The thread, there is more.
Re-read your own #97, SpamKan.
Answer the question!
I did. I said that it was a trivial typo.
Now how about you admit your error instead of frantically, dishonestly wriggling.
Come on, you sack of bad faith. Admit that you do not understand why Ken is completely wrong to use MT data to argue that Australia did not in fact experience the hottest 12 months in the instrumental surface temperature record.
This is a gross error on his part and a gross misunderstanding on yours.
Now admit it. Come on.
#97…why did you make an identical link to the error at Ken’s Kingdom a second time, after your excruciating dimness was revealed the first? Because #93 is not an answer, BTW.
Aussie, born and bred you flaccid nappy wearing old fart factory
No grey literature in WG1, you fucking moron.
#1#2, Bill, you silky smooth charmer, that was the very first amendment anyone has seen from Kaz!!! Did you have a shave this morning,or something? I dips me lid!
Tell me BBD, when the IPCC used the faulty grEy literature that stated that the Himalayas would be melted within 35 years -
a/ did you believe it, and defend it as being valid ?
b/ did you disbelieve it, and pass on your concerns about that being total rubbish ?
c/ did you disbelieve it, and keep quiet ?
“massive climate shifts in turn leading to the extinction of dinosaurs.” And what exactly has that to do with co2?
Deductive reasoning and understanding analogues isn’t on the denier syllabus then PantieZ? I suppose it could never be as some degree of intelligence would be required, which denier blogs don’t offer instruction in.
Oh fuck off, Karen. I didn’t even *know* about it until the “sceptic” screeching started, at which point it was established very quickly that it was a bog-standard transposition typo. If you had ever had a proper job, you would *know* that these crop up and can slip through the editing process all-too-easily. It was a distraction then and it is a distraction now.
When are you going to admit your errors about MT?
You do know what a transposition typo is, don’t you Karen?
I’ve already explained this once, but given your stunning thickness, perhaps I’d better do it again:
2350 got muddled into 2035. See how easliy that cna happen?
SpamKan, you do not direct the topic here. Now before making demands of others, apologise for your repeated spamming of KlownsKiingdom tropospheric temperature nonsense. Then admit you didn’t understand it either.
Oh deary me, how awkward for you BBD, something you didn’t know about cc,
A double lie I tink
How many climategate “transposition typos” were there ?
& why do you think Phil Jones was shitting bricks ?
#13 How is this important? Could you imagine giving an answer that a rational person might accept?
# 14 You first…how many?
#14 what is the typical vertical distance in summer between the mid troposphere layer and the surface layer at Australian latitudes?
You look as though your tongue is firmly imbedded inside BBD’s arsehole……………..
#18 stop fantasizing and answer the question…any question,in fact.
‘Aussie’ like where when shortly after you were in diapers on your daddy’s ranch he used to take you in his pickup truck to elementary school and on the weekends sometimes you’d go out to a ball game and perhaps have a cook-out? That kind of Aussie?
See, I am an Aussie, and I’m one of the rare ones who actually knows something about the land, and landscape I live in.
Not like some cretin who can’t even identify the value of ‘ecosystem services’! Jesus Wept! but you’re an ignoramus… And you might as well have been raised in Oklahoma for all the good you’re doing this country.
A nation of such perennial expatriates who treat the continent itself (and the people they’ve usurped) with sneering contempt! Yeah, that’s bound to turn out well…
Since I don’t want it to get lost – so much for ‘Waubra Syndrome’…
“See, I am an Aussie, and I’m one of the rare ones who actually knows something about the land, and landscape I live in.”
You are a city greenie that drove taxi
“Since I don’t want it to get lost”
bookmark it you silly flatulent old fool
Karen, you can witter all day and it won’t make any difference to the facts.
The 2035 figure should have been 2350. It was an error that didn’t get spotted and the IPCC handled it badly when it came to light. The fake sceptics had a field day. End of story.
Only desperate deniers keep thrashing away at trivia because trivia is all you have.
And you know it.
When are you going to admit your gross error – twice repeated despite correction – over MT vs TLT data?
Come on. You snivelling little shit.
Sunshine, you know bugger-all about the continent of Australia and are nothing but a burden on it.
SpamKan is about to get a lesson in blog etiquette. All further comments to be struck through until “she” admits her error re MT/TLT.
