Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #684526 > unrolled thread
| Started by | kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-05-09 06:52 -0400 |
| Last post | 2018-05-09 15:49 -0400 |
| Articles | 18 on this page of 278 — 21 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-09 06:52 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-05-09 07:57 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-09 09:17 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-05-09 09:29 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-09 10:10 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-05-10 07:55 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-10 08:55 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-05-10 19:35 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-11 08:13 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-05-12 13:44 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-05-12 18:57 +0000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-05-12 12:03 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-23 16:47 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-23 16:49 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-10 22:56 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-11 08:14 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-11 10:35 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Dinsdale <yup@ayup.yup> - 2018-05-11 10:59 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-11 10:25 -0500
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-05-11 08:48 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-11 11:02 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-11 20:45 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-11 23:01 -0500
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-12 09:33 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-12 09:31 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-11 19:47 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-11 19:09 -0500
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-12 09:33 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-14 23:59 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-15 09:24 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-05-15 07:03 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-05-15 11:43 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-15 20:12 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-05-16 00:34 +0000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-05-15 18:00 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-05-15 21:51 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-05-15 19:06 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-16 10:02 -0500
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-16 12:16 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-16 14:05 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-16 13:48 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-05-16 11:00 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-09 20:26 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-10 08:57 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-10 23:00 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-11 08:16 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-11 10:44 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-11 11:03 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-11 12:26 -0600
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-05-11 11:33 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-11 13:42 -0500
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-05-11 19:27 +0000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-05-11 12:30 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-05-11 19:32 +0000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-05-11 12:38 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-11 15:25 -0500
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-05-11 20:28 +0000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-05-11 13:39 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-05-11 20:26 +0000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-05-11 13:35 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-11 21:07 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-05-11 13:36 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-05-11 12:46 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-11 20:55 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-05-11 19:27 +0000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-11 19:48 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-11 23:27 -0500
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-12 09:35 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-15 00:00 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-15 09:24 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-05-15 11:47 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-15 14:47 -0500
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-05-15 21:13 +0000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-05-15 14:51 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-15 23:00 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-16 09:50 -0500
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-05-16 17:44 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-05-17 02:52 +0000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-05-16 20:02 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-05-16 20:33 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-05-16 20:35 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 00:29 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 11:38 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-05-16 20:37 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-17 17:16 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-15 20:00 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-05-16 00:35 +0000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-05-16 11:01 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-11 08:27 -0500
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-16 09:37 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-23 11:07 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-22 23:18 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-23 13:23 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-22 23:58 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-23 16:26 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-23 03:03 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-24 09:35 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-08 15:02 -0500
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-08 19:00 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-09 10:07 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Boris Mohar <borism_void_@sympatico.ca> - 2018-05-10 07:51 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-09 09:59 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-15 15:56 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-15 02:14 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-15 09:27 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-05-15 11:48 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-15 15:04 -0500
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-15 20:02 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-05-15 17:28 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-05-15 06:55 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-15 10:13 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-15 10:53 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-15 20:06 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2018-05-15 22:17 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-16 08:19 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-15 22:03 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-16 13:38 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-17 06:11 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-05-16 13:16 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-16 15:31 -0500
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-17 20:51 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-18 11:23 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-17 21:52 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-21 07:19 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-21 23:05 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-22 14:44 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-22 02:46 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-22 11:08 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-23 10:24 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-22 20:26 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-23 13:23 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-23 00:03 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-23 16:01 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-05-23 08:39 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-23 10:43 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-24 07:54 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-23 03:08 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-24 09:38 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-23 19:41 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-24 10:05 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-23 20:13 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-05-24 08:59 +0000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist kdthrge@gmail.com - 2018-05-24 07:16 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Leo Sgouros <adravirgo@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 07:26 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-24 12:02 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist kdthrge@gmail.com - 2018-05-24 10:36 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist kdthrge@gmail.com - 2018-05-24 12:29 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist kdthrge@gmail.com - 2018-05-24 14:35 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-24 20:32 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 19:56 -0500
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist kdthrge@gmail.com - 2018-05-25 21:36 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist kdthrge@gmail.com - 2018-05-25 23:34 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist kdthrge@gmail.com - 2018-05-26 07:06 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2018-05-26 12:48 -0500
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist kdthrge@gmail.com - 2018-05-26 13:20 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist kdthrge@gmail.com - 2018-05-27 12:30 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist kdthrge@gmail.com - 2018-05-28 10:43 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist kdthrge@gmail.com - 2018-05-28 14:03 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist kdthrge@gmail.com - 2018-05-29 05:54 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist kdthrge@gmail.com - 2018-06-06 16:56 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist kdthrge@gmail.com - 2018-06-06 17:20 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist kdthrge@gmail.com - 2018-06-06 19:36 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist kdthrge@gmail.com - 2018-06-09 12:13 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist kdthrge@gmail.com - 2018-06-09 18:28 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist kdthrge@gmail.com - 2018-06-06 21:12 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist kdthrge@gmail.com - 2018-06-07 06:13 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-06 16:56 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-23 20:09 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-24 10:55 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-23 23:03 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-17 20:50 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-18 11:20 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-17 21:27 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-18 11:45 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-17 22:31 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-18 14:07 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-18 00:50 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-18 15:20 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-18 15:42 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-18 03:40 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-21 07:28 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-18 15:28 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-18 15:33 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-18 15:48 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-05-20 21:58 +0000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-21 23:06 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-15 22:28 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-17 11:35 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-17 07:14 -0500
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-18 07:33 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-17 21:08 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-18 11:24 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-17 22:29 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-21 07:28 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-21 23:05 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-22 14:44 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-22 02:47 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-22 11:07 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-22 20:17 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-23 10:25 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-15 08:52 -0500
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-15 10:02 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-05-15 07:04 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-05-15 11:51 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-16 08:28 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-15 19:48 -0500
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-15 22:36 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-16 09:36 -0500
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-16 10:51 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-16 14:07 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-16 14:01 -0500
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-17 06:16 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-16 15:42 -0500
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-17 11:37 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-16 17:13 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-17 11:26 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-15 22:30 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-16 09:45 -0500
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-17 06:18 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-16 15:45 -0500
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-17 11:22 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-17 07:51 -0500
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-17 11:27 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-17 17:47 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-05-17 23:36 +0000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-18 09:39 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-17 20:55 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-05-17 18:12 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-18 11:24 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 16:41 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2018-05-17 20:06 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-17 20:20 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-05-18 01:37 +0000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 19:03 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-17 22:36 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-05-18 03:03 +0000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 20:09 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2018-05-17 23:25 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-05-18 09:56 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 17:55 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2018-05-17 21:01 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 18:02 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2018-05-17 21:09 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-17 17:29 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-17 20:53 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-18 11:25 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-17 22:30 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-18 14:08 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-18 00:42 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-18 15:22 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-18 03:31 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-18 07:06 -0500
