Petzl wrote on 12/12/23 2:44 pm:
> On Tue, 12 Dec 2023 14:25:47 +1100, "Rod Speed"
> <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 12 Dec 2023 11:31:14 +1100, Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 12 Dec 2023 10:32:51 +1100, Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 09 Dec 2023 21:22:08 +1100, Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:

<Snip>

>>>>> CO2 if anything has come down,
>>>>
>>>> This is BAD news. Trees need this nutritious gas to grow.
>>>> Tonight I'll down a few beers and release some confined CO2 for
>>>> the planet.
>>
>>> Well the time I'm reporting it was 6,000PPM the cause of the
>>> major ice age
>>
>> Nope, that level of atmospheric CO2 can't do that,
>>
>>> and death of the Dinosaur,
>>
>> Nope, that was due to an immense asteriod strike.
>>
>>> Humans though survived
>>
>> There were no humans at that time, you pig ignorant fool.
>>
> Maybe maybe not? Try to keep up Rod.
>>
> New Evidence Points to Dinosaur and Human Coexistence A 2023 study
> suggests that early mammals, including ancestors of humans and
> placental mammals like dogs, rabbits and cats, lived alongside
> dinosaurs before a massive asteroid impact wiped out the dinosaurs.
> This discovery challenges previous beliefs about the timeline of
> mammal evolution and suggests that mammals thrived after the
> extinction of the dinosaurs, leading to the diverse mammalian world
> we see today.
>
Wrong as usual, Petzl, but THANK YOU for providing the required link to
shoot yourself down with!!

From your reference, Petzl, "... including ancestors of humans ...." so
*NOT* humans!!
--
Daniel

On Tue, 12 Dec 2023 19:56:13 +1100, Trevor Wilson
<trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

> On 12/12/2023 3:49 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
>> On Tue, 12 Dec 2023 15:09:58 +1100, Trevor Wilson
>> <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/12/2023 2:12 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 12 Dec 2023 10:52:44 +1100, Trevor Wilson
>>>> <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 12/12/2023 9:57 am, Petzl wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 12 Dec 2023 09:33:06 +1100, Trevor Wilson
>>>>>> <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 12/12/2023 8:43 am, Petzl wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tue, 12 Dec 2023 08:13:50 +1100, Trevor Wilson
>>>>>>>> <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 12/12/2023 7:02 am, Peter Jason wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope it has no more value than the Dumb 4 post here!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Its real data from the Mauna Loa observatory, fuckwit.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ...uh, no causation though. All science boffins pension
>>>>>>>>>> farming!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> **Really? Then cite your peer-reviewed hypothesis that allegedly
>>>>>>>>> shows
>>>>>>>>> Arrhenius to be wrong.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Can you cite a non-Obama/Biden era one?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> **One what?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Global Warming cite pre Obama/Biden didn't exist till them!
>>>>
>>>>> Bullshit. Arrhenius presented his theory back in 1899. At no time
>>>>> since, has anyone shown Arrhenius to be wrong.
>>
>>>> But we have seen an immense hike in the atmospheric CO2 levels and
>>>> sweet fuck all change in world temperatures, 1-2 degrees at most.

>>> Which is almost precisely what Arrhenius predicted.

>> Bullshit it is.

<reams of your shit any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where it
belongs>

>> He actually claimed that a doubling would see
>> a rise of 4 degrees and we know that that has not happened.
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius#Greenhouse_effect

> Points:

Just more bullshit in fact.

> * Atmospheric CO2 concentrations have not doubled yet.

Irrelevant. We have not in fact seen the correct proportion of
the 4 degrees he claimed or anything like that. Not even half
that in fact. So much for you pig ignorant PRECISELY claim.

> 530ppm will be double the long term average for the past 10,000 years.

The long term average for the past 10,000 years is
irrelevant. What matters is the most recent minimum.

> * There is a lag between CO2 level rise and temperature rise.

Still won't be anything like the change he claimed.

> * Arrhenius lacked modern computer equipment, that mayhave allowed him
> to be more precise with his figures.

Nothing whatever to do with modern computer
equipment given that he completely ignored
clouds and convection of heat upwards.

So much for PRECISELY.

> As they are, given he did all his calculations,longhand, the numbers are
> astonishingly accurate.

Even sillier than you usually manage, and that's saying something.

>> And even you should be able to work out that that
>> can't possibly EXTINCT the entire human race.

> I never claimed it would.

I never said you did. HE did tho.

> It will cause many premature deaths

BULLSHIT. 1-2 degrees at most can't do that
and would save lots of deaths thru cold too.

> and huge numbers of refugees though.

That's mindless bullshit too. Fuck all would need to move.

>>>> Some greenhouse effect.

>>> Indeed. It is diabolically bad.

>> Even sillier and more pig ignorant than you
>> usually manage and that's saying something.

<reams of your shit any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where it
belongs>

>>> Here are the effects of that small rise on the Australian climate:

>>> http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=tmax&area=aus&season=0112&ave_yr=0

>> That doesnt show anything even remotely like DIABOLICALLY BAD.

> Well, it looks bad to all the climate scientists.

Another of your stupid pig ignorant claims.

<reams of your shit any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where it
belongs>>

>>>> And his stupid claim that that might produce the extinction
>>>> of the human race has clearly been proven to be wrong.

>>> Who claimed "extinction"?
>> Arrhenius
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius

> Please cite Arrhenius' precise words.

Go and fuck yourself, again.

And why didnt you do anything like that yourself ?

>>>> Even say 5 degrees aint gunna do that.

>>> It will kill a very large number of people.

>> Have fun producing any peer reviewed scientific evidence for that
>> claim.

> No problems:

> https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/climate-change-and-health

Thats not EVIDENCE, thats a CLAIM, fuckwit.

And that's not a PEER REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC PAPER either.

Try again.

On Tue, 12 Dec 2023 10:54:54 +1100, Trevor Wilson
<trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

>On 12/12/2023 10:21 am, Peter Jason wrote:
>> On Tue, 12 Dec 2023 08:13:50 +1100, Trevor Wilson
>> <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/12/2023 7:02 am, Peter Jason wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope it has no more value than the Dumb 4 post here!
>>>>>
>>>>> Its real data from the Mauna Loa observatory, fuckwit.
>>>>
>>>> ...uh, no causation though. All science boffins pension farming!
>>>
>>> **Really? Then cite your peer-reviewed hypothesis that allegedly shows
>>> Arrhenius to be wrong.
>>
>> Not proven is more likely.
>
>**Then present your peer-reviewed hypothesis that allegedly shows
>Arrhenius to be wrong.
>
>> Any boffin can publish a hypothesis (lest he perish), which may or not
>> be true.
>
>**Then present your peer-reviewed hypothesis that allegedly shows
>Arrhenius to be wrong.
>
>
>> And...like stock-market charts, the further back one steps, the more
>> confusing it becomes.
>> I'll wait until water is lapping up to my ears before I'm convinced.
>
>**Why do you think you know more than all the world's climate scientists?

Because they're involved in the Global Warming conspiracy which has
become an industry. That is, they're getting paid, directly or
indirectly, to toe the line.

