>>>>>
>>>>>> I suggest you
>>>>>>> look at historical records going back millions of years..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> **What happened in the past may not be a reliable indicator of our future.
>>>>>
>>>>> The tilt, eccentriciy and wobble mentioned above are a reliable
>>>>> indicator of our future. The interglacial periods do vary, though,
>>>>> and the CO2 in the atmosphere may delay, but ultimately won't prevent,
>>>>> the next Ice Age.
>>>>
>>>> **Prove it.
>>>
>>> Defy history and disprove it.
>>
>> **History is an indicator of the past. It does not necessarily predict
>> the future.
>
> It's a better predictor of the future than your crap.

On 12/01/2023 11:56 am, KKKernal Corn wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jan 2023 10:04:15 +1100, Trevor Wilson
> <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>
>> On 11/01/2023 11:44 pm, KKKernal Corn wrote:
>>> On Wed, 11 Jan 2023 08:58:35 +1100, Trevor Wilson
>>> <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 11/01/2023 8:35 am, KKKernal Corn wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 11 Jan 2023 07:58:22 +1100, Trevor Wilson
>>>>> <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/01/2023 11:59 pm, KKKernal Corn wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sat, 7 Jan 2023 09:03:02 +1100, Trevor Wilson
>>>>>>> <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 6/01/2023 10:23 am, KKKernal Corn wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 13:15:53 +0000, KKKernal Corn <vet@invalid.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> <b'rissed>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> WHY is Twevor Wilson ignoring this FACT?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> **I ignore nothing.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I am, however, STILL waiting for you to provide your proof that:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> * Arrhenius was wrong.
>>>>>>>> * The IPCC reports are wrong.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You have failed miserably in supporting your claims.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You haven't even read the IPCC reports. If you had, you wouldn't have
>>>>>>> claimed that Ice Ages only covered the last million years.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> **Did I make such a claim?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cite.
>>>>>
>>>>> I already did that <sigh>. Here it is again:
>>>>>
>>>>> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>>>>> Message-Id: <k1gte6FnsslU1@mid.individual.net>
>>>>>
>>>>> **Points:
>>>>>
>>>>> * We don't know if glaciations are cyclical or not.
>>>>> * The regularity of glaciations is highly variable (+/- 50kyr).
>>>>> * The history of this planet stretches to around 4.5 billion years.
>>>>> The history of glacial periods is less than 1 million years.
>>>>> * We need a great deal more information to determine if there is a
>>>>> cyclical nature to glaciations.
>>>>>
>>>>> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>>>>>
>>>>> You see where it says 1 million years? Explain your way out of that,
>>>>> shithead.
>>>>
>>>> **Read what I wrote. CAREFULLY.
>>>
>>> Explain what you think you wrote. CAREFULLY.
>>
>> **No, you did not. Read it again.
>
> I could read it fifty times, it'd still be horseshit.
>
>> Everyone can see what
>>> you DID write.
>>>
>>> How about starting with "What I really meant to say was..."?
>>>
>>> This should be good.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "The five major ice ages in the paleo record include the Huronian
>>>>>>>>> glaciation (2.4 billion to 2.1 billion years ago), the Cryogenian
>>>>>>>>> glaciation (720 million to 635 million years ago), the Andean-Saharan
>>>>>>>>> glaciation (450 million to 420 million years ago), the Late Paleozoic
>>>>>>>>> ice age (335 million to 260 million years ago) and the Quaternary
>>>>>>>>> glaciation (2.7 million years ago to present)."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The polar ice caps are proof that we are still in a mega Ice Age.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> **Ummm, nope. We are in a cool period, but the planet is warming
>>>>>>>> rapidly. As Arrhenius predicted and as the IPCC has reported.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Idiot. Every mega Ice Age had a warming period as it waned.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> **Explain how the planet can enter an ice age, if the planet is warming.
>>>>>
>>>>> Every mega ICE AGE has a cooling period followed by a warming period.
>>>>> We are LEAVING the current mega ice age. The real question is how soon
>>>>> we will have a mini ice age similar to those in the Middle Ages when
>>>>> the Thames would regularly freeze over.
>>>>
>>>> **Explain how the planet can enter an ice age, if the planet is warming.
>>>>
>>>> I don't want a history lesson. I want to hear your scientific
>>>> explanation of how it can occur.
>>>
>>> Read it again. We are not ENTERING an Ice Age, we are LEAVING the
>>> current (Quaternary) one: the warming period always follows the
>>> cooliing period. I want to hear your scientific explanation of how
>>> you can't understand that.
>>
>> **And again: Explain how the planet can enter an ice age, if the planet
>> is warming.
>
> It's not ENTERING one, it's LEAVING one! Duh. Can't you fucking
> READ???
>
>> I don't want a history lesson.
>
> You desperately NEED one.
>
>> I want to know where the IPCC and Arrhenius got it wrong (according to
>> you) and how the planet can enter an ice age, whilst the temperature is
>> RISING.
>
> Not ENTER an Ice Age, idiot, LEAVE the current Quaternary Ice Age!
>
>> Give us your considered scientific opinion (with supporting evidence, of
>> course) on these matters.
>>
>> You've made some big claims about some very credible climate scientists.
>> Those big claims need some big evidence.
>>
>> Over to you.
>>
>> I bet you continue to dodge my requests, like you always have.
>
> I bet you continue to claim that glaciations only happened in the last
> million years. Which is obviously total CRAP.

**Here is what you wrote about the IPCC:

"*You* call it the 'best science available', I don't. *I* call it yet
more UN bullshit. Back over to you."

Prove that the IPCC reports are bullshit.

"Listen here, convict spawn: if it has been excreted by the UN then
it's bullshit by definition. Nothing of value EVER gets excreted by
the Turd World dominated UN."

Prove that the IPCC reports are bullshit.

"It's the fucking UN...as useless an inter-governmental body as there
ever was. What's there to prove? Find ONE thing of value the UN has
ever produced."

Prove that the IPCC reports are bullshit.

"I note that you have failed to prove Arrhenius correct. I note that
you have failed to prove the IPCC UN shitheads correct."

Prove that the IPCC reports are bullshit. Prove that Arrhenius was wrong.

"LOL. Horse manure like the rest of their output."

Prove that the IPCC reports are horse manure.

