From: Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com>
Newsgroups: alt.global-warming,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,can.politics,alt.politics.liberalism,alt.politics.democrats,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: Ski Bunny, Trolled, Again! - LOL - "When CO2 Was Nearly HALF What
Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2025 12:09:10 -0800
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
On 2025-01-12 12:04, AlleyCat wrote:
>
> LOL... I planted a trolling point, and troll-bait fell for it, hook,
> line and sinker.
>
> Bait: "When CO2 Was Nearly HALF What It Is Today"
>
>> Since when is 311 "nearly half" of 424?
>
> See? He can't refute that climate change is not at fault for the
> fires, so he went straight for the bullshit minutiae I put in the
> post... on purpose... so he'd end up looking like the faggot nerd he
> is... not being able to refute the topic, but HAVING to reply
> anyways, lest someone look smarter and more attuned to the bullshit
> going on in our world, than he. - LOL
I dealt with a complete inaccuracy in what you claimed.
>
> Poor, low self-esteemed lonely nerd.
>
> "When CO2 Was Nearly HALF What It Is Today" was never the topic, so
> as to prove the point that Ski Bunny's not here to refute posts, I
> dangled a little bait in front of him and he took it like the Dork-
> Fish he is, JUST like I knew he would.
>
> https://i.imgur.com/NhEki0m.png
>
> I inserted what I KNOW, (since I have all the years' CO² levels
> going back as far as 1850), not to be true, to show that Ski Bunny
> CAN'T prove anything, other than the fact he's here to make him feel
> better about himself for what's bothering him.
You "insert what you know not to be true?
>
> He's here ONLY to argue off-topic bullshit that HE tries to make the
> topic, because he can't argue the point.
>
> LOL...
>
> ... https://i.imgur.com/nZaXEwU.mp4
>
> =====
>
> Original article, as cited.
>
> "CALIFORNIA FIRES BEYOND CONTROL"
>
> LOS ANGELES, Nov. 24, 1938-(U.P.) - Eight brush fires, fanned by
> high, dry winds from the Nevada desert, were out of control in
> Southern California today after burning over 50,000 acres of land
> and destroying more than 600 homes."
>
> https://newspapers.com/image/740269701/
>
> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Gg-NRqnbQAAir-Q?format=jpg&name=medium
Yes?
And?
You think that because things are warmer overall (the "global") than
they were in 1938 (and they are)...
...you think that there cannot be ANY droughts back then?