Daniel65

> Ördög >> Trevor Wilson
>>
>> /Autosnip all inputs of mentally deranged home grown and septic trash
>>  malicious wankers residing in my killfile/
>>
>>> Petz
>>>> Well the time I'm reporting it was 6,000PPM the cause of the
>>>> major ice age and death of the Dinosaur, Humans though survived
>>>
>>> **What the fuck? You psychotic moron. You need to get your data in
>>>  some kind of order. When the planet was experiencing 6,000ppm of
>>> atmospheric CO2, the planet was hot. Around 6 degrees C hotter than
>>> today. I will explain to you once more: You can't have an ice age,
>>> when temperatures are rising. Pretty simple science. It has been
>>> generally accepted that the dinosaurs were wiped out by a large
>>> asteroid impact. Some birds, some mammals and some reptiles survived.
>>>
>> Apart from the obvious fact that there were NO humans in existence
>> around at that time in our planet's history. Petz is still posting
>> his typical GoonCon fantasy bullshit.
>>
>> It looks like he is too far down the Intelligent Design rabbit hole.
>> Humans have never coexisted with the dinosaurs ... hate to
>> disappoint Petz, but the planet is not only 6000 years old nor was it
>> created at that point in time by some sort of sky fairy.
>>
> I picked up on that "6,000", too, but then I noticed the "PPM" that
> followed immediately afterwards, i.e. "6,000PPM", so, for a change,
> Petzl was correct!!

My response to had nothing to do with that part of his post.
I was reacting to his dinosaur--human coexistence context.
As you might know somewhere in the deep dark centre of the US Bible Belt
some idiotic millionaires have built a intelligent design museum with
all the typical hard core religious features like the Noah's Ark, etc,
etc, etc. There are exhibits depicting humans and dinosaurs living side
by side. However for some reason they have left off those docile dinos
from the ark...that explains their extinction, I suppose.
What a beautiful PragerU style religious fundy wet dream!
Anywho, I would not be surprised if Petz had that in mind when he was
talking about a "recent study" proving human and dinosaur coexistence.
I may be wrong on this, but I thought some of these evangelical sky
fairy worshipers really think that the planet is somewhere between 4000
to 6000 years old.

> But it might have helped if you, Ordog, had retained
> Peter's preceding paragraph ....

I try to avoid re-propagating crap dumped into this newsgroup by low
life scumbag permanent residents of my kill file. I do not ever read nor
consider anything coming from these idiots. When I say at the start of
my reply "Autosnip all inputs..." I truly mean it!
>
> "This is BAD news.  Trees need this nutritious gas to grow.  Tonight
> I'll down a few beers and release some confined CO2 for the planet. "

Good for you, Daniel! Less so for the planet. But hey how many farts
would you have to produce to be on par with the exhaust output during a
single short trip in a car? At least your output is can be considered
renewable thanks to photosynthesis. ;-P

BTW congrats to you for making into Petz's precious "Dumb3", "4", "5",
"etc"... club.

--
The ever present and ever vigilant newsgroup devil at your service.

On 13/12/2023 8:55 am, Peter Jason wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Dec 2023 10:54:54 +1100, Trevor Wilson
> <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>
>> On 12/12/2023 10:21 am, Peter Jason wrote:
>>> On Tue, 12 Dec 2023 08:13:50 +1100, Trevor Wilson
>>> <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 12/12/2023 7:02 am, Peter Jason wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nope it has no more value than the Dumb 4 post here!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Its real data from the Mauna Loa observatory, fuckwit.
>>>>>
>>>>> ...uh, no causation though. All science boffins pension farming!
>>>>
>>>> **Really? Then cite your peer-reviewed hypothesis that allegedly shows
>>>> Arrhenius to be wrong.
>>>
>>> Not proven is more likely.
>>
>> **Then present your peer-reviewed hypothesis that allegedly shows
>> Arrhenius to be wrong.

**Then present your peer-reviewed hypothesis that allegedly shows
Arrhenius to be wrong.

>>
>>> Any boffin can publish a hypothesis (lest he perish), which may or not
>>> be true.
>>
>> **Then present your peer-reviewed hypothesis that allegedly shows
>> Arrhenius to be wrong.

**Then present your peer-reviewed hypothesis that allegedly shows
Arrhenius to be wrong.

>>
>>
>>> And...like stock-market charts, the further back one steps, the more
>>> confusing it becomes.
>>> I'll wait until water is lapping up to my ears before I'm convinced.
>>
>> **Why do you think you know more than all the world's climate scientists?
>
> Because they're involved in the Global Warming conspiracy which has
> become an industry.

**Perhaps I asked the question incorrectly. I will re-phrase it for you:

What climate science experience/credentials do you have, such that we
may accept your ideas, over those of experienced climate scientists?

Further:

What do you mean by "Global Warming conspiracy"?

Are you suggesting that Fourier, Arrhenius, Foote, et al were part of
some kind of conspiracy? Present your proof of that claim.

Refs:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius#Greenhouse_effect

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Fourier#Discovery_of_the_greenhouse_effect

https://www.audubon.org/news/the-female-scientist-who-discovered-basics-climate-science-and-was-forgotten

To the best of my knowledge, none of those people made any money out of
any alleged "conspiracy". They simply presented the science.

That is, they're getting paid, directly or
> indirectly, to toe the line.

**Again: Prove it. In your proof, you should be able to show how the
climate scientists working in BoM, CSIRO and other government
institutions were telling Tony Abbott that his denialist stance was
wrong. I suggest that they were simply stating the truth.

Now, if you REALLY want to discuss conspiracies, then let's discuss Exxon:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/

So please, spell out how you know about these alleged "conspiracies"
that ALL the planet's climate scientists are somehow in on. Don't forget
to include Arrhenius, Fourier and Foote.

Over to you moron.

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

On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 11:09:01 +1100, Trevor Wilson
<trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

> On 13/12/2023 8:55 am, Peter Jason wrote:
>> On Tue, 12 Dec 2023 10:54:54 +1100, Trevor Wilson
>> <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/12/2023 10:21 am, Peter Jason wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 12 Dec 2023 08:13:50 +1100, Trevor Wilson
>>>> <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 12/12/2023 7:02 am, Peter Jason wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nope it has no more value than the Dumb 4 post here!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Its real data from the Mauna Loa observatory, fuckwit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...uh, no causation though. All science boffins pension farming!
>>>>>
>>>>> **Really? Then cite your peer-reviewed hypothesis that allegedly
>>>>> shows
>>>>> Arrhenius to be wrong.
>>>>
>>>> Not proven is more likely.
>>>
>>> **Then present your peer-reviewed hypothesis that allegedly shows
>>> Arrhenius to be wrong.

> Then present your peer-reviewed hypothesis that allegedly shows
> Arrhenius to be wrong.

Doesn't need to be peer reviewed, anyone with even half a clue
can see that we have not seen anything like the 4 degree change
in temperature with a doubling of world atmospheric CO2 levels.

And he didn't even get the chemical composition
right either, it isn't carbonic acid in the atmosphere.

>>>> Any boffin can publish a hypothesis (lest he perish), which may or not
>>>> be true.
>>>
>>> **Then present your peer-reviewed hypothesis that allegedly shows
>>> Arrhenius to be wrong.
>
> **Then present your peer-reviewed hypothesis that allegedly shows
> Arrhenius to be wrong.

