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 1 of 8 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | kensi <kkensinqton01@gmail.nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-05 17:22 -0500 |
| Subject | Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC |
| Message-ID | <n6b23ed4sl0lkeksdmrsr9i5dsfiq3l09r@4ax.com> |
There is never any good news and it gets worse the more climate deniers deny the reality. https://oceanconservancy.org/blog/2018/10/11/climate-change-ocean-stark-message-ipcc -- "To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks "I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade in here." ~Checkmate
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lamey <teandson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-05 14:51 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <80a0f3ab-a919-411e-9019-4bf938a417b3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #245723 |
So you didn't die...oh well.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-05 22:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <8so7gf-prc.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #245723 |
In sci.physics kensi <kkensinqton01@gmail.nospam.invalid> wrote: > > There is never any good news and it gets worse the more climate deniers > deny the reality. If there already is no good news, how could it get worse? If "climate deniers" acknowledge the reality then all the news will be good? What a kook. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-05 16:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <g9crubFalc7U4@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #245737 |
On 1/5/19 3:49 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > In sci.physics kensi <kkensinqton01@gmail.nospam.invalid> wrote: >> >> There is never any good news and it gets worse the more climate deniers >> deny the reality. > > If there already is no good news, how could it get worse? Because things are not black and white. > If "climate deniers" acknowledge the reality then all the news will be good? If they stop denying science then we can work better to cause less harm. > What a kook. > -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-05 23:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tvq7gf-m2d.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #245739 |
In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 1/5/19 3:49 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> In sci.physics kensi <kkensinqton01@gmail.nospam.invalid> wrote: >>> >>> There is never any good news and it gets worse the more climate deniers >>> deny the reality. >> >> If there already is no good news, how could it get worse? > > Because things are not black and white. Tell that to kensi. >> If "climate deniers" acknowledge the reality then all the news will be good? > > If they stop denying science then we can work better to cause less harm. Who is "we" and how does the beliefs of others keep "we" from working better? -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-05 18:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <g9d55eFckshU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #245741 |
On 1/5/19 4:25 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> On 1/5/19 3:49 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> In sci.physics kensi <kkensinqton01@gmail.nospam.invalid> wrote: >>>> >>>> There is never any good news and it gets worse the more climate deniers >>>> deny the reality. >>> >>> If there already is no good news, how could it get worse? >> >> Because things are not black and white. > > Tell that to kensi. I just said it in a public forum. >>> If "climate deniers" acknowledge the reality then all the news will be good? >> >> If they stop denying science then we can work better to cause less harm. > > Who is "we" and how does the beliefs of others keep "we" from working > better? We is all of us. And if we all accepted at least the basics of climate science, or at least stopped denying it, the world would be a better place. The more people accept the evidence the better. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-05 21:15 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <1to23ep260ci7tg7cqe4ojuou76m0kvdp5@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #245777 |
