Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.checkmate > #245723 > unrolled thread
| Started by | kensi <kkensinqton01@gmail.nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2019-01-05 17:22 -0500 |
| Last post | 2019-01-08 10:00 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 152 — 21 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.checkmate
Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC kensi <kkensinqton01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2019-01-05 17:22 -0500
Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Lamey <teandson@gmail.com> - 2019-01-05 14:51 -0800
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2019-01-05 22:49 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-05 16:12 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2019-01-05 23:25 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-05 18:49 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2019-01-05 21:15 -0500
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-05 19:29 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2019-01-06 10:50 -0500
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 08:57 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 18:25 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 18:25 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2019-01-06 10:35 -0800
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC "Michael Ejercito" <mejercit@hotmail.com> - 2019-01-06 10:52 -0800
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 18:58 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 12:23 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2019-01-06 12:00 -0800
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2019-01-06 10:04 -0800
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2019-01-05 23:22 -0600
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2019-01-06 02:09 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-05 19:26 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2019-01-06 05:49 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 06:34 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2019-01-06 17:57 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2019-01-06 11:16 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 18:25 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 11:30 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 18:34 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2019-01-06 20:27 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 13:39 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2019-01-06 13:57 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 14:01 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 14:19 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2019-01-06 14:36 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 14:40 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2019-01-06 14:43 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 14:55 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2019-01-06 15:53 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 15:55 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2019-01-06 16:03 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 16:23 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC pandora <pandora@peak.org> - 2019-01-06 18:31 -0600
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 17:45 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Checkmate <oshay.shad@yahoo.corn> - 2019-01-06 18:28 -0800
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2019-01-06 21:36 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 22:00 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2019-01-06 23:03 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 16:17 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2019-01-06 23:43 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 16:54 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2019-01-07 00:13 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 17:20 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2019-01-06 17:32 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2019-01-07 00:47 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 18:07 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2019-01-07 02:32 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-07 02:50 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2019-01-07 04:41 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-07 06:07 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2019-01-07 18:46 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-07 19:49 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2019-01-07 20:38 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-07 13:52 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-07 14:02 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-07 14:08 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2019-01-07 16:17 -0500
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-07 14:22 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-07 16:13 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2019-01-07 17:41 -0500
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-07 15:45 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2019-01-07 17:58 -0500
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-07 16:03 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-07 16:09 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-07 16:17 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2019-01-07 18:30 -0500
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-07 16:37 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-07 16:18 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Janithor <Janithor@comcast.net> - 2019-01-07 15:22 -0800
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2019-01-07 22:12 -0500
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-07 16:14 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2019-01-07 16:28 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Checkmate <oshay.shad@yahoo.corn> - 2019-01-07 19:10 -0800
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-07 22:05 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2019-01-07 16:25 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2019-01-07 20:44 -0600
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-07 19:54 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2019-01-08 09:49 -0500
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-08 08:15 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2019-01-07 22:29 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-07 15:37 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-07 16:18 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-07 16:19 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2019-01-07 20:32 -0600
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2019-01-08 09:50 -0500
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 16:55 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 17:02 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 17:21 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2019-01-07 00:26 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 17:37 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2019-01-07 01:04 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 18:23 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 18:35 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2019-01-07 02:35 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-07 02:50 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2019-01-07 04:43 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-07 06:07 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2019-01-07 18:47 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-07 19:49 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2019-01-07 20:40 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-07 13:53 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2019-01-07 19:03 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-07 14:01 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2019-01-07 22:31 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-07 15:51 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-07 16:06 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-07 16:09 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-07 16:11 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 15:19 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2019-01-06 15:49 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2019-01-08 15:07 -0500
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 14:03 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2019-01-06 14:36 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 14:41 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2019-01-06 14:42 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 14:53 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2019-01-06 15:52 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 15:57 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2019-01-06 16:02 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 16:03 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2019-01-06 16:06 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 16:24 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2019-01-06 17:28 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 17:31 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2019-01-06 17:37 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2019-01-07 00:48 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2019-01-06 21:34 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2019-01-09 06:48 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2019-01-09 18:04 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2019-01-09 06:38 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2019-01-09 09:48 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2019-01-06 20:52 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 14:08 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2019-01-06 13:11 -0800
