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.

>>
>>> 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 get to do the proving.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> THATS how it works.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> **How it works is that YOU need to learn some basic science, before
>>>>>>>>>>> making an (bigger) idiot of yourself. Start here:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> www.ipcc.ch
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> UN? You cannot be serious!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> **As I stated before: YOU need to submit your refutation of the science.
>>>>>>>>> Don't forget: Like any scientific paper, I expect that you will submit
>>>>>>>>> yours for peer review.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> However, I will make it VERY easy for you, because I realise that the
>>>>>>>>> chances of you refuting the IPCC reports is an impossibility. You lack
>>>>>>>>> the resources, the will and the intellect to do so. All you need to do
>>>>>>>>> is prove that Svante Arrhenius, who formulated AGW theory way back in
>>>>>>>>> 1899, got it wrong. It has been estimated that Arrhenius performed as
>>>>>>>>> many as 100,000 hand calculations to formulate his theory. You could
>>>>>>>>> arrange for those same calculations to be performed on a cheap computer
>>>>>>>>> in a second of two today. So, easy for you.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Prove that Svante Arrhenius was wrong.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> BTW: Many have tried and none have succeeded. Nonetheless, you might
>>>>>>>>> succeed.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Prove Arrhenius wrong or shut the fuck up.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Prove that he was correct or YOU shut the fuck up, dickhead. Once
>>>>>>>> more, the anus[sic] is on you.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> **Arrhenius has been shown to be correct. _I_ don't need to prove. YOU
>>>>>>> claim that Arrhenius was wrong. Prove it or shut the fuck up.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have not claimed that he was wrong,
>>>>>
>>>>> **Yes, you have. Many times.
>>>>
>>>> Where? Be specific now, convict spawn!
>>>
>>> **Prove that Arrhenius was wrong.,
>>
>> WHERE have I claimed he was wrong, convict spawn?
>>
>>>>> I just want *you* to prove he
>>>>>> was correct.
>>>>>
>>>>> **I don't need to. Arrhenius proved his theory correct. Not once in the
>>>>> past 120 years has anyone proven him to be incorrect.
>>>>
>>>> So you claim. Now prove it.
>>>
>>> **Asked and answered. Arrhenius has already supplied the proof.
>>
>> Prove it.
>
>**Arrhenius has already proven his claim.

He didn't even MENTION Ice Ages.

>>
>>>>> Do it or YOU shut the fuck up, convict spawn.
>>>>>
>>>>> **I note that you have failed to prove Arrhenius wrong. I note that you
>>>>> have failed to prove the IPCC reports wrong.
>>>>
>>>> I note that you have failed to prove Arrhenius correct.
>>>
>>> **Arrhenius proved his own theory. Not once in the past 120+ years has
>>> Arrhenius been shown to be wrong.
>>
>> Prove it.
>
>**And again: Arrhenius proved his claim. YOU have failed to disprove
>Arrhenius' theory.
>
>Which, of course, means you are full of shit.

On the contrary, YOU have failed to demonstrate any peer reviews of
his 'work' so YOU are full of shit.

>>
>>> I note that
>>>> you have failed to prove the IPCC UN shitheads correct.
>>>
>>> **Since you have failed to read the IPCC reports and have failed to show
>>> where the IPCC got it wrong, it is you who has failed.
>>
>> Wrong. All you do is repeat the same shite over and over without a
>> shred of proof.
>>
>>>>
>>>> Now what about these ICE AGES going back 2.4 BILLION years I mentioned
>>>> elsewhere? No comment, shithead?
>>>
>>> **What about them?
>>
>> YOU claim Ice Ages have only been going on for 1 million years. THAT'S
>> what's about them.
>
>**Did I make that claim? Cite.

Here ya go, convict spawn:

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
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.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Try wriggling out of THAT, convict spawn.