On Sat, 5 Jan 2019 18:49:34 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >On 1/5/19 4:25 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> On 1/5/19 3:49 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>> In sci.physics kensi <kkensinqton01@gmail.nospam.invalid> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> There is never any good news and it gets worse the more climate deniers >>>>> deny the reality. >>>> >>>> If there already is no good news, how could it get worse? >>> >>> Because things are not black and white. >> >> Tell that to kensi. > >I just said it in a public forum. > >>>> If "climate deniers" acknowledge the reality then all the news will be good? >>> >>> If they stop denying science then we can work better to cause less harm. >> >> Who is "we" and how does the beliefs of others keep "we" from working >> better? > >We is all of us. And if we all accepted at least the basics of climate >science, or at least stopped denying it, the world would be a better >place. The more people accept the evidence the better. "Climate science" is a misnomer. It is not science at all. It is propaganda, bias, rigged and false data, speculation, hysterical projection and outright lies. Never is a real scientific theory put forth. Never is there any scientific study that attempts to REFUTE human-caused climate change. The climate change alarmists/taxation fanatics' sole purpose is to slow down human progress and make prosperous nations poor. They have taken science and turned it into "consensus thinking" under the false premise that a politically motivated consensus is always correct. -- Everybody here likes Yours Truly, Gregøry Hall - Bombastic Loudmouth of the South
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-05 19:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <g9d7ghFd2p4U4@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #245805 |
On 1/5/19 7:15 PM, Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. wrote: > On Sat, 5 Jan 2019 18:49:34 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> On 1/5/19 4:25 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>> On 1/5/19 3:49 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>> In sci.physics kensi <kkensinqton01@gmail.nospam.invalid> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> There is never any good news and it gets worse the more climate deniers >>>>>> deny the reality. >>>>> >>>>> If there already is no good news, how could it get worse? >>>> >>>> Because things are not black and white. >>> >>> Tell that to kensi. >> >> I just said it in a public forum. >> >>>>> If "climate deniers" acknowledge the reality then all the news will be good? >>>> >>>> If they stop denying science then we can work better to cause less harm. >>> >>> Who is "we" and how does the beliefs of others keep "we" from working >>> better? >> >> We is all of us. And if we all accepted at least the basics of climate >> science, or at least stopped denying it, the world would be a better >> place. The more people accept the evidence the better. > > "Climate science" is a misnomer. It is not science > at all. It is propaganda, bias, rigged and false > data, speculation, hysterical projection and outright > lies. > > Never is a real scientific theory put forth. > Never is there any scientific study that attempts > to REFUTE human-caused climate change. > > The climate change alarmists/taxation fanatics' > sole purpose is to slow down human progress and > make prosperous nations poor. They have taken > science and turned it into "consensus thinking" > under the false premise that a politically > motivated consensus is always correct. > You deny climate science is science. I get that. But that does not make the science any less scientific. As far as competing theories... there are NONE that have been proposed that match the evidence as well, much as no theory has been found to match germ theory as well. Not sure why you think spewing so many anti-science claims will make the science any less scientific. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-06 10:50 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <8d843eln346i5c2bqmjna1v8q1ra63fr68@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #245813 |
On Sat, 5 Jan 2019 19:29:37 -0700, Snit wrote: >On 1/5/19 7:15 PM, Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. wrote: >> On Sat, 5 Jan 2019 18:49:34 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> On 1/5/19 4:25 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>> On 1/5/19 3:49 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>> In sci.physics kensi <kkensinqton01@gmail.nospam.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There is never any good news and it gets worse the more climate deniers >>>>>>> deny the reality. >>>>>> >>>>>> If there already is no good news, how could it get worse? >>>>> >>>>> Because things are not black and white. >>>> >>>> Tell that to kensi. >>> >>> I just said it in a public forum. >>> >>>>>> If "climate deniers" acknowledge the reality then all the news will be good? >>>>> >>>>> If they stop denying science then we can work better to cause less harm. >>>> >>>> Who is "we" and how does the beliefs of others keep "we" from working >>>> better? >>> >>> We is all of us. And if we all accepted at least the basics of climate >>> science, or at least stopped denying it, the world would be a better >>> place. The more people accept the evidence the better. >> >> "Climate science" is a misnomer. It is not science >> at all. It is propaganda, bias, rigged and