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com

On 12/01/2023 11:12 am, KKKernal Corn wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jan 2023 09:59:55 +1100, Trevor Wilson
> <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>
>> On 12/01/2023 12:04 am, KKKernal Corn wrote:
>>> On Wed, 11 Jan 2023 10:52:43 +1100, Trevor Wilson
>>> <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 11/01/2023 9:36 am, KKKernal Corn wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 11 Jan 2023 09:02:43 +1100, Trevor Wilson
>>>>> <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 11/01/2023 8:28 am, KKKernal Corn wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 11 Jan 2023 07:56:13 +1100, Trevor Wilson
>>>>>>> <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 11/01/2023 12:01 am, KKKernal Corn wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 6 Jan 2023 19:24:38 +1100, Trevor Wilson
>>>>>>>>> <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/01/2023 10:15 am, KKKernal Corn wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 6 Jan 2023 08:49:25 +1100, Trevor Wilson
>>>>>>>>>>> <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/01/2023 6:38 am, KKKernal Corn wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 6 Jan 2023 05:54:39 +1100, Trevor Wilson
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> <b'rissed>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, over to you: Provide your page by page refutation of the science:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The report is extensive and I expect that it will take you quite some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time to read, understand and then submit your refutation of the science.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Over to you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *You* call it the 'best science available', I don't. *I* call it yet
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more UN bullshit. Back over to you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **Good. You have called it bullshit. I assume you've read all the IPCC
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reports and understood them. Submit your page by page refutation of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IPCC reports. Or shut the fuck up.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Listen here, convict spawn: if it has been excreted by the UN then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's bullshit by definition. Nothing of value EVER gets excreted by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Turd World dominated UN.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **Prove it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's the fucking UN...as useless an inter-governmental body as there
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ever was.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> **Prove that the IPCC reports are in error. You can insult and demean
>>>>>>>>>>>> the UN all you wish, but you need to provide some proof that the IPCC
>>>>>>>>>>>> reports are wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Over to you dickhead: PROVE IT. Prove that the IPCC reports are wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> No, over to YOU, shithead. Prove they're worth any more than any
>>>>>>>>>>> other UN excrement.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> **YOU are the one claiming that all the peer-reviewed science in the
>>>>>>>>>> IPCC reports is wrong, yet you offer ZERO proof of your claim.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You haven't even READ the IPCC reports. That much is obvious.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> **I have read MUCH of the IPCC reports. I have not read ALL the reports
>>>>>>>> in their entirety.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> YOU, OTOH, have read not one word of the IPCC reports.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You should have started with the GLOSSARY, you silly convict spawn.
>>>>>>> That might have told you something about ICE AGES.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> **I suggest you read the IPCC reports, before you condemn them.
>>>>>
>>>>> I suggest you start with the GLOSSARY before attempting to read them.
>>>>
>>>> **You have condemned the IPCC reports, yet you have failed to read them.
>>>>
>>>> Why?
>>>
>>> You praise the IPCC reports, yet you've never even read the glossary
>>> at the end.
>>>
>>> Why?
>>
>> **You have continually condemned the IPCC reports, yet you have failed
>> to read them.
>>
>> If you have some scientific evidence to present that shows the IPCC
>> reports to be in error, present it.
>
> Did you see where they mention the current Quaternary Ice Age in the
> glossary? Look it up, you ignorant piece of shite.

**Changing the subject doesn't work on anyone over the age of 6.

You have continually claimed that the IPCC reports are bullshit, yet you
have failed to provide any evidence of your claims.

You are a liar and an idiot.

>
>>>>>>>>>>>> What's there to prove?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> **Prove that the IPCC reports are wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Find ONE thing of value the UN has
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ever produced.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> **The IPCC reports.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> LOL. Horse manure like the rest of their output.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> **The prove it you idiot.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> READ it, shithead. One million years of Ice Ages? LOL
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> **You need to read the IPCC reports and issue your page by page refutation.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Over to you.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> One million years of Ice Ages? The IPCC reports that you praise so
>>>>>>> much, and which you obviously haven't even read, disagree with you.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Back over to you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> **Again: READ the IPCC reports, before you attempt to refute them.
>>>>>
>>>>> Again, see what the GLOSSARY has to say about Ice Ages.
>>>>
>>>> **You have not read the IPCC reports, yet you continue to condemn them.
>>>>
>>>> Why?
>>>
>>> See above.
>>
>> **You have not read the IPCC reports, yet you continue to condemn them.
>
> You haven't even read the glossary, which MENTIONS the Quaternary Ice
> Age that we're in now.

**Changing the subject doesn't work on anyone over the age of 6.

You have continually claimed that the IPCC reports are bullshit, yet you
have failed to provide any evidence of your claims.

On 12/01/2023 11:07 am, KKKernal Corn wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jan 2023 08:57:44 +1100, Fran
> <gettingmoredelusionalbythedayistheforger@nutcasewannabeFran.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 12/01/2023 12:00 am, KKKernal Corn wrote:
>>> On Wed, 11 Jan 2023 09:53:59 +1100, Fran
>>> <gettingmoredelusionalbythedayistheforger@nutcasewannabeFran.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 11/01/2023 9:36 am, KKKernal Corn wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 11 Jan 2023 09:02:43 +1100, Trevor Wilson
>>>>> <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 11/01/2023 8:28 am, KKKernal Corn wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 11 Jan 2023 07:56:13 +1100, Trevor Wilson
>>>>>>> <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 11/01/2023 12:01 am, KKKernal Corn wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 6 Jan 2023 19:24:38 +1100, Trevor Wilson
>>>>>>>>> <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/01/2023 10:15 am, KKKernal Corn wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 6 Jan 2023 08:49:25 +1100, Trevor Wilson
>>>>>>>>>>> <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/01/2023 6:38 am, KKKernal Corn wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 6 Jan 2023 05:54:39 +1100, Trevor Wilson
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> <b'rissed>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, over to you: Provide your page by page refutation of the science:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The report is extensive and I expect that it will take you quite some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time to read, understand and then submit your refutation of the science.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Over to you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *You* call it the 'best science available', I don't. *I* call it yet
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more UN bullshit. Back over to you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **Good. You have called it bullshit. I assume you've read all the IPCC
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reports and understood them. Submit your page by page refutation of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IPCC reports. Or shut the fuck up.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Listen here, convict spawn: if it has been excreted by the UN then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's bullshit by definition. Nothing of value EVER gets excreted by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Turd World dominated UN.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **Prove it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's the fucking UN...as useless an inter-governmental body as there
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ever was.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **Prove that the IPCC reports are in error. You can insult and demean
>>>>>>>>>>>> the UN all you wish, but you need to provide some proof that the IPCC
>>>>>>>>>>>> reports are wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Over to you dickhead: PROVE IT. Prove that the IPCC reports are wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> No, over to YOU, shithead. Prove they're worth any more than any
>>>>>>>>>>> other UN excrement.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> **YOU are the one claiming that all the peer-reviewed science in the
>>>>>>>>>> IPCC reports is wrong, yet you offer ZERO proof of your claim.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You haven't even READ the IPCC reports. That much is obvious.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> **I have read MUCH of the IPCC reports. I have not read ALL the reports
>>>>>>>> in their entirety.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> YOU, OTOH, have read not one word of the IPCC reports.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You should have started with the GLOSSARY, you silly convict spawn.
>>>>>>> That might have told you something about ICE AGES.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> **I suggest you read the IPCC reports, before you condemn them.
>>>>>
>>>>> I suggest you start with the GLOSSARY before attempting to read them.
>>>>
>>>> You've never even read the glossary.
>>>
>>> I've QUOTED from it, you silly cunt. Try doing that without reading
>>> it.
>>
>> I quoted from it and gave cites so I KNOW that your suggestion ">>>>>
>> You should have started with the GLOSSARY, you silly convict spawn.
>>>>>>> That might have told you something about ICE AGES." says nothing
>> that a 10 year old wouldn't know about ice ages. But even a 10 year old
>> has more brains and menta capacity than you do.
>>
>> You didn't read the glossary or you are too stupid to understand it.
>
> Apparently Twevor is too stupid to understand it. He thinks Ice Ages
> have only been happening in the last million years!