All – please assist with teaching SpamKan how to behave! Thanks!
bill page 15 #100
Indeed, and the comparison of that to the experiences of those who have allowed fracking on or near their land:
Fracking Vs. The Drought: They Call It Texas Tea, But You Can’t Drink Oil,
More Than Flaming Water: New Report Tracks Health Impacts of Fracking on Pennsylvania Residents’ Health,
and I was betting on something like this happening,
Colorado Floodwaters Cover Fracking And Oil Projects: ‘We Have No Idea What Those Wells Are Leaking’.
adapt to that Tillerson, but of course you don’t have to because you have found a secure spot for yourself and your kin.
“ee, I am an Aussie, and I’m one of the rare ones who actually knows something about the land, and landscape I live in.
Not like some cretin who can’t even identify the value of ‘ecosystem services’!”
1/ Oz is a big place Billie, I’m so glad you can find your way around your aftercare
centre now sweetie
2/ ecosystem services, maybe you can offer some evidence that co2 has had an impact ?
This is for bumbling BBD
On page 29 of the following report WWF included the following statement:
“In 1999, a report by the Working Group on Himalayan Glaciology (WGHG) of the International
Commission for Snow and Ice (ICSI) stated: `glaciers in the Himalayas are receding faster than in any other
part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the livelihood[sic] of them disappearing by the
year 2035 is very high.’”
This statement was used in good faith but it is now clear that this was erroneous and should be disregarded.
The essence of this quote is also used on page 3 in the Executive summary where it states: The New
Scientist magazine carried the article “Flooded Out – Retreating glaciers spell disaster for valley
communities” in their 5 June 1999 issue. It quoted Professor Syed Hasnain, then Chairman of the
International Commission for Snow and Ice’s (ICSI) Working Group on Himalayan Glaciology, who said
most of the glaciers in the Himalayan region “will vanish within 40 years as a result of global warming”.
This statement should also be disregarded as being unsound.
WWF regret any confusion this may have caused.
WWF & the IPCC regret any confusion this may have caused you BBD…….??
Actually I think you are lying………….. everyone knew about this
Whichever continent has the misfortune to act as a host for SpamKan or any of the other regular Ignorati, what you all are can be summed up in 3 words: Daily Mail Reader.
So this one’s for you!
Very good Bill, here is one from the same category,
Stop rabbitting about fucking irrelevancies you dishonest, evasive little shit!
Come on. Do it. Now.
We are all sick of your lies and evasions. We are all waiting for evidence that you are capable of a modicum of honesty.
BBD he has used the T2LT data. Check his reference.
My guy checked the whole surface DB and we got non areal weighted 3rd behind 2005 and 2010.
you are a mentor to BBD…
Try to understand the dynamics of this discussion, “Karen”.
We were discussing your repeated errors and refusal to acknowledge them.
NOT the error in IPCC AR4 WG2. Anyone interested in reviewing that mess can find an unbiased account here. Note that it is critical of the IPCC, and on closer inspection, rightly so.
Note also that I admit being mistaken about the exact nature of the error. I try to act in good faith and have never pretended to perfect knowledge.
BBD be nice and for some of us you can find out why people may have other perspectives..
In fact you should show some leadership and make the discussion not respond to fluff. Jeff too. See I’m back on my meds.
Even if he did – and I will check – the problem does not go away. Remember what I was obliged to remind you earlier: the monthly anomaly TLT is much more variable than the surface temperature and especially so in response to ENSO The 1999 and 2010 peaks are the Austral response to EN events. There is no EN event underway now.
Simply put, you cannot use MT or even TLT data to argue that the surface temperature records broken over the last 12 months in Australia are invalid. And you have to wonder why they are so extremely high now, in ENSO-neutral conditions.
yes agree – they are samples of different things. It is a classic high sub-tropical ridge neutral year drought in Australia. The temperatures are high perhaps among the highest. Getting too revved up about absolute highest is a mugs game. The trend will out in the end. (neutral years of course don’t mean median rainfall for Australia – anything can still happen)
“Stronger winds also drive ice faster, which leads to still more deformation and ridging. This creates thicker, longer-lasting ice, while exposing surrounding water and thin ice to the blistering cold winds that cause more ice growth.”
“You’ve got more thick ice, more ridged ice, and at the same time you will get more ice extent because the ice just survives longer,” Zhang said.”