On Sat, 7 Jan 2023 16:58:04 +1100, Fran
<gettingmoredelusionalbythedayistheforger@nutcasewannabeFran.com>
wrote:

>On 6/01/2023 10:19 am, KKKernal Corn wrote:
>> On Fri, 6 Jan 2023 09:55:02 +1100, Fran
>> <gettingmoredelusionalbythedayistheforger@nutcasewannabeFran.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/01/2023 12:11 am, KKKernal Corn wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 5 Jan 2023 08:23:17 +1100, Trevor Wilson
>>>> <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 5/01/2023 7:53 am, KKKernal Corn wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 5 Jan 2023 07:20:20 +1100, Trevor Wilson
>>>>>> <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 4/01/2023 11:20 pm, KKKernal Corn wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 4 Jan 2023 17:00:26 +1100, Trevor Wilson
>>>>>>>> <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 4/01/2023 4:29 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>> Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Joe wrote
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>  <reams of your shit any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed
>>>>>>>>>>>> where it belongs>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ice core data tells us that sometimes, temperature rise precedes CO2
>>>>>>>>>>>>> rise and sometimes it lags.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>  Because they aren't as correlated as you have previously stupidly
>>>>>>>>>>>> claimed.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Bullshit. They are closely linked. When one goes up, the other follows.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Pathetic.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> **"Pathetic"? It's a fact you boob.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> RIGHT NOW, we are experiencing a period where CO2 rise is leading
>>>>>>>>>>>>> temperature rise. I expect that may change when CO2 levels reach
>>>>>>>>>>>>> approximately 500ppm.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>  And you will discover that it doesn't when that happens.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> <reams of your endlessly repeated shit flushed where it belongs>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> At that point, we will see an increase in CO2 levels (and methane
>>>>>>>>>>>>> levels), as the gases are released from oceans and Arctic regions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then, of course, temperature levels will increase further. Then
>>>>>>>>>>>>> CO2/methane levels and process repeats.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>  We'll see, and even it it does, that will not see a climate
>>>>>>>>>>>> catastrophe as you have previously stupidly claimed.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Prove it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> YOU made that stupid claim.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> **Actually, I did not. I merely repeated what the climate scientists
>>>>>>>>> have told us.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> By repeating it, the anus[sic] is on you to prove it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> **No, it isn't. I have provided links to the best science available. If
>>>>>>> YOU dispute that science, then it is up to YOU to submit your refutation
>>>>>>> of that science.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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:
>>>
>>> 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!

>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. Only a bunch of retards on that silly little
upside down island of yours would find it 'desirable'.

>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.

In article <6coqrhdkqhmpindjfkgm6o5nobulaqda4i@4ax.com>,
sick old nazoid paedo Andrew 'Andrzej' Baron ("KKKernal Corn") wrote:

> To someone like you, there's nothing wrong with brown nosing. Do you
> tickle your clit (if any) while doing so?

PLEASE stop using foul language in this forum, you shiteating,
pissdrinking, donkeydicksucking, grannyfucking, jizzlicking,
motherless pile of sub-excrement nazoid PAEDO filth who takes
dozens of muzzie dicks up his arse and throat on an hourly basis.

Thank you!

In article <vdoqrhd368nqr2imi854p93cdv2i4t71pa@4ax.com>,
sick old nazoid paedo Andrew 'Andrzej' Baron ("KKKernal Corn") wrote:

> Yes I have, you lying cunt.

PLEASE stop using foul language in this forum, you shiteating,
pissdrinking, donkeydicksucking, grannyfucking, jizzlicking,
motherless pile of sub-excrement nazoid PAEDO filth who takes
dozens of muzzie dicks up his arse and throat on an hourly basis.

Thank you!

On Tue, 10 Jan 2023 13:58:10 +0000 (UTC), jew paedophile BARRY ZACHARY
SHEIN spamming as NoSpamAtAll (LOL) <spamnot@not.home> spammed from
STD.COM:

<jew spam b'rissed>

Fuck orf, jewboi.

On Tue, 10 Jan 2023 14:00:20 +0000 (UTC), jew paedophile BARRY ZACHARY
SHEIN spamming as NoSpamAtAll (LOL) <spamnot@not.home> spammed from
STD.COM:

<jew spam b'rissed>

Fuck orf, jewboi.

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.

>
>>>
>>>> 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.