Wrong. Reread what he wrote.
>
>> Here it is again:
>> "An ice age or glacial period is characterized by a long-term reduction
>> in the temperature of the Earth's climate, resulting in growth of ice
>> sheets and glaciers."
>> https://apps.ipcc.ch/glossary/
>>
>> or try an earlier version:
>> "Ice age An informal term for a geological period characterised by a
>> long-term reduction in the temperature48
>> of the Earth's climate, resulting in the presence or expansion of ice
>> sheets and glaciers. Among the Earth’s49
>> ice ages is the current Quaternary Period, characterized by alternating
>> glacial and interglacial intervals."
>> https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_SOD_Glossary.pdf
>
> I have no idea why you requoted the definitions, you stupid cunt.

I requoted them you stupid little man because you are fantisisng about
what might be learned form them and I KNOW you've never looked at the
IPCC glossaries.

I
> KNOW what they are.

No you don't. You wouldn't keep mentioning 'the glossary' if you had
any idea.

Perhaps you should explain to your anilingus
> beneficiary Twevor that Ice Ages have been happening for a LOT longer
> than a million years.

Learn to read. Stop fantasising about what you imagine Trevor wrote.

On 12/01/2023 11:13 am, KKKernal Corn wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jan 2023 09:25:29 +1100, Fran
> <gettingmoredelusionalbythedayistheforger@nutcasewannabeFran.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 11/01/2023 9:36 am, KKKernal Corn wrote:
>>> On Wed, 11 Jan 2023 09:02:43 +1100, Trevor Wilson
>>> <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> **I suggest you read the IPCC reports, before you condemn them.
>>>
>>> I suggest you start with the GLOSSARY before attempting to read them.
>>
>> You haven't read the glossary.
>
> Yes, I have.

Liar.

>>> Again, see what the GLOSSARY has to say about Ice Ages.
>>
>> Put up or shut up time (since it's clear you've never bothered to read
>> any glossary let alone any of those of the IPCC)
>>
>> Which particular glossary? The glossary in which of the following IPCC
>> reports?:
>> 1) 2019 Refinement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse
>> Gas Inventories
>> 2) 2019 Refinement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse
>> Gas Inventories
>> 3/4/5/6/7/8) AR5 Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change
>> Spanish/Russian/French/Chinese/Arabic/English
>> 9/10/11/12/13/14 AR5 Synthesis Report: Climate Change 2014
>> Spanish/Russian/French/Chinese/Arabic/English
>> 15) Global Warming of 1.5°C
>> 16) AR4 Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis
>> 17) Climate Change 1992: The Supplementary Report to the IPCC Impacts
>> Assessment
>> 18) Safeguarding the Ozone Layer and the Global Climate System
>> 19) Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage
>> 20) Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation
>> 21) Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance
>> Climate Change Adaptation
>> 22) TAR Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability
>> 23) AR4 Climate Change 2007: Mitigation of Climate Change
>> 24) AR4 Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability
>
> The glossary in the report that Twevor cited. Duh.

LOL. " 'The glossary' in 'the report' that Trevor cited "is what the
lying maggot says!

Bwhahahahahahahahaha!

You're a liar. You'd know why you've proved yourself to be a liar if
you'd EVER either tried to check out any of the many IPCC glossaries or
checked out Trevor's cites. (note plurals)

On 12/01/2023 11:27 am, KKKernal Corn wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jan 2023 09:33:44 +1100, Fran
> <gettingmoredelusionalbythedayistheforger@nutcasewannabeFran.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 12/01/2023 12:05 am, KKKernal Corn wrote:
>>> On Wed, 11 Jan 2023 09:55:08 +1100, Fran
>>> <gettingmoredelusionalbythedayistheforger@nutcasewannabeFran.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 11/01/2023 9:30 am, KKKernal Corn wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 11 Jan 2023 08:46:14 +1100, Fran
>>>>> <gettingmoredelusionalbythedayistheforger@nutcasewannabeFran.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 11/01/2023 7:56 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/01/2023 12:01 am, KKKernal Corn wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 6 Jan 2023 19:24:38 +1100, Trevor Wilson
>>>>>>>> <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> **Prove that the IPCC reports are in error. You can insult and demean
>>>>>>>>>>> the UN all you wish, but you need to provide some proof that the IPCC
>>>>>>>>>>> reports are wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Over to you dickhead: PROVE IT. Prove that the IPCC reports are wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No, over to YOU, shithead.  Prove they're worth any more than any
>>>>>>>>>> other UN excrement.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> **YOU are the one claiming that all the peer-reviewed science in the
>>>>>>>>> IPCC reports is wrong, yet you offer ZERO proof of your claim.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You haven't even READ the IPCC reports. That much is obvious.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> **I have read MUCH of the IPCC reports. I have not read ALL the reports
>>>>>>> in their entirety.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> YOU, OTOH, have read not one word of the IPCC reports.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> :-)))))) His ignorance of the contents won't stop him.
>>>>>
>>>>> Lick, Lick. SLURP.
>>>>
>>>> Yes,
>>>
>>> Yes!
>>>
>>>> I'm sure that is how you eat.
>>>
>>> I KNOW that's how you suck Twevor's rear end.
>>
>> By now everyone has figured out that are a liar. You have never read
>> any IPCC glossary, and can't read for comprehension.
>
> Says an ignorant cunt who doesn't even know which glossary is being
> referred to.

LOL So you sad, stupid, gutter bred liar, cite THE glossary that
supports anything you say. Of course hell will
>
>> You clearly have no idea what is meant by the term "glacial period" and
>> when that is made plural and becomes "glacial periods" you are still
>> lost. Your failure to understand doesn't stop you digging yourself
>> further into a hole. Find an adult who can read to explain the
>> following to you
>
> Twevor can't explain it because he KNOWS "The history of glacial
> periods is less than 1 million years" is a load of shite.

:-)))))))

I see you are still too stupid to figure it out so I'll simplify my
hints for you:

Hints for a mental pygmy called Korn:
How many glacial periods have there been?
What has been the duration of each of these glacial periods?

If you STILL don't understand it even after my hints, find someone who
can explain it to you.

In fact, the
> history of glacial periods is more like 2.4 BILLION years. Perhaps YOU
> can explain that to him?

You are the one who can't read adequately, not Trevor.

Hint:
How many glacial periods have there been?
What has been the duration of each of these glacial periods?