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-18 11:49 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-18 13:25 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-05-18 19:40 +0000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-18 20:23 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-05-19 03:39 +0000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-18 18:41 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-05-19 03:40 +0000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-21 07:36 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-21 23:05 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-22 14:45 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-22 02:48 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-23 10:26 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-22 23:17 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-23 13:21 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-22 23:59 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-23 16:03 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-23 03:04 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-24 09:40 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-23 20:20 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-24 11:00 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-23 23:06 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-05-24 05:03 +0000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-24 01:59 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-24 01:57 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-09 09:33 -0500
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-09 15:49 -0400
Page 14 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 12 13 [14]
| From | "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-21 23:05 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pe01rb$s48$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #686381 |
"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message news:fme829Fjn2mU1@mid.individual.net... > On 18/05/2018 5:31 PM, Scout wrote: >> >> >> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message >> news:fm769vF2nf8U2@mid.individual.net... >>> On 18/05/2018 2:42 PM, Scout wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message >>>> news:fm71uoF1qk2U2@mid.individual.net... >>>>> On 18/05/2018 12:30 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message >>>>>> news:fm6odnF2i8U4@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>> On 18/05/2018 10:53 AM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message >>>>>>>> news:fm3i11F92rqU2@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>> On 16/05/2018 12:30 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in >>>>>>>>>> message news:fm158hFnd3tU1@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>>>> On 15/05/2018 11:52 PM, Sergio wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/15/2018 12:56 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/05/2018 11:59 PM, benj wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/9/2018 6:52 AM, kensi wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In 2013, atmospheric carbon dioxide broke 400 parts per >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> million for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the first time in human history. Just a year later, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> atmospheric >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> carbon dioxide averaged that for an entire month. And now? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/5/4/1762050/-The-last-time-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-was-this-high-humans-didn-t-exist >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> We hear you. Dinosaurs all died from heat stroke from all >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that CO2 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Greenhousing their world. Somehow science doesn't agree with >>>>>>>>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>>>>>>> fantasy. Since CO2 is a minor GHG it's level is obviously >>>>>>>>>>>>>> more or less >>>>>>>>>>>>>> irrelevant, both then and now. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Water vapor is THE major GHG factor (50%) and clouds (also >>>>>>>>>>>>>> water) are >>>>>>>>>>>>>> another 25% and CO2 is NOT the remaining 25%. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> **Wrong, yappy lap-dog. You really should stop listening to >>>>>>>>>>>>> your master, >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sergio. He is wrong and so are you. Obviously. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> name calling and emotional outbursts are simply ways to derail >>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>> subject. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> by doing this you are stating that you are an the end of your >>>>>>>>>>>> knowledge >>>>>>>>>>>> and way over your head, or your a libtard. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> remember CO2 is only 0.00039 part of the atmosphere the >>>>>>>>>>>> rest of is >>>>>>>>>>>> is not CO2 => 99.99961 % >>>>>>>>>>>> so the sun hardly hits any CO2 atoms. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> **It's actually more like 410ppm right now and increasing >>>>>>>>>>> rapidly. The Sun doesn't "hit CO2 atoms". Yikes! I made a grave >>>>>>>>>>> error in assuming you had some scientific knowledge. I won't >>>>>>>>>>> make that mistake again. I now realise what a monumental cretin >>>>>>>>>>> you are. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Points: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> * CO2 is not an "atom". CO2 is a MOLECULE. Here's a primer for >>>>>>>>>>> you: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Trevor has to pick nits because on the main topic he's sunk and >>>>>>>>>> his argument is in tatters. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> **It's hardly nit-picking. Sergio has demonstrated a sustained >>>>>>>>> inability to understand basic science. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Much as you have done? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> **Since you don't understand climate science, then you are hardly in >>>>>>> a position to make a judgement. >>>>>> >>>>>> Since your claims have no value, your assessment is similarly lacking >>>>>> in value. >>>>> >>>>> **They're not _my_ claims >>>> >>>> Then I suppose you're going to tell us that someone has been >>>> impersonating you? >>> >>> **They're not my claims. I am citing the evidence from the IPCC reports. >>> >>>> >>>> Or are you going to claim they hacked your account? >>> >>> **They're not my claims. I am citing the evidence from the IPCC reports. >> >> No, you are making the claims and then attempting to cite unspecified >> IPCC reports to support your claims. > > **Here's the data you requested: > > http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf Data not present.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-22 14:45 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <fmhljmFbrgiU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #686590 |
On 22/05/2018 1:05 PM, Scout wrote: > > > "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message > news:fme829Fjn2mU1@mid.individual.net... >> On 18/05/2018 5:31 PM, Scout wrote: >>> >>> >>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message >>> news:fm769vF2nf8U2@mid.individual.net... >>>> On 18/05/2018 2:42 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message >>>>> news:fm71uoF1qk2U2@mid.individual.net... >>>>>> On 18/05/2018 12:30 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in >>>>>>> message news:fm6odnF2i8U4@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>> On 18/05/2018 10:53 AM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in >>>>>>>>> message news:fm3i11F92rqU2@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>>> On 16/05/2018 12:30 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in >>>>>>>>>>> message news:fm158hFnd3tU1@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>>>>> On 15/05/2018 11:52 PM, Sergio wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/15/2018 12:56 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/05/2018 11:59 PM, benj wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/9/2018 6:52 AM, kensi wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In 2013, atmospheric carbon dioxide broke 400 parts per >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> million for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the first time in human history. Just a year later, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> atmospheric >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> carbon dioxide averaged that for an entire month. And now? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/5/4/1762050/-The-last-time-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-was-this-high-humans-didn-t-exist >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We hear you. Dinosaurs all died from heat stroke from all >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that CO2 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Greenhousing their world. Somehow science doesn't agree >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fantasy. Since CO2 is a minor GHG it's level is obviously >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more or less >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> irrelevant, both then and now. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Water vapor is THE major GHG factor (50%) and clouds >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (also water) are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another 25% and CO2 is NOT the remaining 25%. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> **Wrong, yappy lap-dog. You really should stop listening >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to your master, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sergio. He is wrong and so are you. Obviously. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> name calling and emotional outbursts are simply ways to >>>>>>>>>>>>> derail the >>>>>>>>>>>>> subject. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> by doing this you are stating that you are an the end of >>>>>>>>>>>>> your knowledge >>>>>>>>>>>>> and way over your head, or your a libtard. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> remember CO2 is only 0.00039 part of the atmosphere >>>>>>>>>>>>> the rest of is >>>>>>>>>>>>> is not CO2 => 99.99961 % >>>>>>>>>>>>> so the sun hardly hits any CO2 atoms. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> **It's actually more like 410ppm right now and increasing >>>>>>>>>>>> rapidly. The Sun doesn't "hit CO2 atoms". Yikes! I made a >>>>>>>>>>>> grave error in assuming you had some scientific knowledge. I >>>>>>>>>>>> won't make that mistake again. I now realise what a >>>>>>>>>>>> monumental cretin you are. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Points: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> * CO2 is not an "atom". CO2 is a MOLECULE. Here's a primer >>>>>>>>>>>> for you: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Trevor has to pick nits because on the main topic he's sunk >>>>>>>>>>> and his argument is in tatters. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> **It's hardly nit-picking. Sergio has demonstrated a sustained >>>>>>>>>> inability to understand basic science. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Much as you have done? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> **Since you don't understand climate science, then you are >>>>>>>> hardly in a position to make a judgement. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Since your claims have no value, your assessment is similarly >>>>>>> lacking in value. >>>>>> >>>>>> **They're not _my_ claims >>>>> >>>>> Then I suppose you're going to tell us that someone has been >>>>> impersonating you? >>>> >>>> **They're not my claims. I am citing the evidence from the IPCC >>>> reports. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Or are you going to claim they hacked your account? >>>> >>>> **They're not my claims. I am citing the evidence from the IPCC >>>> reports. >>> >>> No, you are making the claims and then attempting to cite unspecified >>> IPCC reports to support your claims. >> >> **Here's the data you requested: >> >> http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf >> > > Data not present. **Then get someone to read and explain it to you. ALL the information you require is in that section. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-22 02:48 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pe0fbh$rfp$6@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #686609 |
"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message news:fmhljmFbrgiU3@mid.individual.net... > On 22/05/2018 1:05 PM, Scout wrote: >> >> >> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message >> news:fme829Fjn2mU1@mid.individual.net... >>> On 18/05/2018 5:31 PM, Scout wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message >>>> news:fm769vF2nf8U2@mid.individual.net... >>>>> On 18/05/2018 2:42 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message >>>>>> news:fm71uoF1qk2U2@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>> On 18/05/2018 12:30 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message >>>>>>>> news:fm6odnF2i8U4@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>> On 18/05/2018 10:53 AM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in >>>>>>>>>> message news:fm3i11F92rqU2@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>>>> On 16/05/2018 12:30 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in >>>>>>>>>>>> message news:fm158hFnd3tU1@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 15/05/2018 11:52 PM, Sergio wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/15/2018 12:56 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/05/2018 11:59 PM, benj wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/9/2018 6:52 AM, kensi wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In 2013, atmospheric carbon dioxide broke 400 parts per >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> million for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the first time in human history. Just a year later, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> atmospheric >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> carbon dioxide averaged that for an entire month. And now? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/5/4/1762050/-The-last-time-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-was-this-high-humans-didn-t-exist >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We hear you. Dinosaurs all died from heat stroke from all >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that CO2 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Greenhousing their world. Somehow science doesn't agree >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fantasy. Since CO2 is a minor GHG it's level is obviously >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more or less >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> irrelevant, both then and now. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Water vapor is THE major GHG factor (50%) and clouds (also >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> water) are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another 25% and CO2 is NOT the remaining 25%. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **Wrong, yappy lap-dog. You really should stop listening to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your master, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sergio. He is wrong and so are you. Obviously. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> name calling and emotional outbursts are simply ways to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> derail the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> subject. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> by doing this you are stating that you are an the end of your >>>>>>>>>>>>>> knowledge >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and way over your head, or your a libtard. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> remember CO2 is only 0.00039 part of the atmosphere the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> rest of is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not CO2 => 99.99961 % >>>>>>>>>>>>>> so the sun hardly hits any CO2 atoms. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> **It's actually more like 410ppm right now and increasing >>>>>>>>>>>>> rapidly. The Sun doesn't "hit CO2 atoms". Yikes! I made a >>>>>>>>>>>>> grave error in assuming you had some scientific knowledge. I >>>>>>>>>>>>> won't make that mistake again. I now realise what a monumental >>>>>>>>>>>>> cretin you are. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Points: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> * CO2 is not an "atom". CO2 is a MOLECULE. Here's a primer for >>>>>>>>>>>>> you: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Trevor has to pick nits because on the main topic he's sunk and >>>>>>>>>>>> his argument is in tatters. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> **It's hardly nit-picking. Sergio has demonstrated a sustained >>>>>>>>>>> inability to understand basic science. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Much as you have done? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> **Since you don't understand climate science, then you are hardly >>>>>>>>> in a position to make a judgement. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Since your claims have no value, your assessment is similarly >>>>>>>> lacking in value. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> **They're not _my_ claims >>>>>> >>>>>> Then I suppose you're going to tell us that someone has been >>>>>> impersonating you? >>>>> >>>>> **They're not my claims. I am citing the evidence from the IPCC >>>>> reports. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Or are you going to claim they hacked your account? >>>>> >>>>> **They're not my claims. I am citing the evidence from the IPCC >>>>> reports. >>>> >>>> No, you are making the claims and then attempting to cite unspecified >>>> IPCC reports to support your claims. >>> >>> **Here's the data you requested: >>> >>> http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf >> >> Data not present. > > **Then get someone to read and explain it to you. ALL the information you > require is in that section. If it were, then you could point out the exact page in which your numbers can be found. Since you can't and neither can a visual search or a data search uncover them, then it would seem they don't exist.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-23 10:26 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <fmjqp4FrqjgU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #686619 |
On 22/05/2018 4:48 PM, Scout wrote: > > > "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message > news:fmhljmFbrgiU3@mid.individual.net... >> On 22/05/2018 1:05 PM, Scout wrote: >>> >>> >>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message >>> news:fme829Fjn2mU1@mid.individual.net... >>>> On 18/05/2018 5:31 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message >>>>> news:fm769vF2nf8U2@mid.individual.net... >>>>>> On 18/05/2018 2:42 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in >>>>>>> message news:fm71uoF1qk2U2@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>> On 18/05/2018 12:30 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in >>>>>>>>> message news:fm6odnF2i8U4@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>>> On 18/05/2018 10:53 AM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in >>>>>>>>>>> message news:fm3i11F92rqU2@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>>>>> On 16/05/2018 12:30 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in >>>>>>>>>>>>> message news:fm158hFnd3tU1@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 15/05/2018 11:52 PM, Sergio wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/15/2018 12:56 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/05/2018 11:59 PM, benj wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/9/2018 6:52 AM, kensi wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In 2013, atmospheric carbon dioxide broke 400 parts >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> per million for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the first time in human history. Just a year later, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> atmospheric >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> carbon dioxide averaged that for an entire month. And >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> now? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/5/4/1762050/-The-last-time-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-was-this-high-humans-didn-t-exist >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We hear you. Dinosaurs all died from heat stroke from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all that CO2 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Greenhousing their world. Somehow science doesn't agree >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fantasy. Since CO2 is a minor GHG it's level is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> obviously more or less >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> irrelevant, both then and now. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Water vapor is THE major GHG factor (50%) and clouds >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (also water) are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another 25% and CO2 is NOT the remaining 25%. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **Wrong, yappy lap-dog. You really should stop listening >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to your master, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sergio. He is wrong and so are you. Obviously. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> name calling and emotional outbursts are simply ways to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> derail the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subject. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by doing this you are stating that you are an the end of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your knowledge >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and way over your head, or your a libtard. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remember CO2 is only 0.00039 part of the atmosphere >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the rest of is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not CO2 => 99.99961 % >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so the sun hardly hits any CO2 atoms. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> **It's actually more like 410ppm right now and increasing >>>>>>>>>>>>>> rapidly. The Sun doesn't "hit CO2 atoms". Yikes! I made a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> grave error in assuming you had some scientific knowledge. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I won't make that mistake again. I now realise what a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> monumental cretin you are. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Points: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> * CO2 is not an "atom". CO2 is a MOLECULE. Here's a primer >>>>>>>>>>>>>> for you: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Trevor has to pick nits because on the main topic he's sunk >>>>>>>>>>>>> and his argument is in tatters. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> **It's hardly nit-picking. Sergio has demonstrated a >>>>>>>>>>>> sustained inability to understand basic science. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Much as you have done? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> **Since you don't understand climate science, then you are >>>>>>>>>> hardly in a position to make a judgement. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Since your claims have no value, your assessment is similarly >>>>>>>>> lacking in value. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> **They're not _my_ claims >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Then I suppose you're going to tell us that someone has been >>>>>>> impersonating you? >>>>>> >>>>>> **They're not my claims. I am citing the evidence from the IPCC >>>>>> reports. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Or are you going to claim they hacked your account? >>>>>> >>>>>> **They're not my claims. I am citing the evidence from the IPCC >>>>>> reports. >>>>> >>>>> No, you are making the claims and then attempting to cite >>>>> unspecified IPCC reports to support your claims. >>>> >>>> **Here's the data you requested: >>>> >>>> http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf >>>> >>> >>> Data not present. >> >> **Then get someone to read and explain it to you. ALL the information >> you require is in that section. > > If it were, then you could point out the exact page in which your > numbers can be found. **No, because it's a VERY complex issue. You need to read the whole section. > > Since you can't and neither can a visual search or a data search uncover > them, then it would seem they don't exist. **Then I suggest you read the whole section. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-22 23:17 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pe2mjj$n30$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #686708 |
"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message news:fmjqp4FrqjgU2@mid.individual.net... > On 22/05/2018 4:48 PM, Scout wrote: >> >> >> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message >> news:fmhljmFbrgiU3@mid.individual.net... >>> On 22/05/2018 1:05 PM, Scout wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message >>>> news:fme829Fjn2mU1@mid.individual.net... >>>>> On 18/05/2018 5:31 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message >>>>>> news:fm769vF2nf8U2@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>> On 18/05/2018 2:42 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message >>>>>>>> news:fm71uoF1qk2U2@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>> On 18/05/2018 12:30 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in >>>>>>>>>> message news:fm6odnF2i8U4@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>>>> On 18/05/2018 10:53 AM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in >>>>>>>>>>>> message news:fm3i11F92rqU2@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 16/05/2018 12:30 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in >>>>>>>>>>>>>> message news:fm158hFnd3tU1@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 15/05/2018 11:52 PM, Sergio wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/15/2018 12:56 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/05/2018 11:59 PM, benj wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/9/2018 6:52 AM, kensi wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In 2013, atmospheric carbon dioxide broke 400 parts per >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> million for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the first time in human history. Just a year later, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> atmospheric >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> carbon dioxide averaged that for an entire month. And >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> now? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/5/4/1762050/-The-last-time-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-was-this-high-humans-didn-t-exist >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We hear you. Dinosaurs all died from heat stroke from all >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that CO2 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Greenhousing their world. Somehow science doesn't agree >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fantasy. Since CO2 is a minor GHG it's level is obviously >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more or less >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> irrelevant, both then and now. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Water vapor is THE major GHG factor (50%) and clouds >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (also water) are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another 25% and CO2 is NOT the remaining 25%. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **Wrong, yappy lap-dog. You really should stop listening >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to your master, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sergio. He is wrong and so are you. Obviously. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> name calling and emotional outbursts are simply ways to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> derail the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subject. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by doing this you are stating that you are an the end of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your knowledge >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and way over your head, or your a libtard. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remember CO2 is only 0.00039 part of the atmosphere >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the rest of is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not CO2 => 99.99961 % >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so the sun hardly hits any CO2 atoms. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **It's actually more like 410ppm right now and increasing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rapidly. The Sun doesn't "hit CO2 atoms". Yikes! I made a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> grave error in assuming you had some scientific knowledge. I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> won't make that mistake again. I now realise what a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> monumental cretin you are. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Points: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * CO2 is not an "atom". CO2 is a MOLECULE. Here's a primer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for you: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Trevor has to pick nits because on the main topic he's sunk >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and his argument is in tatters. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> **It's hardly nit-picking. Sergio has demonstrated a sustained >>>>>>>>>>>>> inability to understand basic science. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Much as you have done? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> **Since you don't understand climate science, then you are >>>>>>>>>>> hardly in a position to make a judgement. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Since your claims have no value, your assessment is similarly >>>>>>>>>> lacking in value. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> **They're not _my_ claims >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Then I suppose you're going to tell us that someone has been >>>>>>>> impersonating you? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> **They're not my claims. I am citing the evidence from the IPCC >>>>>>> reports. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Or are you going to claim they hacked your account? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> **They're not my claims. I am citing the evidence from the IPCC >>>>>>> reports. >>>>>> >>>>>> No, you are making the claims and then attempting to cite unspecified >>>>>> IPCC reports to support your claims. >>>>> >>>>> **Here's the data you requested: >>>>> >>>>> http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf >>>> >>>> Data not present. >>> >>> **Then get someone to read and explain it to you. ALL the information >>> you require is in that section. >> >> If it were, then you could point out the exact page in which your numbers >> can be found. > > **No, because it's a VERY complex issue. So finding out where the numbers you stated came from is a "complex issue".? Seems to me it's only a complex issue if you made them up.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-23 13:21 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <fmk52hFtr6kU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #686721 |