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 14:12 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2019-01-07 04:47 -0800
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2019-01-06 21:32 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2019-01-06 13:03 -0800
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2019-01-05 20:49 -0500
Kensi's religion isn't that large. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2019-01-05 22:54 -0800
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Avenging Angel <Not.fucking.likely@NoWay.com> - 2019-01-06 13:07 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2019-01-07 22:04 -0500
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC kensi <kkensinqton01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2019-01-08 10:00 -0500
Page 7 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 Next page →
| From | % <persent@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-06 14:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bsqfvh.9mj.19.3@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #245951 |
On 2019-01-06 1:57 p.m., Skeeter wrote: > In article <g9f7c9Fqh34U2@mid.individual.net>, > usenet@gallopinginsanity.com says... >> >> On 1/6/19 1:27 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> >>> <snip> >>> >>>> You are very confused and do not even know Republicans tend to deny climate >>>> science, and you confuse science and religion. Fair enough. >>> >>> Puerile babble. >> >> No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a >> formal opinion dissenting from any of these conclusions: >> >> ? "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, >> many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia". >> >> ? "Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous >> oxide have increased to levels unprecedented in at least the last >> 800,000 years". >> >> ? Human influence on the climate system is clear. It is extremely likely >> (95-100% probability) that human influence was the dominant cause of >> global warming between 1951-2010. >> >> ? "Increasing magnitudes of [global] warming increase the likelihood of >> severe, pervasive, and irreversible impacts" >> >> ? "A first step towards adaptation to future climate change is reducing >> vulnerability and exposure to present climate variability" >> >> ? "The overall risks of climate change impacts can be reduced by >> limiting the rate and magnitude of climate change" >> >> ? Without new policies to mitigate climate change, projections suggest >> an increase in global mean temperature in 2100 of 3.7 to 4.8 °C, >> relative to pre-industrial levels (median values; the range is 2.5 to >> 7.8 °C including climate uncertainty). >> >> ? The current trajectory of global greenhouse gas emissions is not >> consistent with limiting global warming to below 1.5 or 2 °C, relative >> to pre-industrial levels. Pledges made as part of the Cancún Agreements >> are broadly consistent with cost-effective scenarios that give a >> "likely" chance (66-100% probability) of limiting global warming (in >> 2100) to below 3 °C, relative to pre-industrial levels. >> >> You confused accepting these very well supported conclusions with a >> religion. It was an absurd thing for you to claim... and one you cannot >> defend. >> >> Now we are at the insult phase of your trolling. Go! > > Less people, less problem. control the population. > what's a jimp
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-06 14:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.369c22e0c92420a5891@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #245956 |
In article <bsqfvh.9mj.19.3@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... > >On 2019-01-06 1:57 p.m., Skeeter wrote: >> In article <g9f7c9Fqh34U2@mid.individual.net>, >> usenet@gallopinginsanity.com says... >>> >>> On 1/6/19 1:27 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> <snip> >>>> >>>>> You are very confused and do not even know Republicans tend to deny climate >>>>> science, and you confuse science and religion. Fair enough. >>>> >>>> Puerile babble. >>> >>> No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a >>> formal opinion dissenting from any of these conclusions: >>> >>> ? "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, >>> many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia". >>> >>> ? "Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous >>> oxide have increased to levels unprecedented in at least the last >>> 800,000 years". >>> >>> ? Human influence on the climate system is clear. It is extremely likely >>> (95-100% probability) that human influence was the dominant cause of >>> global warming between 1951-2010. >>> >>> ? "Increasing magnitudes of [global] warming increase the likelihood of >>> severe, pervasive, and irreversible impacts" >>> >>> ? "A first step towards adaptation to future climate change is reducing >>> vulnerability and exposure to present climate variability" >>> >>> ? "The overall risks of climate change impacts can be reduced by >>> limiting the rate and magnitude of climate change" >>> >>> ? Without new policies to mitigate climate change, projections suggest >>> an increase in global mean temperature in 2100 of 3.7 to 4.8 °C, >>> relative to pre-industrial levels (median values; the range is 2.5 to >>> 7.8 °C including climate uncertainty). >>> >>> ? The current trajectory of global greenhouse gas emissions is not >>> consistent with limiting global warming to below 1.5 or 2 °C, relative >>> to pre-industrial levels. Pledges made as part of the Cancún Agreements >>> are broadly consistent with cost-effective scenarios that give a >>> "likely" chance (66-100% probability) of limiting global warming (in >>> 2100) to below 3 °C, relative to pre-industrial levels. >>> >>> You confused accepting these very well supported conclusions with a >>> religion. It was an absurd thing for you to claim... and one you cannot >>> defend. >>> >>> Now we are at the insult phase of your trolling. Go! >> >> Less people, less problem. control the population. >> >what's a jimp Jump In My Pocket?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | % <persent@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-06 14:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bsqi6g.5tt.17.3@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #245965 |
On 2019-01-06 2:36 p.m., Skeeter wrote: > In article <bsqfvh.9mj.19.3@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... >> >> On 2019-01-06 1:57 p.m., Skeeter wrote: >>> In article <g9f7c9Fqh34U2@mid.individual.net>, >>> usenet@gallopinginsanity.com says... >>>> >>>> On 1/6/19 1:27 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> <snip> >>>>> >>>>>> You are very confused and do not even know Republicans tend to deny climate >>>>>> science, and you confuse science and religion. Fair enough. >>>>> >>>>> Puerile babble. >>>> >>>> No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a >>>> formal opinion dissenting from any of these conclusions: >>>> >>>> ? "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, >>>> many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia". >>>> >>>> ? "Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous >>>> oxide have increased to levels unprecedented in at least the last >>>> 800,000 years". >>>> >>>> ? Human influence on the climate system is clear. It is extremely likely >>>> (95-100% probability) that human influence was the dominant cause of >>>> global warming between 1951-2010. >>>> >>>> ? "Increasing magnitudes of [global] warming increase the likelihood of >>>> severe, pervasive, and irreversible impacts" >>>> >>>> ? "A first step towards adaptation to future climate change is reducing >>>> vulnerability and exposure to present climate variability" >>>> >>>> ? "The overall risks of climate change impacts can be reduced by >>>> limiting the rate and magnitude of climate change" >>>> >>>> ? Without new policies to mitigate climate change, projections suggest >>>> an increase in global mean temperature in 2100 of 3.7 to 4.8 °C, >>>> relative to pre-industrial levels (median values; the range is 2.5 to >>>> 7.8 °C including climate uncertainty). >>>> >>>> ? The current trajectory of global greenhouse gas emissions is not >>>> consistent with limiting global warming to below 1.5 or 2 °C, relative >>>> to pre-industrial levels. Pledges made as part of the Cancún Agreements >>>> are broadly consistent with cost-effective scenarios that give a >>>> "likely" chance (66-100% probability) of limiting global warming (in >>>> 2100) to below 3 °C, relative to pre-industrial levels. >>>> >>>> You confused accepting these very well supported conclusions with a >>>> religion. It was an absurd thing for you to claim... and one you cannot >>>> defend. >>>> >>>> Now we are at the insult phase of your trolling. Go! >>> >>> Less people, less problem. control the population. >>> >> what's a jimp > > Jump In My Pocket? > stop being a jimp