>
>> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>>>> Message-Id: <k1gte6FnsslU1@mid.individual.net>
>>>>
>>>> **Points:
>>>>
>>>> * We don't know if glaciations are cyclical or not.
>>>> * The regularity of glaciations is highly variable (+/- 50kyr).
>>>> * The history of this planet stretches to around 4.5 billion years.
>>>> The history of glacial periods is less than 1 million years.
>>>> * We need a great deal more information to determine if there is a
>>>> cyclical nature to glaciations.
>>>>
>>>> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>>
>>
>> It's quite clear and it's VERY easy to understand but you just don't get
>> it.
>
> You're as fucking stupid as Twevor. Neither of you convict spawn
> dimwits has a clue.

LOL. Get some remedial reading classes you poor mental pygmy.

petzl wrote on 12/1/23 12:50 pm:
> On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 7:42:02 PM UTC+11, Daniel65 wrote:
>> petzl wrote on 6/1/23 9:44 pm:
>>> On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 7:33:51 PM UTC+11, Daniel65 wrote:
>>>> Petzl wrote on 6/1/23 11:29 am:
>>>>> On Fri, 6 Jan 2023 11:02:14 +1100, abc <automa...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/24/22 08:39, Petzl wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tiberius Caesar who reigned for 22 years, and his last year
>>>>>> was AD 37. wrote: "The extremities of Spain, the various
>>>>>> parts of Gaul, the regions of Britain which have never been
>>>>>> penetrated by Roman arms, have received the religion of
>>>>>> Christ."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No - that cant be true. That is only 5 or 10 years after
>>>>>> the death of Christ. It spread fast, but cant have spread
>>>>>> that fast.
>>>>>>
>>>>> The Vatican first believed the scroll real, but could not
>>>>> verify it was 100% genuine, but probably is. The same for the
>>>>> Shroud of Christ
>>>>>
>>>> What "scroll", Petzl!!
>>>>
>>> One of a number unearthed by archeologists believed written by
>>> Tiberius Caesar and given to the Vatican.
>>>
>> Ah, so you don't know, Petzl.
> ? Only what Pope John Paul's Newsletter told me around 1990
> <https://www.catholicnewsagency.com>
>
Sorry! What's that link for, Petzl??
--
Daniel

petzl wrote on 12/1/23 8:27 am:
> On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 8:00:24 PM UTC+11, Daniel65 wrote:
>> Ördög wrote on 2/1/23 8:37 am:
>>> Fran wrote:
>>>> A bit late but I've only just seen this and I'm sure some will
>>>> appreciate it:
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkU1ob_lHCw
>>>
>>> :-) Good one, Fran!
>>>
>>> I also have zinger:
>>>
>>> *Lock Him Up Yesterday!*
>>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdSZRkeQfnk>
>>>
>>> Petz just going to love it!
>>>
>>> ;-)
>>>
>> Gee, there are some talented, funny, people out there.
>>
>> Thank you both!
>
> You all 3 act like septics (heads so full of media shit you know nothing)

No, Petzl, you should stop referring to yourself like that!!

> <https://twitter.com/i/status/1612861397427261448>
> --
Daniel

On Thursday, January 12, 2023 at 7:48:48 PM UTC+11, Daniel65 wrote:
> petzl wrote on 12/1/23 12:50 pm:
> > On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 7:42:02 PM UTC+11, Daniel65 wrote:
snip
> >>>>> The Vatican first believed the scroll real, but could not
> >>>>> verify it was 100% genuine, but probably is. The same for the
> >>>>> Shroud of Christ
> >>>>>
> >>>> What "scroll", Petzl!!
> >>>>
> >>> One of a number unearthed by archeologists believed written by
> >>> Tiberius Caesar and given to the Vatican.
> >>>
> >> Ah, so you don't know, Petzl.
> > ? Only what Pope John Paul's Newsletter told me around 1990
> > <https://www.catholicnewsagency.com>
> >
> Sorry! What's that link for, Petzl??
A link to the .catholicnewsagency
--
Petzl
Jesus “taught with authority” (Matthew 7:29), and the risen Lord gave
his Apostles a share in his authority when he commissioned them to
make disciples from all the nations by teaching what he had commanded
them (Matthew 28:18–20).

Tiberius Caesar who reigned for 22 years,
and his last year was AD 37. wrote:
"The extremities of Spain, the various parts of Gaul, the regions of
Britain which have never been penetrated by Roman arms, have received
the religion of Christ."

On Thursday, January 12, 2023 at 7:50:54 PM UTC+11, Daniel65 wrote:
> petzl wrote on 12/1/23 8:27 am:
> > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 8:00:24 PM UTC+11, Daniel65 wrote:
snip
> > You all 3 act like septics (heads so full of media shit you know nothing)
> No, Petzl, you should stop referring to yourself like that!!
>
Just how you dumb 3 react when you hear Trump being mentioned
<https://twitter.com/i/status/1612861397427261448>
Joy Behar on Biden's classified documents:
"We all know that Trump is a liar and a thief.
We know that. So it’s not that big a jump to say that he obstructed and he lied.
We don’t think Biden is a liar and a thief, so we give him the benefit of the doubt."
--
Petzl
We know the inane Dumb3 are lying,
they know they are lying,
they know we know they are lying,
we know they know we know they are lying,
but they are still lying.
"Aleksandr Isayevich Solzhenitsyn"

petzl wrote on 12/1/23 9:53 pm:
> On Thursday, January 12, 2023 at 7:48:48 PM UTC+11, Daniel65 wrote:
>> petzl wrote on 12/1/23 12:50 pm:
>>> On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 7:42:02 PM UTC+11, Daniel65 wrote:
> snip
>>>>>>> The Vatican first believed the scroll real, but could not
>>>>>>> verify it was 100% genuine, but probably is. The same for the
>>>>>>> Shroud of Christ
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> What "scroll", Petzl!!
>>>>>>
>>>>> One of a number unearthed by archeologists believed written by
>>>>> Tiberius Caesar and given to the Vatican.
>>>>>
>>>> Ah, so you don't know, Petzl.
>>> ? Only what Pope John Paul's Newsletter told me around 1990
>>> <https://www.catholicnewsagency.com>
>>>
>> Sorry! What's that link for, Petzl??
> A link to the .catholicnewsagency
>
Oh!! Really!! And if I go there, Pope John Paul's Newsletter will jump
out at me, will it??
--
Daniel

KKKernal Corn wrote on 11/1/23 11:42 pm:
> On Wed, 11 Jan 2023 08:31:49 +1100, Fran
> <gettingmoredelusionalbythedayistheforger@nutcasewannabeFran.com>
> wrote:

<Snip>

>> As I said, your gutter background is evident enough without more proof.
>
> As I said, your convict and prostitute heritage has made you what you
> are. If that's not a gutter background, I don't know what is.
>
"convict" ... "prostitute" ..... Isn't one a sub-set of the other??
--
Daniel

R Kym Horsell wrote on 4/1/23 5:57 pm:
> In alt.global-warming Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 16:51:09 +1100, R Kym Horsell
>> <kym@kymhorsell.com> wrote:
>>> In alt.global-warming Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> <reams of your shit any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed
>> where it belongs>
>
> I think Wod is having one of his breakdowns...
>
Or is the record just stuck in the one groove??
--
Daniel