So much for basal melt……… lol
Why can’t you be like this all the time? Fruitful discussion would be possible. Can you stick in rational mode? Will you at least try?
If you do, I will be responsive to your tone.
#44 was @ Luke
Karen, you dipshit, that is about sea ice not the Antarctic ice sheets. No further discussion with you until you sort out the kindergarten-level basics. Just fuck off.
#36… right you are! So Ken has misidentified it as mid troposphere in text. But it’s T2LT [TLT] in fact…these ‘sceptics’ are reliably unreliable.
However, there is still no reason why one would expect surface thermometry and TLT which weights most strongly at 2000m asl to agree over rankings of closely separated 12 month periods. It is not an apples to apples comparison. It is the closest you will get between methods,but disagreemnet is always real.
And to describe such disagreement, as Ken does, as ‘unfortunate’ is stupid. To signal to the reader,as Ken does, that one needs make a decision ‘between’ the metrics on ‘trust’ is simply misdirection.
Luke, be careful, that big lump on BBD’s arse is Nicks head
#47, some of your issues cannot be sorted out here, Kaz. Try the sphincteric issues site.
Excellent take down of that latest Dail Mail nonsense from David Rose.
‘Ahha, OK the Daily Mail readers have all pit their hands up’ @ 4:19. Including with all the usual suspects that infest here, Rednoise being one of that breed I am sure.
Rose should be embarrassed, but are socio-paths ever that self aware.
No Warming In Antarctica Since The Start Of Satellite Records
“Still you haven’t produced one single evidence that anthropogenic co2 is causing extinction of species”
OMG, how many bloody times must I repeat it::
BECAUSE THE FRIGGING TIME SCALES INVOLVED ARE TOO SHORT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! REPEAT UNTIL IT SINKS IN DAMMIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I know that Pantie is stupid, that is patently obvious, but even this level of ignorance is hard to deal with. I also pointed out that extinctions are not officially verified by the IUCN until a species has not been observed for a minimum, of 50 years. Finally, given the number of species involved, and the fact that (1) many are cryptic or found in areas where there has been little study, and (2) that there aren’t that many scientists around to monitor the demographics of most species, its very difficult to say whether a species exists or not. But we do know that past climate change-related events which took place over much longer time scales than the current rate of warming resulted in mass extinctions. It doesn’t take a whole lot of gray matter to argue that a 3 C rise in temperatures in a century or less will have catastrophic effects on many natural ecosystems.
Don’t waste my time with lies from “Goddard”.
Reference the published literature or shut up.
#51 as far as coverage goes…and what’s happening to ocean temperatures?
“This is primarily because long-term near-surface temperature observations are restricted to Byrd Station in central West Antarctica, a data set with substantial gaps. Here, we present a complete temperature record for Byrd Station, in which observations have been corrected, and gaps have been filled using global reanalysis data and spatial interpolation. ”
tug tug tug tug tug tug tug tug tug tug tug tug tug tug tug tug tug tug tug tug tug tug tug tug tug tug tug tug tug tug tug tug tug tug tug tug tug tug tug tug tug tug tug tug tug tug tug tug tug tug
The ABC is purely a disseminator of propaganda,…
There goes another irony meter.
Remember, Karen’s purpose here is to disseminate lies…or since they are usually constructed to push a particular set of policy positions, “propaganda”, if you will.
#55 I can do one too:
What are you trying to prove?
Ah yes, that you are a cherry picking bullshitter – well done, another level down your hole!
Do it properly so we can see which data set is the outlier.
Well, well, well…
If I were you, “Karen”, I’d leave the graphs alone. Add to paleoclimate and the cryosphere as topics where I will screw you up into a little ball and throw you into the bin.
I’ve already given Karen a graph of the other data sets twice in the last week or so.
Remember: Karen’s purpose here is to disseminate lies.
She will never acknowledge being caught out, nor will that stop here posting an identified lie again in the future.
Karen’s purpose here is to disseminate lies.
Yup, and she’s been doing it for a long time now…
It’s amusing – at least to me – that “Karen” waves Zhang (2013) at me in “her” confusion over the difference between sea ice and ice sheets (marine or otherwise) without joining the dots.
As I have repeatedly tried to explain to “her”, it is the increase in zonal wind speeds that is driving the increased upwelling that is driving the increased basal melt that is driving the increased rate of mass loss. Zhang’s modelled study simply provides support for the observations.