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-06 14:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.369c2434d4dfb7b9894@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #245968 |
In article <bsqi6g.5tt.17.3@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... > >On 2019-01-06 2:36 p.m., Skeeter wrote: >> In article <bsqfvh.9mj.19.3@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... >>> >>> On 2019-01-06 1:57 p.m., Skeeter wrote: >>>> In article <g9f7c9Fqh34U2@mid.individual.net>, >>>> usenet@gallopinginsanity.com says... >>>>> >>>>> On 1/6/19 1:27 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> <snip> >>>>>> >>>>>>> You are very confused and do not even know Republicans tend to deny climate >>>>>>> science, and you confuse science and religion. Fair enough. >>>>>> >>>>>> Puerile babble. >>>>> >>>>> No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a >>>>> formal opinion dissenting from any of these conclusions: >>>>> >>>>> ? "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, >>>>> many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia". >>>>> >>>>> ? "Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous >>>>> oxide have increased to levels unprecedented in at least the last >>>>> 800,000 years". >>>>> >>>>> ? Human influence on the climate system is clear. It is extremely likely >>>>> (95-100% probability) that human influence was the dominant cause of >>>>> global warming between 1951-2010. >>>>> >>>>> ? "Increasing magnitudes of [global] warming increase the likelihood of >>>>> severe, pervasive, and irreversible impacts" >>>>> >>>>> ? "A first step towards adaptation to future climate change is reducing >>>>> vulnerability and exposure to present climate variability" >>>>> >>>>> ? "The overall risks of climate change impacts can be reduced by >>>>> limiting the rate and magnitude of climate change" >>>>> >>>>> ? Without new policies to mitigate climate change, projections suggest >>>>> an increase in global mean temperature in 2100 of 3.7 to 4.8 °C, >>>>> relative to pre-industrial levels (median values; the range is 2.5 to >>>>> 7.8 °C including climate uncertainty). >>>>> >>>>> ? The current trajectory of global greenhouse gas emissions is not >>>>> consistent with limiting global warming to below 1.5 or 2 °C, relative >>>>> to pre-industrial levels. Pledges made as part of the Cancún Agreements >>>>> are broadly consistent with cost-effective scenarios that give a >>>>> "likely" chance (66-100% probability) of limiting global warming (in >>>>> 2100) to below 3 °C, relative to pre-industrial levels. >>>>> >>>>> You confused accepting these very well supported conclusions with a >>>>> religion. It was an absurd thing for you to claim... and one you cannot >>>>> defend. >>>>> >>>>> Now we are at the insult phase of your trolling. Go! >>>> >>>> Less people, less problem. control the population. >>>> >>> what's a jimp >> >> Jump In My Pocket? >> >stop being a jimp I bet if that's his name he is really pissed at his mom.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | % <persent@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-06 14:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bsqiu7.ft3.17.1@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #245969 |
On 2019-01-06 2:42 p.m., Skeeter wrote: > In article <bsqi6g.5tt.17.3@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... >> >> On 2019-01-06 2:36 p.m., Skeeter wrote: >>> In article <bsqfvh.9mj.19.3@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... >>>> >>>> On 2019-01-06 1:57 p.m., Skeeter wrote: >>>>> In article <g9f7c9Fqh34U2@mid.individual.net>, >>>>> usenet@gallopinginsanity.com says... >>>>>> >>>>>> On 1/6/19 1:27 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <snip> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You are very confused and do not even know Republicans tend to deny climate >>>>>>>> science, and you confuse science and religion. Fair enough. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Puerile babble. >>>>>> >>>>>> No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a >>>>>> formal opinion dissenting from any of these conclusions: >>>>>> >>>>>> ? "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, >>>>>> many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia". >>>>>> >>>>>> ? "Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous >>>>>> oxide have increased to levels unprecedented in at least the last >>>>>> 800,000 years". >>>>>> >>>>>> ? Human influence on the climate system is clear. It is extremely likely >>>>>> (95-100% probability) that human influence was the dominant cause of >>>>>> global warming between 1951-2010. >>>>>> >>>>>> ? "Increasing magnitudes of [global] warming increase the likelihood of >>>>>> severe, pervasive, and irreversible impacts" >>>>>> >>>>>> ? "A first step towards adaptation to future climate change is reducing >>>>>> vulnerability and exposure to present climate variability" >>>>>> >>>>>> ? "The overall risks of climate change impacts can be reduced by >>>>>> limiting the rate and magnitude of climate change" >>>>>> >>>>>> ? Without new policies to mitigate climate change, projections suggest >>>>>> an increase in global mean temperature in 2100 of 3.7 to 4.8 °C, >>>>>> relative to pre-industrial levels (median values; the range is 2.5 to >>>>>> 7.8 °C including climate uncertainty). >>>>>> >>>>>> ? The current trajectory of global greenhouse gas emissions is not >>>>>> consistent with limiting global warming to below 1.5 or 2 °C, relative >>>>>> to pre-industrial levels. Pledges made as part of the Cancún Agreements >>>>>> are broadly consistent with cost-effective scenarios that give a >>>>>> "likely" chance (66-100% probability) of limiting global warming (in >>>>>> 2100) to below 3 °C, relative to pre-industrial levels. >>>>>> >>>>>> You confused accepting these very well supported conclusions with a >>>>>> religion. It was an absurd thing for you to claim... and one you cannot >>>>>> defend. >>>>>> >>>>>> Now we are at the insult phase of your trolling. Go! >>>>> >>>>> Less people, less problem. control the population. >>>>> >>>> what's a jimp >>> >>> Jump In My Pocket? >>> >> stop being a jimp > > I bet if that's his name he is really pissed at his mom. > i wonder how many jimps equal a jump
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-06 15:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.369c3485aff24a5897@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #245977 |
In article <bsqiu7.ft3.17.1@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... > >On 2019-01-06 2:42 p.m., Skeeter wrote: >> In article <bsqi6g.5tt.17.3@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... >>> >>> On 2019-01-06 2:36 p.m., Skeeter wrote: >>>> In article <bsqfvh.9mj.19.3@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... >>>>> >>>>> On 2019-01-06 1:57 p.m., Skeeter wrote: >>>>>> In article <g9f7c9Fqh34U2@mid.individual.net>, >>>>>> usenet@gallopinginsanity.com says... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 1/6/19 1:27 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> <snip> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You are very confused and do not even know Republicans tend to deny climate >>>>>>>>> science, and you confuse science and religion. Fair enough. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Puerile babble. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a >>>>>>> formal opinion dissenting from any of these conclusions: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ? "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, >>>>>>> many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia". >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ? "Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous >>>>>>> oxide have increased to levels unprecedented in at least the last >>>>>>> 800,000 years". >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ? Human influence on the climate system is clear. It is extremely likely >>>>>>> (95-100% probability) that human influence was the dominant cause of >>>>>>> global warming between 1951-2010. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ? "Increasing magnitudes of [global] warming increase the likelihood of >>>>>>> severe, pervasive, and irreversible impacts" >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ? "A first step towards adaptation to future climate change is reducing >>>>>>> vulnerability and exposure to present climate variability" >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ? "The overall risks of climate change impacts can be reduced by >>>>>>> limiting the rate and magnitude of climate change" >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ? Without new policies to mitigate climate change, projections suggest >>>>>>> an increase in global mean temperature in 2100 of 3.7 to 4.8 °C, >>>>>>> relative to pre-industrial levels (median values; the range is 2.5 to >>>>>>> 7.8 °C including climate uncertainty). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ? The current trajectory of global greenhouse gas emissions is not >>>>>>> consistent with limiting global warming to below 1.5 or 2 °C, relative >>>>>>> to pre-industrial levels. Pledges made as part of the Cancún Agreements >>>>>>> are broadly consistent with cost-effective scenarios that give a >>>>>>> "likely" chance (66-100% probability) of limiting global warming (in >>>>>>> 2100) to below 3 °C, relative to pre-industrial levels. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You confused accepting these very well supported conclusions with a >>>>>>> religion. It was an absurd thing for you to claim... and one you cannot >>>>>>> defend. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Now we are at the insult phase of your trolling. Go! >>>>>> >>>>>> Less people, less problem. control the population. >>>>>> >>>>> what's a jimp >>>> >>>> Jump In My Pocket? >>>> >>> stop being a jimp >> >> I bet if that's his name he is really pissed at his mom. >> > >i wonder how many jimps equal a jump https://www.dictionary.com/browse/jimp