Doesn't need to be peer reviewed, anyone with even half a clue
can see that we have not seen anything like the 4 degree change
in temperature with a doubling of world atmospheric CO2 levels.

And he didn't even get the chemical composition
right either, it isn't carbonic acid in the atmosphere.

>>>> And...like stock-market charts, the further back one steps, the more
>>>> confusing it becomes.
>>>> I'll wait until water is lapping up to my ears before I'm convinced.
>>>
>>> **Why do you think you know more than all the world's climate
>>> scientists?
>> Because they're involved in the Global Warming conspiracy which has
>> become an industry.
>
> Perhaps I asked the question incorrectly. I will re-phrase it for you:

> What climate science experience/credentials do you have, such that we
> may accept your ideas, over those of experienced climate scientists?

What climate science experience/credentials do
you have, such that we may accept your claims ?

> Further:

> What do you mean by "Global Warming conspiracy"?

Even you can't actually be THAT stupid.

> Are you suggesting that Fourier, Arrhenius, Foote,et al were part of
> some kind of conspiracy?

Nope, that the current 'climate scientists' are.

> Present your proof of that claim.

You have no idea what he is claiming.

> Refs:

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius#Greenhouse_effect

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Fourier#Discovery_of_the_greenhouse_effect

> https://www.audubon.org/news/the-female-scientist-who-discovered-basics-climate-science-and-was-forgotten

> To the best of my knowledge, none of those people made any money out of
> any alleged "conspiracy". They simply presented the science.

They were ALL employed at the time, fuckit.

>> That is, they're getting paid, directly or
>> indirectly, to toe the line.

> Again: Prove it.

They were ALL employed at the time, fuckit.

> In your proof, you should be able to show how the climatescientists
> working in BoM, CSIRO and other government institutions were telling
> Tony Abbott that his denialist stancewas wrong. I suggest that they
> were simply stating the truth.

Prove it.

On 13/12/2023 12:00 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 11:09:01 +1100, Trevor Wilson
> <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>
>> On 13/12/2023 8:55 am, Peter Jason wrote:
>>> On Tue, 12 Dec 2023 10:54:54 +1100, Trevor Wilson
>>> <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 12/12/2023 10:21 am, Peter Jason wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 12 Dec 2023 08:13:50 +1100, Trevor Wilson
>>>>> <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 12/12/2023 7:02 am, Peter Jason wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nope it has no more value than the Dumb 4 post here!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Its real data from the Mauna Loa observatory, fuckwit.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ...uh, no causation though.   All science boffins pension farming!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> **Really? Then cite your peer-reviewed hypothesis that allegedly
>>>>>> shows
>>>>>> Arrhenius to be wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not proven is more likely.
>>>>
>>>> **Then present your peer-reviewed hypothesis that allegedly shows
>>>> Arrhenius to be wrong.
>
>> Then present your peer-reviewed hypothesis that allegedly shows
>> Arrhenius to be wrong.
>
> Doesn't need to be peer reviewed, anyone with even half a clue
> can see that we have not seen anything like the 4 degree change
> in temperature with a doubling of world atmospheric CO2 levels.

**WE HAVE NOT SEEN A DOUBLING IN CO2 LEVELS!

Moron.

>
> And he didn't even get the chemical composition
> right either, it isn't carbonic acid in the atmosphere.

**Big deal.

>
>>>>> Any boffin can publish a hypothesis (lest he perish), which may or not
>>>>> be true.
>>>>
>>>> **Then present your peer-reviewed hypothesis that allegedly shows
>>>> Arrhenius to be wrong.
>>
>> **Then present your peer-reviewed hypothesis that allegedly shows
>> Arrhenius to be wrong.
>
> Doesn't need to be peer reviewed, anyone with even half a clue
> can see that we have not seen anything like the 4 degree change
> in temperature with a doubling of world atmospheric CO2 levels.

**WE HAVE NOT SEEN A DOUBLING IN CO2 LEVELS!

Moron.

>
> And he didn't even get the chemical composition
> right either, it isn't carbonic acid in the atmosphere.

**Big deal.

>
>>>>> And...like stock-market charts, the further back one steps, the more
>>>>> confusing it becomes.
>>>>> I'll wait until water is lapping up to my ears before I'm convinced.
>>>>
>>>> **Why do you think you know more than all the world's climate
>>>> scientists?
>>>  Because they're involved in the Global Warming conspiracy which has
>>> become an industry.
>>
>> Perhaps I asked the question incorrectly. I will re-phrase it for you:
>
>> What climate science experience/credentials do you have, such that we
>> may accept your ideas, over those of experienced climate scientists?
>
> What climate science experience/credentials do
> you have, such that we  may accept your claims ?

**Here's the thing, moron: _I_ don't make any claims. _I_ pay attention
to CLIMATE SCIENTISTS. _I_ don't have to provide any credentials, as I
cite the guys who study the subject.

>
>> Further:
>
>> What do you mean by "Global Warming conspiracy"?
>
> Even you can't actually be THAT stupid.

**Humour me.

>
>> Are you suggesting that Fourier, Arrhenius, Foote,et al were part of
>> some kind of conspiracy?
>
> Nope, that the current 'climate scientists' are.

**And yet, I have consistently stated that, until Arrhenius' theory can
be challenged, then his theory holds.

>
>> Present your proof of that claim.
>
> You have no idea what he is claiming.

**He is claiming some kind of world wide conspiracy, starting with
Fourier, Foote and Arrhenius. I see no evidence of a conspiracy.

>
>> Refs:
>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius#Greenhouse_effect
>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Fourier#Discovery_of_the_greenhouse_effect
>
>> https://www.audubon.org/news/the-female-scientist-who-discovered-basics-climate-science-and-was-forgotten
>
>> To the best of my knowledge, none of those people made any money out
>> of any alleged "conspiracy". They simply presented the science.
>
> They were ALL employed at the time, fuckit.

**Who by?

>
>>>    That is, they're getting paid, directly or
>>> indirectly, to toe the line.
>
>> Again: Prove it.
>
> They were ALL employed at the time, fuckit.

**Who by?

>
>> In your proof, you should be able to show how the  climatescientists
>> working in BoM, CSIRO and other government institutions were telling
>> Tony Abbott that his denialist stancewas  wrong. I suggest that they
>> were simply stating the truth.
>
> Prove it.

**NO need. The proof is self-evident. When Tony Abbott was PM, he was
(and still) a climate change denier and supporter of more fossil fuels.
As PM, Abbott was effectively the employer and paymaster of BoM and
CSIRO. Despite that fact, the climate scientists of both organisations
never held back in telling Abbott the truth about CO2 levels and the
warming trend.

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

On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 13:17:00 +1100, Trevor Wilson
<trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

> On 13/12/2023 12:00 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
>> On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 11:09:01 +1100, Trevor Wilson
>> <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>> On 13/12/2023 8:55 am, Peter Jason wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 12 Dec 2023 10:54:54 +1100, Trevor Wilson
>>>> <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 12/12/2023 10:21 am, Peter Jason wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 12 Dec 2023 08:13:50 +1100, Trevor Wilson
>>>>>> <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 12/12/2023 7:02 am, Peter Jason wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Nope it has no more value than the Dumb 4 post here!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Its real data from the Mauna Loa observatory, fuckwit.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ...uh, no causation though. All science boffins pension farming!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> **Really? Then cite your peer-reviewed hypothesis that allegedly
>>>>>>> shows
>>>>>>> Arrhenius to be wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not proven is more likely.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then present your peer-reviewed hypothesis that allegedly shows
>>>>> Arrhenius to be wrong.