Poor, stupid, confused “Karen” is so lost in space that “she” doesn’t even realise what “she” has done.
The lie of the IPCC on Hamalayan glacier disappearance by 2035 was intentional and in bad faith, AND NOT A TYPO, BBD CLOWN
You could also be forgiven for thinking that SpamKan’s purpose is to make deniers look like ignorant, dishonest clowns. They’re very good at that.
I full agree with Tony Abbott to kill the idiotic carbon tax in Australia as fast as possible, as there is no scientific proof that CO2 heats the air 2m above the surface!!!
Can’t remember if this is already linked southern sea ice
Yes – that’s the Zhang paper that “Karen” just hit “herself” over the head with in a master-class of physical comedy! Let’s hear it now: Bravo! Clown!
#66 excuse me for missing that, ministering to the afflicted is wearying. The ratio of staff to inmates is reasonable here, but I must have nodded off
That’s okay, Nick. Being here rots my mind too!
But there are compensations, like watching “Karen” do the clowning equivalent of Bruce Lee on a good day.
You could also be forgiven for thinking that SpamKan’s purpose is to make deniers look like ignorant, dishonest clowns.
I’d suggest not giving the game away, but Karen hasn’t learned a single thing from anyone else here yet, so there’s not much danger of that
Back in the good old days, Sunspot (who some think donned drag and became Karen) used to give epic displays of clown-trolling.
A real master of the self-defeating argument. Worth trawling back and reading his own private thread, if you have time spare – it was a real theatre of the absurd for the true connaisseur.
BBD and all, in case you have not picked up on the new Hansen open access (that is two such, open access, this week) paper on Climate Sensitivity then there is a link in this article Hansen Study: Climate Sensitivity Is High, Burning All Fossil Fuels Would Make Most Of Planet ‘Uninhabitable’.
But of course Luke won’t like this because it discusses,
Pleistocene climate oscillations yield a fast-feedback climate sensitivity of 3 ± 1◦C for a 4Wm−2 CO2 forcing
. Naughty palaeo-data, naughty palaeo-data.
Hahaha…jeffieboy, you’re so full of shit! How long have we had AGW, under the prevailing dogma? Fucking moron.
Karen, isn’t it hillarious to watch the warmiztas constanly moving goalposts, building strawmen, projecting and lying? The stupid moronic regulars on this site really look silly in their tin foil hats. Especially thos of them sho call themselves scientists. Absolutely priceless. Hahahahahaha
You absolutely are not in a position to be calling Jeff a fucking moron. You have posted nothing but arrant nonsense on this (and other) threads. Complete fucking rubbish. Going on your commentary, you are demonstrably ignorant, confused, in denial and fundamentally stupid.
Yes, I’ve been following this paper through various drafts since it came out of the PALAEOSENS project that culminated in the to-date definitive quantification of climate sensitivity derived from paleoclimate behaviour across the entire Cenozoic. See Rohling et al. (2012) NB: you may have looked at this already – I’ve posted the link at Deltoid many times.
This is why deniers deny paleoclimate behaviour. It drives a truck through all this lukewarmer rubbish.
How long have we had AGW, under the prevailing dogma? Fucking moron.
Technically, since the Industrial Revolution got underway. But for practical purposes, across the C20th with a definitive emergence of the forced trend since the 1970s.
Describing the laws of physics – specifically radiative transfer – as “dogma” is just buttock-stupid. You have also outed yourself as a physics denier. Thanks for confirming that.
It’s actually beyond the comprehension of a moron to understand that the observed rise of 0.72C in the 60 years up to 2012 is but the start of an escalator that on current trajectory could go to 3.5C+. by 2100.
Because it hasn’t happened yet, PantieZ is crowing without realising there’s no current mechanism to halt it or the consequences that come with it.. And yet morons who aren’t renowned for their abstract thinking abilities, somehow imagine their opinion means anything..
#70 Frank D
Thanks for the prompt. I looked. I’d say that’s a positive ID alright: “Karen” is Sunspot. No doubt in my mind at all.
Check out the misuse of the apostrophe! I wondered why “Karen” was so touchy about that the other day. Now I know.
