Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #268383 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Steve Carroll <fretwizzen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2014-11-21 16:05 -0800 |
| Last post | 2014-11-24 11:03 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 121 — 19 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy
Global Warming is not real science Steve Carroll <fretwizzen@gmail.com> - 2014-11-21 16:05 -0800
Re: Global Warming is not real science owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2014-11-23 04:22 +0000
Re: Global Warming is not real science Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-11-22 21:30 -0700
Re: Global Warming is not real science owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2014-11-23 04:39 +0000
Re: Global Warming is not real science Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-11-22 21:47 -0700
Re: Global Warming is not real science owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2014-11-23 05:04 +0000
Re: Global Warming is not real science Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-11-22 22:51 -0700
Re: Global Warming is not real science owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2014-11-23 06:20 +0000
Re: Global Warming is not real science Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-11-23 09:36 -0700
Re: Global Warming is not real science owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2014-11-23 17:27 +0000
Re: Global Warming is not real science Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-11-23 10:54 -0700
Re: Global Warming is not real science Sir Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2014-11-23 14:09 -0500
Re: Global Warming is not real science Lloyd Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> - 2014-11-23 13:27 -0600
Re: Global Warming is not real science Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-11-23 13:01 -0700
Re: Global Warming is not real science Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-11-23 13:00 -0700
Re: Global Warming is not real science "alt.support.heartburn" <trigonometry1972@gmail.com> - 2014-11-23 19:21 -0800
Re: Global Warming is not real science Sir Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2014-11-24 08:48 -0500
Re: Global Warming is not real science DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2014-11-23 14:14 -0500
Re: Global Warming is not real science owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2014-11-23 20:32 +0000
Re: Global Warming is not real science DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2014-11-24 18:21 -0500
Re: Global Warming is not real science Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2014-11-24 16:27 -0800
Re: Global Warming is not real science owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2014-11-25 03:08 +0000
Re: Global Warming is not real science DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2014-11-24 23:52 -0500
Re: Global Warming is not real science DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2014-11-25 09:17 -0500
Re: Global Warming is not real science owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2014-11-26 01:16 +0000
Re: Global Warming is not real science DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2014-11-25 22:18 -0500
Re: Global Warming is not real science owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2014-11-26 03:55 +0000
Re: Global Warming is not real science Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-11-25 21:18 -0700
Re: Global Warming is not real science owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2014-11-26 04:30 +0000
Re: Global Warming is not real science Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-11-25 21:38 -0700
Re: Global Warming is not real science Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2014-11-26 07:50 -0800
Re: Global Warming is not real science Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-11-25 21:13 -0700
Re: Global Warming is not real science owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2014-11-26 04:23 +0000
Re: Global Warming is not real science Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-11-25 21:56 -0700
Re: Global Warming is not real science Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2014-11-26 13:27 -0500
Re: Global Warming is not real science Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-11-26 12:56 -0700
Re: Global Warming is not real science Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-11-26 13:02 -0700
Re: Global Warming is not real science Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2014-11-26 21:59 +0100
Re: Global Warming is not real science Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-11-26 14:35 -0700
Re: Global Warming is not real science Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2014-11-27 06:35 -0500
Re: Global Warming is not real science Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-11-27 08:58 -0700
Re: Global Warming is not real science Tattoo Vampire <sitting@this.computer> - 2014-11-27 14:11 +0000
Re: Global Warming is not real science Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2014-11-27 15:26 +0100
Re: Global Warming is not real science WaRmNfUzZy <warmnfuzzi@muzzimail.net> - 2014-11-27 09:28 -0500
Re: Global Warming is not real science Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2014-11-27 10:02 -0500
Re: Global Warming is not real science Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-11-27 09:17 -0700
Re: Global Warming is not real science Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2014-11-27 17:09 -0500
Re: Global Warming is not real science Steve Carroll <fretwizzen@gmail.com> - 2014-11-27 14:24 -0800
Re: Global Warming is not real science Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-11-27 09:14 -0700
Re: Global Warming is not real science Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2014-11-27 08:39 -0800
Re: Global Warming is not real science WaRmNfUzZy <warmnfuzzi@muzzimail.net> - 2014-11-27 12:08 -0500
Re: Global Warming is not real science tmelmosfire <tmelmosfire@gmail.com> - 2014-11-27 11:15 -0800
Re: Global Warming is not real science vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2014-11-27 17:50 -0800
Re: Global Warming is not real science Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-11-27 19:11 -0700
Re: Global Warming is not real science Steve Carroll <fretwizzen@gmail.com> - 2014-11-27 19:29 -0800
Re: Global Warming is not real science Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-11-27 09:19 -0700
Re: Global Warming is not real science Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2014-11-27 08:51 -0800
Re: Global Warming is not real science WaRmNfUzZy <warmnfuzzi@muzzimail.net> - 2014-11-27 12:09 -0500
Re: Global Warming is not real science tmelmosfire <tmelmosfire@gmail.com> - 2014-11-27 11:10 -0800
Re: Global Warming is not real science Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-11-27 14:11 -0700
Re: Global Warming is not real science Tattoo Vampire <sitting@this.computer> - 2014-11-27 22:41 +0000
Re: Global Warming is not real science Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2014-11-27 23:56 +0100
Re: Global Warming is not real science Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-11-27 16:49 -0700
Re: Global Warming is not real science Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-11-27 16:57 -0700
Re: Global Warming is not real science Steve Carroll <fretwizzen@gmail.com> - 2014-11-27 19:24 -0800
Re: Global Warming is not real science vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2014-11-27 19:11 -0800
Re: Global Warming is not real science Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-11-27 20:38 -0700
Re: Global Warming is not real science Steve Carroll <fretwizzen@gmail.com> - 2014-11-27 19:52 -0800
Re: Global Warming is not real science vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2014-11-27 20:01 -0800
Re: Global Warming is not real science Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-11-27 21:06 -0700
Re: Global Warming is not real science Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2014-11-28 09:56 +0100
Re: Global Warming is not real science Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-11-28 09:34 -0700
Re: Global Warming is not real science Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2014-11-28 17:40 +0100
Re: Global Warming is not real science Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-11-28 09:48 -0700
Re: Global Warming is not real science Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2014-11-28 09:35 -0800
Re: Global Warming is not real science vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2014-11-28 11:12 -0800
Re: Global Warming is not real science Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-11-28 12:25 -0700
Re: Global Warming is not real science Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2014-11-28 14:30 -0800
Re: Global Warming is not real science DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2014-11-28 20:44 -0500