false >> data, speculation, hysterical projection and outright >> lies. >> >> Never is a real scientific theory put forth. >> Never is there any scientific study that attempts >> to REFUTE human-caused climate change. >> >> The climate change alarmists/taxation fanatics' >> sole purpose is to slow down human progress and >> make prosperous nations poor. They have taken >> science and turned it into "consensus thinking" >> under the false premise that a politically >> motivated consensus is always correct. >> > >You deny climate science is science. I get that. But that does not make >the science any less scientific. What science? >As far as competing theories... there are NONE that have been proposed >that match the evidence as well, How well is that? <http://www.cfact.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/spencer-models-epic-fail2-628x353.jpg> >much as no theory has been found to >match germ theory as well. Of the many things you're not sure about ... >Not sure why you think spewing so many anti-science claims will make the >science any less scientific. Maybe you misread what he said. Try this: https://www.hookedonphonics.com/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | % <persent@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-06 08:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bspu30.a01.17.2@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #245883 |
On 2019-01-06 8:50 a.m., Wally W. wrote: > On Sat, 5 Jan 2019 19:29:37 -0700, Snit wrote: > >> On 1/5/19 7:15 PM, Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. wrote: >>> On Sat, 5 Jan 2019 18:49:34 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>> On 1/5/19 4:25 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 1/5/19 3:49 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>> In sci.physics kensi <kkensinqton01@gmail.nospam.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> There is never any good news and it gets worse the more climate deniers >>>>>>>> deny the reality. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If there already is no good news, how could it get worse? >>>>>> >>>>>> Because things are not black and white. >>>>> >>>>> Tell that to kensi. >>>> >>>> I just said it in a public forum. >>>> >>>>>>> If "climate deniers" acknowledge the reality then all the news will be good? >>>>>> >>>>>> If they stop denying science then we can work better to cause less harm. >>>>> >>>>> Who is "we" and how does the beliefs of others keep "we" from working >>>>> better? >>>> >>>> We is all of us. And if we all accepted at least the basics of climate >>>> science, or at least stopped denying it, the world would be a better >>>> place. The more people accept the evidence the better. >>> >>> "Climate science" is a misnomer. It is not science >>> at all. It is propaganda, bias, rigged and false >>> data, speculation, hysterical projection and outright >>> lies. >>> >>> Never is a real scientific theory put forth. >>> Never is there any scientific study that attempts >>> to REFUTE human-caused climate change. >>> >>> The climate change alarmists/taxation fanatics' >>> sole purpose is to slow down human progress and >>> make prosperous nations poor. They have taken >>> science and turned it into "consensus thinking" >>> under the false premise that a politically >>> motivated consensus is always correct. >>> >> >> You deny climate science is science. I get that. But that does not make >> the science any less scientific. > > What science? > >> As far as competing theories... there are NONE that have been proposed >> that match the evidence as well, > > How well is that? > > <http://www.cfact.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/spencer-models-epic-fail2-628x353.jpg> > > >> much as no theory has been found to >> match germ theory as well. > > Of the many things you're not sure about ... > >> Not sure why you think spewing so many anti-science claims will make the >> science any less scientific. > > Maybe you misread what he said. > > Try this: > https://www.hookedonphonics.com/ > oh good then he can misread it all the time
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-06 18:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <g9evgsFoqmsU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #245884 |