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | % <persent@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-06 15:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bsqmlt.mv7.17.4@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #245995 |
On 2019-01-06 3:52 p.m., Skeeter wrote: > In article <bsqiu7.ft3.17.1@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... >> >> On 2019-01-06 2:42 p.m., Skeeter wrote: >>> In article <bsqi6g.5tt.17.3@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... >>>> >>>> On 2019-01-06 2:36 p.m., Skeeter wrote: >>>>> In article <bsqfvh.9mj.19.3@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... >>>>>> >>>>>> On 2019-01-06 1:57 p.m., Skeeter wrote: >>>>>>> In article <g9f7c9Fqh34U2@mid.individual.net>, >>>>>>> usenet@gallopinginsanity.com says... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 1/6/19 1:27 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> <snip> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You are very confused and do not even know Republicans tend to deny climate >>>>>>>>>> science, and you confuse science and religion. Fair enough. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Puerile babble. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a >>>>>>>> formal opinion dissenting from any of these conclusions: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ? "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, >>>>>>>> many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia". >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ? "Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous >>>>>>>> oxide have increased to levels unprecedented in at least the last >>>>>>>> 800,000 years". >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ? Human influence on the climate system is clear. It is extremely likely >>>>>>>> (95-100% probability) that human influence was the dominant cause of >>>>>>>> global warming between 1951-2010. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ? "Increasing magnitudes of [global] warming increase the likelihood of >>>>>>>> severe, pervasive, and irreversible impacts" >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ? "A first step towards adaptation to future climate change is reducing >>>>>>>> vulnerability and exposure to present climate variability" >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ? "The overall risks of climate change impacts can be reduced by >>>>>>>> limiting the rate and magnitude of climate change" >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ? Without new policies to mitigate climate change, projections suggest >>>>>>>> an increase in global mean temperature in 2100 of 3.7 to 4.8 °C, >>>>>>>> relative to pre-industrial levels (median values; the range is 2.5 to >>>>>>>> 7.8 °C including climate uncertainty). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ? The current trajectory of global greenhouse gas emissions is not >>>>>>>> consistent with limiting global warming to below 1.5 or 2 °C, relative >>>>>>>> to pre-industrial levels. Pledges made as part of the Cancún Agreements >>>>>>>> are broadly consistent with cost-effective scenarios that give a >>>>>>>> "likely" chance (66-100% probability) of limiting global warming (in >>>>>>>> 2100) to below 3 °C, relative to pre-industrial levels. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You confused accepting these very well supported conclusions with a >>>>>>>> religion. It was an absurd thing for you to claim... and one you cannot >>>>>>>> defend. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Now we are at the insult phase of your trolling. Go! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Less people, less problem. control the population. >>>>>>> >>>>>> what's a jimp >>>>> >>>>> Jump In My Pocket? >>>>> >>>> stop being a jimp >>> >>> I bet if that's his name he is really pissed at his mom. >>> >> >> i wonder how many jimps equal a jump > > https://www.dictionary.com/browse/jimp > She ran hastily into the house, and in a few moments reappeared in a bewitching riding-skirt gathered round her jimp waist.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-06 16:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.369c36e747100aa489a@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #246002 |
In article <bsqmlt.mv7.17.4@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... > >On 2019-01-06 3:52 p.m., Skeeter wrote: >> In article <bsqiu7.ft3.17.1@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... >>> >>> On 2019-01-06 2:42 p.m., Skeeter wrote: >>>> In article <bsqi6g.5tt.17.3@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... >>>>> >>>>> On 2019-01-06 2:36 p.m., Skeeter wrote: >>>>>> In article <bsqfvh.9mj.19.3@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 2019-01-06 1:57 p.m., Skeeter wrote: >>>>>>>> In article <g9f7c9Fqh34U2@mid.individual.net>, >>>>>>>> usenet@gallopinginsanity.com says... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 1/6/19 1:27 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> <snip> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> You are very confused and do not even know Republicans tend to deny climate >>>>>>>>>>> science, and you confuse science and religion. Fair enough. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Puerile babble. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a >>>>>>>>> formal opinion dissenting from any of these conclusions: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ? "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, >>>>>>>>> many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia". >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ? "Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous >>>>>>>>> oxide have increased to levels unprecedented in at least the last >>>>>>>>> 800,000 years". >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ? Human influence on the climate system is clear. It is extremely likely >>>>>>>>> (95-100% probability) that human influence was the dominant cause of >>>>>>>>> global warming between 1951-2010. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ? "Increasing magnitudes of [global] warming increase the likelihood of >>>>>>>>> severe, pervasive, and irreversible impacts" >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ? "A first step towards adaptation to future climate change is reducing >>>>>>>>> vulnerability and exposure to present climate variability" >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ? "The overall risks of climate change impacts can be reduced by >>>>>>>>> limiting the rate and magnitude of climate change" >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ? Without new policies to mitigate climate change, projections suggest >>>>>>>>> an increase in global mean temperature in 2100 of 3.7 to 4.8 °C, >>>>>>>>> relative to pre-industrial levels (median values; the range is 2.5 to >>>>>>>>> 7.8 °C including climate uncertainty). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ? The current trajectory of global greenhouse gas emissions is not >>>>>>>>> consistent with limiting global warming to below 1.5 or 2 °C, relative >>>>>>>>> to pre-industrial levels. Pledges made as part of the Cancún Agreements >>>>>>>>> are broadly consistent with cost-effective scenarios that give a >>>>>>>>> "likely" chance (66-100% probability) of limiting global warming (in >>>>>>>>> 2100) to below 3 °C, relative to pre-industrial levels. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You confused accepting these very well supported conclusions with a >>>>>>>>> religion. It was an absurd thing for you to claim... and one you cannot >>>>>>>>> defend. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Now we are at the insult phase of your trolling. Go! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Less people, less problem. control the population. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> what's a jimp >>>>>> >>>>>> Jump In My Pocket? >>>>>> >>>>> stop being a jimp >>>> >>>> I bet if that's his name he is really pissed at his mom. >>>> >>> >>> i wonder how many jimps equal a jump >> >> https://www.dictionary.com/browse/jimp >> >She ran hastily into the house, and in a few moments reappeared in a >bewitching riding-skirt gathered round her jimp waist. I think in parts of North Africa they have currency and the jimp is like a 20th of a dollar.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | % <persent@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-06 16:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bsqn1t.t6d.17.6@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #246006 |