>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> YOU get to do the proving.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> THATS how it works.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> **How it works is that YOU need to learn some basic science, before
>>>>>>>>>>>> making an (bigger) idiot of yourself. Start here:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> www.ipcc.ch
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> UN? You cannot be serious!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> **As I stated before: YOU need to submit your refutation of the science.
>>>>>>>>>> Don't forget: Like any scientific paper, I expect that you will submit
>>>>>>>>>> yours for peer review.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> However, I will make it VERY easy for you, because I realise that the
>>>>>>>>>> chances of you refuting the IPCC reports is an impossibility. You lack
>>>>>>>>>> the resources, the will and the intellect to do so. All you need to do
>>>>>>>>>> is prove that Svante Arrhenius, who formulated AGW theory way back in
>>>>>>>>>> 1899, got it wrong. It has been estimated that Arrhenius performed as
>>>>>>>>>> many as 100,000 hand calculations to formulate his theory. You could
>>>>>>>>>> arrange for those same calculations to be performed on a cheap computer
>>>>>>>>>> in a second of two today. So, easy for you.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Prove that Svante Arrhenius was wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> BTW: Many have tried and none have succeeded. Nonetheless, you might
>>>>>>>>>> succeed.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Prove Arrhenius wrong or shut the fuck up.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Prove that he was correct or YOU shut the fuck up, dickhead. Once
>>>>>>>>> more, the anus[sic] is on you.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> **Arrhenius has been shown to be correct. _I_ don't need to prove. YOU
>>>>>>>> claim that Arrhenius was wrong. Prove it or shut the fuck up.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have not claimed that he was wrong,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> **Yes, you have. Many times.
>>>>>
>>>>> Where? Be specific now, convict spawn!
>>>>
>>>> **Prove that Arrhenius was wrong.,
>>>
>>> WHERE have I claimed he was wrong, convict spawn?
>>>
>>>>>> I just want *you* to prove he
>>>>>>> was correct.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> **I don't need to. Arrhenius proved his theory correct. Not once in the
>>>>>> past 120 years has anyone proven him to be incorrect.
>>>>>
>>>>> So you claim. Now prove it.
>>>>
>>>> **Asked and answered. Arrhenius has already supplied the proof.
>>>
>>> Prove it.
>>
>> **Arrhenius has already proven his claim.
>
> He didn't even MENTION Ice Ages.

**So? Arrhenius wrote about HUMAN influence on the climate. His theory
has never been disproven. Not by you. Not by anyone.

>
>>>
>>>>>> Do it or YOU shut the fuck up, convict spawn.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> **I note that you have failed to prove Arrhenius wrong. I note that you
>>>>>> have failed to prove the IPCC reports wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> I note that you have failed to prove Arrhenius correct.
>>>>
>>>> **Arrhenius proved his own theory. Not once in the past 120+ years has
>>>> Arrhenius been shown to be wrong.
>>>
>>> Prove it.
>>
>> **And again: Arrhenius proved his claim. YOU have failed to disprove
>> Arrhenius' theory.
>>
>> Which, of course, means you are full of shit.
>
> On the contrary, YOU have failed to demonstrate any peer reviews of
> his 'work' so YOU are full of shit.

**And, once more: Prove that Arrhenius was wrong.

>
>>>
>>>> I note that
>>>>> you have failed to prove the IPCC UN shitheads correct.
>>>>
>>>> **Since you have failed to read the IPCC reports and have failed to show
>>>> where the IPCC got it wrong, it is you who has failed.
>>>
>>> Wrong. All you do is repeat the same shite over and over without a
>>> shred of proof.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Now what about these ICE AGES going back 2.4 BILLION years I mentioned
>>>>> elsewhere? No comment, shithead?
>>>>
>>>> **What about them?
>>>
>>> YOU claim Ice Ages have only been going on for 1 million years. THAT'S
>>> what's about them.
>>
>> **Did I make that claim? Cite.
>
> Here ya go, convict spawn:
>
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
> 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.
>
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>
> Try wriggling out of THAT, convict spawn.

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.

>
>>>
>>> "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.

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

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.

>>
>>>>
>>>>> 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.