Re: Global Warming is not real science Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-11-28 19:07 -0700
Re: Global Warming is not real science Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2014-11-28 07:52 -0800
Re: Global Warming is not real science WaRmNfUzZy <warmnfuzzi@muzzimail.net> - 2014-11-28 11:31 -0500
Re: Global Warming is not real science chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2014-11-29 13:50 -0600
Re: Global Warming is not real science Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-11-29 12:55 -0700
Re: Global Warming is not real science Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-11-29 12:56 -0700
Re: Global Warming is not real science Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2014-11-29 12:04 -0800
Re: Global Warming is not real science Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> - 2014-11-29 20:13 -0600
Re: Global Warming is not real science flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> - 2014-11-29 21:25 -0500
Re: Global Warming is not real science Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2014-11-26 17:08 -0500
Re: Global Warming is not real science Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-11-26 15:43 -0700
Re: Global Warming is not real science owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2014-11-25 03:14 +0000
Re: Global Warming is not real science Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-11-24 20:24 -0700
Re: Global Warming is not real science owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2014-11-25 03:31 +0000
Re: Global Warming is not real science Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-11-24 20:41 -0700
Re: Global Warming is not real science owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2014-11-25 03:50 +0000
Re: Global Warming is not real science Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-11-24 20:54 -0700
Re: Global Warming is not real science owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2014-11-25 04:06 +0000
Re: Global Warming is not real science Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2014-11-24 20:39 -0800
Re: Global Warming is not real science Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-11-25 09:06 -0700
Re: Global Warming is not real science Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2014-11-25 08:31 -0800
Re: Global Warming is not real science owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2014-11-25 18:12 +0000
Re: Global Warming is not real science Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-11-25 12:05 -0700
Re: Global Warming is not real science owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2014-11-25 19:12 +0000
Re: Global Warming is not real science Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-11-25 12:22 -0700
Re: Global Warming is not real science owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2014-11-25 19:37 +0000
Re: Global Warming is not real science Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-11-25 13:09 -0700
Re: Global Warming is not real science owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2014-11-25 21:51 +0000
Re: Global Warming is not real science Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-11-23 15:14 -0700
Re: Global Warming is not real science owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2014-11-24 03:01 +0000
Re: Global Warming is not real science Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-11-23 20:37 -0700
Re: Global Warming is not real science Sir Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2014-11-24 08:49 -0500
Re: Global Warming is not real science flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> - 2014-11-24 08:51 -0500
Re: Global Warming is not real science Sir Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2014-11-24 08:55 -0500
Re: Global Warming is not real science flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> - 2014-11-24 09:19 -0500
Re: Global Warming is not real science Sir Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2014-11-24 10:58 -0500
Re: Global Warming is not real science Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2014-11-24 08:50 -0800
Re: Global Warming is not real science WaRmNfUzZy <warmnfuzzi@muzzimail.net> - 2014-11-24 12:08 -0500
Re: Global Warming is not real science Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-11-24 12:33 -0700
Re: Global Warming is not real science Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2014-11-24 08:24 -0800
Re: Global Warming is not real science WaRmNfUzZy <warmnfuzzi@muzzimail.net> - 2014-11-24 12:09 -0500
Re: Global Warming is not real science Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-11-24 11:03 -0700
Page 1 of 7 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-11-21 16:05 -0800 |
| Subject | Global Warming is not real science |
| Message-ID | <04dd86f6-9f33-4b9d-84a4-a7b2e07478c9@googlegroups.com> |
http://www.moneynews.com/mkt-news/Scientist-Confesses-Global-Warming-a-$22-B/2014/11/17/id/607827/?snit-falls-for-every-liberal-scam One leading scientist -- Kevin Trenberth -- admitted "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty we can't." A travesty simply because they were worried about losing their government funding. In another email, Dr. Phil Jones -- a leading "global warming" advocate at the United Nations -- admitted that he used "Mike's Nature trick" in a 1999 graph to "hide the decline" in temperature. And another study done by Stephen Goddard at Real Science revealed just how ridiculous "climate scientists" can get with data manipulation. Here is what he had to say: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has been "adjusting" its record by replacing real temperatures with data "fabricated" by computer models." Some people are as stupid as the left wing politicians need them to be.
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-11-23 04:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <h2gue0a3f.gph@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #268383 |
Steve Carroll <fretwizzen@gmail.com> wrote: > http://www.moneynews.com/mkt-news/Scientist-Confesses-Global-Warming-a-$22-B/2014/11/17/id/607827/?snit-falls-for-every-liberal-scam > One leading scientist -- Kevin Trenberth -- admitted "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty we can't." A travesty simply because they were worried about losing their government funding. > In another email, Dr. Phil Jones -- a leading "global warming" advocate at the United Nations -- admitted that he used "Mike's Nature trick" in a 1999 graph to "hide the decline" in temperature. > And another study done by Stephen Goddard at Real Science revealed just how ridiculous "climate scientists" can get with data manipulation. Here is what he had to say: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has been "adjusting" its record by replacing real temperatures with data "fabricated" by computer models." > Some people are as stupid as the left wing politicians need them to be. Global Warming/Climate Change is definitely a scam, but couldn't you find a better reference than some guy hawking his newsletter? <quote> That's a Total Velue of $180 . . . in Return for Your $5 Contribution Today. ... To be clear, the minimum contribution when you join the Cold Truth Initiative is $5. But you are allowed to contribute more . . . </quote> It is interesting though that on this issue you decide *not* to rely on the same appeal-to-authority fallacy that you use to deny the Sandy Hook hoax.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-11-22 21:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D096B0ED.419D0%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #268505 |