Trevor Wilson wrote on 3/1/23 7:44 pm:
> On 3/01/2023 3:59 pm, R Kym Horsell wrote:
>> In alt.global-warming Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>> On 3/01/2023 3:22 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 03 Jan 2023 13:40:23 +1100, Trevor Wilson
>>>> <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>> ...
>>>> And they always do after rising temperatures even when they were much
>>>> higher than they are now.
>>> **That they have in past, is no guarantee that they will in the future.
>>
>>
>> We know that at certain temps +ve feedbacks take over. E.g. if
>> the poles warm too much the Arctic oceans become bluer and absorb more
>> heat.
>> Contrariwise if they are cooled too much they whiten and reflect heat
>> back to the cold sink of space.
>>
>> IOW if the climate is pushed too far in one direction or another it will
>> just continue in that direction until it hits the end stop.
>>
>> Why cycles of glaciation started 2-3 mn years back is not really
>> understood.
>>
>> But Rod Speeds continued underline that humanity and a colder planet are
>> intimately linked *is* well understood. Something about wet paper bag.
>
> **Rod is an idiot. He lacks a basic understanding of science.
>
No!! Roddles knows everything about everything! Just ask him. He'll tell
you to go find out for yourself!!
--
Daniel

On Thu, 12 Jan 2023 16:49:00 +1100, Fran
<gettingmoredelusionalbythedayistheforger@nutcasewannabeFran.com>
wrote:

>On 12/01/2023 11:07 am, KKKernal Corn wrote:
>> On Thu, 12 Jan 2023 08:57:44 +1100, Fran
>> <gettingmoredelusionalbythedayistheforger@nutcasewannabeFran.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/01/2023 12:00 am, KKKernal Corn wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 11 Jan 2023 09:53:59 +1100, Fran
>>>> <gettingmoredelusionalbythedayistheforger@nutcasewannabeFran.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 11/01/2023 9:36 am, KKKernal Corn wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 11 Jan 2023 09:02:43 +1100, Trevor Wilson
>>>>>> <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 11/01/2023 8:28 am, KKKernal Corn wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 11 Jan 2023 07:56:13 +1100, Trevor Wilson
>>>>>>>> <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 11/01/2023 12:01 am, KKKernal Corn wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 6 Jan 2023 19:24:38 +1100, Trevor Wilson
>>>>>>>>>> <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/01/2023 10:15 am, KKKernal Corn wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 6 Jan 2023 08:49:25 +1100, Trevor Wilson
>>>>>>>>>>>> <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/01/2023 6:38 am, KKKernal Corn wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 6 Jan 2023 05:54:39 +1100, Trevor Wilson
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> <b'rissed>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, over to you: Provide your page by page refutation of the science:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The report is extensive and I expect that it will take you quite some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time to read, understand and then submit your refutation of the science.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Over to you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *You* call it the 'best science available', I don't. *I* call it yet
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more UN bullshit. Back over to you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **Good. You have called it bullshit. I assume you've read all the IPCC
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reports and understood them. Submit your page by page refutation of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IPCC reports. Or shut the fuck up.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Listen here, convict spawn: if it has been excreted by the UN then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's bullshit by definition. Nothing of value EVER gets excreted by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Turd World dominated UN.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **Prove it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's the fucking UN...as useless an inter-governmental body as there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ever was.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **Prove that the IPCC reports are in error. You can insult and demean
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the UN all you wish, but you need to provide some proof that the IPCC
>>>>>>>>>>>>> reports are wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Over to you dickhead: PROVE IT. Prove that the IPCC reports are wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> No, over to YOU, shithead. Prove they're worth any more than any
>>>>>>>>>>>> other UN excrement.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> **YOU are the one claiming that all the peer-reviewed science in the
>>>>>>>>>>> IPCC reports is wrong, yet you offer ZERO proof of your claim.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You haven't even READ the IPCC reports. That much is obvious.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> **I have read MUCH of the IPCC reports. I have not read ALL the reports
>>>>>>>>> in their entirety.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> YOU, OTOH, have read not one word of the IPCC reports.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You should have started with the GLOSSARY, you silly convict spawn.
>>>>>>>> That might have told you something about ICE AGES.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> **I suggest you read the IPCC reports, before you condemn them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I suggest you start with the GLOSSARY before attempting to read them.
>>>>>
>>>>> You've never even read the glossary.
>>>>
>>>> I've QUOTED from it, you silly cunt. Try doing that without reading
>>>> it.
>>>
>>> I quoted from it and gave cites so I KNOW that your suggestion ">>>>>
>>> You should have started with the GLOSSARY, you silly convict spawn.
>>>>>>>> That might have told you something about ICE AGES." says nothing
>>> that a 10 year old wouldn't know about ice ages. But even a 10 year old
>>> has more brains and menta capacity than you do.
>>>
>>> You didn't read the glossary or you are too stupid to understand it.
>>
>> Apparently Twevor is too stupid to understand it. He thinks Ice Ages
>> have only been happening in the last million years!
>
>Wrong. Reread what he wrote.

You can reread what he wrote a hundred times. No amount of convict
spawn spin can change what he said.

>>> Here it is again:
>>> "An ice age or glacial period is characterized by a long-term reduction
>>> in the temperature of the Earth's climate, resulting in growth of ice
>>> sheets and glaciers."
>>> https://apps.ipcc.ch/glossary/
>>>
>>> or try an earlier version:
>>> "Ice age An informal term for a geological period characterised by a
>>> long-term reduction in the temperature48
>>> of the Earth's climate, resulting in the presence or expansion of ice
>>> sheets and glaciers. Among the Earth’s49
>>> ice ages is the current Quaternary Period, characterized by alternating
>>> glacial and interglacial intervals."
>>> https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_SOD_Glossary.pdf
>>
>> I have no idea why you requoted the definitions, you stupid cunt.
>
>I requoted them you stupid little man because you are fantisisng about
>what might be learned form them and I KNOW you've never looked at the
>IPCC glossaries.

If YOU understood what you just quoted, you silly little cunt, you'd
KNOW that we are IN an Ice Age (the Quaternary) at the present time.
Twevor keeps babbling about not being to ENTER an Ice Age when
temperatures are rising.We are LEAVING an Ice Age. Temperatures FALL
and then RISE in EVERY Ice Age! Duh!

>I
>> KNOW what they are.
>
>No you don't. You wouldn't keep mentioning 'the glossary' if you had
>any idea.

If Twevor had looked at the glossary in the document he cited he'd
KNOW that he was full of shit.