>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> YOU get to do the proving.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THATS how it works.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> **How it works is that YOU need to learn some basic science, before
>>>>>>>>>>>>> making an (bigger) idiot of yourself. Start here:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> www.ipcc.ch
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> UN? You cannot be serious!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> **As I stated before: YOU need to submit your refutation of the science.
>>>>>>>>>>> Don't forget: Like any scientific paper, I expect that you will submit
>>>>>>>>>>> yours for peer review.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> However, I will make it VERY easy for you, because I realise that the
>>>>>>>>>>> chances of you refuting the IPCC reports is an impossibility. You lack
>>>>>>>>>>> the resources, the will and the intellect to do so. All you need to do
>>>>>>>>>>> is prove that Svante Arrhenius, who formulated AGW theory way back in
>>>>>>>>>>> 1899, got it wrong. It has been estimated that Arrhenius performed as
>>>>>>>>>>> many as 100,000 hand calculations to formulate his theory. You could
>>>>>>>>>>> arrange for those same calculations to be performed on a cheap computer
>>>>>>>>>>> in a second of two today. So, easy for you.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Prove that Svante Arrhenius was wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> BTW: Many have tried and none have succeeded. Nonetheless, you might
>>>>>>>>>>> succeed.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Prove Arrhenius wrong or shut the fuck up.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Prove that he was correct or YOU shut the fuck up, dickhead. Once
>>>>>>>>>> more, the anus[sic] is on you.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> **Arrhenius has been shown to be correct. _I_ don't need to prove. YOU
>>>>>>>>> claim that Arrhenius was wrong. Prove it or shut the fuck up.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have not claimed that he was wrong,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> **Yes, you have. Many times.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Where? Be specific now, convict spawn!
>>>>>
>>>>> **Prove that Arrhenius was wrong.,
>>>>
>>>> WHERE have I claimed he was wrong, convict spawn?
>>>>
>>>>>>> I just want *you* to prove he
>>>>>>>> was correct.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> **I don't need to. Arrhenius proved his theory correct. Not once in the
>>>>>>> past 120 years has anyone proven him to be incorrect.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So you claim. Now prove it.
>>>>>
>>>>> **Asked and answered. Arrhenius has already supplied the proof.
>>>>
>>>> Prove it.
>>>
>>> **Arrhenius has already proven his claim.
>>
>> He didn't even MENTION Ice Ages.
>
>**So? Arrhenius wrote about HUMAN influence on the climate. His theory
>has never been disproven. Not by you. Not by anyone.

We all KNOW about HUMAN influence on the climate. Now what about ICE
AGES?

And where are the PEER REVIEWS? Find just ONE!

>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> Do it or YOU shut the fuck up, convict spawn.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> **I note that you have failed to prove Arrhenius wrong. I note that you
>>>>>>> have failed to prove the IPCC reports wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I note that you have failed to prove Arrhenius correct.
>>>>>
>>>>> **Arrhenius proved his own theory. Not once in the past 120+ years has
>>>>> Arrhenius been shown to be wrong.
>>>>
>>>> Prove it.
>>>
>>> **And again: Arrhenius proved his claim. YOU have failed to disprove
>>> Arrhenius' theory.
>>>
>>> Which, of course, means you are full of shit.
>>
>> On the contrary, YOU have failed to demonstrate any peer reviews of
>> his 'work' so YOU are full of shit.
>
>**And, once more: Prove that Arrhenius was wrong.

On 11/01/2023 12:01 am, KKKernal Corn wrote:
> On Sat, 7 Jan 2023 11:51:57 +1100, Fran
> <gettingmoredelusionalbythedayistheforger@nutcasewannabeFran.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 6/01/2023 11:13 am, KKKernal Corn wrote:
>>> On Fri, 6 Jan 2023 10:07:16 +1100, Fran
>>> <gettingmoredelusionalbythedayistheforger@nutcasewannabeFran.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 6/01/2023 12:17 am, KKKernal Corn wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 5 Jan 2023 15:52:37 +1100, Fran
>>>>> <gettingmoredelusionalbythedayistheforger@nutcasewannabeFran.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/01/2023 11:16 am, KKKernal Corn wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 5 Jan 2023 10:22:06 +1100, Fran
>>>>>>> <gettingmoredelusionalbythedayistheforger@nutcasewannabeFran.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 4/01/2023 11:20 pm, KKKernal Corn wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 4 Jan 2023 17:00:26 +1100, Trevor Wilson
>>>>>>>>> <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> www.ipcc.ch
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> UN? You cannot be serious!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Trevor please stop arguing with this moron as all his responses (and
>>>>>>>> especially this one) reveal that that he's just another ill-educated,
>>>>>>>> parochial, ignorant boob.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is that the best you can do, you obsequious asslicking piece of shite?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> More proof of your lack of education and your ignorance. Learn to read.
>>>>>> Or ask someone to explain arse licking.
>>>>>
>>>>> No need. Do you even know what 'obsequious' MEANS?
>>>>
>>>> Of course. Clearly you don't. Learn to read as currently you aren't
>>>> competent.
>>>
>>> Pathetic. What are you, 5 years old?
>>>
>>>>>> I didn't do any arse licking. I did describe you.
>>>>>
>>>>> You have been licking Twevor's ass wholesale. It describes YOU,
>>>>> shithead.
>>>>
>>>> That's your fantasy.
>>>
>>> It's your daily obligation.
>>
>> Your fantasy is all your own work.
>
> It's not your fantasy, it's your reality.