On 11/22/14, 9:22 PM, in article h2gue0a3f.gph@rooftop.invalid, "owl" <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > Steve Carroll <fretwizzen@gmail.com> wrote: >> http://www.moneynews.com/mkt-news/Scientist-Confesses-Global-Warming-a-$22-B/ >> 2014/11/17/id/607827/?snit-falls-for-every-liberal-scam > >> One leading scientist -- Kevin Trenberth -- admitted "The fact is that we >> can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty we >> can't." A travesty simply because they were worried about losing their >> government funding. > >> In another email, Dr. Phil Jones -- a leading "global warming" advocate at >> the United Nations -- admitted that he used "Mike's Nature trick" in a 1999 >> graph to "hide the decline" in temperature. > >> And another study done by Stephen Goddard at Real Science revealed just how >> ridiculous "climate scientists" can get with data manipulation. Here is what >> he had to say: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has >> been "adjusting" its record by replacing real temperatures with data >> "fabricated" by computer models." > > >> Some people are as stupid as the left wing politicians need them to be. > > Global Warming/Climate Change is definitely a scam, but couldn't you find > a better reference than some guy hawking his newsletter? I would love to see your best evidence that the mass of science, from many disciplines and sources, and being fought by some of the biggest sources of money on the planet, is a "scam". > <quote> > That's a Total Velue of $180 . . . in Return for Your $5 Contribution Today. > ... > > To be clear, the minimum contribution when you join the Cold Truth > Initiative is $5. But you are allowed to contribute more . . . > </quote> > > It is interesting though that on this issue you decide *not* to rely on > the same appeal-to-authority fallacy that you use to deny the Sandy Hook > hoax. The biggest predictor of belief in one unsupportable conspiracy theory is the belief in another. -- * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA> * Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0> * Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8> * Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8> * Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI> * Mavericks / Pages 5.1: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk> * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-11-23 04:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <gbcve9r.jge@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #268506 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 11/22/14, 9:22 PM, in article h2gue0a3f.gph@rooftop.invalid, "owl" > <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >> Steve Carroll <fretwizzen@gmail.com> wrote: >>> http://www.moneynews.com/mkt-news/Scientist-Confesses-Global-Warming-a-$22-B/ >>> 2014/11/17/id/607827/?snit-falls-for-every-liberal-scam >> >>> One leading scientist -- Kevin Trenberth -- admitted "The fact is that we >>> can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty we >>> can't." A travesty simply because they were worried about losing their >>> government funding. >> >>> In another email, Dr. Phil Jones -- a leading "global warming" advocate at >>> the United Nations -- admitted that he used "Mike's Nature trick" in a 1999 >>> graph to "hide the decline" in temperature. >> >>> And another study done by Stephen Goddard at Real Science revealed just how >>> ridiculous "climate scientists" can get with data manipulation. Here is what >>> he had to say: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has >>> been "adjusting" its record by replacing real temperatures with data >>> "fabricated" by computer models." >> >> >>> Some people are as stupid as the left wing politicians need them to be. >> >> Global Warming/Climate Change is definitely a scam, but couldn't you find >> a better reference than some guy hawking his newsletter? > I would love to see your best evidence that the mass of science, from many > disciplines and sources, and being fought by some of the biggest sources of > money on the planet, is a "scam". Many disciplines? Why? >> <quote> >> That's a Total Velue of $180 . . . in Return for Your $5 Contribution Today. >> ... >> >> To be clear, the minimum contribution when you join the Cold Truth >> Initiative is $5. But you are allowed to contribute more . . . >> </quote> >> >> It is interesting though that on this issue you decide *not* to rely on >> the same appeal-to-authority fallacy that you use to deny the Sandy Hook >> hoax. > The biggest predictor of belief in one unsupportable conspiracy theory is > the belief in another. The biggest predictor of mental illness is a degree in psychology.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-11-22 21:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D096B50D.419D5%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #268508 |
On 11/22/14, 9:39 PM, in article gbcve9r.jge@rooftop.invalid, "owl" <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: ... >>>> Some people are as stupid as the left wing politicians need them to be. >>> >>> Global Warming/Climate Change is definitely a scam, but couldn't you find >>> a better reference than some guy hawking his newsletter? > >> I would love to see your best evidence that the mass of science, from many >> disciplines and sources, and being fought by some of the biggest sources of >> money on the planet, is a "scam". > > Many disciplines? Why? And that is your "best evidence" - to question why scientists from many disciplines have looked into something as important and well supported as global climate change... in other words you have nothing. OK: so you have no evidence at all to back your claim of a scam. I can accept that. >>> <quote> >>> That's a Total Velue of $180 . . . in Return for Your $5 Contribution Today. >>> ... >>> >>> To be clear, the minimum contribution when you join the Cold Truth >>> Initiative is $5. But you are allowed to contribute more . . . >>> </quote> >>> >>> It is interesting though that on this issue you decide *not* to rely on >>> the same appeal-to-authority fallacy that you use to deny the Sandy Hook >>> hoax. > >> The biggest predictor of belief in one unsupportable conspiracy theory is >> the belief in another. > > The biggest predictor of mental illness is a degree in psychology. Another claim for which you have no evidence. You have insults... all you can do. -- * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA> * Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0> * Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8> * Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8> * Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI> * Mavericks / Pages 5.1: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk> * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-11-23 05:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <hgnv9.e@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #268509 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 11/22/14, 9:39 PM, in article gbcve9r.jge@rooftop.invalid, "owl" > <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > ... >>>>> Some people are as stupid as the left wing politicians need them to be. >>>> >>>> Global Warming/Climate Change is definitely a scam, but couldn't you find >>>> a better reference than some guy hawking his newsletter? >> >>> I would love to see your best evidence that the mass of science, from many >>> disciplines and sources, and being fought by some of the biggest sources of >>> money on the planet, is a "scam". >> >> Many disciplines? Why? > And that is your "best evidence" - to question why scientists from many > disciplines have looked into something as important and well supported as > global climate change... in other words you have nothing. > OK: so you have no evidence at all to back your claim of a scam. I can > accept that. Being a "scientist" does not make one an expert, or even a "scientist," in fields outside his area of study. For instance, while I might consider a medical doctor to be something akin to a scientist, I would give exactly zero credibility to his opinion on the question of "climate change." But anyway... http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136 <quote> The "97 percent" figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change. Seventy-nine scientists—of the 3,146 who responded to the survey—does not a consensus make. ... Of the various petitions on global warming circulated for signatures by scientists, the one by the Petition Project, a group of physicists and physical chemists based in La Jolla, Calif., has by far the most signatures—more than 31,000 (more than 9,000 with a Ph.D.). It was most recently published in 2009, and most signers were added or reaffirmed since 2007. The petition states that "there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of . . . carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate." </quote> http://www.petitionproject.org/ >>>> <quote> >>>> That's a Total Velue of $180 . . . in Return for Your $5 Contribution Today. >>>> ... >>>> >>>> To be clear, the minimum contribution when you join the Cold Truth >>>> Initiative is $5. But you are allowed to contribute more . . . >>>> </quote> >>>> >>>> It is interesting though that on this issue you decide *not* to rely on >>>> the same appeal-to-authority fallacy that you use to deny the Sandy Hook >>>> hoax. >> >>> The biggest predictor of belief in one unsupportable conspiracy theory is >>> the belief in another. >> >> The biggest predictor of mental illness is a degree in psychology. > Another claim for which you have no evidence. You have insults... all you > can do. You want evidence? Ask anybody who's ever met a psychology kook.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-11-22 22:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D096C40B.419D9%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #268510 |
On 11/22/14, 10:04 PM, in article hgnv9.e@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
<owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> On 11/22/14, 9:39 PM, in article gbcve9r.jge@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
>
>> ...
>>>>>> Some people are as stupid as the left wing politicians need them to be.
>>>>>
>>>>> Global Warming/Climate Change is definitely a scam, but couldn't you find
>>>>> a better reference than some guy hawking his newsletter?
