Sentences with phrase «previous posts on this thread»

I am not sure which one would be preferable though, as I understand from previous posts on this thread, the yield is after MER.

Mass flow, for example, as some of the previous posts on this thread have mentioned, could be very important and has likely been vastly underestimated.

From your previous posts on this thread, it seems you even doubt that the observed rise in CO2 is manmade, despite the isotope signature that proves this new carbon is of the fossil fuel kind.

Not exact matches

I read your previous posts on the other threads.

Ken actually asked me to list some of his lies (which I did on a previous thread but I doubt he has now read them) Hope you are reading this post KEN.

I do recall speaking up against Phil and Jon Fox who had insulted you on previous threads because they had issues with with your post on that thread.

I wanted to continue the thread, from a couple of previous posts, on the topic of «getting your deals funded

I pointed it out in a previous post on a different thread.

Oh crap, the previous comment was posted on the wrong thread!

Re # 119: Alexi, I previously posted, on a previous thread I think, regarding my view that we are all «gentlehommes» until proven otherwise.

Inline # 34 — Gavin, on my previous postings in the http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/09/how-much-will-sea-level-rise/ thread (which you may have missed) I explained how I saw your referenced article as not dealing with the most critical question raised by the Hansen paper as I see it — I actually asked the same question then in # 18.

Dan Kahan's post (discussed on the previous Scientific Evidence thread) included a statement that I find to be particularly apt here:

I have posted you numerous links on previous periods of Arctic warming - the last just a couple of weeks ago on a thread at WUWT on which you were active.

VP: «Whereas people have found Peter Lang to have been habitually dishonest on a hundred previous threads, given that he posts on many blogs whereas I post almost exclusively on Climate Etc..

Whereas people have found Peter Lang to have been habitually dishonest on a hundred previous threads, given that he posts on many blogs whereas I post almost exclusively on Climate Etc..

Rather than argue about little rhetorical points and taking down someone else's article or points, I prefer to clarify the big picture issues, which is why I did this post rather than continue the argumentation about mainly rhetorical points on the previous two threads.

I posted this initially on the previous thread in error.

I have posted over there on a previous thread that the BEST data is riddled with errors (now backed up by Steve Mc) and I have not had one troll challenge my statements, maybe they don't want to open that can of worms and draw more attention to it.

rmd, I've posted a longer response to your post on «a variety of energy sources» on the previous thread, briefly explaining some of the economics at work.

I have posted this argument on previous threads and will continue to do so.

My post on your previous thread concerning this subject said the basic information concerning IPCC Working Group 3 (WG3) is not news.

Unless you have new evidence, I'm not sure there is much value in repeating the old material here, but if you want to review the previous threads, you'll find a multitude of references on the topic (I believe I posted about six and other readers also contributed)-- not merely the one cited here.

But this Postma paper was posted on Ira's previous thread and Ira and others criticised the paper or would not read it all.

However, in this thread and on others I've read here at WUWT, Joel has been remarkably restrained in the face of IMHO unjustified personal attacks and postings by commenters who have not read his previous explanations and simply - thoughtlessly - repeat their Disbeliever mantra.

I posted a comment on the previous thread, and with the permission of the moderators, I will repeat it here:

Here is a copy of my post on a previous thread where you made the same lying, distortion of scientific facts as you are doing here.

Okay, like I said in the other thread on religion, I'm not here to bash anyone's religious beliefs, so feel free to ignore my previous couple posts...

But as you may have learned from the previous posts in this thread and the other posts that come up on BP when you search «Tax Liens», is that you need to be familiar with the state and even county laws of the area you are purchasing Tax Liens in.