Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>> Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>> Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>>> Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>> Phil Allison wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>> Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> **Who gives fuck? Our PM is an insignificant shit-for-brains,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> who is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> incapable of organising a piss-up in a brewery.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ** That that describes the TW ratbag quite well.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> > My opinion: Biden was a poor choice as POTUS.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ** Massive understatement
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> >Too old. HOWEVER, there was a worse choice for POTUS:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://nowthisnews.com/videos/politics/every-time-that-donald-trump-couldnt-remember-someones-name
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ** Beware TOXIC web site run by even worse ratbags than TW.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> **We are or were, somewhat strategically important. Our PM is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the most
>>>>>>>>>>>>> insignificant, incompetent boob ever to inhabit the office.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> And yes,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that idiot, Tony Abbott is on the same list. Arguably, Scummo
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is worse.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ** For the uninformed:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. TW is totally *besotted* with AGW theory, has been for two
>>>>>>>>>>>> decades.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> **"besotted", "for two decades"? Try FIVE decades. I've been
>>>>>>>>>>> reading everything I can get my hands on about AGW theory since
>>>>>>>>>>> the early 1970s. It was first postulated by my favourite
>>>>>>>>>>> mathematician, Fourier, back in the first half of the 19th
>>>>>>>>>>> century. That hypothesis was confirmed by Arrhenius, before the
>>>>>>>>>>> end of the 19th century. Despite more than 100 years of trying,
>>>>>>>>>>> deniers (like Abbott, Scummo, Bolt, Kelly, Jones, Murdoch,
>>>>>>>>>>> Trump, et al) of AGW theory have been unable to prove Arrhenius
>>>>>>>>>>> wrong. AGW theory is solid. If you wish to debate the subject
>>>>>>>>>>> with me, I am always ready.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. The PM and former PM Abbot are not, like most sane people.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> **Both Scummo and Abbott are religious frutcakes. They both
>>>>>>>>>>> believe that there is an invisible monster (aka: God), who lives
>>>>>>>>>>> in the sky and performs magic tricks. At NO TIME, in the entire
>>>>>>>>>>> history of humanity, has there been any verifiable evidence to
>>>>>>>>>>> show that such a monster exists, or has ever existed. ANY person
>>>>>>>>>>> who subscribes to such beliefs is clearly delusional. If you
>>>>>>>>>>> feel that such a monster exists, then you need to seek
>>>>>>>>>>> psycho-therapy.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. So he has an overwhelming need to hate them - just to
>>>>>>>>>>>> keep face.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> **"Hate"? No. Abbott and Scummo are clearly and provably
>>>>>>>>>>> incapable of doing the job as PM of Australia. Both fucked up
>>>>>>>>>>> badly. I don't "hate" them. I am, however, profoundly
>>>>>>>>>>> disappointed in those morons who kept them in government.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 4. TW is a poster boy for the Dunning Kruger effect ( Google
>>>>>>>>>>>> it)
>>>>>>>>>>>> 5. TW cannot justify any of his extreme ideas, not one.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> **What "extreme ideas" do you refer to? AGW theory? You're on
>>>>>>>>>>> VERY thin ice there. Feel free to discuss the issue with me. In
>>>>>>>>>>> the mean time, spend a little effort here:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> www.ippc.ch
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The problem with all that shit is that even if it is true,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There is no "if".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nope. Correct.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We'll see...
>>>>
>>>>> There is no "we'll see'. We are already seeing it.
>>>>
>>>> No we are not with your hysterical claim about 60C
>>>
>>> **"WE" won't see 60 degree C heatwave days, but those who come after us
>>> will.
>>
>> That remains to be seen given that they weren't
>> seen when we last saw CO2 levels of 600 ppm.
>
> **I will ask again:
>
> * When were CO2 levels at 600ppm?
> * What was the average temperature of the planet?
> * Cite.
>
>>
>>>> We haven't even seen england returning to the
>>>> climate that was there when the romans were
>>>> there and clearly civilisation survived that fine.
>>>
>>> Are you STILL blathering on about a bunch of drunken Italians, in an
>>> insignificant corner of the planet?
>>
>> That wasn’t just an isolated example of local climate
>> change, neither were the ice ages or greenland when
>> the vikings chose to colonise there.
>
> Then cite your evidence to show that the effect was planet-wide. Northern
> AND Southern hemispheres.

Doesn’t need to be to be not an in an insignificant corner of the planet?

Roman local warm time wasn’t anything like in an insignificant corner of the
planet?

>>>>>>>>> Really smart guys have been studying this stuff for a very long
>>>>>>>>> time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It wasn’t that long ago those same people were
>>>>>>>> claiming we were seeing global cooling.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bullshit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fact.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then YOU need to cite where "those same people (who are studying AGW
>>>>> theory) were claiming we were seeing global cooling".
>>>>>
>>>>> The SAME people. YOUR claim. Support it with evidence.
>>>>
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling
>>
>>> The first para from YOUR cite:
>>
>>> "Global cooling was a conjecture,
>>
>> So is AGW
>
> Umm, no.

Fraid so.

> AGW theory was first proposed by Fourier. It was proven by Arrhenius.

Global cooling was proven by the ice ages.

> That proof has NEVER been disproven. Not once, not ever. If you think that
> Arrhenius is wrong, then post your proof.

Yet another straw man being furiously thrashed.

>>> especially during the 1970s, of imminent cooling

>> It wasn’t just about imminent, some of the scientists
>> stated that we had actually seen cooling since 1940
>> and that that was continuing.

> I just cited YOUR evidence you boob. You're arguing with your own cite!

Nope, rubbing your nose in the fact that lots of the
most reputable scientists of the time were claiming
global cooling, just like plenty are now with AGW.

>>> of the Earth culminating in a period of extensive glaciation,

>> Just like your hysterical claims about 60C temps.
>
> Again: You're arguing with your own cite.

Nope, an given this shit is the best you can manage, here
goes the chain on the rest of your flagrantly dishonest shit.