>>>
>>>> I would love to see your best evidence that the mass of science, from many
>>>> disciplines and sources, and being fought by some of the biggest sources of
>>>> money on the planet, is a "scam".
>>>
>>> Many disciplines? Why?
>
>> And that is your "best evidence" - to question why scientists from many
>> disciplines have looked into something as important and well supported as
>> global climate change... in other words you have nothing.
>
>> OK: so you have no evidence at all to back your claim of a scam. I can
>> accept that.
>
> Being a "scientist" does not make one an expert, or even a "scientist,"
> in fields outside his area of study.
I was talking relevant scientists... which is not to imply all fields are
relevant. But this is just side issue nonsense from you.
> For instance, while I might consider a medical doctor to be something akin to
> a scientist, I would give exactly zero credibility to his opinion on the
> question of "climate change."
Nobody suggested you should.
> But anyway...
> http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136
> <quote>
> The "97 percent" figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the
> views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area
> of expertise and said they published more than half of their recent
> peer-reviewed papers on climate change. Seventy-nine scientists—of
> the 3,146 who responded to the survey—does not a consensus make.
>
> ...
>
>
> Of the various petitions on global warming circulated for signatures
> by scientists, the one by the Petition Project, a group of physicists
> and physical chemists based in La Jolla, Calif., has by far the most
> signatures—more than 31,000 (more than 9,000 with a Ph.D.). It was most
> recently published in 2009, and most signers were added or reaffirmed
> since 2007. The petition states that "there is no convincing scientific
> evidence that human release of . . . carbon dioxide, methane, or other
> greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause
> catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the
> Earth's climate."
> </quote>
>
> http://www.petitionproject.org/
That is a good example of people speaking of "experts" who are not. Sure.
There is simply no doubt that there is near universal consensus among
relevant scientists about man-made climate change.
...
>>> The biggest predictor of mental illness is a degree in psychology.
>
>> Another claim for which you have no evidence. You have insults... all you
>> can do.
>
> You want evidence?
On this off-topic insult of yours designed to change the topic because you
know you have no backing... no, not really. I could not care less about your
side issue circus.
> Ask anybody who's ever met a psychology kook.
In other words even on your side issue circus insults you have nothing of
value to add.
In any case, if you want to actually educate yourself on man-made climate
change here are some good sources:
NASA: <http://climate.nasa.gov>
NOAA: <http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/climate-information>
Skeptical Science:
<http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm>
(not as scholarly but directly addresses many of the absurd myths people
push to deny it)
National Academy of Sciences:
<http://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/?p=1281>
Royal Society and the US National Academy of Sciences:
<http://goo.gl/nII2om>
A bunch of scholarly articles:
<http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=climate+change+evidence>
And if you need more, here is a large list of scientific organizations which
have backed the idea... the idea that *all* are involved in some world-wide
conspiracy where they can fight the massive wealth of the oil industry and
others who would love for it to *not* be true is absurd, to say the least.
1 Academia Chilena de Ciencias, Chile
2 Academia das Ciencias de Lisboa, Portugal
3 Academia de Ciencias de la República Dominicana
4 Academia de Ciencias Físicas, Matemáticas y Naturales de Venezuela
5 Academia de Ciencias Medicas, Fisicas y Naturales de Guatemala
6 Academia Mexicana de Ciencias,Mexico
7 Academia Nacional de Ciencias de Bolivia
8 Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru
9 Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
10 Académie des Sciences, France
11 Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada
12 Academy of Athens
13 Academy of Science of Mozambique
14 Academy of Science of South Africa
15 Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS)
16 Academy of Sciences Malaysia
17 Academy of Sciences of Moldova
18 Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic
19 Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran
20 Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt
21 Academy of the Royal Society of New Zealand
22 Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy
23 Africa Centre for Climate and Earth Systems Science
24 African Academy of Sciences
25 Albanian Academy of Sciences
26 Amazon Environmental Research Institute
27 American Academy of Pediatrics
28 American Anthropological Association
29 American Association for the Advancement of Science
30 American Association of State Climatologists (AASC)
31 American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians
32 American Astronomical Society
33 American Chemical Society
34 American College of Preventive Medicine
35 American Fisheries Society
36 American Geophysical Union
37 American Institute of Biological Sciences
38 American Institute of Physics
39 American Meteorological Society
40 American Physical Society
41 American Public Health Association
42 American Quaternary Association
43 American Society for Microbiology
44 American Society of Agronomy
45 American Society of Civil Engineers
46 American Society of Plant Biologists
47 American Statistical Association
48 Association of Ecosystem Research Centers
49 Australian Academy of Science
50 Australian Bureau of Meteorology
51 Australian Coral Reef Society
52 Australian Institute of Marine Science
53 Australian Institute of Physics
54 Australian Marine Sciences Association
55 Australian Medical Association
56 Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
57 Bangladesh Academy of Sciences
58 Botanical Society of America
59 Brazilian Academy of Sciences
60 British Antarctic Survey
61 Bulgarian Academy of Sciences
62 California Academy of Sciences
63 Cameroon Academy of Sciences
64 Canadian Association of Physicists
65 Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
66 Canadian Geophysical Union
67 Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
68 Canadian Society of Soil Science
69 Canadian Society of Zoologists
70 Caribbean Academy of Sciences views
71 Center for International Forestry Research
72 Chinese Academy of Sciences
73 Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences
74 Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO)
(Australia)
75 Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
76 Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences
77 Crop Science Society of America
78 Cuban Academy of Sciences
79 Delegation of the Finnish Academies of Science and Letters
80 Ecological Society of America
81 Ecological Society of Australia
82 Environmental Protection Agency
83 European Academy of Sciences and Arts
84 European Federation of Geologists
85 European Geosciences Union
86 European Physical Society
87 European Science Foundation
88 Federation of American Scientists
89 French Academy of Sciences
90 Geological Society of America
91 Geological Society of Australia
92 Geological Society of London
93 Georgian Academy of Sciences
94 German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina
95 Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences
96 Indian National Science Academy
97 Indonesian Academy of Sciences
98 Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management
99 Institute of Marine Engineering, Science and Technology
100 Institute of Professional Engineers New Zealand
101 Institution of Mechanical Engineers, UK
102 InterAcademy Council
103 International Alliance of Research Universities
104 International Arctic Science Committee
105 International Association for Great Lakes Research
106 International Council for Science
107 International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological
Sciences
108 International Research Institute for Climate and Society
109 International Union for Quaternary Research
110 International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
111 International Union of Pure and Applied Physics
112 Islamic World Academy of Sciences
113 Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities
114 Kenya National Academy of Sciences
115 Korean Academy of Science and Technology
116 Kosovo Academy of Sciences and Arts
117 l'Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
118 Latin American Academy of Sciences
119 Latvian Academy of Sciences
120 Lithuanian Academy of Sciences
121 Madagascar National Academy of Arts, Letters, and Sciences