>>> Then present your peer-reviewed hypothesis that allegedly shows
>>> Arrhenius to be wrong.

>> Doesn't need to be peer reviewed, anyone with even half a clue
>> can see that we have not seen anything like the 4 degree change
>> in temperature with a doubling of world atmospheric CO2 levels.

> WE HAVE NOT SEEN A DOUBLING IN CO2 LEVELS!

THEY HAVE DOUBLED FROM A PARTICULAR TIME IN THE PAST.

AND EVEN WITH THE MORE RECENT NOT QUITE DOUBLING, EVEN
SOMEONE AS STUPID AS YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO WORK OUT
THE AMOUNT OF WARMING THAT HE PREDICTED FOR THAT AND
SEE THAT THAT DIDN'T EVEN COME CLOSE TO HAPPENING.

>> And he didn't even get the chemical composition
>> right either, it isn't carbonic acid in the atmosphere.

> Big deal.

It does mean that he got that wrong too.

<your childish stupid repetition flushed where it belongs>

>>>>>> And...like stock-market charts, the further back one steps, the more
>>>>>> confusing it becomes.
>>>>>> I'll wait until water is lapping up to my ears before I'm convinced.
>>>>>
>>>>> **Why do you think you know more than all the world's climate
>>>>> scientists?
>>>> Because they're involved in the Global Warming conspiracy which has
>>>> become an industry.
>>>
>>> Perhaps I asked the question incorrectly. I will re-phrase it for you:
>>
>>> What climate science experience/credentials do you have, such that we
>>> may accept your ideas, over those of experienced climate scientists?

>> What climate science experience/credentials do
>> you have, such that we may accept your claims ?

> Here's the thing, moron: _I_ don't make any claims. _

There you go, lying thru your fucking teeth, as always.

You claimed that Arrhenius got it PRECISELY right.

You claimed that a rise of just 5 degrees would see millions killed by
that.

> I_ pay attention to CLIMATE SCIENTISTS. _

None of them that matter have ever made either stupid claim.

> I_ don't have to provide any credentials,as I cite the guys who study
> the subject.

You have done nothing of the sort with
either claim, you silly little pathological liar.

>>> Further:

>>> What do you mean by "Global Warming conspiracy"?

>> Even you can't actually be THAT stupid.

> Humour me.

Even you can't actually be THAT stupid.

>>> Are you suggesting that Fourier, Arrhenius, Foote,et al were part of
>>> some kind of conspiracy?

>> Nope, that the current 'climate scientists' are.

> And yet, I have consistently stated that,until Arrhenius' theory can be
> challenged,

It has been refuted by the fact that we have seen nothing
like the amount of warming that he predicted would happen.

> then his theory holds.

Bullshit it does.

>>> Present your proof of that claim.

>> You have no idea what he is claiming.

> He is claiming some kind of world wide conspiracy,

Yes.

> starting with Fourier, Foote and Arrhenius.

He never said that.

> I see no evidence of a conspiracy.

Because you have wanked yourself completely blind, as always.

>>> Refs:

>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius#Greenhouse_effect

>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Fourier#Discovery_of_the_greenhouse_effect

>>> https://www.audubon.org/news/the-female-scientist-who-discovered-basics-climate-science-and-was-forgotten

>>> To the best of my knowledge, none of those people made any money out
>>> of any alleged "conspiracy". They simply presented the science.

>> They were ALL employed at the time, fuckit.

> Who by?

Varys with the individual.

>>>> That is, they're getting paid, directly or
>>>> indirectly, to toe the line.

>>> Again: Prove it.

>> They were ALL employed at the time, fuckit.

> Who by?

Varys with the individual.

>>> In your proof, you should be able to show how the climatescientists
>>> working in BoM, CSIRO and other government institutions were telling
>>> Tony Abbott that his denialist stancewas wrong. I suggest that they
>>> were simply stating the truth.

>> Prove it.

> NO need.

How convenient.

> The proof is self-evident. When Tony Abbott was PM, he was (and still) a
> climate change denier and supporter of more fossil fuels. As PM, Abbott
> was effectively the employer and paymaster of BoM and CSIRO.

BULLSHIT.

> Despite that fact, the climate scientists of both organisations never
> held back in telling Abbott the truth about CO2 levels and the warming
> trend.

Another pig ignorant lie.

On 13/12/2023 1:32 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 13:17:00 +1100, Trevor Wilson
> <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>
>> On 13/12/2023 12:00 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
>>> On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 11:09:01 +1100, Trevor Wilson
>>> <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 13/12/2023 8:55 am, Peter Jason wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 12 Dec 2023 10:54:54 +1100, Trevor Wilson
>>>>> <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 12/12/2023 10:21 am, Peter Jason wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 12 Dec 2023 08:13:50 +1100, Trevor Wilson
>>>>>>> <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 12/12/2023 7:02 am, Peter Jason wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Nope it has no more value than the Dumb 4 post here!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Its real data from the Mauna Loa observatory, fuckwit.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ...uh, no causation though.   All science boffins pension farming!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> **Really? Then cite your peer-reviewed hypothesis that allegedly
>>>>>>>> shows
>>>>>>>> Arrhenius to be wrong.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not proven is more likely.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then present your peer-reviewed hypothesis that allegedly shows
>>>>>> Arrhenius to be wrong.
>
>>>> Then present your peer-reviewed hypothesis that allegedly shows
>>>> Arrhenius to be wrong.
>
>>>  Doesn't need to be peer reviewed, anyone with even half a clue
>>> can see that we have not seen anything like the 4 degree change
>>> in temperature with a doubling of world atmospheric CO2 levels.
>
>> WE HAVE NOT SEEN A DOUBLING IN CO2 LEVELS!
>
> THEY HAVE DOUBLED FROM A PARTICULAR TIME IN THE PAST.

**WE HAVE NOT SEEN A DOUBLING IN CO2 LEVELS!

In Arrhenius' time, those levels were around 285ppm. Stop being a fuckwit.

Once more:

WE HAVE NOT SEEN A DOUBLING IN CO2 LEVELS!

>
> AND EVEN WITH THE MORE RECENT NOT QUITE DOUBLING,

**Not even CLOSE to doubling.

EVEN
> SOMEONE AS STUPID AS YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO WORK OUT
> THE AMOUNT OF WARMING THAT HE PREDICTED FOR THAT AND
> SEE THAT THAT DIDN'T EVEN COME CLOSE TO HAPPENING.

**We can discuss Arrhenius' data when we see levels rise to 530ppm.

>
>>>  And he didn't even get the chemical composition
>>> right either, it isn't carbonic acid in the atmosphere.
>
>> Big deal.
>
> It does mean that he got that wrong too.