My reality is that I'm reading your dimwitted, dull and stupid comments.
Sadly, you don't understand what you read but then turn your fantasies
into your reality.

>>>> You clearly don't read well enough to understand that my words described
>>>> you. I never implied that Trevor's arse has been, or needs, licking.
>>>> Effectively I told you that you are a know nothing, uneducated and
>>>> narrow minded fuckwit and I asked Trevor to stop playing with you.
>>>> But I'm sure you still won't get that message despite my repeating it.
>>>
>>> Are you going to make ANY contribution to the topic of this thread or
>>> are you simply going to keep brown-nosing Twevor?
>>
>> I never have brown nosed Trevor.
>
> Yes you have and yes you do, cunt.

Your gutter background is evident enough in all of your other posts so
repeated evidence from you is not required.
>
>> But then to someone like you, my using
>> the word 'please' probably does constitute brown nosing.
>
> To someone like you, there's nothing wrong with brown nosing.

From someone like you who can't read, your conclusions are irrelevant.

Do you
> tickle your clit (if any) while doing so?

As I said, your gutter background is evident enough without more proof.

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.

>>>> "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.

On 11/01/2023 12:02 am, KKKernal Corn wrote:
> On Sat, 7 Jan 2023 16:58:04 +1100, Fran
> <gettingmoredelusionalbythedayistheforger@nutcasewannabeFran.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 6/01/2023 10:19 am, KKKernal Corn wrote:
>>> On Fri, 6 Jan 2023 09:55:02 +1100, Fran
>>> <gettingmoredelusionalbythedayistheforger@nutcasewannabeFran.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 6/01/2023 12:11 am, KKKernal Corn wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 5 Jan 2023 08:23:17 +1100, Trevor Wilson
>>>>> <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/01/2023 7:53 am, KKKernal Corn wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 5 Jan 2023 07:20:20 +1100, Trevor Wilson
>>>>>>> <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 4/01/2023 11:20 pm, KKKernal Corn wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 4 Jan 2023 17:00:26 +1100, Trevor Wilson
>>>>>>>>> <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/01/2023 4:29 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Joe wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>  <reams of your shit any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed
>>>>>>>>>>>>> where it belongs>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ice core data tells us that sometimes, temperature rise precedes CO2
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rise and sometimes it lags.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>  Because they aren't as correlated as you have previously stupidly
>>>>>>>>>>>>> claimed.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Bullshit. They are closely linked. When one goes up, the other follows.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Pathetic.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> **"Pathetic"? It's a fact you boob.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RIGHT NOW, we are experiencing a period where CO2 rise is leading
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> temperature rise. I expect that may change when CO2 levels reach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> approximately 500ppm.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>  And you will discover that it doesn't when that happens.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> <reams of your endlessly repeated shit flushed where it belongs>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At that point, we will see an increase in CO2 levels (and methane
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> levels), as the gases are released from oceans and Arctic regions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then, of course, temperature levels will increase further. Then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CO2/methane levels and process repeats.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>  We'll see, and even it it does, that will not see a climate
>>>>>>>>>>>>> catastrophe as you have previously stupidly claimed.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Prove it.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> YOU made that stupid claim.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> **Actually, I did not. I merely repeated what the climate scientists
>>>>>>>>>> have told us.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> By repeating it, the anus[sic] is on you to prove it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> **No, it isn't. I have provided links to the best science available. If
>>>>>>>> YOU dispute that science, then it is up to YOU to submit your refutation
>>>>>>>> of that science.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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:
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>
>> 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, 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.

>> 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.

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.

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.

>
>>>>> "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.