122 Mauritius Academy of Science and Technology
123 Montenegrin Academy of Sciences and Arts
124 National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, Argentina
125 National Academy of Sciences of Armenia
126 National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic
127 National Academy of Sciences, Sri Lanka
128 National Academy of Sciences, United States of America
129 National Aeronautics and Space Administration
130 National Association of Geoscience Teachers
131 National Association of State Foresters
132 National Center for Atmospheric Research
133 National Council of Engineers Australia
134 National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research, New Zealand
135 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
136 National Research Council
137 National Science Foundation
138 Natural England
139 Natural Environment Research Council, UK
140 Natural Science Collections Alliance
141 Network of African Science Academies
142 New York Academy of Sciences
143 Nicaraguan Academy of Sciences
144 Nigerian Academy of Sciences
145 Norwegian Academy of Sciences and Letters
146 Oklahoma Climatological Survey
147 Organization of Biological Field Stations
148 Pakistan Academy of Sciences
149 Palestine Academy for Science and Technology
150 Pew Center on Global Climate Change
151 Polish Academy of Sciences
152 Romanian Academy
153 Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium
154 Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences of Spain
155 Royal Astronomical Society, UK
156 Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters
157 Royal Irish Academy
158 Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
159 Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences
160 Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research
161 Royal Scientific Society of Jordan
162 Royal Society of Canada
163 Royal Society of Chemistry, UK
164 Royal Society of the United Kingdom
165 Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
166 Russian Academy of Sciences
167 Science and Technology, Australia
168 Science Council of Japan
169 Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research
170 Scientific Committee on Solar-Terrestrial Physics
171 Scripps Institution of Oceanography
172 Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts
173 Slovak Academy of Sciences
174 Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts
175 Society for Ecological Restoration International
176 Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
177 Society of American Foresters
178 Society of Biology (UK)
179 Society of Systematic Biologists
180 Soil Science Society of America
181 Sudan Academy of Sciences
182 Sudanese National Academy of Science
183 Tanzania Academy of Sciences
184 The Wildlife Society (international)
185 Turkish Academy of Sciences
186 Uganda National Academy of Sciences
187 Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities
188 United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
189 University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
190 Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
191 World Association of Zoos and Aquariums
192 World Federation of Public Health Associations
193 World Forestry Congress
194 World Health Organization
195 World Meteorological Organization
196 Zambia Academy of Sciences
197 Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences
We could look at each and every one of their websites... and look at all the
data they show. And then we can balance it with your denial... for which you
have literally *nothing* to back it. Not a thing. Not a reason or a way this
grand conspiracy could be pushed.
--
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mavericks / Pages 5.1: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-11-23 06:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mvj83a.dfapew@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #268511 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > 11 Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada > 27 American Academy of Pediatrics > 28 American Anthropological Association > 31 American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians > 34 American College of Preventive Medicine > 41 American Public Health Association > 43 American Society for Microbiology > 45 American Society of Civil Engineers > 47 American Statistical Association > 55 Australian Medical Association > 101 Institution of Mechanical Engineers, UK > 194 World Health Organization Really? Those are your climate-change experts?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-11-23 09:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D0975B29.419F3%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #268512 |
On 11/22/14, 11:20 PM, in article mvj83a.dfapew@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
<owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>> 11 Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada
>> 27 American Academy of Pediatrics
>> 28 American Anthropological Association
>> 31 American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians
>> 34 American College of Preventive Medicine
>> 41 American Public Health Association
>> 43 American Society for Microbiology
>> 45 American Society of Civil Engineers
>> 47 American Statistical Association
>> 55 Australian Medical Association
>> 101 Institution of Mechanical Engineers, UK
>> 194 World Health Organization
>
> Really? Those are your climate-change experts?
1) You ignored 185 organizations and worked to hand pick the 12 you thought
were the weakest. This is dishonest of you. I have the full list, again,
below.
2) The challenge to you was to provide your "best evidence" to back your
nonsense of some scam. So far you have *nothing*.
1 Academia Chilena de Ciencias, Chile
2 Academia das Ciencias de Lisboa, Portugal
3 Academia de Ciencias de la República Dominicana
4 Academia de Ciencias Físicas, Matemáticas y Naturales de Venezuela
5 Academia de Ciencias Medicas, Fisicas y Naturales de Guatemala
6 Academia Mexicana de Ciencias,Mexico
7 Academia Nacional de Ciencias de Bolivia
8 Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru
9 Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
10 Académie des Sciences, France
11 Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada
12 Academy of Athens
13 Academy of Science of Mozambique
14 Academy of Science of South Africa
15 Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS)
16 Academy of Sciences Malaysia
17 Academy of Sciences of Moldova
18 Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic
19 Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran
20 Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt
21 Academy of the Royal Society of New Zealand
22 Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy
23 Africa Centre for Climate and Earth Systems Science
24 African Academy of Sciences
25 Albanian Academy of Sciences
26 Amazon Environmental Research Institute
27 American Academy of Pediatrics
28 American Anthropological Association
29 American Association for the Advancement of Science
30 American Association of State Climatologists (AASC)
31 American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians
32 American Astronomical Society
33 American Chemical Society
34 American College of Preventive Medicine
35 American Fisheries Society
36 American Geophysical Union
37 American Institute of Biological Sciences
38 American Institute of Physics
39 American Meteorological Society
40 American Physical Society
41 American Public Health Association
42 American Quaternary Association
43 American Society for Microbiology
44 American Society of Agronomy
45 American Society of Civil Engineers
46 American Society of Plant Biologists
47 American Statistical Association
48 Association of Ecosystem Research Centers
49 Australian Academy of Science
50 Australian Bureau of Meteorology
51 Australian Coral Reef Society
52 Australian Institute of Marine Science
53 Australian Institute of Physics
54 Australian Marine Sciences Association
55 Australian Medical Association
56 Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
57 Bangladesh Academy of Sciences
58 Botanical Society of America
59 Brazilian Academy of Sciences
60 British Antarctic Survey
61 Bulgarian Academy of Sciences
62 California Academy of Sciences
63 Cameroon Academy of Sciences
64 Canadian Association of Physicists
65 Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
66 Canadian Geophysical Union
67 Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
68 Canadian Society of Soil Science
69 Canadian Society of Zoologists
70 Caribbean Academy of Sciences views
71 Center for International Forestry Research
72 Chinese Academy of Sciences
73 Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences
74 Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO)
(Australia)
75 Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
76 Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences
77 Crop Science Society of America
78 Cuban Academy of Sciences
79 Delegation of the Finnish Academies of Science and Letters
80 Ecological Society of America
81 Ecological Society of Australia
82 Environmental Protection Agency
83 European Academy of Sciences and Arts
84 European Federation of Geologists
85 European Geosciences Union
86 European Physical Society
87 European Science Foundation
88 Federation of American Scientists
89 French Academy of Sciences
90 Geological Society of America
91 Geological Society of Australia
92 Geological Society of London
93 Georgian Academy of Sciences
94 German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina
95 Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences
96 Indian National Science Academy
97 Indonesian Academy of Sciences
98 Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management
99 Institute of Marine Engineering, Science and Technology
100 Institute of Professional Engineers New Zealand
101 Institution of Mechanical Engineers, UK
102 InterAcademy Council
103 International Alliance of Research Universities
104 International Arctic Science Committee
105 International Association for Great Lakes Research
106 International Council for Science
107 International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological
Sciences
108 International Research Institute for Climate and Society
109 International Union for Quaternary Research
110 International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
111 International Union of Pure and Applied Physics
112 Islamic World Academy of Sciences
113 Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities
114 Kenya National Academy of Sciences
115 Korean Academy of Science and Technology
116 Kosovo Academy of Sciences and Arts
117 l'Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
118 Latin American Academy of Sciences
119 Latvian Academy of Sciences
120 Lithuanian Academy of Sciences
121 Madagascar National Academy of Arts, Letters, and Sciences
122 Mauritius Academy of Science and Technology
123 Montenegrin Academy of Sciences and Arts
124 National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, Argentina
125 National Academy of Sciences of Armenia
126 National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic
127 National Academy of Sciences, Sri Lanka
128 National Academy of Sciences, United States of America
129 National Aeronautics and Space Administration
130 National Association of Geoscience Teachers
131 National Association of State Foresters
132 National Center for Atmospheric Research
133 National Council of Engineers Australia
134 National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research, New Zealand
135 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
136 National Research Council
137 National Science Foundation
138 Natural England
139 Natural Environment Research Council, UK
140 Natural Science Collections Alliance
141 Network of African Science Academies
142 New York Academy of Sciences
143 Nicaraguan Academy of Sciences
144 Nigerian Academy of Sciences
145 Norwegian Academy of Sciences and Letters
146 Oklahoma Climatological Survey
147 Organization of Biological Field Stations
148 Pakistan Academy of Sciences
149 Palestine Academy for Science and Technology
150 Pew Center on Global Climate Change
151 Polish Academy of Sciences
152 Romanian Academy
153 Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium
154 Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences of Spain
155 Royal Astronomical Society, UK
156 Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters
157 Royal Irish Academy
158 Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
159 Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences
160 Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research
161 Royal Scientific Society of Jordan
162 Royal Society of Canada
163 Royal Society of Chemistry, UK
164 Royal Society of the United Kingdom
165 Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
166 Russian Academy of Sciences
167 Science and Technology, Australia
168 Science Council of Japan
169 Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research
170 Scientific Committee on Solar-Terrestrial Physics
171 Scripps Institution of Oceanography
172 Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts
173 Slovak Academy of Sciences
174 Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts
175 Society for Ecological Restoration International
176 Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
177 Society of American Foresters
178 Society of Biology (UK)
179 Society of Systematic Biologists
180 Soil Science Society of America
181 Sudan Academy of Sciences
182 Sudanese National Academy of Science
183 Tanzania Academy of Sciences
184 The Wildlife Society (international)
185 Turkish Academy of Sciences
186 Uganda National Academy of Sciences
187 Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities
188 United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
189 University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
190 Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
191 World Association of Zoos and Aquariums
192 World Federation of Public Health Associations
193 World Forestry Congress
194 World Health Organization
195 World Meteorological Organization
196 Zambia Academy of Sciences
197 Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences
--
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mavericks / Pages 5.1: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-11-23 17:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <bvnduw0.vaep3@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #268528 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 11/22/14, 11:20 PM, in article mvj83a.dfapew@rooftop.invalid, "owl" > <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> >>> 11 Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada >>> 27 American Academy of Pediatrics >>> 28 American Anthropological Association >>> 31 American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians >>> 34 American College of Preventive Medicine >>> 41 American Public Health Association >>> 43 American Society for Microbiology >>> 45 American Society of Civil Engineers >>> 47 American Statistical Association >>> 55 Australian Medical Association >>> 101 Institution of Mechanical Engineers, UK >>> 194 World Health Organization >> >> Really? Those are your climate-change experts? > 1) You ignored 185 organizations and worked to hand pick the 12 you thought > were the weakest. This is dishonest of you. I have the full list, again, > below. I'd say about 80% of the ones I didn't even bother to point out as irrelevant are generic "Academy of Sciences" types with no specific focus on climatology or solar science. Also, where are the polls of the members of these organizations? A decree by the bureaucrats won't cut it. Face it, Snit. You don't care about real science. All that is important to you is sticking to a political narrative.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-11-23 10:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D0976D7C.419F9%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #268530 |
On 11/23/14, 10:27 AM, in article bvnduw0.vaep3@rooftop.invalid, "owl" <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> On 11/22/14, 11:20 PM, in article mvj83a.dfapew@rooftop.invalid, "owl" >> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > >>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> >>>> 11 Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada >>>> 27 American Academy of Pediatrics >>>> 28 American Anthropological Association >>>> 31 American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians >>>> 34 American College of Preventive Medicine >>>> 41 American Public Health Association >>>> 43 American Society for Microbiology >>>> 45 American Society of Civil Engineers >>>> 47 American Statistical Association >>>> 55 Australian Medical Association >>>> 101 Institution of Mechanical Engineers, UK >>>> 194 World Health Organization >>> >>> Really? Those are your climate-change experts? > >> 1) You ignored 185 organizations and worked to hand pick the 12 you thought >> were the weakest. This is dishonest of you. I have the full list, again, >> below. > > I'd say about 80% of the ones I didn't even bother to point out as irrelevant > are generic "Academy of Sciences" types with no specific focus on climatology > or solar science. Also, where are the polls of the members of these > organizations? A decree by the bureaucrats won't cut it. Face it, Snit. > You don't care about real science. All that is important to you is sticking > to a political narrative. > So you think some of the organizations on the list I found are not relevant. OK. I can accept that. That still leaves you with *no* evidence of your "scam". None. Not a word. You have nothing - but you did ignore the sites I pointed you to which cover some of the key evidence. Face it: you have some complaints about a tiny fraction of the evidence I have shown you that it is almost surely happening, and you have *nothing* to counter it with. Nothing. Remember: the challenge to you was to show your best evidence. You failed. Absolutely failed. Conclusion: no reason to think it is a scam nor to doubt the massive evidence showing it is almost surely already happening. -- * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA> * Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0> * Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8> * Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8> * Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI> * Mavericks / Pages 5.1: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk> * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sir Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-11-23 14:09 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <m4tbd1$rlc$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #268530 |