**Not quite.

>
> <your childish stupid repetition flushed where it belongs>
>
>>>>>>> And...like stock-market charts, the further back one steps, the more
>>>>>>> confusing it becomes.
>>>>>>> I'll wait until water is lapping up to my ears before I'm convinced.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> **Why do you think you know more than all the world's climate
>>>>>> scientists?
>>>>>  Because they're involved in the Global Warming conspiracy which has
>>>>> become an industry.
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps I asked the question incorrectly. I will re-phrase it for you:
>>>
>>>> What climate science experience/credentials do you have, such that
>>>> we may accept your ideas, over those of experienced climate scientists?
>
>>>  What climate science experience/credentials do
>>> you have, such that we  may accept your claims ?
>
>> Here's the thing, moron: _I_ don't make any claims. _
>
> There you go, lying thru your fucking teeth, as always.

**Nope. I merely cite those who understand climate science.

>
> You claimed that Arrhenius got it PRECISELY right.

**Nope. I stated that Arrhenius managed to get it VERY close to correct,
given the lack of computer assistance.

>
> You claimed that a rise of just 5 degrees would see millions killed by
> that.

**And that is very likely to be the case. Millions will die and many
more will be displaced.

>
>> I_ pay attention  to CLIMATE SCIENTISTS. _
>
> None of them that matter have ever made either stupid claim.

**What makes you the arbiter of which climate scientists are correct?

>
>> I_ don't have to provide any credentials,as I  cite the guys who study
>> the subject.
>
> You have done nothing of the sort with
> either claim, you silly little pathological liar.

**I cite the climate scientists. You make idiotic and unsubstantiated
claims. BIG difference.

>
>>>> Further:
>
>>>> What do you mean by "Global Warming conspiracy"?
>
>>>  Even you can't actually be THAT stupid.
>
>> Humour me.
>
> Even you can't actually be THAT stupid.

**Humour me. Explain it to me. With proof to justify your claims.

>
>>>> Are you suggesting that Fourier, Arrhenius, Foote,et al were part
>>>> of  some kind of conspiracy?
>
>>>  Nope, that the current 'climate scientists' are.
>
>> And yet, I have consistently stated that,until Arrhenius' theory can
>> be challenged,
>
> It has been refuted by the fact that we have seen nothing
> like the amount of warming that he predicted would happen.

**One more time, you fucking idiot: We have not seen a doubling in CO2
levels. We have, however, seen a significant warming, as predicted by
Arrhenius.

>
>> then his theory holds.
>
> Bullshit it does.

**OK then. Present YOUR alternate hypothesis to explain the observed
warming trend.

I bet you cannot.

>
>>>> Present your proof of that claim.
>
>>>  You have no idea what he is claiming.
>
>> He is claiming some kind of world wide conspiracy,
>
> Yes.
>
>> starting with  Fourier, Foote and Arrhenius.
>
> He never said that.

**Why would he leave out the very people who initiated AGW theory?

>
>> I see no evidence of a conspiracy.
>
> Because you have wanked yourself completely blind, as always.

**Present proof of this alleged conspiracy.

Lack or proof - no consp

>
>>>> Refs:
>
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius#Greenhouse_effect
>
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Fourier#Discovery_of_the_greenhouse_effect
>
>>>> https://www.audubon.org/news/the-female-scientist-who-discovered-basics-climate-science-and-was-forgotten
>
>>>> To the best of my knowledge, none of those people made any money out
>>>> of any alleged "conspiracy". They simply presented the science.
>
>>>  They were ALL employed at the time, fuckit.
>
>> Who by?
>
> Varys with the individual.

**Who employed them?

>
>>>>>  That is, they're getting paid, directly or
>>>>> indirectly, to toe the line.
>
>>>> Again: Prove it.
>
>>>  They were ALL employed at the time, fuckit.
>
>> Who by?
>
> Varys with the individual.

**Who employed them?

The plural of vary is VARIES you moron. When did you finish school? Age 10?

>
>>>> In your proof, you should be able to show how the  climatescientists
>>>> working in BoM, CSIRO and other government institutions were telling
>>>> Tony Abbott that his denialist stancewas  wrong. I suggest that they
>>>> were simply stating the truth.
>
>>>  Prove it.
>
>> NO need.
>
> How convenient.

**As I said: The proof is self-evident.

>
>> The proof is self-evident. When Tony Abbott was PM, he was (and still)
>> a climate change denier and supporter of more fossil fuels. As PM,
>> Abbott was effectively the employer and paymaster of BoM and CSIRO.
>
> BULLSHIT.

**Who runs BoM? Who pays their wages? Who effectively runs CSIRO? Who
pays their wages?

>
>> Despite that fact, the climate scientists of both organisations never
>> held back in telling Abbott the truth about CO2 levels and the warming
>> trend.
>
> Another pig ignorant lie.

On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 14:11:47 +1100, Trevor Wilson
<trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

> On 13/12/2023 1:32 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
>> On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 13:17:00 +1100, Trevor Wilson
>> <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>> On 13/12/2023 12:00 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 11:09:01 +1100, Trevor Wilson
>>>> <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 13/12/2023 8:55 am, Peter Jason wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 12 Dec 2023 10:54:54 +1100, Trevor Wilson
>>>>>> <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 12/12/2023 10:21 am, Peter Jason wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tue, 12 Dec 2023 08:13:50 +1100, Trevor Wilson
>>>>>>>> <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 12/12/2023 7:02 am, Peter Jason wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope it has no more value than the Dumb 4 post here!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Its real data from the Mauna Loa observatory, fuckwit.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ...uh, no causation though. All science boffins pension
>>>>>>>>>> farming!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> **Really? Then cite your peer-reviewed hypothesis that allegedly
>>>>>>>>> shows
>>>>>>>>> Arrhenius to be wrong.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not proven is more likely.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then present your peer-reviewed hypothesis that allegedly shows
>>>>>>> Arrhenius to be wrong.
>>
>>>>> Then present your peer-reviewed hypothesis that allegedly shows
>>>>> Arrhenius to be wrong.
>>
>>>> Doesn't need to be peer reviewed, anyone with even half a clue
>>>> can see that we have not seen anything like the 4 degree change
>>>> in temperature with a doubling of world atmospheric CO2 levels.
>>
>>> WE HAVE NOT SEEN A DOUBLING IN CO2 LEVELS!

>> THEY HAVE DOUBLED FROM A PARTICULAR TIME IN THE PAST.

> WE HAVE NOT SEEN A DOUBLING IN CO2 LEVELS!

> In Arrhenius' time, those levels were around 285ppm.

EVEN SOMEONE AS STUPID AS YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO WORK
OUT THE AMOUNT OF WARMING THAT HE PREDICTED FOR THAT
AND SEE THAT THAT DIDN'T EVEN COME CLOSE TO HAPPENING.

And Arrhenius' time is irrelevant, his claim applys to more than just his
time.

> Once more:
>
> WE HAVE NOT SEEN A DOUBLING IN CO2 LEVELS!
>
>> AND EVEN WITH THE MORE RECENT NOT QUITE DOUBLING,
>
> **Not even CLOSE to doubling.
>
> EVEN
>> SOMEONE AS STUPID AS YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO WORK OUT
>> THE AMOUNT OF WARMING THAT HE PREDICTED FOR THAT AND
>> SEE THAT THAT DIDN'T EVEN COME CLOSE TO HAPPENING.

> We can discuss Arrhenius' data when we see levels rise to 530ppm.

His claim doesnt just apply to doubling, fuckwit.

>>>> And he didn't even get the chemical composition
>>>> right either, it isn't carbonic acid in the atmosphere.