On 23/05/2018 1:17 PM, Scout wrote: > > > "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message > news:fmjqp4FrqjgU2@mid.individual.net... >> On 22/05/2018 4:48 PM, Scout wrote: >>> >>> >>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message >>> news:fmhljmFbrgiU3@mid.individual.net... >>>> On 22/05/2018 1:05 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message >>>>> news:fme829Fjn2mU1@mid.individual.net... >>>>>> On 18/05/2018 5:31 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in >>>>>>> message news:fm769vF2nf8U2@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>> On 18/05/2018 2:42 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in >>>>>>>>> message news:fm71uoF1qk2U2@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>>> On 18/05/2018 12:30 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in >>>>>>>>>>> message news:fm6odnF2i8U4@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>>>>> On 18/05/2018 10:53 AM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in >>>>>>>>>>>>> message news:fm3i11F92rqU2@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 16/05/2018 12:30 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in message news:fm158hFnd3tU1@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 15/05/2018 11:52 PM, Sergio wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/15/2018 12:56 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/05/2018 11:59 PM, benj wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/9/2018 6:52 AM, kensi wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In 2013, atmospheric carbon dioxide broke 400 parts >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> per million for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the first time in human history. Just a year later, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> atmospheric >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> carbon dioxide averaged that for an entire month. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And now? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/5/4/1762050/-The-last-time-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-was-this-high-humans-didn-t-exist >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We hear you. Dinosaurs all died from heat stroke from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all that CO2 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Greenhousing their world. Somehow science doesn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> agree with this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fantasy. Since CO2 is a minor GHG it's level is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> obviously more or less >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> irrelevant, both then and now. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Water vapor is THE major GHG factor (50%) and clouds >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (also water) are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another 25% and CO2 is NOT the remaining 25%. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **Wrong, yappy lap-dog. You really should stop >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> listening to your master, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sergio. He is wrong and so are you. Obviously. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> name calling and emotional outbursts are simply ways to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> derail the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subject. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by doing this you are stating that you are an the end >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of your knowledge >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and way over your head, or your a libtard. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remember CO2 is only 0.00039 part of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> atmosphere the rest of is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not CO2 => 99.99961 % >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so the sun hardly hits any CO2 atoms. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **It's actually more like 410ppm right now and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> increasing rapidly. The Sun doesn't "hit CO2 atoms". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yikes! I made a grave error in assuming you had some >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scientific knowledge. I won't make that mistake again. I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> now realise what a monumental cretin you are. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Points: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * CO2 is not an "atom". CO2 is a MOLECULE. Here's a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> primer for you: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Trevor has to pick nits because on the main topic he's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sunk and his argument is in tatters. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> **It's hardly nit-picking. Sergio has demonstrated a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> sustained inability to understand basic science. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Much as you have done? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> **Since you don't understand climate science, then you are >>>>>>>>>>>> hardly in a position to make a judgement. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Since your claims have no value, your assessment is similarly >>>>>>>>>>> lacking in value. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> **They're not _my_ claims >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Then I suppose you're going to tell us that someone has been >>>>>>>>> impersonating you? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> **They're not my claims. I am citing the evidence from the IPCC >>>>>>>> reports. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Or are you going to claim they hacked your account? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> **They're not my claims. I am citing the evidence from the IPCC >>>>>>>> reports. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No, you are making the claims and then attempting to cite >>>>>>> unspecified IPCC reports to support your claims. >>>>>> >>>>>> **Here's the data you requested: >>>>>> >>>>>> http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Data not present. >>>> >>>> **Then get someone to read and explain it to you. ALL the >>>> information you require is in that section. >>> >>> If it were, then you could point out the exact page in which your >>> numbers can be found. >> >> **No, because it's a VERY complex issue. > > So finding out where the numbers you stated came from is a "complex > issue".? **I provided all the data you requested. > > Seems to me it's only a complex issue if you made them up. > > -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-22 23:59 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pe2qr0$bdg$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #686723 |
"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message news:fmk52hFtr6kU1@mid.individual.net... > On 23/05/2018 1:17 PM, Scout wrote: >> >> >> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message >> news:fmjqp4FrqjgU2@mid.individual.net... >>> On 22/05/2018 4:48 PM, Scout wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message >>>> news:fmhljmFbrgiU3@mid.individual.net... >>>>> On 22/05/2018 1:05 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message >>>>>> news:fme829Fjn2mU1@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>> On 18/05/2018 5:31 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message >>>>>>>> news:fm769vF2nf8U2@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>> On 18/05/2018 2:42 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in >>>>>>>>>> message news:fm71uoF1qk2U2@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>>>> On 18/05/2018 12:30 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in >>>>>>>>>>>> message news:fm6odnF2i8U4@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18/05/2018 10:53 AM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in >>>>>>>>>>>>>> message news:fm3i11F92rqU2@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 16/05/2018 12:30 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> message news:fm158hFnd3tU1@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 15/05/2018 11:52 PM, Sergio wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/15/2018 12:56 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/05/2018 11:59 PM, benj wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/9/2018 6:52 AM, kensi wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In 2013, atmospheric carbon dioxide broke 400 parts >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> per million for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the first time in human history. Just a year later, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> atmospheric >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> carbon dioxide averaged that for an entire month. And >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> now? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/5/4/1762050/-The-last-time-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-was-this-high-humans-didn-t-exist >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We hear you. Dinosaurs all died from heat stroke from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all that CO2 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Greenhousing their world. Somehow science doesn't agree >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fantasy. Since CO2 is a minor GHG it's level is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> obviously more or less >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> irrelevant, both then and now. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Water vapor is THE major GHG factor (50%) and clouds >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (also water) are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another 25% and CO2 is NOT the remaining 25%. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **Wrong, yappy lap-dog. You really should stop listening >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to your master, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sergio. He is wrong and so are you. Obviously. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> name calling and emotional outbursts are simply ways to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> derail the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subject. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by doing this you are stating that you are an the end of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your knowledge >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and way over your head, or your a libtard. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remember CO2 is only 0.00039 part of the atmosphere >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the rest of is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not CO2 => 99.99961 % >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so the sun hardly hits any CO2 atoms. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **It's actually more like 410ppm right now and increasing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rapidly. The Sun doesn't "hit CO2 atoms". Yikes! I made a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> grave error in assuming you had some scientific knowledge. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I won't make that mistake again. I now realise what a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> monumental cretin you are. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Points: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * CO2 is not an "atom". CO2 is a MOLECULE. Here's a primer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for you: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Trevor has to pick nits because on the main topic he's sunk >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and his argument is in tatters. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **It's hardly nit-picking. Sergio has demonstrated a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sustained inability to understand basic science. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Much as you have done? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> **Since you don't understand climate science, then you are >>>>>>>>>>>>> hardly in a position to make a judgement. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Since your claims have no value, your assessment is similarly >>>>>>>>>>>> lacking in value. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> **They're not _my_ claims >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Then I suppose you're going to tell us that someone has been >>>>>>>>>> impersonating you? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> **They're not my claims. I am citing the evidence from the IPCC >>>>>>>>> reports. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Or are you going to claim they hacked your account? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> **They're not my claims. I am citing the evidence from the IPCC >>>>>>>>> reports. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No, you are making the claims and then attempting to cite >>>>>>>> unspecified IPCC reports to support your claims. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> **Here's the data you requested: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf >>>>>> >>>>>> Data not present. >>>>> >>>>> **Then get someone to read and explain it to you. ALL the information >>>>> you require is in that section. >>>> >>>> If it were, then you could point out the exact page in which your >>>> numbers can be found. >>> >>> **No, because it's a VERY complex issue. >> >> So finding out where the numbers you stated came from is a "complex >> issue".? > > **I provided all the data you requested. No, you haven't. Further despite repeated requests for you to show me what I apparently can't find, you simply assert it's in there, because apparently you can't find it either. So....where is the support for your claims or did you just make it all up?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-23 16:03 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <fmkeh0F17emU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #686732 |