On Thu, 12 Jan 2023 15:13:06 +1100, Trevor Wilson
<trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

>On 12/01/2023 11:12 am, KKKernal Corn wrote:
>> On Thu, 12 Jan 2023 09:59:55 +1100, Trevor Wilson
>> <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/01/2023 12:04 am, KKKernal Corn wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 11 Jan 2023 10:52:43 +1100, Trevor Wilson
>>>> <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 11/01/2023 9:36 am, KKKernal Corn wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 11 Jan 2023 09:02:43 +1100, Trevor Wilson
>>>>>> <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 11/01/2023 8:28 am, KKKernal Corn wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 11 Jan 2023 07:56:13 +1100, Trevor Wilson
>>>>>>>> <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 11/01/2023 12:01 am, KKKernal Corn wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 6 Jan 2023 19:24:38 +1100, Trevor Wilson
>>>>>>>>>> <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/01/2023 10:15 am, KKKernal Corn wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 6 Jan 2023 08:49:25 +1100, Trevor Wilson
>>>>>>>>>>>> <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/01/2023 6:38 am, KKKernal Corn wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 6 Jan 2023 05:54:39 +1100, Trevor Wilson
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> <b'rissed>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, over to you: Provide your page by page refutation of the science:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The report is extensive and I expect that it will take you quite some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time to read, understand and then submit your refutation of the science.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Over to you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *You* call it the 'best science available', I don't. *I* call it yet
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more UN bullshit. Back over to you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **Good. You have called it bullshit. I assume you've read all the IPCC
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reports and understood them. Submit your page by page refutation of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IPCC reports. Or shut the fuck up.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Listen here, convict spawn: if it has been excreted by the UN then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's bullshit by definition. Nothing of value EVER gets excreted by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Turd World dominated UN.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **Prove it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's the fucking UN...as useless an inter-governmental body as there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ever was.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> **Prove that the IPCC reports are in error. You can insult and demean
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the UN all you wish, but you need to provide some proof that the IPCC
>>>>>>>>>>>>> reports are wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Over to you dickhead: PROVE IT. Prove that the IPCC reports are wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> No, over to YOU, shithead. Prove they're worth any more than any
>>>>>>>>>>>> other UN excrement.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> **YOU are the one claiming that all the peer-reviewed science in the
>>>>>>>>>>> IPCC reports is wrong, yet you offer ZERO proof of your claim.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You haven't even READ the IPCC reports. That much is obvious.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> **I have read MUCH of the IPCC reports. I have not read ALL the reports
>>>>>>>>> in their entirety.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> YOU, OTOH, have read not one word of the IPCC reports.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You should have started with the GLOSSARY, you silly convict spawn.
>>>>>>>> That might have told you something about ICE AGES.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> **I suggest you read the IPCC reports, before you condemn them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I suggest you start with the GLOSSARY before attempting to read them.
>>>>>
>>>>> **You have condemned the IPCC reports, yet you have failed to read them.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why?
>>>>
>>>> You praise the IPCC reports, yet you've never even read the glossary
>>>> at the end.
>>>>
>>>> Why?
>>>
>>> **You have continually condemned the IPCC reports, yet you have failed
>>> to read them.
>>>
>>> If you have some scientific evidence to present that shows the IPCC
>>> reports to be in error, present it.
>>
>> Did you see where they mention the current Quaternary Ice Age in the
>> glossary? Look it up, you ignorant piece of shite.
>
>**Changing the subject doesn't work on anyone over the age of 6.

Evasion is typical of bullshitters like you who will never admit they
were wrong.

Now back to the current Quaternary Ice Age...

>You have continually claimed that the IPCC reports are bullshit, yet you
>have failed to provide any evidence of your claims.
>
>You are a liar and an idiot.

You are full of shit. And you KNOW it.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> What's there to prove?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> **Prove that the IPCC reports are wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Find ONE thing of value the UN has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ever produced.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> **The IPCC reports.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> LOL. Horse manure like the rest of their output.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> **The prove it you idiot.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> READ it, shithead. One million years of Ice Ages? LOL
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> **You need to read the IPCC reports and issue your page by page refutation.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Over to you.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> One million years of Ice Ages? The IPCC reports that you praise so
>>>>>>>> much, and which you obviously haven't even read, disagree with you.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Back over to you.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> **Again: READ the IPCC reports, before you attempt to refute them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Again, see what the GLOSSARY has to say about Ice Ages.
>>>>>
>>>>> **You have not read the IPCC reports, yet you continue to condemn them.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why?
>>>>
>>>> See above.
>>>
>>> **You have not read the IPCC reports, yet you continue to condemn them.
>>
>> You haven't even read the glossary, which MENTIONS the Quaternary Ice
>> Age that we're in now.
>
>**Changing the subject doesn't work on anyone over the age of 6.
>
>You have continually claimed that the IPCC reports are bullshit, yet you
>have failed to provide any evidence of your claims.
>
>You are a liar and an idiot.

On Thu, 12 Jan 2023 23:14:09 +1100, Daniel65
<daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:

>KKKernal Corn wrote on 11/1/23 11:42 pm:
>> On Wed, 11 Jan 2023 08:31:49 +1100, Fran
>> <gettingmoredelusionalbythedayistheforger@nutcasewannabeFran.com>
>> wrote:
>
><Snip>
>
>>> As I said, your gutter background is evident enough without more proof.
>>
>> As I said, your convict and prostitute heritage has made you what you
>> are. If that's not a gutter background, I don't know what is.
>>
>"convict" ... "prostitute" ..... Isn't one a sub-set of the other??

Not necessarily. The needs of arriving convicts were met by
prostitutes.

On Thu, 12 Jan 2023 14:38:25 +1100, Trevor Wilson
<trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