>>> Big deal.

>> It does mean that he got that wrong too.

> Not quite.

Fraid so.

>> <your childish stupid repetition flushed where it belongs>
>>
>>>>>>>> And...like stock-market charts, the further back one steps, the
>>>>>>>> more
>>>>>>>> confusing it becomes.
>>>>>>>> I'll wait until water is lapping up to my ears before I'm
>>>>>>>> convinced.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> **Why do you think you know more than all the world's climate
>>>>>>> scientists?
>>>>>> Because they're involved in the Global Warming conspiracy which has
>>>>>> become an industry.
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps I asked the question incorrectly. I will re-phrase it for
>>>>> you:
>>>>
>>>>> What climate science experience/credentials do you have, such that
>>>>> we may accept your ideas, over those of experienced climate
>>>>> scientists?
>>
>>>> What climate science experience/credentials do
>>>> you have, such that we may accept your claims ?
>>
>>> Here's the thing, moron: _I_ don't make any claims. _

>> There you go, lying thru your fucking teeth, as always.

> Nope. I merely cite those who understand climate science.

There you go, lying thru your fucking teeth, as always.

>> You claimed that Arrhenius got it PRECISELY right.

> Nope. I stated that Arrhenius managed to get it VERY close to correct,

You used the word PRECISELY, repeatedly, you silly little pathological
liar.

> given the lack of computer assistance.

Ignoring clouds and heat convection has absolutely NOTHING
to do with the lack of computer assistance, you pathetic excuse
for a bullshit artist.

>> You claimed that a rise of just 5 degrees would see millions killed by
>> that.

> And that is very likely to be the case.

But that is NOT A cite those who understand climate science.
you pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist.

So what climate science experience/credentials do
you have, such that we may accept your claims ?

> Millions will die and many more will be displaced.

But that is NOT A cite those who understand climate science.
you pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist.

So what climate science experience/credentials do
you have, such that we may accept your claims ?

>>> I_ pay attention to CLIMATE SCIENTISTS. _

>> None of them that matter have ever made either stupid claim.

> What makes you the arbiter of which climate scientists are correct?

I never said I was. I JUST rubbed your stupid nose
in the FACT that none of those who matter has ever
made that claim you lie about having cited.

>>> I_ don't have to provide any credentials,as I cite the guys who study
>>> the subject.

>> You have done nothing of the sort with
>> either claim, you silly little pathological liar.

> I cite the climate scientists.

No you did not with either claim, you silly little pathological liar.

>>>>> Further:
>>
>>>>> What do you mean by "Global Warming conspiracy"?
>>
>>>> Even you can't actually be THAT stupid.
>>
>>> Humour me.

>> Even you can't actually be THAT stupid.

> Humour me. Explain it to me.

Even you can't actually be THAT stupid.

>>>>> Are you suggesting that Fourier, Arrhenius, Foote,et al were part
>>>>> of some kind of conspiracy?
>>
>>>> Nope, that the current 'climate scientists' are.
>>
>>> And yet, I have consistently stated that,until Arrhenius' theory can
>>> be challenged,

>> It has been refuted by the fact that we have seen nothing
>> like the amount of warming that he predicted would happen.

<reams of your broken record shit flushed where it belongs>

>>> then his theory holds.

>> Bullshit it does.

> OK then. Present YOUR alternate hypothesis to explain the observed
> warming trend.

Dont need to, I JUST need to show he got that wrong which is what I have
done.

>>>>> Present your proof of that claim.
>>
>>>> You have no idea what he is claiming.
>>
>>> He is claiming some kind of world wide conspiracy,
>> Yes.
>>
>>> starting with Fourier, Foote and Arrhenius.
>> He never said that.

> Why would he leave out the very people who initiated AGW theory?

Because he may well be stating that the conspiracy is more recent than
that, fuckwit.

>>> I see no evidence of a conspiracy.

>> Because you have wanked yourself completely blind, as always.

> Present proof of this alleged conspiracy.

I never claimed there was a conspiracy, fuckwit.

>>>>> Refs:
>>
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius#Greenhouse_effect
>>
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Fourier#Discovery_of_the_greenhouse_effect
>>
>>>>> https://www.audubon.org/news/the-female-scientist-who-discovered-basics-climate-science-and-was-forgotten
>>
>>>>> To the best of my knowledge, none of those people made any money out
>>>>> of any alleged "conspiracy". They simply presented the science.
>>
>>>> They were ALL employed at the time, fuckit.
>>
>>> Who by?

On 13/12/2023 3:14 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 14:11:47 +1100, Trevor Wilson
> <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>
>> On 13/12/2023 1:32 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
>>> On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 13:17:00 +1100, Trevor Wilson
>>> <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 13/12/2023 12:00 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 11:09:01 +1100, Trevor Wilson
>>>>> <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 13/12/2023 8:55 am, Peter Jason wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 12 Dec 2023 10:54:54 +1100, Trevor Wilson
>>>>>>> <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 12/12/2023 10:21 am, Peter Jason wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 12 Dec 2023 08:13:50 +1100, Trevor Wilson
>>>>>>>>> <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 12/12/2023 7:02 am, Peter Jason wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope it has no more value than the Dumb 4 post here!
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Its real data from the Mauna Loa observatory, fuckwit.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ...uh, no causation though.   All science boffins pension
>>>>>>>>>>> farming!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> **Really? Then cite your peer-reviewed hypothesis that
>>>>>>>>>> allegedly shows
>>>>>>>>>> Arrhenius to be wrong.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Not proven is more likely.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Then present your peer-reviewed hypothesis that allegedly shows
>>>>>>>> Arrhenius to be wrong.
>>>
>>>>>> Then present your peer-reviewed hypothesis that allegedly shows
>>>>>> Arrhenius to be wrong.
>>>
>>>>>  Doesn't need to be peer reviewed, anyone with even half a clue
>>>>> can see that we have not seen anything like the 4 degree change
>>>>> in temperature with a doubling of world atmospheric CO2 levels.
>>>
>>>> WE HAVE NOT SEEN A DOUBLING IN CO2 LEVELS!
>
>>>  THEY HAVE DOUBLED FROM A PARTICULAR TIME IN THE PAST.
>
>> WE HAVE NOT SEEN A DOUBLING IN CO2 LEVELS!
>
>> In Arrhenius' time, those levels were around 285ppm.
>
> EVEN SOMEONE AS STUPID AS YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO WORK
> OUT THE AMOUNT OF WARMING THAT HE PREDICTED FOR THAT
> AND SEE THAT THAT DIDN'T EVEN COME CLOSE TO HAPPENING.

**Once more for the illiterate cretin:

WE HAVE NOT SEEN A DOUBLING IN CO2 LEVELS!

>
> And Arrhenius' time is irrelevant, his claim applys to more than just
> his time.

**Indeed. As Arrhenius, himself, has stated.

BTW: The plural of apply is APPLIES.

>
>> Once more:
>>
>> WE HAVE NOT SEEN A DOUBLING IN CO2 LEVELS!
>>
>>>  AND EVEN WITH THE MORE RECENT NOT QUITE DOUBLING,
>>
>> **Not even CLOSE to doubling.
>>
>>   EVEN
>>> SOMEONE AS STUPID AS YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO WORK OUT
>>> THE AMOUNT OF WARMING THAT HE PREDICTED FOR THAT AND
>>> SEE THAT THAT DIDN'T EVEN COME CLOSE TO HAPPENING.
>
>> We can discuss Arrhenius' data when we see levels rise to 530ppm.
>
> His claim doesnt just apply to doubling, fuckwit.

