Roger Coppock wrote:

On Apr 11, 3:17*pm, Peter Franks
wrote:
Roger Coppock wrote:
On Apr 10, 11:26 am, Peter Franks
wrote:
[ . . . ]
That is not a scientific response. *The
question is honest and valid, and more
importantly, relevant to your original
posting.

NOPE! *You're question would be on topic only
if "the little ice age" happened in the past
129 years. Otherwise, you were posting off
topic.

Really?

Only data and observations from the last 129
are relevant to the study of warming/climate
change?

No, ****tard!
Only data and observations from the last 129 are
relevant TO THIS THREAD!



Every time I bring up the Little Ice Age,

BECAUSE YOU DO IN INSIDE THREADS ON OTHER
TOPICS, MORON.

I get either no response, or
no substantive response from you. *Why is that?

That is because I and many other people on
this newsgroup aren't interested in the
little ice age, if there was such a thing.
It was far enough in the past so that most
hard data for it are proxy. You fossil
fool CEE-OH-TOO pseudo-scientists like
to add the anecdotal to that so that you
can cook up all kinds of wild conjecture.


Before you answer this
question, answer the previous ones please.

START YOUR OWN THREAD THEN!

Did you skip your meds this morning, Roger?
Anger does not help with health issues, you know.