On 2014-11-23 12:27 PM, owl wrote: > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> On 11/22/14, 11:20 PM, in article mvj83a.dfapew@rooftop.invalid, "owl" >> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > >>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> >>>> 11 Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada >>>> 27 American Academy of Pediatrics >>>> 28 American Anthropological Association >>>> 31 American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians >>>> 34 American College of Preventive Medicine >>>> 41 American Public Health Association >>>> 43 American Society for Microbiology >>>> 45 American Society of Civil Engineers >>>> 47 American Statistical Association >>>> 55 Australian Medical Association >>>> 101 Institution of Mechanical Engineers, UK >>>> 194 World Health Organization >>> >>> Really? Those are your climate-change experts? > >> 1) You ignored 185 organizations and worked to hand pick the 12 you thought >> were the weakest. This is dishonest of you. I have the full list, again, >> below. > > I'd say about 80% of the ones I didn't even bother to point out as irrelevant > are generic "Academy of Sciences" types with no specific focus on climatology > or solar science. Also, where are the polls of the members of these > organizations? A decree by the bureaucrats won't cut it. Face it, Snit. > You don't care about real science. All that is important to you is sticking > to a political narrative. I'll just chime in and say that I have no interest in fighting global warming but I DO have an interest in fighting oil companies. My interest in getting an electrical car which cuts all emissions is to ensure that they no longer get even a dollar of my money. -- Sir Slimer OpenMedia Supporter www.silverlips.ca
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lloyd Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-11-23 13:27 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <cdeqp9F1dffU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #268546 |
On 11/23/2014 1:09 PM, Sir Slimer wrote: > On 2014-11-23 12:27 PM, owl wrote: >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> On 11/22/14, 11:20 PM, in article mvj83a.dfapew@rooftop.invalid, "owl" >>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >> >>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> 11 Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada >>>>> 27 American Academy of Pediatrics >>>>> 28 American Anthropological Association >>>>> 31 American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians >>>>> 34 American College of Preventive Medicine >>>>> 41 American Public Health Association >>>>> 43 American Society for Microbiology >>>>> 45 American Society of Civil Engineers >>>>> 47 American Statistical Association >>>>> 55 Australian Medical Association >>>>> 101 Institution of Mechanical Engineers, UK >>>>> 194 World Health Organization >>>> >>>> Really? Those are your climate-change experts? >> >>> 1) You ignored 185 organizations and worked to hand pick the 12 you >>> thought >>> were the weakest. This is dishonest of you. I have the full list, again, >>> below. >> >> I'd say about 80% of the ones I didn't even bother to point out as >> irrelevant >> are generic "Academy of Sciences" types with no specific focus on >> climatology >> or solar science. Also, where are the polls of the members of these >> organizations? A decree by the bureaucrats won't cut it. Face it, Snit. >> You don't care about real science. All that is important to you is >> sticking >> to a political narrative. > > I'll just chime in and say that I have no interest in fighting global > warming but I DO have an interest in fighting oil companies. My interest > in getting an electrical car which cuts all emissions is to ensure that > they no longer get even a dollar of my money. > Of course they are still getting plenty of your money. Oil or natural gas fired electrical power plants are nothing new you know. So while they may not be getting your money directly, indirectly they aren't hurting at all... :) -- Lloyd
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-11-23 13:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D0978B3D.41A22%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #268559 |
On 11/23/14, 12:27 PM, in article cdeqp9F1dffU1@mid.individual.net, "Lloyd Parsons" <lloydp21@live.com> wrote: >>> I'd say about 80% of the ones I didn't even bother to point out as >>> irrelevant >>> are generic "Academy of Sciences" types with no specific focus on >>> climatology >>> or solar science. Also, where are the polls of the members of these >>> organizations? A decree by the bureaucrats won't cut it. Face it, Snit. >>> You don't care about real science. All that is important to you is >>> sticking >>> to a political narrative. >> >> I'll just chime in and say that I have no interest in fighting global >> warming but I DO have an interest in fighting oil companies. My interest >> in getting an electrical car which cuts all emissions is to ensure that >> they no longer get even a dollar of my money. >> > Of course they are still getting plenty of your money. Oil or natural > gas fired electrical power plants are nothing new you know. So while > they may not be getting your money directly, indirectly they aren't > hurting at all... :) By at least some measures they are some of the only companies in the same league as Apple. -- * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA> * Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0> * Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8> * Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8> * Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI> * Mavericks / Pages 5.1: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk> * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-11-23 13:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D0978B06.41A21%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #268546 |
On 11/23/14, 12:09 PM, in article m4tbd1$rlc$1@dont-email.me, "Sir Slimer" <slvrslmr@lv.c> wrote: >>>> Really? Those are your climate-change experts? >> >>> 1) You ignored 185 organizations and worked to hand pick the 12 you thought >>> were the weakest. This is dishonest of you. I have the full list, again, >>> below. >> >> I'd say about 80% of the ones I didn't even bother to point out as irrelevant >> are generic "Academy of Sciences" types with no specific focus on climatology >> or solar science. Also, where are the polls of the members of these >> organizations? A decree by the bureaucrats won't cut it. Face it, Snit. >> You don't care about real science. All that is important to you is sticking >> to a political narrative. > > I'll just chime in and say that I have no interest in fighting global > warming but I DO have an interest in fighting oil companies. My interest > in getting an electrical car which cuts all emissions is to ensure that > they no longer get even a dollar of my money. Even if you do not believe in man-made global climate change it makes no sense to not support technologies which reduce our level of pollution. The US could, as a nation, push technology and science to the point where we become the leaders in green technology and our products become an excellent export item. We could help to make our cities have the cleanest air and water in the world and be the envy of other nations. We have the resources. We have the ability. We lack the will. Europe is leaving the US in the dust... and they will be able to push this technology advantage in many ways. The next generation of Americans will see us no longer being the tech powerhouse we have been. I am happy to see others focus on tech and science... it is just a shame the US is not continuing. -- * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA> * Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0> * Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8> * Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8> * Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI> * Mavericks / Pages 5.1: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk> * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "alt.support.heartburn" <trigonometry1972@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-11-23 19:21 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <bd7a2daf-f209-435e-be4e-cf756b3bc2bf@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #268546 |