**Just a reminder, you ignoramus: YOU were the claiming that a doubling
in CO2 levels would result in a 4 degrees C rise (according to
Arrhenius). I am well aware of the nuance in Arrhenius' theory. You are
not.

>
>>>>>  And he didn't even get the chemical composition
>>>>> right either, it isn't carbonic acid in the atmosphere.
>
>>>> Big deal.
>
>>>  It does mean that he got that wrong too.
>
>> Not quite.
>
> Fraid so.
>
>>>  <your childish stupid repetition flushed where it belongs>
>>>
>>>>>>>>> And...like stock-market charts, the further back one steps, the
>>>>>>>>> more
>>>>>>>>> confusing it becomes.
>>>>>>>>> I'll wait until water is lapping up to my ears before I'm
>>>>>>>>> convinced.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> **Why do you think you know more than all the world's climate
>>>>>>>> scientists?
>>>>>>>  Because they're involved in the Global Warming conspiracy which has
>>>>>>> become an industry.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Perhaps I asked the question incorrectly. I will re-phrase it for
>>>>>> you:
>>>>>
>>>>>> What climate science experience/credentials do you have, such that
>>>>>> we may accept your ideas, over those of experienced climate
>>>>>> scientists?
>>>
>>>>>  What climate science experience/credentials do
>>>>> you have, such that we  may accept your claims ?
>>>
>>>> Here's the thing, moron: _I_ don't make any claims. _
>
>>>  There you go, lying thru your fucking teeth, as always.
>
>> Nope. I merely cite those who understand climate science.
>
> There you go, lying thru your fucking teeth, as always.
>
>>>  You claimed that Arrhenius got it PRECISELY right.
>
>> Nope. I stated that Arrhenius managed to get it VERY close to correct,
>
> You used the word PRECISELY, repeatedly, you silly little pathological
> liar.
>
>> given the lack of computer assistance.
>
> Ignoring clouds and heat convection has absolutely NOTHING
> to do with the lack of computer assistance, you pathetic excuse
> for a bullshit artist.

**Good then YOU provide your hypothesis to refute Arrhenius' theory.
I'll wait.

>
>>> You claimed that a rise of just 5 degrees would see millions killed
>>> by  that.
>
>> And that is very likely to be the case.
>
> But that is NOT A cite those who understand climate science.
> you pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist.
>
> So what climate science experience/credentials do
> you have, such that we  may accept your claims ?

**Once more dickhead: I MAKE NO CLAIMS TO ANY TRAINING IN CLIMATE
SCIENCE. I CITE THOSE WHO DO.

>
>> Millions will die and many  more will be displaced.
>
> But that is NOT A cite those who understand climate science.
> you pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist.
>
> So what climate science experience/credentials do
> you have, such that we  may accept your claims ?

**Once more dickhead: I MAKE NO CLAIMS TO ANY TRAINING IN CLIMATE
SCIENCE. I CITE THOSE WHO DO.

>
>>>> I_ pay attention  to CLIMATE SCIENTISTS. _
>
>>>  None of them that matter have ever made either stupid claim.
>
>> What makes you the arbiter of which climate scientists are correct?
>
> I never said I was.

**Yes, you did. You claimed Arrhenius was wrong.

I JUST rubbed your stupid nose
> in the FACT that none of those who matter has ever
> made that claim you lie about having cited.
>
>>>> I_ don't have to provide any credentials,as I  cite the guys who
>>>> study the subject.
>
>>>  You have done nothing of the sort with
>>> either claim, you silly little pathological liar.
>
>> I cite the climate scientists.
>
> No you did not with either claim, you silly little pathological liar.
>
>>>>>> Further:
>>>
>>>>>> What do you mean by "Global Warming conspiracy"?
>>>
>>>>>  Even you can't actually be THAT stupid.
>>>
>>>> Humour me.
>
>>>  Even you can't actually be THAT stupid.
>
>> Humour me. Explain it to me.
>
> Even you can't actually be THAT stupid.

**Your inability to explain your stupid theory is duly noted. You are
just a loud-mouthed ignoramus, who, when asked to validate his insanity,
fails to do so.

On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 15:33:35 +1100, Trevor Wilson
<trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

> On 13/12/2023 3:14 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
>> On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 14:11:47 +1100, Trevor Wilson
>> <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>> On 13/12/2023 1:32 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 13:17:00 +1100, Trevor Wilson
>>>> <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 13/12/2023 12:00 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 11:09:01 +1100, Trevor Wilson
>>>>>> <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 13/12/2023 8:55 am, Peter Jason wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tue, 12 Dec 2023 10:54:54 +1100, Trevor Wilson
>>>>>>>> <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 12/12/2023 10:21 am, Peter Jason wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 12 Dec 2023 08:13:50 +1100, Trevor Wilson
>>>>>>>>>> <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/12/2023 7:02 am, Peter Jason wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope it has no more value than the Dumb 4 post here!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Its real data from the Mauna Loa observatory, fuckwit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ...uh, no causation though. All science boffins pension
>>>>>>>>>>>> farming!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> **Really? Then cite your peer-reviewed hypothesis that
>>>>>>>>>>> allegedly shows
>>>>>>>>>>> Arrhenius to be wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Not proven is more likely.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Then present your peer-reviewed hypothesis that allegedly shows
>>>>>>>>> Arrhenius to be wrong.
>>>>
>>>>>>> Then present your peer-reviewed hypothesis that allegedly shows
>>>>>>> Arrhenius to be wrong.
>>>>
>>>>>> Doesn't need to be peer reviewed, anyone with even half a clue
>>>>>> can see that we have not seen anything like the 4 degree change
>>>>>> in temperature with a doubling of world atmospheric CO2 levels.
>>>>
>>>>> WE HAVE NOT SEEN A DOUBLING IN CO2 LEVELS!
>>
>>>> THEY HAVE DOUBLED FROM A PARTICULAR TIME IN THE PAST.
>>
>>> WE HAVE NOT SEEN A DOUBLING IN CO2 LEVELS!
>>
>>> In Arrhenius' time, those levels were around 285ppm.

>> EVEN SOMEONE AS STUPID AS YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO WORK
>> OUT THE AMOUNT OF WARMING THAT HE PREDICTED FOR THAT
>> AND SEE THAT THAT DIDN'T EVEN COME CLOSE TO HAPPENING.

> Once more for the illiterate cretin:

> WE HAVE NOT SEEN A DOUBLING IN CO2 LEVELS!

I realise that you have never ever had a fucking clue
about how science works, so lets go thru this very
very slowly for the terminally pig ignorant like you.

Arrhenius proposed a FORMULA to explain the effect
of atmospheric CO2 levels on warming due to the
greenhouse effect. He ALSO cited a couple on points
on that curve, to make it obviouis what the FORMULA
meant warming wise, a doubling and quadrupling of
atmospheric CO2 levels resulting in a 4 degree and
8 degree rise in warming respectively.

He never ever said that ONLY a doubling from the CO2
level seen at his time would produce a 4 degree rise.