On 2019-01-06 4:02 p.m., Skeeter wrote: > In article <bsqmlt.mv7.17.4@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... >> >> On 2019-01-06 3:52 p.m., Skeeter wrote: >>> In article <bsqiu7.ft3.17.1@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... >>>> >>>> On 2019-01-06 2:42 p.m., Skeeter wrote: >>>>> In article <bsqi6g.5tt.17.3@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... >>>>>> >>>>>> On 2019-01-06 2:36 p.m., Skeeter wrote: >>>>>>> In article <bsqfvh.9mj.19.3@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 2019-01-06 1:57 p.m., Skeeter wrote: >>>>>>>>> In article <g9f7c9Fqh34U2@mid.individual.net>, >>>>>>>>> usenet@gallopinginsanity.com says... >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/19 1:27 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> <snip> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> You are very confused and do not even know Republicans tend to deny climate >>>>>>>>>>>> science, and you confuse science and religion. Fair enough. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Puerile babble. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a >>>>>>>>>> formal opinion dissenting from any of these conclusions: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ? "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, >>>>>>>>>> many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia". >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ? "Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous >>>>>>>>>> oxide have increased to levels unprecedented in at least the last >>>>>>>>>> 800,000 years". >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ? Human influence on the climate system is clear. It is extremely likely >>>>>>>>>> (95-100% probability) that human influence was the dominant cause of >>>>>>>>>> global warming between 1951-2010. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ? "Increasing magnitudes of [global] warming increase the likelihood of >>>>>>>>>> severe, pervasive, and irreversible impacts" >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ? "A first step towards adaptation to future climate change is reducing >>>>>>>>>> vulnerability and exposure to present climate variability" >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ? "The overall risks of climate change impacts can be reduced by >>>>>>>>>> limiting the rate and magnitude of climate change" >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ? Without new policies to mitigate climate change, projections suggest >>>>>>>>>> an increase in global mean temperature in 2100 of 3.7 to 4.8 °C, >>>>>>>>>> relative to pre-industrial levels (median values; the range is 2.5 to >>>>>>>>>> 7.8 °C including climate uncertainty). >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ? The current trajectory of global greenhouse gas emissions is not >>>>>>>>>> consistent with limiting global warming to below 1.5 or 2 °C, relative >>>>>>>>>> to pre-industrial levels. Pledges made as part of the Cancún Agreements >>>>>>>>>> are broadly consistent with cost-effective scenarios that give a >>>>>>>>>> "likely" chance (66-100% probability) of limiting global warming (in >>>>>>>>>> 2100) to below 3 °C, relative to pre-industrial levels. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You confused accepting these very well supported conclusions with a >>>>>>>>>> religion. It was an absurd thing for you to claim... and one you cannot >>>>>>>>>> defend. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Now we are at the insult phase of your trolling. Go! >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Less people, less problem. control the population. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> what's a jimp >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Jump In My Pocket? >>>>>>> >>>>>> stop being a jimp >>>>> >>>>> I bet if that's his name he is really pissed at his mom. >>>>> >>>> >>>> i wonder how many jimps equal a jump >>> >>> https://www.dictionary.com/browse/jimp >>> >> She ran hastily into the house, and in a few moments reappeared in a >> bewitching riding-skirt gathered round her jimp waist. > > I think in parts of North Africa they have currency and the jimp is like > a 20th of a dollar. > don't jimp it all in one hut
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-06 16:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.369c37f321c352b189d@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #246009 |
In article <bsqn1t.t6d.17.6@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... > >On 2019-01-06 4:02 p.m., Skeeter wrote: >> In article <bsqmlt.mv7.17.4@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... >>> >>> On 2019-01-06 3:52 p.m., Skeeter wrote: >>>> In article <bsqiu7.ft3.17.1@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... >>>>> >>>>> On 2019-01-06 2:42 p.m., Skeeter wrote: >>>>>> In article <bsqi6g.5tt.17.3@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 2019-01-06 2:36 p.m., Skeeter wrote: >>>>>>>> In article <bsqfvh.9mj.19.3@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 2019-01-06 1:57 p.m., Skeeter wrote: >>>>>>>>>> In article <g9f7c9Fqh34U2@mid.individual.net>, >>>>>>>>>> usenet@gallopinginsanity.com says... >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/19 1:27 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> <snip> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> You are very confused and do not even know Republicans tend to deny climate >>>>>>>>>>>>> science, and you confuse science and religion. Fair enough. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Puerile babble. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a >>>>>>>>>>> formal opinion dissenting from any of these conclusions: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> ? "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, >>>>>>>>>>> many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia". >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> ? "Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous >>>>>>>>>>> oxide have increased to levels unprecedented in at least the last >>>>>>>>>>> 800,000 years". >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> ? Human influence on the climate system is clear. It is extremely likely >>>>>>>>>>> (95-100% probability) that human influence was the dominant cause of >>>>>>>>>>> global warming between 1951-2010. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> ? "Increasing magnitudes of [global] warming increase the likelihood of >>>>>>>>>>> severe, pervasive, and irreversible impacts" >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> ? "A first step towards adaptation to future climate change is reducing >>>>>>>>>>> vulnerability and exposure to present climate variability" >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> ? "The overall risks of climate change impacts can be reduced by >>>>>>>>>>> limiting the rate and magnitude of climate change" >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> ? Without new policies to mitigate climate change, projections suggest >>>>>>>>>>> an increase in global mean temperature in 2100 of 3.7 to 4.8 °C, >>>>>>>>>>> relative to pre-industrial levels (median values; the range is 2.5 to >>>>>>>>>>> 7.8 °C including climate uncertainty). >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> ? The current trajectory of global greenhouse gas emissions is not >>>>>>>>>>> consistent with limiting global warming to below 1.5 or 2 °C, relative >>>>>>>>>>> to pre-industrial levels. Pledges made as part of the Cancún Agreements >>>>>>>>>>> are broadly consistent with cost-effective scenarios that give a >>>>>>>>>>> "likely" chance (66-100% probability) of limiting global warming (in >>>>>>>>>>> 2100) to below 3 °C, relative to pre-industrial levels. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> You confused accepting these very well supported conclusions with a >>>>>>>>>>> religion. It was an absurd thing for you to claim... and one you cannot >>>>>>>>>>> defend. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Now we are at the insult phase of your trolling. Go! >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Less people, less problem. control the population. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> what's a jimp >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Jump In My Pocket? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> stop being a jimp >>>>>> >>>>>> I bet if that's his name he is really pissed at his mom. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> i wonder how many jimps equal a jump >>>> >>>> https://www.dictionary.com/browse/jimp >>>> >>> She ran hastily into the house, and in a few moments reappeared in a >>> bewitching riding-skirt gathered round her jimp waist. >> >> I think in parts of North Africa they have currency and the jimp is like >> a 20th of a dollar. >> >don't jimp it all in one hut I'm as high as a jimp in a blimp.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | % <persent@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-06 16:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bsqo8f.ev0.17.2@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #246011 |