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

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:

>>>> **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.

It's clear that YOU never read the glossary.

> That might have told you something about ICE AGES.

You should take your own advice. Start with the glossary of the IPCC.

THEN you'll find out it says nothing about ice ages that anyone here
doesn't already know:
"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

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.

>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.

>
>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> YOU get to do the proving.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THATS how it works.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **How it works is that YOU need to learn some basic science, before
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> making an (bigger) idiot of yourself. Start here:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> www.ipcc.ch
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> UN? You cannot be serious!
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> **As I stated before: YOU need to submit your refutation of the science.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Don't forget: Like any scientific paper, I expect that you will submit
>>>>>>>>>>>> yours for peer review.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> However, I will make it VERY easy for you, because I realise that the
>>>>>>>>>>>> chances of you refuting the IPCC reports is an impossibility. You lack
>>>>>>>>>>>> the resources, the will and the intellect to do so. All you need to do
>>>>>>>>>>>> is prove that Svante Arrhenius, who formulated AGW theory way back in
>>>>>>>>>>>> 1899, got it wrong. It has been estimated that Arrhenius performed as
>>>>>>>>>>>> many as 100,000 hand calculations to formulate his theory. You could
>>>>>>>>>>>> arrange for those same calculations to be performed on a cheap computer
>>>>>>>>>>>> in a second of two today. So, easy for you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Prove that Svante Arrhenius was wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> BTW: Many have tried and none have succeeded. Nonetheless, you might
>>>>>>>>>>>> succeed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Prove Arrhenius wrong or shut the fuck up.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Prove that he was correct or YOU shut the fuck up, dickhead. Once
>>>>>>>>>>> more, the anus[sic] is on you.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> **Arrhenius has been shown to be correct. _I_ don't need to prove. YOU
>>>>>>>>>> claim that Arrhenius was wrong. Prove it or shut the fuck up.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I have not claimed that he was wrong,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> **Yes, you have. Many times.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Where? Be specific now, convict spawn!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> **Prove that Arrhenius was wrong.,
>>>>>
>>>>> WHERE have I claimed he was wrong, convict spawn?
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I just want *you* to prove he
>>>>>>>>> was correct.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> **I don't need to. Arrhenius proved his theory correct. Not once in the
>>>>>>>> past 120 years has anyone proven him to be incorrect.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So you claim. Now prove it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> **Asked and answered. Arrhenius has already supplied the proof.
>>>>>
>>>>> Prove it.
>>>>
>>>> **Arrhenius has already proven his claim.
>>>
>>> He didn't even MENTION Ice Ages.
>>
>> **So? Arrhenius wrote about HUMAN influence on the climate. His theory
>> has never been disproven. Not by you. Not by anyone.
>
> We all KNOW about HUMAN influence on the climate. Now what about ICE
> AGES?
>
> And where are the PEER REVIEWS? Find just ONE!

In article <8bmrrhtblm9bat4urb79rlgnhpqhnvkmm9@4ax.com>,
sick old nazoid paedo Andrew 'Andrzej' Baron ("KKKernal Corn") wrote:

> shithead.

PLEASE stop using foul language in this forum, you shiteating,
pissdrinking, donkeydicksucking, grannyfucking, jizzlicking,
motherless pile of sub-excrement nazoid PAEDO filth who takes
dozens of muzzie dicks up his arse and throat on an hourly basis.

Thank you!

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.

<snigger>

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.

