Path: csiph.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: whodat Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity Subject: Re: climate change Date: Sun, 1 Jan 2023 06:16:51 -0600 Lines: 141 Message-ID: References: <97ae0956-5530-4361-b7cc-886be897b618n@googlegroups.com> <63A4C54D.668E@ix.netcom.com> <53e7c099-64d4-4ff7-8484-064ef722911fn@googlegroups.com> <63A4D981.652B@ix.netcom.com> <95862859-9740-4f08-92d7-827a82d93daan@googlegroups.com> <63A51A80.1A2@ix.netcom.com> <9cb4cb16-3c7c-415f-9819-9b77084cc1c8n@googlegroups.com> <63A5FD2A.544A@ix.netcom.com> <63A63A07.4067@ix.netcom.com> <93d47242-d8ea-4b1e-aea7-fd12c0fec47cn@googlegroups.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: individual.net viKluF8Ctb1WhDm+QE/njQdUnya9fugALbZV/Pv2kZyMVNKw8/ Cancel-Lock: sha1:WO5lmWIVI2gRiCOBtjtAk+oZH9M= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.6.1 Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Xref: csiph.com sci.physics.relativity:598765 Having read your entire offering I find there is only one appropriate response. BURP! Goodbye. On 1/1/2023 2:28 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 31.12.2022 um 22:42 schrieb whodat: > >> >> You think???? Am I allowed to draw any conclusions at all, or is that >> reserved for you alone? I conclude you exhibit raging confusion above. >> Several ways, in fact. I am not required to quantify further. > > > > You are responsible for your own activities alone and have to bare the > consequences, if something is illegal. But that is simply not my concern. > >> >>  > In that case it would be polite, if you would say, why you think, >> that my statement is wrong and in which aspect. >> >> >> >> If politeness actually worked I would be using it. Even clear insult >> in the reductio ad absurdum genre barely puts a dent into your >> misapprehensions. >> > Politeness is not based on politness on the other side. You are either > polite or you are not. > > I personally could also reply with insults, in case I wanted to do that, > but actually I don't. > > But the UseNet is a tough place and I received thousands of really nasty > replies, which were full of hate and insults. > > So, what shall one do? > > Actually it is a good idea to stay calm, polite and on the topic. > >> >>  >>>> Actually we know (as the human race) what sunshine looks like in >> space. >>  >> >>  >> This I wrote and stand by. Why did you edit out what I was answering? >>  > >>  > I can quote whatever I want to quote. >> >>  > Your statement is still present in the article, which you have >> written. >> >>  > But this article is mine and here I can decide, what I like to write >> about. >> >> >> >> And as such I have every right to criticize it as I wish. I did that and >> here you are whining about it. > > Do what you think you should. Your activities are yours and you are > responsible for them, not me. > > But for my activities I'm responsible and you are not. >> >> >>  >>> Our usual experience is restricted to the lower atmosphere. >> >>  >> Nitpicking. The CDC reports that only 144 out of 100000 die of >> cancer. >>  >> Does that make cancer unworthy of consideration? Do you have to >>  >> experience cancer to understand it? Or is it sufficient that those >> who >>  >> have experienced cancer have reported what that's like? >>  > >>  > >>  > This statement has no obvious connection to the fact, that we humans >> usually do not see sunshine in outer space. >> >> >> Why didn't you say that instead of making the incorrect case that you >> did? This discussion would have taken a different tone had you been >> clear from the beginning. I hasten to add that you are still wrong. > > > I personally think, that sunshine in space is a different type of wave, > which are called 'scalar waves', and that these waves are only converted > into sunshine inside the atmosphere. > > We humans usually do not leave the atmosphere, hence cannot check, > whether or not my claim is correct (or not). > > The picture is therefore: the sun emmits something, that causes sunshine > here on Earth, but isn't sunshine in space. Inbetween Sun and Earth > energy has other forms than what we see here on planet Earth. >> >> >>  >> Your real problem appears to be that we have lots of information >> about >>  >> how the earth is heated but we don't understand it well enough as >> yet. >> >> >>  > Tell this to the IPCC. >> >> >> If this were a legal proceeding my correct response at this point would >> be, "argues facts not in evidence." Are we to guess precisely what that >> comment means because it sure isn't clear as stated. And you do this >> sort of thing all the time. I suspect that you don't know any better, >> and that makes you someone best not to enter into a discussion with. >> > I personally think, that IPCC is the 'head of the snake' and produces > questionable theories, which were created to support something called > 'New World Order' by extracting money from the general public for > 'protection' (against climate change). > > These theories include something commonly called 'andropogenic climate > change by CO2'. > > I regard this theory as propaganda of a self-proclaimed 'elite', which > mocks the general public, while attempting to extract money for 'CO2 > trade'. > > I meant, that CO2 is the wrong stuff and 'CO2 protection' is like > 'barking up the wrong tree'. > > (The real stuff to worry about is water). > > TH > > >