On 2019-01-06 4:06 p.m., Skeeter wrote: > In article <bsqn1t.t6d.17.6@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... >> >> On 2019-01-06 4:02 p.m., Skeeter wrote: >>> In article <bsqmlt.mv7.17.4@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... >>>> >>>> On 2019-01-06 3:52 p.m., Skeeter wrote: >>>>> In article <bsqiu7.ft3.17.1@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... >>>>>> >>>>>> On 2019-01-06 2:42 p.m., Skeeter wrote: >>>>>>> In article <bsqi6g.5tt.17.3@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 2019-01-06 2:36 p.m., Skeeter wrote: >>>>>>>>> In article <bsqfvh.9mj.19.3@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 2019-01-06 1:57 p.m., Skeeter wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> In article <g9f7c9Fqh34U2@mid.individual.net>, >>>>>>>>>>> usenet@gallopinginsanity.com says... >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/19 1:27 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> <snip> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are very confused and do not even know Republicans tend to deny climate >>>>>>>>>>>>>> science, and you confuse science and religion. Fair enough. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Puerile babble. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a >>>>>>>>>>>> formal opinion dissenting from any of these conclusions: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> ? "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, >>>>>>>>>>>> many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia". >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> ? "Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous >>>>>>>>>>>> oxide have increased to levels unprecedented in at least the last >>>>>>>>>>>> 800,000 years". >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> ? Human influence on the climate system is clear. It is extremely likely >>>>>>>>>>>> (95-100% probability) that human influence was the dominant cause of >>>>>>>>>>>> global warming between 1951-2010. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> ? "Increasing magnitudes of [global] warming increase the likelihood of >>>>>>>>>>>> severe, pervasive, and irreversible impacts" >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> ? "A first step towards adaptation to future climate change is reducing >>>>>>>>>>>> vulnerability and exposure to present climate variability" >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> ? "The overall risks of climate change impacts can be reduced by >>>>>>>>>>>> limiting the rate and magnitude of climate change" >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> ? Without new policies to mitigate climate change, projections suggest >>>>>>>>>>>> an increase in global mean temperature in 2100 of 3.7 to 4.8 °C, >>>>>>>>>>>> relative to pre-industrial levels (median values; the range is 2.5 to >>>>>>>>>>>> 7.8 °C including climate uncertainty). >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> ? The current trajectory of global greenhouse gas emissions is not >>>>>>>>>>>> consistent with limiting global warming to below 1.5 or 2 °C, relative >>>>>>>>>>>> to pre-industrial levels. Pledges made as part of the Cancún Agreements >>>>>>>>>>>> are broadly consistent with cost-effective scenarios that give a >>>>>>>>>>>> "likely" chance (66-100% probability) of limiting global warming (in >>>>>>>>>>>> 2100) to below 3 °C, relative to pre-industrial levels. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> You confused accepting these very well supported conclusions with a >>>>>>>>>>>> religion. It was an absurd thing for you to claim... and one you cannot >>>>>>>>>>>> defend. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Now we are at the insult phase of your trolling. Go! >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Less people, less problem. control the population. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> what's a jimp >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Jump In My Pocket? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> stop being a jimp >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I bet if that's his name he is really pissed at his mom. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> i wonder how many jimps equal a jump >>>>> >>>>> https://www.dictionary.com/browse/jimp >>>>> >>>> She ran hastily into the house, and in a few moments reappeared in a >>>> bewitching riding-skirt gathered round her jimp waist. >>> >>> I think in parts of North Africa they have currency and the jimp is like >>> a 20th of a dollar. >>> >> don't jimp it all in one hut > > I'm as high as a jimp in a blimp. > can a jimp get a gymp
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-06 17:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.369c4af8bc2c35fa89f@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #246018 |
In article <bsqo8f.ev0.17.2@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... > >On 2019-01-06 4:06 p.m., Skeeter wrote: >> In article <bsqn1t.t6d.17.6@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... >>> >>> On 2019-01-06 4:02 p.m., Skeeter wrote: >>>> In article <bsqmlt.mv7.17.4@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... >>>>> >>>>> On 2019-01-06 3:52 p.m., Skeeter wrote: >>>>>> In article <bsqiu7.ft3.17.1@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 2019-01-06 2:42 p.m., Skeeter wrote: >>>>>>>> In article <bsqi6g.5tt.17.3@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 2019-01-06 2:36 p.m., Skeeter wrote: >>>>>>>>>> In article <bsqfvh.9mj.19.3@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 2019-01-06 1:57 p.m., Skeeter wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> In article <g9f7c9Fqh34U2@mid.individual.net>, >>>>>>>>>>>> usenet@gallopinginsanity.com says... >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/19 1:27 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <snip> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are very confused and do not even know Republicans tend to deny climate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> science, and you confuse science and religion. Fair enough. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Puerile babble. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a >>>>>>>>>>>>> formal opinion dissenting from any of these conclusions: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> ? "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, >>>>>>>>>>>>> many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia". >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> ? "Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous >>>>>>>>>>>>> oxide have increased to levels unprecedented in at least the last >>>>>>>>>>>>> 800,000 years". >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> ? Human influence on the climate system is clear. It is extremely likely >>>>>>>>>>>>> (95-100% probability) that human influence was the dominant cause of >>>>>>>>>>>>> global warming between 1951-2010. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> ? "Increasing magnitudes of [global] warming increase the likelihood of >>>>>>>>>>>>> severe, pervasive, and irreversible impacts" >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> ? "A first step towards adaptation to future climate change is reducing >>>>>>>>>>>>> vulnerability and exposure to present climate variability" >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> ? "The overall risks of climate change impacts can be reduced by >>>>>>>>>>>>> limiting the rate and magnitude of climate change" >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> ? Without new policies to mitigate climate change, projections suggest >>>>>>>>>>>>> an increase in global mean temperature in 2100 of 3.7 to 4.8 °C, >>>>>>>>>>>>> relative to pre-industrial levels (median values; the range is 2.5 to >>>>>>>>>>>>> 7.8 °C including climate uncertainty). >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> ? The current trajectory of global greenhouse gas emissions is not >>>>>>>>>>>>> consistent with limiting global warming to below 1.5 or 2 °C, relative >>>>>>>>>>>>> to pre-industrial levels. Pledges made as part of the Cancún Agreements >>>>>>>>>>>>> are broadly consistent with cost-effective scenarios that give a >>>>>>>>>>>>> "likely" chance (66-100% probability) of limiting global warming (in >>>>>>>>>>>>> 2100) to below 3 °C, relative to pre-industrial levels. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> You confused accepting these very well supported conclusions with a >>>>>>>>>>>>> religion. It was an absurd thing for you to claim... and one you cannot >>>>>>>>>>>>> defend. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Now we are at the insult phase of your trolling. Go! >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Less people, less problem. control the population. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> what's a jimp >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Jump In My Pocket? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> stop being a jimp >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I bet if that's his name he is really pissed at his mom. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> i wonder how many jimps equal a jump >>>>>> >>>>>> https://www.dictionary.com/browse/jimp >>>>>> >>>>> She ran hastily into the house, and in a few moments reappeared in a >>>>> bewitching riding-skirt gathered round her jimp waist. >>>> >>>> I think in parts of North Africa they have currency and the jimp is like >>>> a 20th of a dollar. >>>> >>> don't jimp it all in one hut >> >> I'm as high as a jimp in a blimp. >> >can a jimp get a gymp wouldnt it be funny if his name was really jim
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | % <persent@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-06 17:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bsqs71.v7.17.1@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #246044 |