Now the odd thing here is that Tim Lambert has come down hard on sock puppetry before, and has explicitly confined Sunspot/”Karen” to a padded cell, sorry thread of it’s, sorry its own. So we have a twofer. Surely grounds for a permanent IP-block ban? Or am I being too much of a wishy-washy liberal here?
Thanks for that Rohling link BBD. Now I have downloaded it I have found where I stored it last time around.
I am expecting Thomas Cronin any-day soon.
Always doing that! Why I warned you, but never mind. Good call on the Cronin – it’s not exactly light reading, but by God you will know your onions once you get to grips with it.
BBD – why worry about Karen – show some leadership instead of being towed around responding.
wrong claim, therefore rejection accomplished
As I have repeatedly tried to explain to “her”, it is the increase in zonal wind speeds that is driving the increased upwelling that is driving the increased basal melt that is driving the increased rate of mass loss. Zhang’s modelled study simply provides support for the observations.
Well Lionel naughty palaeo indeed. One might be sceptical when you read the actual paper which you should have cited not the alarmsist Climate Progress replete with smouldering planet.
– “inherently partially subjective”. Issues with aerosols. I have mentioned DMS before.
How heavily all this work depends on proxies based on models themselves.
More work to be done etc……… “it should be possible to gain a consensus”…. “data reconstruction” …. “model intercomparisons” ….
“Climate sensitivity extracted from Pleistocene climate change is thus inherently partly subjective as it depends on how much weight is given to mutually inconsistent estimates of glacial-to-interglacial global temperature change. Our initial assessment is a fast-feedback sensitivity of 3±1°C for 2×CO2, corresponding to an LGM cooling of 4.5°C, similar to the 2.2–4.8°C estimate of PALAEOSENS . This sensitivity is higher than estimated by Schmittner et al. , partly because they included natural aerosol changes as a forcing. In addition, we note that their proxies for LGM sea surface cooling exclude planktic foraminifera data, which suggest larger cooling , and, as noted by Schneider von Deimling et al. , regions that are not sampled tend to be ones where the largest cooling is expected. It should be possible to gain consensus on a narrower range for climate sensitivity via a community project for the LGM analogous to PRISM Pliocene data reconstruction [97,98] and PlioMIP model intercomparisons [67,68].”
Now if Luke had been awake he would have realised that I had previously mentioned that Hansen paper on this very page.
Ho! Hum! Another detention for Luke, sleeping in class.
. I have mentioned DMS before.
So have I, to point out that the CLAW hypothesis has formally been laid to rest. You are bluffing again. Stop it.
And stop fucking bleating about uncertainty. Even pushing the absolute edge of the lower bound, you cannot get below ~2C and it is vastly more likely to be nearer ~3C. You are being a wanker again, skimming and quote mining with zero real understanding of the methodology or the relative strength of the conclusions.
“jeffieboy, you’re so full of shit! How long have we had AGW, under the prevailing dogma”
Oh, about 25 years since it was officially recognized, and another few more if we look at trends. Not remotely long enough to generate extinctions that would be officially recognized by IUCN. Certainly long enough to extrapolate deleterious effects on biodiversity – and the empirical literature is full of studies demonstrating this.
Back to your dunce corner, Pantie. Moron.
None of this has been laid to rest – layer upon layer of supposition, proxies, assumptions and models challenged each day as the paper boy brings more journals.
” Not remotely long enough to generate extinctions that would be officially recognized by IUCN. Certainly long enough to extrapolate deleterious effects on biodiversity”
JEff – Not really – more alarmism. I wonder how (myopically speaking) Australian flora and fauna deal with massive interannual and decadal variability. And you want to bedwet over an uncertain trend with modelled plus or minus signs in overall rainfall. Pullease !
What we do know is that cats, dogs, cane toads and poor fire regimes ARE a threat to biodiversity NOW ! Interest – zippo – all going to AGW biodiversity nonsense which frankly is of no help. Grab a gun and stand a post Jeff. Wear a cat fur hat.
“We show that the changes in DMS flux and CCN concentration between the present day and global warming scenario are similar to interannual differences due to variability in windspeed. So although DMS makes a significant contribution to global marine CCN concentrations, the sensitivity of CCN to potential future changes in DMS flux is very low. This finding, together with the predicted small changes in future seawater DMS concentrations, suggests that the role of DMS in climate regulation is very weak.”