On 23/05/2018 1:59 PM, Scout wrote: > > > "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message > news:fmk52hFtr6kU1@mid.individual.net... >> On 23/05/2018 1:17 PM, Scout wrote: >>> >>> >>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message >>> news:fmjqp4FrqjgU2@mid.individual.net... >>>> On 22/05/2018 4:48 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message >>>>> news:fmhljmFbrgiU3@mid.individual.net... >>>>>> On 22/05/2018 1:05 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in >>>>>>> message news:fme829Fjn2mU1@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>> On 18/05/2018 5:31 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in >>>>>>>>> message news:fm769vF2nf8U2@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>>> On 18/05/2018 2:42 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in >>>>>>>>>>> message news:fm71uoF1qk2U2@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>>>>> On 18/05/2018 12:30 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in >>>>>>>>>>>>> message news:fm6odnF2i8U4@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18/05/2018 10:53 AM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in message news:fm3i11F92rqU2@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 16/05/2018 12:30 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote in message news:fm158hFnd3tU1@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 15/05/2018 11:52 PM, Sergio wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/15/2018 12:56 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/05/2018 11:59 PM, benj wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/9/2018 6:52 AM, kensi wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In 2013, atmospheric carbon dioxide broke 400 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parts per million for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the first time in human history. Just a year >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> later, atmospheric >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> carbon dioxide averaged that for an entire month. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And now? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/5/4/1762050/-The-last-time-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-was-this-high-humans-didn-t-exist >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We hear you. Dinosaurs all died from heat stroke >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from all that CO2 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Greenhousing their world. Somehow science doesn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> agree with this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fantasy. Since CO2 is a minor GHG it's level is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> obviously more or less >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> irrelevant, both then and now. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Water vapor is THE major GHG factor (50%) and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clouds (also water) are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another 25% and CO2 is NOT the remaining 25%. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **Wrong, yappy lap-dog. You really should stop >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> listening to your master, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sergio. He is wrong and so are you. Obviously. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> name calling and emotional outbursts are simply ways >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to derail the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subject. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by doing this you are stating that you are an the end >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of your knowledge >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and way over your head, or your a libtard. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remember CO2 is only 0.00039 part of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> atmosphere the rest of is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not CO2 => 99.99961 % >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so the sun hardly hits any CO2 atoms. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **It's actually more like 410ppm right now and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> increasing rapidly. The Sun doesn't "hit CO2 atoms". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yikes! I made a grave error in assuming you had some >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scientific knowledge. I won't make that mistake again. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I now realise what a monumental cretin you are. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Points: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * CO2 is not an "atom". CO2 is a MOLECULE. Here's a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> primer for you: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Trevor has to pick nits because on the main topic he's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sunk and his argument is in tatters. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **It's hardly nit-picking. Sergio has demonstrated a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sustained inability to understand basic science. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Much as you have done? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> **Since you don't understand climate science, then you are >>>>>>>>>>>>>> hardly in a position to make a judgement. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Since your claims have no value, your assessment is >>>>>>>>>>>>> similarly lacking in value. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> **They're not _my_ claims >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Then I suppose you're going to tell us that someone has been >>>>>>>>>>> impersonating you? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> **They're not my claims. I am citing the evidence from the >>>>>>>>>> IPCC reports. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Or are you going to claim they hacked your account? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> **They're not my claims. I am citing the evidence from the >>>>>>>>>> IPCC reports. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> No, you are making the claims and then attempting to cite >>>>>>>>> unspecified IPCC reports to support your claims. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> **Here's the data you requested: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Data not present. >>>>>> >>>>>> **Then get someone to read and explain it to you. ALL the >>>>>> information you require is in that section. >>>>> >>>>> If it were, then you could point out the exact page in which your >>>>> numbers can be found. >>>> >>>> **No, because it's a VERY complex issue. >>> >>> So finding out where the numbers you stated came from is a "complex >>> issue".? >> >> **I provided all the data you requested. > > No, you haven't. **Yeah, I have. Read it. > > Further despite repeated requests for you to show me what I apparently > can't find, you simply assert it's in there, because apparently you > can't find it either. > > So....where is the support for your claims or did you just make it all up? **I provided the cite which answers all your questions. Read it. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-23 03:04 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pe4sb6$k95$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #686752 |
"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message news:fmkeh0F17emU2@mid.individual.net... > On 23/05/2018 1:59 PM, Scout wrote: >> >> >> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message >> news:fmk52hFtr6kU1@mid.individual.net... >>> On 23/05/2018 1:17 PM, Scout wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message >>>> news:fmjqp4FrqjgU2@mid.individual.net... >>>>> On 22/05/2018 4:48 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message >>>>>> news:fmhljmFbrgiU3@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>> On 22/05/2018 1:05 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message >>>>>>>> news:fme829Fjn2mU1@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>> On 18/05/2018 5:31 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in >>>>>>>>>> message news:fm769vF2nf8U2@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>>>> On 18/05/2018 2:42 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in >>>>>>>>>>>> message news:fm71uoF1qk2U2@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18/05/2018 12:30 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in >>>>>>>>>>>>>> message news:fm6odnF2i8U4@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18/05/2018 10:53 AM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> message news:fm3i11F92rqU2@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 16/05/2018 12:30 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in message news:fm158hFnd3tU1@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 15/05/2018 11:52 PM, Sergio wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/15/2018 12:56 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/05/2018 11:59 PM, benj wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/9/2018 6:52 AM, kensi wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In 2013, atmospheric carbon dioxide broke 400 parts >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> per million for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the first time in human history. Just a year later, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> atmospheric >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> carbon dioxide averaged that for an entire month. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And now? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/5/4/1762050/-The-last-time-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-was-this-high-humans-didn-t-exist >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We hear you. Dinosaurs all died from heat stroke from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all that CO2 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Greenhousing their world. Somehow science doesn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> agree with this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fantasy. Since CO2 is a minor GHG it's level is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> obviously more or less >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> irrelevant, both then and now. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Water vapor is THE major GHG factor (50%) and clouds >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (also water) are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another 25% and CO2 is NOT the remaining 25%. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **Wrong, yappy lap-dog. You really should stop >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> listening to your master, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sergio. He is wrong and so are you. Obviously. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> name calling and emotional outbursts are simply ways to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> derail the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subject. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by doing this you are stating that you are an the end >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of your knowledge >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and way over your head, or your a libtard. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remember CO2 is only 0.00039 part of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> atmosphere the rest of is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not CO2 => 99.99961 % >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so the sun hardly hits any CO2 atoms. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **It's actually more like 410ppm right now and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> increasing rapidly. The Sun doesn't "hit CO2 atoms". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yikes! I made a grave error in assuming you had some >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scientific knowledge. I won't make that mistake again. I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> now realise what a monumental cretin you are. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Points: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * CO2 is not an "atom". CO2 is a MOLECULE. Here's a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> primer for you: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Trevor has to pick nits because on the main topic he's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sunk and his argument is in tatters. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **It's hardly nit-picking. Sergio has demonstrated a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sustained inability to understand basic science. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Much as you have done? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **Since you don't understand climate science, then you are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hardly in a position to make a judgement. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since your claims have no value, your assessment is similarly >>>>>>>>>>>>>> lacking in value. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> **They're not _my_ claims >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Then I suppose you're going to tell us that someone has been >>>>>>>>>>>> impersonating you? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> **They're not my claims. I am citing the evidence from the IPCC >>>>>>>>>>> reports. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Or are you going to claim they hacked your account? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> **They're not my claims. I am citing the evidence from the IPCC >>>>>>>>>>> reports. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> No, you are making the claims and then attempting to cite >>>>>>>>>> unspecified IPCC reports to support your claims. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> **Here's the data you requested: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Data not present. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> **Then get someone to read and explain it to you. ALL the >>>>>>> information you require is in that section. >>>>>> >>>>>> If it were, then you could point out the exact page in which your >>>>>> numbers can be found. >>>>> >>>>> **No, because it's a VERY complex issue. >>>> >>>> So finding out where the numbers you stated came from is a "complex >>>> issue".? >>> >>> **I provided all the data you requested. >> >> No, you haven't. > > **Yeah, I have. Read it. Then why don't you quote the specific section(s) that support the numbers you put out there? Oh, that's right, you haven't read it, but you want me to do so and continue to do so because you don't really have anything to support your claim.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-24 09:40 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <fmmcfaFf19nU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #686841 |