THE FORMULA HE PROPOSED APPLYS TO ALL LEVELS
OF ATMOSPHERIC CO2 LEVEL CHANGE and that formula
is clearly wrong since it didnt even get close to the warming
we might have seen since his time.

On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 15:33:35 +1100, Trevor Wilson
<trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

> On 13/12/2023 3:14 pm, Rod Speed wrote:

>>> OK then. Present YOUR alternate hypothesis to explain the observed
>>> warming trend.

>> Dont need to,

> **Yes, you do. If you understood ANYTHING about the scientific method
> (which you clearly do not), then you would know that is exactly what you
> have to do.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you don't
have a fucking clue what the scientific method is about.

ALL I have to do is to show that his FORMULA does not fit the measured
reality.

Ördög wrote on 13/12/23 9:06 am:

<Snip>

> BTW congrats to you for making into Petz's precious "Dumb3", "4", "5",
> "etc"... club.
>
Did I?? Huh!! Huh!! Did I?? He hasn't said. ;-(
--
Daniel

On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 08:55:18 +1100, Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com> wrote:

>>
>>**Why do you think you know more than all the world's climate scientists?
>
>Because they're involved in the Global Warming conspiracy which has
>become an industry. That is, they're getting paid, directly or
>indirectly, to toe the line.
>
They also were sacked if they didn't agree!
<https://saltbushclub.com/2019/08/18/black-list-of-climate-sceptics/>
--
Petzl
On the sixth day of Christmas. ALBO sent to me...
6 rapists hiding...
5 pedos saliving...
4 killers stalking...
3 terrorists plotting...
2 pervert crims...
.....and 100s of detainees running round free...
Paul Zanetti Cartoonist

On 12/12/2023 9:07 am, Ördög wrote:
> Petz retains his reigning "village idiot" title
>
>> Fran >> Ördög>>> Petz>>>> Tou have been PYSOP'ed into believing the
>> Kenyan
> born Moslem Obama!
>>>> >> Jesus wept. What is the stupid old fart fantasising about now? How
> on>> earth does the resident idiot manage to bring Obama into the
> thread......
>>> This is what chronic alcoholism, mis- and/or under-education, a very low
> IQ to start with, alt-right/racist/white-supremacist and religious
> fundamentalist brainwashing does to someone's mental capacity over the
> years. These poor sods are incapable of doing anything else but
> regurgitating meaningless word salads they handpicked out of the deepest
> cyber sewers they could find on the net, and doing so ad nauseam.

"Word salad" is right.
> /snip/
>>>
>> You only reply to people that brown nose you.
>
> Nobody here brown nosing anyone, Petz dear...with your exception, given
> that as soon as some rabid alt-right septic or home grown troll turns up
> here with some special insanity you jump to joyful action.
>
> Fran and I have our significant political differences, just as expected
> between a centrists and someone from the far left. But we do not mimic
> what you and ilk does to your opponents wishing them, their relatives
> and friends completely silenced, mistreated or even executed for
> refusing to accept that psychotic alt-right fundamentalism you propagate.
>
>> You plonk those that are intelligent,

And the poor old fart probably thinks he's intelligent........
>
> Your idea of intelligence grading is based on the ability of how many
> GoonBags one consumes before posting rubbish to Usenet. The more the
> better, eh Petz dear?
>
> Obnoxious/insane posters have to be plonked in order to maintain some
> baseline of personal sanity when reading posts on Usenet. All rational
> people do that. Fran was right, I should have plonked you yonks ago.

:-)) It would save you a lot of time of iy plonked him. Mind you, our
resident village idiot also gives you an excuse to sit at the computer
inside int he cool and give him a serve or 6 when the weather is so hot.

> Your saving grace is that you provide an easy platform for me to fight
> head on alt-right and religious fundamentalist propaganda which you
> supply in an endless stream of idiot posts...and as an added bonus I get
> to ridicule your idiocy as a form of very low grade entertainment.
> Thanks Petz!  :-P    :-P    :-P
>
> NOTE:
> Your idiotic extremist and/or Xtian fundy hate propaganda and high
> octane Goon-bag fumes induced fantasy sig (that quite often contains
> uncredited, therefore clearly plagiarised material pinched from
> countless alt-right sources) was flushed down the gurgler, as always,
> without reading!
>

On 12/12/2023 10:52 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 12/12/2023 9:57 am, Petzl wrote:
>> On Tue, 12 Dec 2023 09:33:06 +1100, Trevor Wilson
>> <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/12/2023 8:43 am, Petzl wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 12 Dec 2023 08:13:50 +1100, Trevor Wilson
>>>> <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 12/12/2023 7:02 am, Peter Jason wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nope it has no more value than the Dumb 4 post here!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Its real data from the Mauna Loa observatory, fuckwit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...uh, no causation though.   All science boffins pension farming!
>>>>>
>>>>> **Really? Then cite your peer-reviewed hypothesis that allegedly shows
>>>>> Arrhenius to be wrong.
>>>>>
>>>> Can you cite a non-Obama/Biden era one?
>>>
>>> **One what?
>>>
>> Global Warming cite pre Obama/Biden didn't exist till them!

Oh dear.
>
> **Bullshit. Arrhenius presented his theory back in 1899. At no time
> since, has anyone shown Arrhenius to be wrong.
>
> In 1988 (long before Obama), the IPCC was set up to investigate the
> observed warming trend.

:-))

On 13/12/2023 5:49 pm, Daniel65 wrote:
> Ördög wrote on 13/12/23 9:06 am:
>
> <Snip>
>
>> BTW congrats to you for making into Petz's precious "Dumb3", "4", "5",
>> "etc"... club.
>>
> Did I?? Huh!! Huh!! Did I?? He hasn't said. ;-(

And even if he did say it, can you believe him given his history of
shifting, squirming or just straight out telling lies?

I've enjoyed his latest idiocies followed by attempts to shift and
squirm as each time Trevor shoots the poor old sod down, viz:
"Obama/Biden enforced the fraud "Global Warming" scam

"Global Warming cite pre Obama/Biden didn't exist till them!"

"Nobody heard about this till the Obama/Biden scam"

"I are talking about media propaganda about this, which only activated
in Obama/Biden era 2013 and on"

Poor old pretzel.

Fran wrote on 14/12/23 6:06 pm:
> On 13/12/2023 5:49 pm, Daniel65 wrote:
>> Ördög wrote on 13/12/23 9:06 am:
>>
>> <Snip>
>>
>>> BTW congrats to you for making into Petz's precious "Dumb3", "4",
>>> "5", "etc"... club.
>>>
>> Did I?? Huh!! Huh!! Did I?? He hasn't said. ;-(
>
> And even if he did say it, can you believe him given his history of
> shifting, squirming or just straight out telling lies?

Oh!! O.K.! ;-(

> I've enjoyed his latest idiocies followed by attempts to shift and
> squirm as each time Trevor shoots the poor old sod down, viz:
> "Obama/Biden enforced the fraud "Global Warming" scam
>
> "Global Warming cite pre Obama/Biden didn't exist till them!"
>
> "Nobody heard about this till the Obama/Biden scam"
>
> "I are talking about media propaganda about this, which only activated
> in Obama/Biden era 2013 and on"
>
> Poor old pretzel.
--
Daniel