On 2019-01-06 5:28 p.m., Skeeter wrote: > In article <bsqo8f.ev0.17.2@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... >> >> On 2019-01-06 4:06 p.m., Skeeter wrote: >>> In article <bsqn1t.t6d.17.6@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... >>>> >>>> On 2019-01-06 4:02 p.m., Skeeter wrote: >>>>> In article <bsqmlt.mv7.17.4@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... >>>>>> >>>>>> On 2019-01-06 3:52 p.m., Skeeter wrote: >>>>>>> In article <bsqiu7.ft3.17.1@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 2019-01-06 2:42 p.m., Skeeter wrote: >>>>>>>>> In article <bsqi6g.5tt.17.3@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 2019-01-06 2:36 p.m., Skeeter wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> In article <bsqfvh.9mj.19.3@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 2019-01-06 1:57 p.m., Skeeter wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <g9f7c9Fqh34U2@mid.individual.net>, >>>>>>>>>>>>> usenet@gallopinginsanity.com says... >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/19 1:27 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <snip> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are very confused and do not even know Republicans tend to deny climate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> science, and you confuse science and religion. Fair enough. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Puerile babble. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> formal opinion dissenting from any of these conclusions: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ? "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia". >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ? "Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous >>>>>>>>>>>>>> oxide have increased to levels unprecedented in at least the last >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 800,000 years". >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ? Human influence on the climate system is clear. It is extremely likely >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (95-100% probability) that human influence was the dominant cause of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> global warming between 1951-2010. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ? "Increasing magnitudes of [global] warming increase the likelihood of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> severe, pervasive, and irreversible impacts" >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ? "A first step towards adaptation to future climate change is reducing >>>>>>>>>>>>>> vulnerability and exposure to present climate variability" >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ? "The overall risks of climate change impacts can be reduced by >>>>>>>>>>>>>> limiting the rate and magnitude of climate change" >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ? Without new policies to mitigate climate change, projections suggest >>>>>>>>>>>>>> an increase in global mean temperature in 2100 of 3.7 to 4.8 °C, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> relative to pre-industrial levels (median values; the range is 2.5 to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 7.8 °C including climate uncertainty). >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ? The current trajectory of global greenhouse gas emissions is not >>>>>>>>>>>>>> consistent with limiting global warming to below 1.5 or 2 °C, relative >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to pre-industrial levels. Pledges made as part of the Cancún Agreements >>>>>>>>>>>>>> are broadly consistent with cost-effective scenarios that give a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "likely" chance (66-100% probability) of limiting global warming (in >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2100) to below 3 °C, relative to pre-industrial levels. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You confused accepting these very well supported conclusions with a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> religion. It was an absurd thing for you to claim... and one you cannot >>>>>>>>>>>>>> defend. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now we are at the insult phase of your trolling. Go! >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Less people, less problem. control the population. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> what's a jimp >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Jump In My Pocket? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> stop being a jimp >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I bet if that's his name he is really pissed at his mom. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> i wonder how many jimps equal a jump >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://www.dictionary.com/browse/jimp >>>>>>> >>>>>> She ran hastily into the house, and in a few moments reappeared in a >>>>>> bewitching riding-skirt gathered round her jimp waist. >>>>> >>>>> I think in parts of North Africa they have currency and the jimp is like >>>>> a 20th of a dollar. >>>>> >>>> don't jimp it all in one hut >>> >>> I'm as high as a jimp in a blimp. >>> >> can a jimp get a gymp > > wouldnt it be funny if his name was really jim > it is and his last name means nub or small point i forget what it is though , he puts it in his sig file
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-06 17:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.369c4d259fc8e5e48a3@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #246050 |
In article <bsqs71.v7.17.1@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... > >On 2019-01-06 5:28 p.m., Skeeter wrote: >> In article <bsqo8f.ev0.17.2@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... >>> >>> On 2019-01-06 4:06 p.m., Skeeter wrote: >>>> In article <bsqn1t.t6d.17.6@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... >>>>> >>>>> On 2019-01-06 4:02 p.m., Skeeter wrote: >>>>>> In article <bsqmlt.mv7.17.4@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 2019-01-06 3:52 p.m., Skeeter wrote: >>>>>>>> In article <bsqiu7.ft3.17.1@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 2019-01-06 2:42 p.m., Skeeter wrote: >>>>>>>>>> In article <bsqi6g.5tt.17.3@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 2019-01-06 2:36 p.m., Skeeter wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> In article <bsqfvh.9mj.19.3@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2019-01-06 1:57 p.m., Skeeter wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <g9f7c9Fqh34U2@mid.individual.net>, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> usenet@gallopinginsanity.com says... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/19 1:27 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <snip> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are very confused and do not even know Republicans tend to deny climate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> science, and you confuse science and religion. Fair enough. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Puerile babble. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> formal opinion dissenting from any of these conclusions: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ? "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ? "Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> oxide have increased to levels unprecedented in at least the last >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 800,000 years". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ? Human influence on the climate system is clear. It is extremely likely >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (95-100% probability) that human influence was the dominant cause of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> global warming between 1951-2010. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ? "Increasing magnitudes of [global] warming increase the likelihood of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> severe, pervasive, and irreversible impacts" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ? "A first step towards adaptation to future climate change is reducing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vulnerability and exposure to present climate variability" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ? "The overall risks of climate change impacts can be reduced by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> limiting the rate and magnitude of climate change" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ? Without new policies to mitigate climate change, projections suggest >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an increase in global mean temperature in 2100 of 3.7 to 4.8 °C, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relative to pre-industrial levels (median values; the range is 2.5 to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 7.8 °C including climate uncertainty). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ? The current trajectory of global greenhouse gas emissions is not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consistent with limiting global warming to below 1.5 or 2 °C, relative >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to pre-industrial levels. Pledges made as part of the Cancún Agreements >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are broadly consistent with cost-effective scenarios that give a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "likely" chance (66-100% probability) of limiting global warming (in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2100) to below 3 °C, relative to pre-industrial levels. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You confused accepting these very well supported conclusions with a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> religion. It was an absurd thing for you to claim... and one you cannot >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defend. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now we are at the insult phase of your trolling. Go! >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Less people, less problem. control the population. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> what's a jimp >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Jump In My Pocket? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> stop being a jimp >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I bet if that's his name he is really pissed at his mom. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> i wonder how many jimps equal a jump >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://www.dictionary.com/browse/jimp >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> She ran hastily into the house, and in a few moments reappeared in a >>>>>>> bewitching riding-skirt gathered round her jimp waist. >>>>>> >>>>>> I think in parts of North Africa they have currency and the jimp is like >>>>>> a 20th of a dollar. >>>>>> >>>>> don't jimp it all in one hut >>>> >>>> I'm as high as a jimp in a blimp. >>>> >>> can a jimp get a gymp >> >> wouldnt it be funny if his name was really jim >> >it is and his last name means nub or small point i forget what it is >though , he puts it in his sig file aint that a ko inky dinky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-07 00:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <f8kagf-kml.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #246044 |
In sci.physics Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> wrote: > wouldnt it be funny if his name was really jim You mean like it says in the signature line, genius? -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-06 21:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <rs8agf-qjk.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #245951 |
In sci.physics Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> wrote: <snip> > Less people, less problem. control the population. Less people, less genetic diversity, more inbreading issues. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-09 06:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <q145fo$jer$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #245973 |
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt! On Sun, 06 Jan 2019 21:34:51 +0000, jimp wrote: > In sci.physics Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> wrote: > > <snip> > >> Less people, less problem. control the population. > > Less people, less genetic diversity, more inbreading issues. That what happened to your ancestors? <snicker> -- FNVWe Nadegda "By all means, compare these shitheads to Nazis. Again and again. I'm with you." -- Mike Godwin, Aug 13, 2017, 8:03 PM Skeeter admits he mooches his mother's laptop: http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=154073947600
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-09 18:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tlphgf-pke.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #246814 |
In sci.physics Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote: > Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt! > On Sun, 06 Jan 2019 21:34:51 +0000, jimp wrote: > >> In sci.physics Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> wrote: >> >> <snip> >> >>> Less people, less problem. control the population. >> >> Less people, less genetic diversity, more inbreading issues. > > That what happened to your ancestors? > > <snicker> Childish. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-09 06:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <q144t0$jer$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #245951 |
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt! On Sun, 06 Jan 2019 13:57:40 -0700, Skeeter wrote: > In article <g9f7c9Fqh34U2@mid.individual.net>, > usenet@gallopinginsanity.com says... >> >>On 1/6/19 1:27 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> >>> <snip> >>> >>>> You are very confused and do not even know Republicans tend to deny >>>> climate science, and you confuse science and religion. Fair enough. >>> >>> Puerile babble. >> >>No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a >>formal opinion dissenting from any of these conclusions: >> >>? "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, >>many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to >>millennia". >> >>? "Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous >>oxide have increased to levels unprecedented in at least the last >>800,000 years". >> >>? Human influence on the climate system is clear. It is extremely likely >>(95-100% probability) that human influence was the dominant cause of >>global warming between 1951-2010. >> >>? "Increasing magnitudes of [global] warming increase the likelihood of >>severe, pervasive, and irreversible impacts" >> >>? "A first step towards adaptation to future climate change is reducing >>vulnerability and exposure to present climate variability" >> >>? "The overall risks of climate change impacts can be reduced by >>limiting the rate and magnitude of climate change" >> >>? Without new policies to mitigate climate change, projections suggest >>an increase in global mean temperature in 2100 of 3.7 to 4.8 °C, >>relative to pre-industrial levels (median values; the range is 2.5 to >>7.8 °C including climate uncertainty). >> >>? The current trajectory of global greenhouse gas emissions is not >>consistent with limiting global warming to below 1.5 or 2 °C, relative >>to pre-industrial levels. Pledges made as part of the Cancún Agreements >>are broadly consistent with cost-effective scenarios that give a >>"likely" chance (66-100% probability) of limiting global warming (in >>2100) to below 3 °C, relative to pre-industrial levels. >> >>You confused accepting these very well supported conclusions with a >>religion. It was an absurd thing for you to claim... and one you cannot >>defend. >> >>Now we are at the insult phase of your trolling. Go! > > Less people, less problem. control the population. So, you're now coming out in favor of a woman's right to choose? -- FNVWe Nadegda "By all means, compare these shitheads to Nazis. Again and again. I'm with you." -- Mike Godwin, Aug 13, 2017, 8:03 PM Skeeter admits he mooches his mother's laptop: http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=154073947600
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-09 09:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.369fd3d5145549848d8@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #246811 |
In article <q144t0$jer$2@dont-email.me>, nad318b404@gmail.invalid says... > >Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt! >On Sun, 06 Jan 2019 13:57:40 -0700, Skeeter wrote: > >> In article <g9f7c9Fqh34U2@mid.individual.net>, >> usenet@gallopinginsanity.com says... >>> >>>On 1/6/19 1:27 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> <snip> >>>> >>>>> You are very confused and do not even know Republicans tend to deny >>>>> climate science, and you confuse science and religion. Fair enough. >>>> >>>> Puerile babble. >>> >>>No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a >>>formal opinion dissenting from any of these conclusions: >>> >>>? "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, >>>many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to >>>millennia". >>> >>>? "Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous >>>oxide have increased to levels unprecedented in at least the last >>>800,000 years". >>> >>>? Human influence on the climate system is clear. It is extremely likely >>>(95-100% probability) that human influence was the dominant cause of >>>global warming between 1951-2010. >>> >>>? "Increasing magnitudes of [global] warming increase the likelihood of >>>severe, pervasive, and irreversible impacts" >>> >>>? "A first step towards adaptation to future climate change is reducing >>>vulnerability and exposure to present climate variability" >>> >>>? "The overall risks of climate change impacts can be reduced by >>>limiting the rate and magnitude of climate change" >>> >>>? Without new policies to mitigate climate change, projections suggest >>>an increase in global mean temperature in 2100 of 3.7 to 4.8 °C, >>>relative to pre-industrial levels (median values; the range is 2.5 to >>>7.8 °C including climate uncertainty). >>> >>>? The current trajectory of global greenhouse gas emissions is not >>>consistent with limiting global warming to below 1.5 or 2 °C, relative >>>to pre-industrial levels. Pledges made as part of the Cancún Agreements >>>are broadly consistent with cost-effective scenarios that give a >>>"likely" chance (66-100% probability) of limiting global warming (in >>>2100) to below 3 °C, relative to pre-industrial levels. >>> >>>You confused accepting these very well supported conclusions with a >>>religion. It was an absurd thing for you to claim... and one you cannot >>>defend. >>> >>>Now we are at the insult phase of your trolling. Go! >> >> Less people, less problem. control the population. > >So, you're now coming out in favor of a woman's right to choose? No choice, no kids.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.checkmate
csiph-web