On Sunday, November 23, 2014 11:09:37 AM UTC-8, Sir Slimer wrote: > On 2014-11-23 12:27 PM, owl wrote: > > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >> On 11/22/14, 11:20 PM, in article mvj83a.dfapew@rooftop.invalid, "owl" > >> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > > > >>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>> 11 Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada > >>>> 27 American Academy of Pediatrics > >>>> 28 American Anthropological Association > >>>> 31 American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians > >>>> 34 American College of Preventive Medicine > >>>> 41 American Public Health Association > >>>> 43 American Society for Microbiology > >>>> 45 American Society of Civil Engineers > >>>> 47 American Statistical Association > >>>> 55 Australian Medical Association > >>>> 101 Institution of Mechanical Engineers, UK > >>>> 194 World Health Organization > >>> > >>> Really? Those are your climate-change experts? > > > >> 1) You ignored 185 organizations and worked to hand pick the 12 you thought > >> were the weakest. This is dishonest of you. I have the full list, again, > >> below. > > > > I'd say about 80% of the ones I didn't even bother to point out as irrelevant > > are generic "Academy of Sciences" types with no specific focus on climatology > > or solar science. Also, where are the polls of the members of these > > organizations? A decree by the bureaucrats won't cut it. Face it, Snit. > > You don't care about real science. All that is important to you is sticking > > to a political narrative. > > I'll just chime in and say that I have no interest in fighting global > warming but I DO have an interest in fighting oil companies. My interest > in getting an electrical car which cuts all emissions is to ensure that > they no longer get even a dollar of my money. > > -- > Sir Slimer > OpenMedia Supporter > www.silverlips.ca So instead your money will go to electric or hydrogen source? Likely including natural gas, hydro, coal, oil and nuclear with a bit of solar and wind. Methanol looked pretty good to me in the past at least for ease of distribution then to a fuel cell. Carbon and methane in the atmosphere aren't good but neither is "corium", Cesium-137 or Sr-90 and other other radioisotopes from Tepco's three China Syndrome reactor wrecks. Earthquakes happen and people are stupid so reactors will fail to full melt downs given time. Green glowing slime to power Sir Slimer's car.............Trig
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sir Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-11-24 08:48 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <m4vcud$a0c$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #268608 |
On 23/11/2014 10:21 PM, alt.support.heartburn wrote: > On Sunday, November 23, 2014 11:09:37 AM UTC-8, Sir Slimer wrote: >> On 2014-11-23 12:27 PM, owl wrote: >>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>> On 11/22/14, 11:20 PM, in article mvj83a.dfapew@rooftop.invalid, "owl" >>>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> 11 Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada >>>>>> 27 American Academy of Pediatrics >>>>>> 28 American Anthropological Association >>>>>> 31 American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians >>>>>> 34 American College of Preventive Medicine >>>>>> 41 American Public Health Association >>>>>> 43 American Society for Microbiology >>>>>> 45 American Society of Civil Engineers >>>>>> 47 American Statistical Association >>>>>> 55 Australian Medical Association >>>>>> 101 Institution of Mechanical Engineers, UK >>>>>> 194 World Health Organization >>>>> >>>>> Really? Those are your climate-change experts? >>> >>>> 1) You ignored 185 organizations and worked to hand pick the 12 you thought >>>> were the weakest. This is dishonest of you. I have the full list, again, >>>> below. >>> >>> I'd say about 80% of the ones I didn't even bother to point out as irrelevant >>> are generic "Academy of Sciences" types with no specific focus on climatology >>> or solar science. Also, where are the polls of the members of these >>> organizations? A decree by the bureaucrats won't cut it. Face it, Snit. >>> You don't care about real science. All that is important to you is sticking >>> to a political narrative. >> >> I'll just chime in and say that I have no interest in fighting global >> warming but I DO have an interest in fighting oil companies. My interest >> in getting an electrical car which cuts all emissions is to ensure that >> they no longer get even a dollar of my money. >> >> -- >> Sir Slimer >> OpenMedia Supporter >> www.silverlips.ca > > So instead your money will go to electric or hydrogen source? Sure. In Quebec, we have Hydro-Québec which belongs to the state/population so its success is a success for the whole population. > Likely > including natural gas, hydro, coal, oil and nuclear with a bit of solar and > wind. Methanol looked pretty good to me in the past at least for ease of > distribution then to a fuel cell. If natural gas were an option (I don't believe that they make those cars anymore and even if they did, there are no gas stations which provide it), I'd take that. Canada has a great supply of it and yet again, my use of it benefits my country. -- Sir Slimer OpenMedia Supporter www.silverlips.ca
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | DFS <nospam@dfs.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-11-23 14:14 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <m4tbm7$req$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #268508 |
On 11/22/2014 11:39 PM, owl wrote: > The biggest predictor of mental illness is a degree in psychology. The biggest proof of mental illness is a denial of reality, as demonstrated repeatedly by you "hoaxer" idiots. I do wonder how you morons pick and choose which events are "hoaxes". I think your one and only criteria is whatever gets you the most attention (which is the same way a 3rd grader chooses whether to pee or poop his pants and tell everyone).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-11-23 20:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ghe80f.ae032@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #268549 |
DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote: > On 11/22/2014 11:39 PM, owl wrote: >> The biggest predictor of mental illness is a degree in psychology. > The biggest proof of mental illness is a denial of reality, as > demonstrated repeatedly by you "hoaxer" idiots. > I do wonder how you morons pick and choose which events are "hoaxes". I > think your one and only criteria is whatever gets you the most attention > (which is the same way a 3rd grader chooses whether to pee or poop his > pants and tell everyone). If Gene Rosen's involved, then it's a hoax. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igfczc6m5M4 I do wonder why the fact that no one died at Sandy Hook makes you hoax-denier morons so angry.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | DFS <nospam@dfs.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-11-24 18:21 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <m50egk$3t4$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #268574 |
On 11/23/2014 3:32 PM, owl wrote: > DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote: >> On 11/22/2014 11:39 PM, owl wrote: > > >>> The biggest predictor of mental illness is a degree in psychology. > > >> The biggest proof of mental illness is a denial of reality, as >> demonstrated repeatedly by you "hoaxer" idiots. > >> I do wonder how you morons pick and choose which events are "hoaxes". I >> think your one and only criteria is whatever gets you the most attention >> (which is the same way a 3rd grader chooses whether to pee or poop his >> pants and tell everyone). Naturally, you ran away from the question: How do you conspiracy losers pick and choose which events are "hoaxes"? Bring it. I want to hear the idiocy behind the idiocy. > If Gene Rosen's involved, then it's a hoax. > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igfczc6m5M4 So says the lamebrain "truthers" who haven't experienced shitty people like themselves denying the occurrence of a devastating tragedy in their own lives. > I do wonder why the fact that no one died at Sandy Hook makes you hoax-denier > morons so angry. Hoaxer moron denials make me a little angry, but in the end you dumbasses have to live with yourselves and your stupid paranoia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 7 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy
csiph-web