On 23/05/2018 5:04 PM, Scout wrote: > > > "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message > news:fmkeh0F17emU2@mid.individual.net... >> On 23/05/2018 1:59 PM, Scout wrote: >>> >>> >>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message >>> news:fmk52hFtr6kU1@mid.individual.net... >>>> On 23/05/2018 1:17 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message >>>>> news:fmjqp4FrqjgU2@mid.individual.net... >>>>>> On 22/05/2018 4:48 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in >>>>>>> message news:fmhljmFbrgiU3@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>> On 22/05/2018 1:05 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in >>>>>>>>> message news:fme829Fjn2mU1@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>>> On 18/05/2018 5:31 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in >>>>>>>>>>> message news:fm769vF2nf8U2@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>>>>> On 18/05/2018 2:42 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in >>>>>>>>>>>>> message news:fm71uoF1qk2U2@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18/05/2018 12:30 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in message news:fm6odnF2i8U4@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18/05/2018 10:53 AM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote in message news:fm3i11F92rqU2@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 16/05/2018 12:30 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:fm158hFnd3tU1@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 15/05/2018 11:52 PM, Sergio wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/15/2018 12:56 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/05/2018 11:59 PM, benj wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/9/2018 6:52 AM, kensi wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In 2013, atmospheric carbon dioxide broke 400 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parts per million for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the first time in human history. Just a year >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> later, atmospheric >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> carbon dioxide averaged that for an entire >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> month. And now? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/5/4/1762050/-The-last-time-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-was-this-high-humans-didn-t-exist >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We hear you. Dinosaurs all died from heat stroke >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from all that CO2 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Greenhousing their world. Somehow science doesn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> agree with this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fantasy. Since CO2 is a minor GHG it's level is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> obviously more or less >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> irrelevant, both then and now. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Water vapor is THE major GHG factor (50%) and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clouds (also water) are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another 25% and CO2 is NOT the remaining 25%. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **Wrong, yappy lap-dog. You really should stop >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> listening to your master, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sergio. He is wrong and so are you. Obviously. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> name calling and emotional outbursts are simply >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ways to derail the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subject. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by doing this you are stating that you are an the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> end of your knowledge >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and way over your head, or your a libtard. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remember CO2 is only 0.00039 part of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> atmosphere the rest of is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not CO2 => 99.99961 % >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so the sun hardly hits any CO2 atoms. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **It's actually more like 410ppm right now and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> increasing rapidly. The Sun doesn't "hit CO2 atoms". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yikes! I made a grave error in assuming you had some >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scientific knowledge. I won't make that mistake >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> again. I now realise what a monumental cretin you are. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Points: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * CO2 is not an "atom". CO2 is a MOLECULE. Here's a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> primer for you: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Trevor has to pick nits because on the main topic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> he's sunk and his argument is in tatters. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **It's hardly nit-picking. Sergio has demonstrated a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sustained inability to understand basic science. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Much as you have done? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **Since you don't understand climate science, then you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are hardly in a position to make a judgement. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since your claims have no value, your assessment is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> similarly lacking in value. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> **They're not _my_ claims >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Then I suppose you're going to tell us that someone has >>>>>>>>>>>>> been impersonating you? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> **They're not my claims. I am citing the evidence from the >>>>>>>>>>>> IPCC reports. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Or are you going to claim they hacked your account? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> **They're not my claims. I am citing the evidence from the >>>>>>>>>>>> IPCC reports. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> No, you are making the claims and then attempting to cite >>>>>>>>>>> unspecified IPCC reports to support your claims. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> **Here's the data you requested: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Data not present. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> **Then get someone to read and explain it to you. ALL the >>>>>>>> information you require is in that section. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If it were, then you could point out the exact page in which your >>>>>>> numbers can be found. >>>>>> >>>>>> **No, because it's a VERY complex issue. >>>>> >>>>> So finding out where the numbers you stated came from is a "complex >>>>> issue".? >>>> >>>> **I provided all the data you requested. >>> >>> No, you haven't. >> >> **Yeah, I have. Read it. > > Then why don't you quote the specific section(s) that support the > numbers you put out there? **Because you need to read the whole section. It's complex stuff. Probably way beyond your ability to comprehend. Which explains why you failed to read it. > > Oh, that's right, you haven't read it, but you want me to do so and > continue to do so because you don't really have anything to support your > claim. **Read the cite. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-23 20:20 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pe50il$bcp$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #686845 |
"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message news:fmmcfaFf19nU1@mid.individual.net... > On 23/05/2018 5:04 PM, Scout wrote: >> >> >> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message >> news:fmkeh0F17emU2@mid.individual.net... >>> On 23/05/2018 1:59 PM, Scout wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message >>>> news:fmk52hFtr6kU1@mid.individual.net... >>>>> On 23/05/2018 1:17 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message >>>>>> news:fmjqp4FrqjgU2@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>> On 22/05/2018 4:48 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message >>>>>>>> news:fmhljmFbrgiU3@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>> On 22/05/2018 1:05 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in >>>>>>>>>> message news:fme829Fjn2mU1@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>>>> On 18/05/2018 5:31 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in >>>>>>>>>>>> message news:fm769vF2nf8U2@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18/05/2018 2:42 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in >>>>>>>>>>>>>> message news:fm71uoF1qk2U2@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18/05/2018 12:30 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> message news:fm6odnF2i8U4@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18/05/2018 10:53 AM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in message news:fm3i11F92rqU2@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 16/05/2018 12:30 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:fm158hFnd3tU1@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 15/05/2018 11:52 PM, Sergio wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/15/2018 12:56 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/05/2018 11:59 PM, benj wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/9/2018 6:52 AM, kensi wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In 2013, atmospheric carbon dioxide broke 400 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parts per million for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the first time in human history. Just a year >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> later, atmospheric >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> carbon dioxide averaged that for an entire month. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And now? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/5/4/1762050/-The-last-time-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-was-this-high-humans-didn-t-exist >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We hear you. Dinosaurs all died from heat stroke >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from all that CO2 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Greenhousing their world. Somehow science doesn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> agree with this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fantasy. Since CO2 is a minor GHG it's level is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> obviously more or less >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> irrelevant, both then and now. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Water vapor is THE major GHG factor (50%) and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clouds (also water) are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another 25% and CO2 is NOT the remaining 25%. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **Wrong, yappy lap-dog. You really should stop >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> listening to your master, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sergio. He is wrong and so are you. Obviously. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> name calling and emotional outbursts are simply ways >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to derail the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subject. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by doing this you are stating that you are an the end >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of your knowledge >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and way over your head, or your a libtard. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remember CO2 is only 0.00039 part of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> atmosphere the rest of is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not CO2 => 99.99961 % >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so the sun hardly hits any CO2 atoms. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **It's actually more like 410ppm right now and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> increasing rapidly. The Sun doesn't "hit CO2 atoms". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yikes! I made a grave error in assuming you had some >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scientific knowledge. I won't make that mistake again. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I now realise what a monumental cretin you are. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Points: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * CO2 is not an "atom". CO2 is a MOLECULE. Here's a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> primer for you: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Trevor has to pick nits because on the main topic he's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sunk and his argument is in tatters. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **It's hardly nit-picking. Sergio has demonstrated a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sustained inability to understand basic science. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Much as you have done? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **Since you don't understand climate science, then you are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hardly in a position to make a judgement. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since your claims have no value, your assessment is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> similarly lacking in value. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **They're not _my_ claims >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then I suppose you're going to tell us that someone has been >>>>>>>>>>>>>> impersonating you? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> **They're not my claims. I am citing the evidence from the >>>>>>>>>>>>> IPCC reports. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Or are you going to claim they hacked your account? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> **They're not my claims. I am citing the evidence from the >>>>>>>>>>>>> IPCC reports. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> No, you are making the claims and then attempting to cite >>>>>>>>>>>> unspecified IPCC reports to support your claims. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> **Here's the data you requested: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Data not present. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> **Then get someone to read and explain it to you. ALL the >>>>>>>>> information you require is in that section. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If it were, then you could point out the exact page in which your >>>>>>>> numbers can be found. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> **No, because it's a VERY complex issue. >>>>>> >>>>>> So finding out where the numbers you stated came from is a "complex >>>>>> issue".? >>>>> >>>>> **I provided all the data you requested. >>>> >>>> No, you haven't. >>> >>> **Yeah, I have. Read it. >> >> Then why don't you quote the specific section(s) that support the numbers >> you put out there? > > **Because you need to read the whole section. It's complex stuff. Probably > way beyond your ability to comprehend. Which explains why you failed to > read it. A few number is "complex stuff"? Wow, if that's the case it's amazing that you can know anything about global climate change. All I can say, is you were asked to support something quite specific, you're produced a bunch of crap, demanded I dig through it looking for your 'evidence' and when I can't find it you continue to claim it's there. All I can say is if it was there you wouldn't have to tell me TO READ THE WHOLE THING...because you would know exactly where to look for it. So Trevor, you have utterly failed to support your claims,. As such your claims about AGW, the causes of climate change and indeed your whole assertion you know what you're talking about....is rejected. Come back in a few years if you can manage to find the evidence to backup your bullshit with reasonable cites. See, this is way AGW is called the "Chicken Little Theory" because there is no proof and the evidence is so sketchy as to make the assertions of extremely high confidence to be silly. Particularly when their predictions vary so massively from reality as to be little better than guesses.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-24 11:00 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <fmmh5eFfuqaU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #686852 |