>>>>>>> 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 get to do the proving.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THATS how it works.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **How it works is that YOU need to learn some basic science, before
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> making an (bigger) idiot of yourself. Start here:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> www.ipcc.ch
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UN? You cannot be serious!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> **As I stated before: YOU need to submit your refutation of the science.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Don't forget: Like any scientific paper, I expect that you will submit
>>>>>>>>>>>>> yours for peer review.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> However, I will make it VERY easy for you, because I realise that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> chances of you refuting the IPCC reports is an impossibility. You lack
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the resources, the will and the intellect to do so. All you need to do
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is prove that Svante Arrhenius, who formulated AGW theory way back in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1899, got it wrong. It has been estimated that Arrhenius performed as
>>>>>>>>>>>>> many as 100,000 hand calculations to formulate his theory. You could
>>>>>>>>>>>>> arrange for those same calculations to be performed on a cheap computer
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in a second of two today. So, easy for you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Prove that Svante Arrhenius was wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> BTW: Many have tried and none have succeeded. Nonetheless, you might
>>>>>>>>>>>>> succeed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Prove Arrhenius wrong or shut the fuck up.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Prove that he was correct or YOU shut the fuck up, dickhead. Once
>>>>>>>>>>>> more, the anus[sic] is on you.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> **Arrhenius has been shown to be correct. _I_ don't need to prove. YOU
>>>>>>>>>>> claim that Arrhenius was wrong. Prove it or shut the fuck up.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I have not claimed that he was wrong,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> **Yes, you have. Many times.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Where? Be specific now, convict spawn!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> **Prove that Arrhenius was wrong.,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> WHERE have I claimed he was wrong, convict spawn?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I just want *you* to prove he
>>>>>>>>>> was correct.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> **I don't need to. Arrhenius proved his theory correct. Not once in the
>>>>>>>>> past 120 years has anyone proven him to be incorrect.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So you claim. Now prove it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> **Asked and answered. Arrhenius has already supplied the proof.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Prove it.
>>>>>
>>>>> **Arrhenius has already proven his claim.
>>>>
>>>> He didn't even MENTION Ice Ages.
>>>
>>> **So? Arrhenius wrote about HUMAN influence on the climate. His theory
>>> has never been disproven. Not by you. Not by anyone.
>>
>> We all KNOW about HUMAN influence on the climate. Now what about ICE
>> AGES?
>>
>> And where are the PEER REVIEWS? Find just ONE!
>
>**Again: NOT ONCE has Arrhenius been proven incorrect. Not by you. Not
>by anyone.

On Wed, 11 Jan 2023 08:59:20 +1100, Fran
<gettingmoredelusionalbythedayistheforger@nutcasewannabeFran.com>
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:
>
>>>>> **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.
>
>It's clear that YOU never read the glossary.

It's absolutely clear you can't even UNDERSTAND the glossary.

>> That might have told you something about ICE AGES.
>
>You should take your own advice. Start with the glossary of the IPCC.
>
>THEN you'll find out it says nothing about ice ages that anyone here
>doesn't already know:
>"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

Actually, the beneficiary of your anilingus, Twevor Wislon, seems to
think there have only been glaciations for the most recent million
years.

For the record, the current Quaternary Period (mentioned in the
glossary) started 2.7 million years ago and is the FIFTH of the major
Ice Ages. Look it up, you silly little cunt.

Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote

<reams of your endless mindless stupid repetition and lies flushed where
it belongs>

> So? Arrhenius wrote about HUMAN influence on the climate. His theory has
> never been disproven. Not by you. Not by anyone.

His theory doesn't explain why the CO2 has hiked massively
while the temperature has at most hiked by a pathetic just 1C

<reams of your endless mindless stupid repetition and lies flushed where
it belongs>

On Wed, 11 Jan 2023 07:58:22 +1100, Trevor Wilson
<trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

<reams of your endless mindless stupid repetition and lies flushed where
it belongs>

> Explain how the planet can enter an ice age, if the planet is warming.

The planet stops warming and starts cooling and it did that repeatedly,
fuckwit.

On 11/01/2023 9:37 am, KKKernal Corn wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Jan 2023 08:59:20 +1100, Fran
> <gettingmoredelusionalbythedayistheforger@nutcasewannabeFran.com>
> 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:
>>
>>>>>> **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.
>>
>> It's clear that YOU never read the glossary.
>
> It's absolutely clear you can't even UNDERSTAND the glossary.

Unlike you, I can find it, read it and understand it.

>>> That might have told you something about ICE AGES.
>>
>> You should take your own advice. Start with the glossary of the IPCC.
>>
>> THEN you'll find out it says nothing about ice ages that anyone here
>> doesn't already know:
>> "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
>
> Actually,

Actually, it's clear you never read the glossary, couldn't find it and
even if you had found it, you wouldn't have understood it.

the beneficiary of your anilingus, Twevor Wislon, seems to
> think there have only been glaciations for the most recent million
> years.

Yur fantasy interpretation of what you have convinced yourself he thinks
is irrelevant.

snip of more evidence of your gutter origins.

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.

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, I'm sure that is how you eat.
> <snigger>
>