How the bastards do it

**In what way/s is the model flawed?

Cite your peer-reviewed science that shows the alleged flaws in the model.

Cite your peer-reviewed science that proves Fourier and all the scientists at CSIRO, NASA, BoM, The UK Met and all the others are wrong.

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

The reality is tweva you don't get to set the rules or demand anything , there is copies amounts of proof that much of the "evidence" you promote is very flawed and by admission of the authors publicaly so Now we have established you have little understanding of whats actually happening so do you intend presenting you nether regions for a sound rogering or will you slope off and high your face in shame as you should

Oh and this is rhetorical fyi

--









X-No-Archive: Yes

**Correct. I do not. Science does. Science demands evidence. Religion relies on belief. You are failing to supply evidence. You are demanding that we listen to your religious beleifs. Sorry. That is not good enough for logial, rational humans, who have more than your pitiful educational standards. **Would you care to have someone translate that mess into English please? **You have establishing nothing. To so so, requires that you present some peer-reviewed evidence. Thus far, you've presented nothing.

so do you intend presenting you nether regions for a sound

**No. As usual, you are simply exposing your extraordinary ignorance.

Present your evidence.

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

Very basic, their model of the atmosphere is just a guess and is very unsound. IOt is like knowing all about the human body by readings taken only at the skin. They astill can not see inside it, nor do they understand it. Understanding is very vague and of wide inaccuracy.

And the "evidence" that AGW is presenting is a manufactured evidence endorsed by a beaucratic body.

like said you d*****ad , rhetorical

show me yours when not based on flawed and falsified proof and do tell us about your education in the area or rather the lack there of

--









X-No-Archive: Yes

typically "Oh look money , make things fit the outcome we were given"

--









X-No-Archive: Yes

**Is that so? Which beaucratic body instructed Fourier to first advance the theory?

Which beaucratic body told NASA, the EPA, The US Academy of Sciences to manufacture data to the AGW denying government of George W Bush (who paid their salaries)?

Which beaucratic body told CSIRO, BoM and the Australian Academy of Science to manufacture data to the AGW denying government of John Howard and Tony Abbott (who paid their salaries)?

Scientists, in the main, simply report the facts. Regardless of the consequences and who pays their wages.

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

Not in this case, as I explained, I do not "slavishly listen" to the above mentioned, so that statement is not fact.

There is evidence for this?

The problem with this "Debate" is that people on all sides have made up their minds and no amount of evidence is going to change that point of view. That applies equally to you, TW, and all the rest.

Basically you have to say you were lookng for the effect on global warming to get the money ad that started in the 1980's.

Probably the same one that instructed Cupernicus to say the sun revolved around the earth,/tic>

What a naieve little bunny you are. Forgotten the CSIRO Meat diet?

>

For me, nope. I'm justtrying to find the evidence to follow the trail, but all I can find is summations by people/organisations that I don't trust. As I've said before "correlation is not causality" and until the AGW apologists start to show causality, then I'm strictly on the fence, sans a bit of fishing/trolling. Frankly, with a world population of 6 billion and rising, it stands to rason that humans mst be having some effect/affect.

**Well, you're not listening to science, logic and reason. You're certainly listening to the same idiots that Abbott, Pell and Jones listen to. And they're not scientists.

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

**Bullshit. I ONLY listen to the evidence. And the evidence is overwhelming.

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

**Cite your science that shows how the model is flawed.

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

**Nope. And I have not forgotten these things either:

Along with the thousands of significant developments from a bunch of very smart guys.

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

I take it from your response that mentioning their meat diet(created to order and not from science) was a total WHOOSH then.

I am not about to start educating you in basic science, let alone modelling fluid dynamics.