On 24/05/2018 10:20 AM, Scout wrote: > > > "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message > news:fmmcfaFf19nU1@mid.individual.net... >> On 23/05/2018 5:04 PM, Scout wrote: >>> >>> >>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message >>> news:fmkeh0F17emU2@mid.individual.net... >>>> On 23/05/2018 1:59 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message >>>>> news:fmk52hFtr6kU1@mid.individual.net... >>>>>> On 23/05/2018 1:17 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in >>>>>>> message news:fmjqp4FrqjgU2@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>> On 22/05/2018 4:48 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in >>>>>>>>> message news:fmhljmFbrgiU3@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>>> On 22/05/2018 1:05 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in >>>>>>>>>>> message news:fme829Fjn2mU1@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>>>>> On 18/05/2018 5:31 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in >>>>>>>>>>>>> message news:fm769vF2nf8U2@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18/05/2018 2:42 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in message news:fm71uoF1qk2U2@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18/05/2018 12:30 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote in message news:fm6odnF2i8U4@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18/05/2018 10:53 AM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:fm3i11F92rqU2@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 16/05/2018 12:30 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:fm158hFnd3tU1@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 15/05/2018 11:52 PM, Sergio wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/15/2018 12:56 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/05/2018 11:59 PM, benj wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/9/2018 6:52 AM, kensi wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In 2013, atmospheric carbon dioxide broke 400 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parts per million for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the first time in human history. Just a year >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> later, atmospheric >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> carbon dioxide averaged that for an entire >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> month. And now? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/5/4/1762050/-The-last-time-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-was-this-high-humans-didn-t-exist >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We hear you. Dinosaurs all died from heat >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stroke from all that CO2 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Greenhousing their world. Somehow science >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't agree with this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fantasy. Since CO2 is a minor GHG it's level is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> obviously more or less >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> irrelevant, both then and now. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Water vapor is THE major GHG factor (50%) and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clouds (also water) are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another 25% and CO2 is NOT the remaining 25%. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **Wrong, yappy lap-dog. You really should stop >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> listening to your master, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sergio. He is wrong and so are you. Obviously. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> name calling and emotional outbursts are simply >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ways to derail the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subject. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by doing this you are stating that you are an the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> end of your knowledge >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and way over your head, or your a libtard. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remember CO2 is only 0.00039 part of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> atmosphere the rest of is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not CO2 => 99.99961 % >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so the sun hardly hits any CO2 atoms. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **It's actually more like 410ppm right now and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> increasing rapidly. The Sun doesn't "hit CO2 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> atoms". Yikes! I made a grave error in assuming >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you had some scientific knowledge. I won't make >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that mistake again. I now realise what a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> monumental cretin you are. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Points: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * CO2 is not an "atom". CO2 is a MOLECULE. Here's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a primer for you: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Trevor has to pick nits because on the main topic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> he's sunk and his argument is in tatters. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **It's hardly nit-picking. Sergio has demonstrated a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sustained inability to understand basic science. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Much as you have done? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **Since you don't understand climate science, then you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are hardly in a position to make a judgement. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since your claims have no value, your assessment is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> similarly lacking in value. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **They're not _my_ claims >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then I suppose you're going to tell us that someone has >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been impersonating you? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> **They're not my claims. I am citing the evidence from the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> IPCC reports. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Or are you going to claim they hacked your account? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> **They're not my claims. I am citing the evidence from the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> IPCC reports. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> No, you are making the claims and then attempting to cite >>>>>>>>>>>>> unspecified IPCC reports to support your claims. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> **Here's the data you requested: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Data not present. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> **Then get someone to read and explain it to you. ALL the >>>>>>>>>> information you require is in that section. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If it were, then you could point out the exact page in which >>>>>>>>> your numbers can be found. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> **No, because it's a VERY complex issue. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So finding out where the numbers you stated came from is a >>>>>>> "complex issue".? >>>>>> >>>>>> **I provided all the data you requested. >>>>> >>>>> No, you haven't. >>>> >>>> **Yeah, I have. Read it. >>> >>> Then why don't you quote the specific section(s) that support the >>> numbers you put out there? >> >> **Because you need to read the whole section. It's complex stuff. >> Probably way beyond your ability to comprehend. Which explains why you >> failed to read it. > > A few number is "complex stuff"? **Well, yeah, it is. Tell me what YOU understand by radiative forcing, as it pertains to atmospheric gases (no cut and pasting). > > Wow, if that's the case it's amazing that you can know anything about > global climate change. > > All I can say, is you were asked to support something quite specific, > you're produced a bunch of crap, demanded I dig through it looking for > your 'evidence' and when I can't find it you continue to claim it's there. **You don't have to dig through anything. The whole document is self-explanatory. > > All I can say is if it was there you wouldn't have to tell me TO READ > THE WHOLE THING...because you would know exactly where to look for it. **I already supplied the simple explanation. You refused to accept it. > > So Trevor, you have utterly failed to support your claims,. **Read the cite. > > As such your claims about AGW, the causes of climate change and indeed > your whole assertion you know what you're talking about....is rejected. **Given your phenomenal ignorance of AGW theory, that doesn't surprise me. > > Come back in a few years if you can manage to find the evidence to > backup your bullshit with reasonable cites. > > See, this is way AGW is called the "Chicken Little Theory" because there > is no proof and the evidence is so sketchy as to make the assertions of > extremely high confidence to be silly. Particularly when their > predictions vary so massively from reality as to be little better than > guesses. **OK then, let's hear YOUR explanation of why the planet has warmed at a rate which is at least 100 times faster than at any time in the past million years. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-23 23:06 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pe5a97$v39$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #686857 |
"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message news:fmmh5eFfuqaU1@mid.individual.net... > On 24/05/2018 10:20 AM, Scout wrote: >> >> >> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message >> news:fmmcfaFf19nU1@mid.individual.net... >>> On 23/05/2018 5:04 PM, Scout wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message >>>> news:fmkeh0F17emU2@mid.individual.net... >>>>> On 23/05/2018 1:59 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message >>>>>> news:fmk52hFtr6kU1@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>> On 23/05/2018 1:17 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message >>>>>>>> news:fmjqp4FrqjgU2@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>> On 22/05/2018 4:48 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in >>>>>>>>>> message news:fmhljmFbrgiU3@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>>>> On 22/05/2018 1:05 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in >>>>>>>>>>>> message news:fme829Fjn2mU1@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18/05/2018 5:31 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in >>>>>>>>>>>>>> message news:fm769vF2nf8U2@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18/05/2018 2:42 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> message news:fm71uoF1qk2U2@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18/05/2018 12:30 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in message news:fm6odnF2i8U4@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18/05/2018 10:53 AM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:fm3i11F92rqU2@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 16/05/2018 12:30 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:fm158hFnd3tU1@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 15/05/2018 11:52 PM, Sergio wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/15/2018 12:56 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/05/2018 11:59 PM, benj wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/9/2018 6:52 AM, kensi wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In 2013, atmospheric carbon dioxide broke 400 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parts per million for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the first time in human history. Just a year >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> later, atmospheric >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> carbon dioxide averaged that for an entire >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> month. And now? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/5/4/1762050/-The-last-time-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-was-this-high-humans-didn-t-exist >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We hear you. Dinosaurs all died from heat stroke >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from all that CO2 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Greenhousing their world. Somehow science doesn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> agree with this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fantasy. Since CO2 is a minor GHG it's level is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> obviously more or less >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> irrelevant, both then and now. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Water vapor is THE major GHG factor (50%) and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clouds (also water) are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another 25% and CO2 is NOT the remaining 25%. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **Wrong, yappy lap-dog. You really should stop >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> listening to your master, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sergio. He is wrong and so are you. Obviously. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> name calling and emotional outbursts are simply >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ways to derail the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subject. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by doing this you are stating that you are an the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> end of your knowledge >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and way over your head, or your a libtard. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remember CO2 is only 0.00039 part of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> atmosphere the rest of is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not CO2 => 99.99961 % >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so the sun hardly hits any CO2 atoms. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **It's actually more like 410ppm right now and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> increasing rapidly. The Sun doesn't "hit CO2 atoms". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yikes! I made a grave error in assuming you had some >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scientific knowledge. I won't make that mistake >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> again. I now realise what a monumental cretin you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Points: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * CO2 is not an "atom". CO2 is a MOLECULE. Here's a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> primer for you: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Trevor has to pick nits because on the main topic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> he's sunk and his argument is in tatters. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **It's hardly nit-picking. Sergio has demonstrated a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sustained inability to understand basic science. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Much as you have done? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **Since you don't understand climate science, then you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are hardly in a position to make a judgement. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since your claims have no value, your assessment is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> similarly lacking in value. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **They're not _my_ claims >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then I suppose you're going to tell us that someone has >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been impersonating you? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **They're not my claims. I am citing the evidence from the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IPCC reports. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Or are you going to claim they hacked your account? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **They're not my claims. I am citing the evidence from the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IPCC reports. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, you are making the claims and then attempting to cite >>>>>>>>>>>>>> unspecified IPCC reports to support your claims. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> **Here's the data you requested: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Data not present. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> **Then get someone to read and explain it to you. ALL the >>>>>>>>>>> information you require is in that section. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> If it were, then you could point out the exact page in which your >>>>>>>>>> numbers can be found. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> **No, because it's a VERY complex issue. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So finding out where the numbers you stated came from is a "complex >>>>>>>> issue".? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> **I provided all the data you requested. >>>>>> >>>>>> No, you haven't. >>>>> >>>>> **Yeah, I have. Read it. >>>> >>>> Then why don't you quote the specific section(s) that support the >>>> numbers you put out there? >>> >>> **Because you need to read the whole section. It's complex stuff. >>> Probably way beyond your ability to comprehend. Which explains why you >>> failed to read it. >> >> A few number is "complex stuff"? > > **Well, yeah, it is. Tell me what YOU understand by radiative forcing, as > it pertains to atmospheric gases (no cut and pasting). > >> >> Wow, if that's the case it's amazing that you can know anything about >> global climate change. >> >> All I can say, is you were asked to support something quite specific, >> you're produced a bunch of crap, demanded I dig through it looking for >> your 'evidence' and when I can't find it you continue to claim it's >> there. > > **You don't have to dig through anything. The whole document is > self-explanatory. > >> >> All I can say is if it was there you wouldn't have to tell me TO READ THE >> WHOLE THING...because you would know exactly where to look for it. > > **I already supplied the simple explanation. You refused to accept it. > >> >> So Trevor, you have utterly failed to support your claims,. > > **Read the cite. I did. Now it's your turn to do so. All I can say is you were asked to support some specific claims, you have utterly failed to do so, and you couldn't bother doing what you demand I do.....read through a massive source looking to see if it actually supports your bullshit. Which it doesn't. So. Bad claims. Useless cite. Refusal to produce cite that actually supports what you were asked to support. Your 'knowledge' of the subject is clearly flawed, you don't know what you're talking about, and you refuse to show any indication that you might entertain the notion that you could be wrong. So....your mind is made up and don’t bother with asking you for facts.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-24 05:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pe5h2b$l9u$7@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #686862 |
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt! On Wed, 23 May 2018 23:06:48 -0400, Scout wrote: > So. Bad claims. Useless cite. Refusal to produce cite that actually > supports what you were asked to support. Your 'knowledge' of the subject > is clearly flawed, you don't know what you're talking about, and you > refuse to show any indication that you might entertain the notion that > you could be wrong. > > So....your mind is made up and don’t bother with asking you for facts. Ohhhhh, the irony! -- FNVWe Nadegda Fakey couldn't teach a monkey to eat a banana, much less answer a direct question posed to him. -- Fakey's Dogwhistle Holder
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-24 01:59 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <kxsNC.197449$bS4.33035@fx01.iad> |
| In reply to | #686867 |
On 5/24/2018 1:03 AM, Nadegda wrote: > Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt! > On Wed, 23 May 2018 23:06:48 -0400, Scout wrote: > >> So. Bad claims. Useless cite. Refusal to produce cite that actually >> supports what you were asked to support. Your 'knowledge' of the subject >> is clearly flawed, you don't know what you're talking about, and you >> refuse to show any indication that you might entertain the notion that >> you could be wrong. >> >> So....your mind is made up and don’t bother with asking you for facts. > > Ohhhhh, the irony! > Oh the Ignorance. Oh the sales pitch. Oh the Humanity.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-24 01:57 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <GvsNC.197448$bS4.190659@fx01.iad> |
| In reply to | #686862 |
On 5/23/2018 11:06 PM, Scout wrote: > > > "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message > news:fmmh5eFfuqaU1@mid.individual.net... >> On 24/05/2018 10:20 AM, Scout wrote: >>> >>> >>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message >>> news:fmmcfaFf19nU1@mid.individual.net... >>>> On 23/05/2018 5:04 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message >>>>> news:fmkeh0F17emU2@mid.individual.net... >>>>>> On 23/05/2018 1:59 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in >>>>>>> message news:fmk52hFtr6kU1@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>> On 23/05/2018 1:17 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in >>>>>>>>> message news:fmjqp4FrqjgU2@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>>> On 22/05/2018 4:48 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in >>>>>>>>>>> message news:fmhljmFbrgiU3@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>>>>> On 22/05/2018 1:05 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in >>>>>>>>>>>>> message news:fme829Fjn2mU1@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18/05/2018 5:31 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in message news:fm769vF2nf8U2@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18/05/2018 2:42 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote in message news:fm71uoF1qk2U2@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18/05/2018 12:30 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote in message news:fm6odnF2i8U4@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18/05/2018 10:53 AM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:fm3i11F92rqU2@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 16/05/2018 12:30 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> message news:fm158hFnd3tU1@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 15/05/2018 11:52 PM, Sergio wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/15/2018 12:56 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/05/2018 11:59 PM, benj wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/9/2018 6:52 AM, kensi wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In 2013, atmospheric carbon dioxide broke >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 400 parts per million for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the first time in human history. Just a year >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> later, atmospheric >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> carbon dioxide averaged that for an entire >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> month. And now? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/5/4/1762050/-The-last-time-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-was-this-high-humans-didn-t-exist >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We hear you. Dinosaurs all died from heat >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stroke from all that CO2 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Greenhousing their world. Somehow science >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't agree with this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fantasy. Since CO2 is a minor GHG it's level >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is obviously more or less >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> irrelevant, both then and now. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Water vapor is THE major GHG factor (50%) and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clouds (also water) are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another 25% and CO2 is NOT the remaining 25%. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **Wrong, yappy lap-dog. You really should stop >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> listening to your master, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sergio. He is wrong and so are you. Obviously. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> name calling and emotional outbursts are simply >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ways to derail the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subject. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by doing this you are stating that you are an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the end of your knowledge >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and way over your head, or your a libtard. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remember CO2 is only 0.00039 part of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> atmosphere the rest of is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not CO2 => 99.99961 % >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so the sun hardly hits any CO2 atoms. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **It's actually more like 410ppm right now and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> increasing rapidly. The Sun doesn't "hit CO2 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> atoms". Yikes! I made a grave error in assuming >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you had some scientific knowledge. I won't make >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that mistake again. I now realise what a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> monumental cretin you are. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Points: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * CO2 is not an "atom". CO2 is a MOLECULE. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here's a primer for you: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Trevor has to pick nits because on the main topic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> he's sunk and his argument is in tatters. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **It's hardly nit-picking. Sergio has demonstrated >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a sustained inability to understand basic science. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Much as you have done? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **Since you don't understand climate science, then >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you are hardly in a position to make a judgement. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since your claims have no value, your assessment is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> similarly lacking in value. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **They're not _my_ claims >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then I suppose you're going to tell us that someone has >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been impersonating you? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **They're not my claims. I am citing the evidence from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the IPCC reports. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Or are you going to claim they hacked your account? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **They're not my claims. I am citing the evidence from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the IPCC reports. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, you are making the claims and then attempting to cite >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unspecified IPCC reports to support your claims. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> **Here's the data you requested: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Data not present. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> **Then get someone to read and explain it to you. ALL the >>>>>>>>>>>> information you require is in that section. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> If it were, then you could point out the exact page in which >>>>>>>>>>> your numbers can be found. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> **No, because it's a VERY complex issue. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So finding out where the numbers you stated came from is a >>>>>>>>> "complex issue".? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> **I provided all the data you requested. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No, you haven't. >>>>>> >>>>>> **Yeah, I have. Read it. >>>>> >>>>> Then why don't you quote the specific section(s) that support the >>>>> numbers you put out there? >>>> >>>> **Because you need to read the whole section. It's complex stuff. >>>> Probably way beyond your ability to comprehend. Which explains why >>>> you failed to read it. >>> >>> A few number is "complex stuff"? >> >> **Well, yeah, it is. Tell me what YOU understand by radiative forcing, >> as it pertains to atmospheric gases (no cut and pasting). >> >>> >>> Wow, if that's the case it's amazing that you can know anything about >>> global climate change. >>> >>> All I can say, is you were asked to support something quite specific, >>> you're produced a bunch of crap, demanded I dig through it looking >>> for your 'evidence' and when I can't find it you continue to claim >>> it's there. >> >> **You don't have to dig through anything. The whole document is >> self-explanatory. >> >>> >>> All I can say is if it was there you wouldn't have to tell me TO READ >>> THE WHOLE THING...because you would know exactly where to look for it. >> >> **I already supplied the simple explanation. You refused to accept it. >> >>> >>> So Trevor, you have utterly failed to support your claims,. >> >> **Read the cite. > > I did. Now it's your turn to do so. > > All I can say is you were asked to support some specific claims, you > have utterly failed to do so, and you couldn't bother doing what you > demand I do.....read through a massive source looking to see if it > actually supports your bullshit. Which it doesn't. > > So. Bad claims. Useless cite. Refusal to produce cite that actually > supports what you were asked to support. Your 'knowledge' of the subject > is clearly flawed, you don't know what you're talking about, and you > refuse to show any indication that you might entertain the notion that > you could be wrong. > > So....your mind is made up and don’t bother with asking you for facts. > > Trevor is here to sell his products. All facts and science are irrelevant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-09 09:33 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pcv0sr$18a3$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #684526 |
On 5/9/2018 5:52 AM, kensi wrote:
> In 2018, atmospheric "triangular carbon dioxide" broke 4,000 parts per zillion for the
> next time in monkey history of the universe. Just a micro-year later, non-atmospheric carbon
> dioxide peak averaged that for an entire 30 seconds. And now, what the hell does this mean ??
>
> htttps://wwww.leftistdailykos.com/bullshitstories/2018/5/4/1762050/-The-last-time-atmospheric-triangular-carbon-dioxide-was-this-fucking-high-monkey-ate-bananas!!
>
>
400ppm !!! yea!
great synth dude live in Berlin!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmuR2zwVSDY
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-09 15:49 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <DhIIC.116420$1e7.74145@fx38.iad> |
| In reply to | #684557 |
On 5/9/2018 10:33 AM, Sergio wrote: > On 5/9/2018 5:52 AM, kensi wrote: > >> In 2018, atmospheric "triangular carbon dioxide" broke 4,000 parts per zillion for the >> next time in monkey history of the universe. Just a micro-year later, non-atmospheric carbon >> dioxide peak averaged that for an entire 30 seconds. And now, what the hell does this mean ?? >> >> htttps://wwww.leftistdailykos.com/bullshitstories/2018/5/4/1762050/-The-last-time-atmospheric-triangular-carbon-dioxide-was-this-fucking-high-monkey-ate-bananas!! >> >> > > > 400ppm !!! yea! > > great synth dude live in Berlin! > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmuR2zwVSDY > Whoa! I want to get "Kanzi" and Nads in the Mosh pit! (or will they consider that a "death threat"?)
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 14 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 12 13 [14]
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web