More modelled rubbish ! “We show” laughable – no “they assert” and “they model”. Given the performance of the models – ROFL !
Luke, for once you make a good comment. Well done! I agree that there are multiple threats to biodiversity and that we should not invest disproportionately to mitigate just AGW. But if – and this is a big if – the IPCC projected temperature rise of 2 C or higher is accurate, then this is going to be a major factor driving declines in biodiversity. There are no ifs and buts. If, on the other hand, you think that its OK to throw the dice and tinker with the atmosphere, then so be it. But we will reap what we sow. If you are indeed wrong, then the consequences will be dire.
The Lukes, when you’ve finished chortling at your own dumbness, would you like to try and name any modern industry – service or manufacturing – that doesn’t employ modelling? And for bonus points, why do you think they all do and will continue to do so.
Dog whistling for support from know-nothing numpties like SpamKan’n’PantieZ is what you’re reduced to now?
Bill McKibben on the Colorado flooding and the KXL pipeline.
Nick@#83 previous page.
After all that information you posted about how the SH system works,I am a bit surprised that you don’t know what the flow on damages from senselessly wasting stored water have been.
Chek above @#92.
That is a good question you ask Luke. Of course I have no wish to answer for Luke and he may have a different answer to me, but IMHO, the answer is of course everybody uses modelling. That’s why people other than climate scientists can read them and analyse them and see where they’re performing and where they’re not.
#94…whatever your level of surprise, or suspicion of my ignorance, tell me what you think the flow on effects of ‘senselessly wasting stored water’ have been, Stu2
BBD – why worry about Karen …
Why worry about who other people worry about? You’ve got enough issues with your own behaviour to deal with.
I wonder how (myopically speaking) Australian flora and fauna deal with massive interannual and decadal variability.
Er, mate, you might want to rethink your foolish wondering. This is a standard denialist meme based on misunderstanding the problem. You’re smart enough to figure out where your error lies…my smart money is on you not doing so though.
(And I’m not talking about myopically focusing on Australia rather than the globe, or egregiously mistaking rainfall for the entirety of climate change.)
I don’t suspect ignorance but I was surprised.
If you are truly interested and not just trying to score points, may I respectfully suggest you think “triple bottom line”. Also think why the system was built in the first place and was managed by one organisation called the Water Conservation and Irrigation Commission (WC&IC).
Then think about what happened to those significant volumes of stored water that were released into a flooding system and was not needed by any part of that triple bottom line: environmental, social, economic.
And finally, I can clearly see that you dislike Marohasy but I don’t agree that she had much influence over the events in question and I further believe you have allowed your dislike of her to attribute way too much to any influence she may have.
She neither caused the underlying problem nor did she anything to do with any post flood negotiations/mitigation.
The fact that SHL and others such as NOW had egg on their faces was because they failed to heed the numerous warnings about those licence anomalies well before the crisis hit.
More journals! Oh my goodness. That means we don’t know everything there is to know yet.
Dara O’Briain tells us about that. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHVVKAKWXcg
With the exception of (the rather unimportant, really) David Bellamy, is there a denier who is not a biological ignoramus?
People who maintain that an increase in average temps cannot ‘affect’ ecological systems because the increase is less than interseasonal or diurnal variability ought to die of shame.
But, because DK (they’re simply too stupid to appreciate how stupid they are) they just never shut-up instead!
#97 Stu2, I’m not quantifying Marohasy’s influence on the December 2010 floods issue. I’m just pointing out that what she tried on was misdirecting and ill-motivated, because she made no attempt to do the numbers. She was happy to be a conduit for confusion, fan the fear, and to poison the well with her ideological blather.
In the end, some factors improved: storages gained water, the lower river wetlands got served, power was generated by renewables not FF burning, and some flood damage was eliminated by NOW, even given the limited influence they could have on the total catchment. Infrastructure damage in the Tumut Valley was bad, SH did not make it worse.
You talk of ‘significant volumes of water released into a flooded system’ as though you have not acknowledged a thing I’ve written. So…once more, in the Murrumbidgee flood of December 2010, while SH did release water down the Tumut [suspending releases for at least a day at the height of the down pour], these volumes were an insignificant quantity in the total volume that passed Wagga.
SHL did not have egg on their faces, they copped some mud thrown by ill-informed people.
Notify me of followup comments via E-Mail.
Past time for more thread.