% <persent@gmail.com> wrote: > On 2019-01-06 8:50 a.m., Wally W. wrote: >> On Sat, 5 Jan 2019 19:29:37 -0700, Snit wrote: >> >>> On 1/5/19 7:15 PM, Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. wrote: >>>> On Sat, 5 Jan 2019 18:49:34 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>> On 1/5/19 4:25 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On 1/5/19 3:49 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>> In sci.physics kensi <kkensinqton01@gmail.nospam.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> There is never any good news and it gets worse the more climate deniers >>>>>>>>> deny the reality. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If there already is no good news, how could it get worse? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Because things are not black and white. >>>>>> >>>>>> Tell that to kensi. >>>>> >>>>> I just said it in a public forum. >>>>> >>>>>>>> If "climate deniers" acknowledge the reality then all the news will be good? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If they stop denying science then we can work better to cause less harm. >>>>>> >>>>>> Who is "we" and how does the beliefs of others keep "we" from working >>>>>> better? >>>>> >>>>> We is all of us. And if we all accepted at least the basics of climate >>>>> science, or at least stopped denying it, the world would be a better >>>>> place. The more people accept the evidence the better. >>>> >>>> "Climate science" is a misnomer. It is not science >>>> at all. It is propaganda, bias, rigged and false >>>> data, speculation, hysterical projection and outright >>>> lies. >>>> >>>> Never is a real scientific theory put forth. >>>> Never is there any scientific study that attempts >>>> to REFUTE human-caused climate change. >>>> >>>> The climate change alarmists/taxation fanatics' >>>> sole purpose is to slow down human progress and >>>> make prosperous nations poor. They have taken >>>> science and turned it into "consensus thinking" >>>> under the false premise that a politically >>>> motivated consensus is always correct. >>>> >>> >>> You deny climate science is science. I get that. But that does not make >>> the science any less scientific. >> >> What science? >> >>> As far as competing theories... there are NONE that have been proposed >>> that match the evidence as well, >> >> How well is that? >> >> <http://www.cfact.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/spencer-models-epic-fail2-628x353.jpg> >> >> >>> much as no theory has been found to >>> match germ theory as well. >> >> Of the many things you're not sure about ... >> >>> Not sure why you think spewing so many anti-science claims will make the >>> science any less scientific. >> >> Maybe you misread what he said. >> >> Try this: >> https://www.hookedonphonics.com/ >> > oh good then he can misread it all the time > Phonics looks misspelled.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-06 18:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <g9evgrFoqmsU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #245883 |
Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: > On Sat, 5 Jan 2019 19:29:37 -0700, Snit wrote: > >> On 1/5/19 7:15 PM, Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. wrote: >>> On Sat, 5 Jan 2019 18:49:34 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>> On 1/5/19 4:25 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 1/5/19 3:49 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>> In sci.physics kensi <kkensinqton01@gmail.nospam.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> There is never any good news and it gets worse the more climate deniers >>>>>>>> deny the reality. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If there already is no good news, how could it get worse? >>>>>> >>>>>> Because things are not black and white. >>>>> >>>>> Tell that to kensi. >>>> >>>> I just said it in a public forum. >>>> >>>>>>> If "climate deniers" acknowledge the reality then all the news will be good? >>>>>> >>>>>> If they stop denying science then we can work better to cause less harm. >>>>> >>>>> Who is "we" and how does the beliefs of others keep "we" from working >>>>> better? >>>> >>>> We is all of us. And if we all accepted at least the basics of climate >>>> science, or at least stopped denying it, the world would be a better >>>> place. The more people accept the evidence the better. >>> >>> "Climate science" is a misnomer. It is not science >>> at all. It is propaganda, bias, rigged and false >>> data, speculation, hysterical projection and outright >>> lies. >>> >>> Never is a real scientific theory put forth. >>> Never is there any scientific study that attempts >>> to REFUTE human-caused climate change. >>> >>> The climate change alarmists/taxation fanatics' >>> sole purpose is to slow down human progress and >>> make prosperous nations poor. They have taken >>> science and turned it into "consensus thinking" >>> under the false premise that a politically >>> motivated consensus is always correct. >>> >> >> You deny climate science is science. I get that. But that does not make >> the science any less scientific. > > What science? Science accepted by every scientific organization on the planet with a position on the topic, and the ongoing research into it. What else would you think? > >> As far as competing theories... there are NONE that have been proposed >> that match the evidence as well, > > How well is that? > > <http://www.cfact.