![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Dan Luke wrote: "Eeyore" wrote: I'll probably put something about it on a site eventually. It would be more helpful to us if you just mentioned one or two here. By the time you have gotten around to doing something on your site the moment will have passed and we shall all have forgotton about it. You wouldn't want that, would you? I spend enough time on Usenet without typing reams of stuff to please some one who also might forget about it in a trice. However, here's suimple one. Let's start at the beginning. The IPCC case is that CO2 and temperature data show anthropogenic global warming. So, their CO2 and temperature figures are rather important to their case, no ? Now, look in some details and you'll find that both their CO2 and temperature numbers are based on data manipulation that is fundamentally flawed. No doubt you could point out those details and why they are flawed, if only you had the time. I would indeed. Graham |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Eeyore wrote in
: Dan Luke wrote: "Eeyore" wrote: I'll probably put something about it on a site eventually. It would be more helpful to us if you just mentioned one or two here. By the time you have gotten around to doing something on your site the moment will have passed and we shall all have forgotton about it. You wouldn't want that, would you? I spend enough time on Usenet without typing reams of stuff to please some one who also might forget about it in a trice. However, here's suimple one. Let's start at the beginning. The IPCC case is that CO2 and temperature data show anthropogenic global warming. So, their CO2 and temperature figures are rather important to their case, no ? Now, look in some details and you'll find that both their CO2 and temperature numbers are based on data manipulation that is fundamentally flawed. No doubt you could point out those details and why they are flawed, if only you had the time. I would indeed. Bwahwahawhawhawhawhahwhahwhahhwhahwhhahwhahhwhah¬ Bertie Graham |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Bwahwahawhawhawhawhahwhahwhahhwhahwhhahwhahhwhah ¬ Bertie Hey.... call mom -- Message posted via http://www.aviationkb.com |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Bertie the Bunyip's more macho brother via AviationKB.com" u33403@uwe
wrote in news:7579783508db1@uwe: Bertie the Bunyip wrote: Bwahwahawhawhawhawhahwhahwhahhwhahwhhahwhahhwhah ¬ Bertie Hey.... call mom Did already, she's fine. Bertie |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
buy your sailplane scam? | [email protected] | Soaring | 23 | December 13th 05 06:13 PM |
SCAM | [email protected] | Soaring | 0 | August 26th 05 12:26 AM |
web scam ? | Chip Fitzpatrick | Soaring | 0 | August 10th 04 11:54 AM |
Scam Y/N ? | Stuart King | Instrument Flight Rules | 6 | November 13th 03 10:52 PM |