>On 12/01/2023 11:56 am, KKKernal Corn wrote:
>> On Thu, 12 Jan 2023 10:04:15 +1100, Trevor Wilson
>> <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/01/2023 11:44 pm, KKKernal Corn wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 11 Jan 2023 08:58:35 +1100, Trevor Wilson
>>>> <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 11/01/2023 8:35 am, KKKernal Corn wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 11 Jan 2023 07:58:22 +1100, Trevor Wilson
>>>>>> <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 10/01/2023 11:59 pm, KKKernal Corn wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sat, 7 Jan 2023 09:03:02 +1100, Trevor Wilson
>>>>>>>> <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 6/01/2023 10:23 am, KKKernal Corn wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 13:15:53 +0000, KKKernal Corn <vet@invalid.com>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> <b'rissed>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> WHY is Twevor Wilson ignoring this FACT?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> **I ignore nothing.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I am, however, STILL waiting for you to provide your proof that:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> * Arrhenius was wrong.
>>>>>>>>> * The IPCC reports are wrong.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You have failed miserably in supporting your claims.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You haven't even read the IPCC reports. If you had, you wouldn't have
>>>>>>>> claimed that Ice Ages only covered the last million years.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> **Did I make such a claim?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cite.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I already did that <sigh>. Here it is again:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>>>>>> Message-Id: <k1gte6FnsslU1@mid.individual.net>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> **Points:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> * We don't know if glaciations are cyclical or not.
>>>>>> * The regularity of glaciations is highly variable (+/- 50kyr).
>>>>>> * The history of this planet stretches to around 4.5 billion years.
>>>>>> The history of glacial periods is less than 1 million years.
>>>>>> * We need a great deal more information to determine if there is a
>>>>>> cyclical nature to glaciations.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You see where it says 1 million years? Explain your way out of that,
>>>>>> shithead.
>>>>>
>>>>> **Read what I wrote. CAREFULLY.
>>>>
>>>> Explain what you think you wrote. CAREFULLY.
>>>
>>> **No, you did not. Read it again.
>>
>> I could read it fifty times, it'd still be horseshit.
>>
>>> Everyone can see what
>>>> you DID write.
>>>>
>>>> How about starting with "What I really meant to say was..."?
>>>>
>>>> This should be good.
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "The five major ice ages in the paleo record include the Huronian
>>>>>>>>>> glaciation (2.4 billion to 2.1 billion years ago), the Cryogenian
>>>>>>>>>> glaciation (720 million to 635 million years ago), the Andean-Saharan
>>>>>>>>>> glaciation (450 million to 420 million years ago), the Late Paleozoic
>>>>>>>>>> ice age (335 million to 260 million years ago) and the Quaternary
>>>>>>>>>> glaciation (2.7 million years ago to present)."
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The polar ice caps are proof that we are still in a mega Ice Age.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> **Ummm, nope. We are in a cool period, but the planet is warming
>>>>>>>>> rapidly. As Arrhenius predicted and as the IPCC has reported.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Idiot. Every mega Ice Age had a warming period as it waned.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> **Explain how the planet can enter an ice age, if the planet is warming.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Every mega ICE AGE has a cooling period followed by a warming period.
>>>>>> We are LEAVING the current mega ice age. The real question is how soon
>>>>>> we will have a mini ice age similar to those in the Middle Ages when
>>>>>> the Thames would regularly freeze over.
>>>>>
>>>>> **Explain how the planet can enter an ice age, if the planet is warming.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't want a history lesson. I want to hear your scientific
>>>>> explanation of how it can occur.
>>>>
>>>> Read it again. We are not ENTERING an Ice Age, we are LEAVING the
>>>> current (Quaternary) one: the warming period always follows the
>>>> cooliing period. I want to hear your scientific explanation of how
>>>> you can't understand that.
>>>
>>> **And again: Explain how the planet can enter an ice age, if the planet
>>> is warming.
>>
>> It's not ENTERING one, it's LEAVING one! Duh. Can't you fucking
>> READ???
>>
>>> I don't want a history lesson.
>>
>> You desperately NEED one.
>>
>>> I want to know where the IPCC and Arrhenius got it wrong (according to
>>> you) and how the planet can enter an ice age, whilst the temperature is
>>> RISING.
>>
>> Not ENTER an Ice Age, idiot, LEAVE the current Quaternary Ice Age!
>>
>>> Give us your considered scientific opinion (with supporting evidence, of
>>> course) on these matters.
>>>
>>> You've made some big claims about some very credible climate scientists.
>>> Those big claims need some big evidence.
>>>
>>> Over to you.
>>>
>>> I bet you continue to dodge my requests, like you always have.
>>
>> I bet you continue to claim that glaciations only happened in the last
>> million years. Which is obviously total CRAP.
>
>**Here is what you wrote about the IPCC:
>
>"*You* call it the 'best science available', I don't. *I* call it yet
>more UN bullshit. Back over to you."
>
>Prove that the IPCC reports are bullshit.
>
>"Listen here, convict spawn: if it has been excreted by the UN then
>it's bullshit by definition. Nothing of value EVER gets excreted by
>the Turd World dominated UN."
>
>Prove that the IPCC reports are bullshit.
>
>"It's the fucking UN...as useless an inter-governmental body as there
>ever was. What's there to prove? Find ONE thing of value the UN has
>ever produced."
>
>Prove that the IPCC reports are bullshit.
>
>"I note that you have failed to prove Arrhenius correct. I note that
>you have failed to prove the IPCC UN shitheads correct."
>
>Prove that the IPCC reports are bullshit. Prove that Arrhenius was wrong.
>
>"LOL. Horse manure like the rest of their output."
>
>Prove that the IPCC reports are horse manure.

Evasion noted. Let me ask AGAIN:

We're not ENTERING an Ice Age, we're LEAVING one (the Quaternary Ice
Age, which started 2.7 million years ago). Can't you fucking
understand that?

On Thu, 12 Jan 2023 14:38:02 +1100, Trevor Wilson
<trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

>On 6/01/2023 12:15 am, KKKernal Corn wrote:
>> On Thu, 5 Jan 2023 08:56:48 +1100, Trevor Wilson
>> <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/01/2023 11:12 pm, KKKernal Corn wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 4 Jan 2023 10:49:39 +1100, Trevor Wilson
>>>> <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 4/01/2023 9:38 am, KKKernal Corn wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <b'rissed>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yea.. somehow I find you a far less creditable source than all the
>>>>>>>>>>>> massive amounts of data and resource by educated, trained and
>>>>>>>>>>>> experiences people who you say haven't proven anything.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> **You mean like the guys who work with:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> www.ipcc.ch
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You're losing it, cobber. Best lie down.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> **I realise that you have no functioning neurons left in your noggin. I
>>>>>>>>> suggest you listen to those who know more than you do (which is mostly
>>>>>>>>> everyone).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You don't even realiise that there's an Ice Age coming!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> **What evidence do you magically possess to suggest that an ice age is
>>>>>>> coming, despite the fact that average temperatures are rising.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Historical evidence.
>>>>>
>>>>> **Historical evidence is just that: HISTORICAL evidence. It is not proof
>>>>> of a future occurrence.
>>>>
>>>> So many prior cycles and now you imagine they will suddenly stop?
>>>
>>> **How many prior cycles? The cycles you speak of represent approximately
>>> 1/4,500th of the entire history of this planet.
>>
>> Horseshit. I've already named the previous Ice Ages going back 2+
>> billion years. Here they are again:
>>
>> From livescience.com:
>>
>> "The five major ice ages in the paleo record include the Huronian
>> glaciation (2.4 billion to 2.1 billion years ago), the Cryogenian
>> glaciation (720 million to 635 million years ago), the Andean-Saharan
>> glaciation (450 million to 420 million years ago), the Late Paleozoic
>> ice age (335 million to 260 million years ago) and the Quaternary
>> glaciation (2.7 million years ago to present).
>>
>>> Bitcoin has seen some cycles of up and down. Will you sell your house
>>> and put all your money into Bitcoin?
>>
>> Strawman.
>>
>>> I agree that there has been a few ice ages over the past million years
>>> or so. I don't know if there will be another and YOU don't know either.
>>> Moreover, human release of CO2 emissions has ensured that an ice age is
>>> far less likely to occur.
>>
>> Another blunder. Billions of years not million years.
>>
>>>>> I've already mentioned Milankovic's hypothesis:
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> **I am well aware of Milankovic Cycles. They are certainly an
>>>>> hypothesis. They are not fact. Hell, they have yet to advance to a theory.
>>>>
>>>> Hell, better than anything you have presented.
>>>>
>>>>>> "As the planet circles the sun, three factors affect how much sunlight
>>>>>> it gets: its tilt (which ranges from 24.5 degrees to 22.1 degrees on a
>>>>>> 41,000-year cycle); its eccentricity (the changing shape of its orbit
>>>>>> around the sun, which ranges from a near-circle to an oval-like
>>>>>> shape); and its wobble (one full wobble, which looks like a slowly
>>>>>> spinning top, happens every 19,000 to 23,000 years), according to
>>>>>> Milankovitch.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In 1976, a landmark paper in the journal Science provided evidence
>>>>>> that these three orbital parameters explained the planet's glacial
>>>>>> cycles, Sandstrom said."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Care to refute that with your own hypothesis?
>>>>>
>>>>> **I don't need to. The planet is warming. You can't have an ice age,
>>>>> when the planet is warming.
>>>>
>>>> Until it starts to cool down again.
>>>
>>> **OK then. YOU tell us: When will the planet begin to cool.
>>
>> LOL. Do you want an exact date and time?
>
>**Yes. You claim that it will cool. Tell us when. More importantly: Tell
>us by what mechanism, the planet will begin cooling.

