Hey witless

Here I was thinking this is a topic you would know all about. Wind. You are full of it but no you don't contribute.

Dear Cohenite;;

You wrote;

“Steele the stalker continues to verbal.”

What the hell? Mate you invited me here remember;

“come over here and give it your best shot: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=16021&page=0 “
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15983#277651

Anyway true stalkers tend to be nutters.

You then claimed;

“What I said as opposed to what you say I said, is that the 60 year PDO cycle is a good indicator of what the climate is up to”

No you didn't.

You were asked directly and specifically what you deemed to be a climatically significant period.

I initially asked “What pray tell do you deem to be a “climatically significant period”?”.

I then repeated the question “what period do you personally deem to be “climatically significant”?”

Your answer was an unequivocal; “In answer to your question steele, 60 years”
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15983#277521

There were no ifs buts or maybes but a straight out 60 years.

Do you understand sir you have so little credibility that to blow whatever remains on reneging your affirmation of 60 years would possibly be something you might want to reconsider.

Or are you happy adding a bit more fat to that 'Butcher's Dick'?

No, you're trolling steele; everything else I said about the 60 year period you've ignored; you can't pick and choose mate; it's my period and you either take the lot or none at all.

Anyway, the important point is it is not me who decides what the climatically significant period is, it is the experts. The article gives you Santer's PEER REVIEWED paper. Santer is an expert, and Santer says 17 years.

And what do the facts say; for 17 years NO WARMING!

So the choice for you porno man is to either accept what your experts say and then explain why they are wrong.

Or, accept that I am the expert and accept what I say is right.

Now I don't like writing like this, as though I were talking to a 12 year old brat running around saying "Yes it is" at the top of their lungs but that's how you've been acting steele, so either grow up and deal with the feet of clay of your precious AGW and its conman spruikers or continue to carry on and be treated like a pork chop.

A disgusting, vile and abusive ad hom by the so called solicitor Anthony Cox/Cohenite again - typical.

Ozdoc in his usual condescending style has stated I have been “disgusting, vile and abusive” in my description, I presume, of steele’s persistent ‘gotchas about my previous statement of 60 years for a climatic period.

I’m going to spend some time on this ‘complaint’ because I think this typifies the AGW believers’ approach.

AGW has been described as the “great moral issue” of our time.

Yet AGW has cost the world $trillions and Australia $billions.

AGW has arguably corrupted 2 fine scientific bodies, the BOM and CSIRO and determined a succession of government’s approaches to the environment.

AGW has exacerbated natural disasters. The 210 QLD floods were made worse because Wivenhoe dam was being used as a drought mitigator in contradiction of its built purpose as a flood mitigator. In 2009 the Black Saturday fires were exacerbated by the huge build-up of undergrowth caused by green resistance to back-burning which saw land-owners prosecuted for doing so.

Now in England we see natural floods made worse due to a lack of preparation, because of green policies which stopped preventative dredging because of a mollusc and other green regulations.

Due to green and AGW based policies people have died and enormous destruction has occurred.

Yet here we have an alarmist, a believer in AGW, who presumably supports these policies and therefore endorses the results or at least accepts them as collateral damage calling me “disgusting vile and abusive” because I suggested a troll was acting like a “pork chop” and a 12 year old brat.

I can only say that is a weird and distorted perspective. What does ozdoc say about the consequences of AGW and green policies and ideology? Does he think they are “disgusting, vile and abusive”? Does he have anything to say about the proven corruption of science by AGW as evidenced by the emails and the problematic evidence for AGW presented in the England paper as described in this article?

No, nothing, instead he’s [sic] upset because I ‘insulted’ steele

Dear Cohenite,

You wrote;

“you can't pick and choose mate”

Never a truer word has passed from your pen/keyboard.