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/spencer-models-epic-fail2-628x353.jpg> Very well. The fact you can hand pick one of fewer than 70 scientists who deny and misrepresent the data does not change that. It does show you work hard to hand pick claims to fit your bias though. That shows a poor understanding of how evidence works. > > >> much as no theory has been found to >> match germ theory as well. > > Of the many things you're not sure about ... Do you think germ theory has been found to be wrong? Not just modified with new data, but superseded by a newer theory? >> Not sure why you think spewing so many anti-science claims will make the >> science any less scientific. > > Maybe you misread what he said. Nope. > > Try this: > https://www.hookedonphonics.com/ >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-06 10:35 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <gji43e99kpoo8dclq808euoviunoaam4ji@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #245933 |
On 6 Jan 2019 18:25:32 GMT, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> You deny climate science is science. I get that. But that does not make >>> the science any less scientific. >> >> What science? > >Science accepted by every scientific organization on the planet with a >position on the topic, and the ongoing research into it. Snit keeps repeating this like it's a fact, but when asked to prove it, he runs away. Every. Time.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Michael Ejercito" <mejercit@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-06 10:52 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <q0tiq5$tth$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #245940 |
"Klaus Schadenfreude" wrote in message news:gji43e99kpoo8dclq808euoviunoaam4ji@4ax.com... >On 6 Jan 2019 18:25:32 GMT, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>> You deny climate science is science. I get that. But that does not make >>>> the science any less scientific. >>> >>> What science? >> >>Science accepted by every scientific organization on the planet with a >>position on the topic, and the ongoing research into it. >Snit keeps repeating this like it's a fact, but when asked to prove >it, he runs away. >Every. >Time. No wonder Chris Morton called climate change Lysenkoism. https://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2017/06/foreigners_see_president_trump.html#vf-11000109963048 "Climate change" is just another left wing political pseudo religion like Lysenkoism. If you have to lie about the data, it's for a reason. Trofim Lysenko, for his personal aggrandizement, destroyed Soviet agriculture to the point where it could never recover. Like him, the Al Gores of this world want to destroy the U.S. economy for their own benefit. And here is Jack Marshall. http://ethicsalarms.com/2018/11/15/late-and-fevered-ethics-musings-11-15-18-pardon-hillary-and-more-surprises/ 2. Again, this is why climate change skeptics are right to be skeptical. In a paper published Oct. 31 in the journal Nature and garnering the usual “what’s the matter with you idiots the evidence is overwhelming we’re doomed DOOMED!” coverage by the news media, researchers claimed to have found that ocean temperatures had warmed 60% more than outlined by the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. However, mathematician Nic Lewis posted a critique of the paper, writing that “The findings of the … paper were peer reviewed and published in the world’s premier scientific journal and were given wide coverage in the English-speaking media. Despite this, a quick review of the first page of the paper was sufficient to raise doubts as to the accuracy of its results.” Ooops! He was right. Co-author Ralph Keeling, climate scientist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, took full blame and thanked Lewis for alerting him to the mistake, which I would attribute to mass confirmation bias. Keeling said they have since redone the calculations, finding the ocean is still likely warmer than the estimate used by the IPCC. However, that increase in heat has a larger range of probability than initially thought — between 10 percent and 70 percent, as other studies have already found. “Our error margins are too big now to really weigh in on the precise amount of warming that’s going on in the ocean,” Keeling said. “We really muffed the error margins.” It is not “climate change denial” to reject over-hyped apocalyptic predictions when the entire climate-change field continues to make predictions and projections that are constantly shown to be not reliable or accurate. Here is something Paul w. Schelcht noted. http://ethicsalarms.com/2018/10/30/morning-ethics-warm-up-10-30-18-scary-ethics-stories/#comment-574937 So now it’s 12 years? Sheesh, how many times are they going to move the goal posts? How much time do we have? Pick ’em! HOURS: Flashback March 2009: ‘We have hours’ to prevent climate disaster — Declares Elizabeth May of Canadian Green Party DAYS: Flashback Oct. 2009: UK’s Gordon Brown warns of global warming ‘catastrophe’; Only ’50 days to save world’ MONTHS: Prince Charles claimed a 96-month tipping point in July 2009 YEARS: 2009: NASA’s James Hansen Declared Obama Only First Term to Save The Planet! — ‘On Jan. 17, 2009 Hansen declared Obama only ‘has four years to save Earth’ or Flashback Oct .2009: WWF: ‘Five years to save world’ DECADES: 1982: UN official Mostafa Tolba, executive director of the UN Environment Program (UNEP), warned on May 11, 1982, the ‘world faces an ecological disaster as final as nuclear war within a couple of decades unless governments act now.’ MILLENIA: Flashback June 2010: 1000 years delay: Green Guru James Lovelock: Climate change may not happen as fast as we thought, and we may have 1,000 years to sort it out’ Global Warming Tipping Points are like the time/temperature on neon Bank signs; I’d allow more attention if they were all saying the same thing. Chris Morton pointed out that dissenters are being bullied to the point of murder. http://www.cleveland.com/obrien/index.ssf/2017/03/scary_global-warming_stories_c.html#vf-11000109417551 Anyone who wants to understand the "climate change" scam ought to Google the name "Trofim Lysenko". What he did to Soviet agriculture, "climate change" cultists are trying to do to the entire economy of the United States. If you have to lie and bully (to the point of murder) dissenters, it isn't "science". And Jack Marshall mentions Adam Weinstein. http://ethicsalarms.com/2014/03/30/lets-adopt-adam-weinsteins-values-and-arrest-adam-weinstein/ If you think slowing down the political (it’s not objectively scientific, of course) steamroller on climate change policies is deadly, just examine the history of what has transpired when dissenters like “Rush and his multi-million-dollar ilk in the disinformation business” were intimidated and punished by the state for daring to challenge conventional wisdom declared by The One as “fact.” Tally up the millions upon millions slaughtered, liquidated and starved to death by Stalin and Mao; you don’t even have to add in Hitler’s casualties in World War II. Will the entirely speculative effects of global warming be more deadly than that? I can only guess, but I do know how deadly suppressing free thought, research, debate and dissent has been, because I’m not relying on computer models. Does Adam, or for that matter, his hero Torcello, actually know how accurate climate change models are? Could he even read one? I doubt it. I’ve read his bio and education; like Torcello, he not a climate expert, or even a scientist. How then can this unimpressively educated, narrow-interest journalist be so sure that the scientific majority on this subject that he barely comprehends at an Al Gore level (that is to say, “Duh”) is so right, when so many other scientific conclusions have been proven so wrong? He can’t. He just wants to end the argument by threats and force, that’s all. Just like authoritarians, dictators, bullies and tyrants always have, even though Weinstein presumably knows the carnage and horror the enslavement of human thought has always wrought. By Adam Weinstein’s own logic, there should be a law to protect us against him. All of this shows that climate change is a hoax. --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. https://www.avg.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-06 18:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <g9f1e5Fp8ciU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #245942 |
Michael Ejercito <mejercit@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > "Klaus Schadenfreude" wrote in message > news:gji43e99kpoo8dclq808euoviunoaam4ji@4ax.com... > >> On 6 Jan 2019 18:25:32 GMT, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >>>>> You deny climate science is science. I get that. But that does not make >>>>> the science any less scientific. >>>> >>>> What science? >>> >>> Science accepted by every scientific organization on the planet with a >>> position on the topic, and the ongoing research into it. > >> Snit keeps repeating this like it's a fact, but when asked to prove >> it, he runs away. > >> Every. > >> Time. > > > No wonder Chris Morton called climate change Lysenkoism. > > > https://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2017/06/foreigners_see_president_trump.html#vf-11000109963048 > > "Climate change" is just another left wing political pseudo religion like > Lysenkoism. If you have to lie about the data, it's for a reason. Trofim > Lysenko, for his personal aggrandizement, destroyed Soviet agriculture to > the point where it could never recover. Like him, the Al Gores of this > world want to destroy the U.S. economy for their own benefit. > > And here is Jack Marshall. > > > http://ethicsalarms.com/2018/11/15/late-and-fevered-ethics-musings-11-15-18-pardon-hillary-and-more-surprises/ > > > 2. Again, this is why climate change skeptics are right to