How about when global warming kills off 95% of the Earth's
population...who will keep producing the CO2? How about when the
orbit of the Earth gets to the point when the effect of the Sun is at
a minimum? How about an asteroid hit like the one that killed off the
dinosaurs? How about a nuclear winter? Any one of those is possible.

>>> Which history tells us will
>>>> always happen.
>>>
>>> **No. The history tells us that it DID happen. History cannot tell us
>>> what WILL happen.
>>
>> History is a good predictor of what will happen.
>
>**Wrong, moron. History is an excellent indicator of what DID happen.

Wrong, shithead. "Those who do not remember history are doomed to
repeat it" - George Santayana (1863-1912)

>>
>>> Surely you don't think temperatures will keep rising
>>>> ad infinitum?
>>>
>>> **Of course not. I never claimed that they would. That they will rise
>>> further is certain though. Depending upon what humans decide to do, will
>>> determine how much further the temperatures will rise.
>>
>> If they're not going to keep rising indefinitely, then they will stop.
>> And what happens next? Do they stay the same or do they start to
>> fall?
>
>**That would depend on a very wide range of factors. Temperatures may
>rise to equal the historical highs of around 10 ~ 14 degrees C above
>today's levels.

So how did they DROP from those historical highs?

> No one knows. Maybe they'll go higher still. No one
>knows, as we are entering unknown levels of CO2 concentration. It is
>beyond dispute that temperatures will rise to around 1.5 degrees C above
>historical average levels and probably 2 degrees. If humans do nothing,
>then temperatures will rise further and, if the so-called 'tipping
>point' is reached (which most climate scientists believe is a thing),
>then nothing we can do will prevent a runaway warming. We are already
>witnessing the beginnings of that runaway effect, with the large
>releases of methane from Arctic regions.

As you admit, no one knows. Least of all you.

>>
>>> What will happen when most of the Earth's population is
>>>> dead as a result of 'climate change'?
>>>
>>> **Unknown.
>>
>> Just like the rest of your crap.
>
>**Like I said: I accept what the climate scientists tell me.
>
>Why do you ignore them?

Why do you keep evading the issue of Ice Ages?

>>> Who is going to produce the CO2
>>>> to keep temperatures rising???
>>>
>>> **Unknown.
>>
>> Just like the rest of your crap.
>
>**You're posing an idiotic hypothetical. My response was entirely
>appropriate.

It's more than a hypothetical. There are already parts of Asia where
temperatures are too high to sustain life.

>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I assume you are aware that an ice age is impossible if temperatures are
>>>>>>> rising?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They rise, then they fall...just like they did in previous Ice Ages.
>>>>>
>>>>> **Except that temperatures are rising. Not falling.
>>>>
>>>> Rising now, falling later. Do you not get that???
>>>
>>> **I get that you have ZERO idea when/if temperatures will fall.
>>
>> Just like you have ZERO idea when they will stop rising.
>
>**Again: It depends on what humans decide to do. The fate of the climate
>is entirely in the hands of humans. If we do nothing, temperatures could
>rise to more than 10 degrees C above today's levels. If we act quickly
>and with purpose, then we may only see a 1.5 degree C rise.

On Thu, 12 Jan 2023 17:02:58 +1100, Fran
<gettingmoredelusionalbythedayistheforger@nutcasewannabeFran.com>
wrote:

>On 12/01/2023 11:13 am, KKKernal Corn wrote:
>> On Thu, 12 Jan 2023 09:25:29 +1100, Fran
>> <gettingmoredelusionalbythedayistheforger@nutcasewannabeFran.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/01/2023 9:36 am, KKKernal Corn wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 11 Jan 2023 09:02:43 +1100, Trevor Wilson
>>>> <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> **I suggest you read the IPCC reports, before you condemn them.
>>>>
>>>> I suggest you start with the GLOSSARY before attempting to read them.
>>>
>>> You haven't read the glossary.
>>
>> Yes, I have.
>
>Liar.

I've QUOTED from it, you silly cunt. Try doing that without reading
it.

>>>> Again, see what the GLOSSARY has to say about Ice Ages.
>>>
>>> Put up or shut up time (since it's clear you've never bothered to read
>>> any glossary let alone any of those of the IPCC)
>>>
>>> Which particular glossary? The glossary in which of the following IPCC
>>> reports?:
>>> 1) 2019 Refinement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse
>>> Gas Inventories
>>> 2) 2019 Refinement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse
>>> Gas Inventories
>>> 3/4/5/6/7/8) AR5 Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change
>>> Spanish/Russian/French/Chinese/Arabic/English
>>> 9/10/11/12/13/14 AR5 Synthesis Report: Climate Change 2014
>>> Spanish/Russian/French/Chinese/Arabic/English
>>> 15) Global Warming of 1.5°C
>>> 16) AR4 Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis
>>> 17) Climate Change 1992: The Supplementary Report to the IPCC Impacts
>>> Assessment
>>> 18) Safeguarding the Ozone Layer and the Global Climate System
>>> 19) Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage
>>> 20) Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation
>>> 21) Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance
>>> Climate Change Adaptation
>>> 22) TAR Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability
>>> 23) AR4 Climate Change 2007: Mitigation of Climate Change
>>> 24) AR4 Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability
>>
>> The glossary in the report that Twevor cited. Duh.
>
>LOL. " 'The glossary' in 'the report' that Trevor cited "is what the
>lying maggot says!
>
>Bwhahahahahahahahaha!

And the anus licking cunt licks Twevor's anus yet again.

>You're a liar. You'd know why you've proved yourself to be a liar if
>you'd EVER either tried to check out any of the many IPCC glossaries or
>checked out Trevor's cites. (note plurals)

In this thread, only ONE specific IPCC report has been cited by
Twevor. That's a FACT, you retarded Ozzie cunt.

And here is the glossary from it, one which you've referred to
yourself, so you MUST know which one I'm referring to.

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_AnnexVII.pdf