Fossil fuels

[normiss 893]

Intentionally.
Just like the last time a misspelling was pointed out.


Lots of S's in here.

[DanG 1]

Sure it was intentional, buddy. Sure.

- Dan G

[normiss 893]

[kallend 2,147]

brenthutch

Still can't bring yourself to explaine your initial response to my OP.

The response (post #2, this thread) that did NOT mention either El Nino or CO2 levels, nor did it cite an article that mentioned them.

YOU, BRENTHUTCH, were the first to bring up those topics.

Apparently scrolling back through the thread is too challenging for you.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[brenthutch 444]

kallend

***Still can't bring yourself to explaine your initial response to my OP.

The response (post #2, this thread) that did NOT mention either El Nino or CO2 levels, nor did it cite an article that mentioned them.

YOU, BRENTHUTCH, were the first to bring up those topics.

Apparently scrolling back through the thread is too challenging for you.

Still can't bring yourself to explain your initial response to my OP. Was it a mistake? Did you intend to start a thread of your own? That would explain the non sequitur.

[kallend 2,147]

brenthutch

******Still can't bring yourself to explaine your initial response to my OP.

The response (post #2, this thread) that did NOT mention either El Nino or CO2 levels, nor did it cite an article that mentioned them.

YOU, BRENTHUTCH, were the first to bring up those topics.

Apparently scrolling back through the thread is too challenging for you.

Still can't bring yourself to explain your initial response to my OP. Was it a mistake? Did you intend to start a thread of your own? That would explain the non sequitur.

Only a non-sequitur to someone who chooses not to think when thinking would challenge their beliefs.

I'm sure everyone except rushmc and you could follow.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[brenthutch 444]

Still waiting.....
The response to the OP about the moral superiority of fossil fuels is a link to an article about coral bleaching from warm water and has nothing to do with CO2???

It is nice to see that you have finally come to your senses with regard to AGW, welcome aboard.

[kallend 2,147]

brenthutch

Still waiting.....
The response to the OP about the moral superiority of fossil fuels is a link to an article about coral bleaching from warm water and has nothing to do with CO2???

It is nice to see that you have finally come to your senses with regard to AGW, welcome aboard.

Another strawman (look it up since you've shown that you don't know the definition). Your reading comprehension is sadly deficient.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[brenthutch 444]

Still waiting.......
Your inability/reluctance to respond speaks volumes.

[kallend 2,147]

Your deliberate lack of comprehension is not my problem.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[gowlerk 2,275]

brenthutch

Still waiting.......
Your inability/reluctance to respond speaks volumes.

I responded in post #3. 'nuff said. No reason for any of us to follow you down the rabbit hole into wonderland.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[brenthutch 444]

Not true, Kallend said nothing about CO2.

[gowlerk 2,275]

brenthutch

Not true, Kallend said nothing about CO2.

It's kinda fun watching you twist. Carry on.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

brenthutch

Still waiting.......
Your inability/reluctance to respond speaks volumes.

No really.

it has been explained a couple of times now. I think your continued asking is what speaks volumes.

Hey Rush, nice logic on the research grants, that's some bright thinking. Keep it up!

[brenthutch 444]

SkyDekker

***Still waiting.......
Your inability/reluctance to respond speaks volumes.

No really.

it has been explained a couple of times now.

Then it should be easy to site just one example. But you won't, because you can't. Instead you will respond with a weak, pathetic ad hominem attack. Not one word about the substance of the OP in five pages of discussion. Red herrings about bleached corals, melting glaciers, spelling critiques, PAs on everyone from me to the committee chair, but nothing on topic and that makes me sad

[SkyDekker 1,465]

brenthutch

******Still waiting.......
Your inability/reluctance to respond speaks volumes.

No really.

it has been explained a couple of times now.

Then it should be easy to site just one example. But you won't, because you can't. Instead you will respond with a weak, pathetic ad hominem attack. Not one word about the substance of the OP in five pages of discussion. Red herrings about bleached corals, melting glaciers, spelling critiques, PAs on everyone from me to the committee chair, but nothing on topic and that makes me sad

Maybe I can find an article that doesn't agree with my position and post it as proof that I am right.

[rushmc 23]

DanG

Quote

First, mispeellings, again.

Isn't there a rule about criticizing someone else's spelling or grammar?

Nope

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

DanG

Quote

First, mispeellings, again.

Isn't there a rule about criticizing someone else's spelling or grammar?

Skitt's Law

Not about doing it (or not doing it), but about what happens when you do it.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[billvon 3,114]

>Maybe I can find an article that doesn't agree with my position and post it as proof that I am right.

Just make sure you don't read it first.