be skeptical. In > a paper published Oct. 31 in the journal Nature and garnering the usual > “what’s the matter with you idiots the evidence is overwhelming we’re doomed > DOOMED!” coverage by the news media, researchers claimed to have found that > ocean temperatures had warmed 60% more than outlined by the United Nation’s > Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. However, mathematician Nic Lewis > posted a critique of the paper, writing that “The findings of the … paper > were peer reviewed and published in the world’s premier scientific journal > and were given wide coverage in the English-speaking media. Despite this, a > quick review of the first page of the paper was sufficient to raise doubts > as to the accuracy of its results.” > > Ooops! He was right. Co-author Ralph Keeling, climate scientist at the > Scripps Institution of Oceanography, took full blame and thanked Lewis for > alerting him to the mistake, which I would attribute to mass confirmation > bias. Keeling said they have since redone the calculations, finding the > ocean is still likely warmer than the estimate used by the IPCC. However, > that increase in heat has a larger range of probability than initially > thought — between 10 percent and 70 percent, as other studies have already > found. “Our error margins are too big now to really weigh in on the precise > amount of warming that’s going on in the ocean,” Keeling said. “We really > muffed the error margins.” > > It is not “climate change denial” to reject over-hyped apocalyptic > predictions when the entire climate-change field continues to make > predictions and projections that are constantly shown to be not reliable or > accurate. > > Here is something Paul w. Schelcht noted. > > http://ethicsalarms.com/2018/10/30/morning-ethics-warm-up-10-30-18-scary-ethics-stories/#comment-574937 > > So now it’s 12 years? Sheesh, how many times are they going to move the goal > posts? > > How much time do we have? Pick ’em! > > HOURS: Flashback March 2009: ‘We have hours’ to prevent climate disaster — > Declares Elizabeth May of Canadian Green Party > > DAYS: Flashback Oct. 2009: UK’s Gordon Brown warns of global warming > ‘catastrophe’; Only ’50 days to save world’ > > MONTHS: Prince Charles claimed a 96-month tipping point in July 2009 > > YEARS: 2009: NASA’s James Hansen Declared Obama Only First Term to Save The > Planet! — ‘On Jan. 17, 2009 Hansen declared Obama only ‘has four years to > save Earth’ or Flashback Oct .2009: WWF: ‘Five years to save world’ > > DECADES: 1982: UN official Mostafa Tolba, executive director of the UN > Environment Program (UNEP), warned on May 11, 1982, the ‘world faces an > ecological disaster as final as nuclear war within a couple of decades > unless governments act now.’ > > MILLENIA: Flashback June 2010: 1000 years delay: Green Guru James Lovelock: > Climate change may not happen as fast as we thought, and we may have 1,000 > years to sort it out’ > > Global Warming Tipping Points are like the time/temperature on neon Bank > signs; I’d allow more attention if they were all saying the same thing. > > Chris Morton pointed out that dissenters are being bullied to the point of > murder. > > http://www.cleveland.com/obrien/index.ssf/2017/03/scary_global-warming_stories_c.html#vf-11000109417551 > > > > Anyone who wants to understand the "climate change" scam ought to Google the > name "Trofim Lysenko". > What he did to Soviet agriculture, "climate change" cultists are trying to > do to the entire economy of the United States. > If you have to lie and bully (to the point of murder) dissenters, it isn't > "science". > > And Jack Marshall mentions Adam Weinstein. > > http://ethicsalarms.com/2014/03/30/lets-adopt-adam-weinsteins-values-and-arrest-adam-weinstein/ > > If you think slowing down the political (it’s not objectively scientific, of > course) steamroller on climate change policies is deadly, just examine the > history of what has transpired when dissenters like “Rush and his > multi-million-dollar ilk in the disinformation business” were intimidated > and punished by the state for daring to challenge conventional wisdom > declared by The One as “fact.” Tally up the millions upon millions > slaughtered, liquidated and starved to death by Stalin and Mao; you don’t > even have to add in Hitler’s casualties in World War II. Will the entirely > speculative effects of global warming be more deadly than that? I can only > guess, but I do know how deadly suppressing free thought, research, debate > and dissent has been, because I’m not relying on computer models. > > Does Adam, or for that matter, his hero Torcello, actually know how accurate > climate change models are? Could he even read one? I doubt it. I’ve read his > bio and education; like Torcello, he not a climate expert, or even a > scientist. How then can this unimpressively educated, narrow-interest > journalist be so sure that the scientific majority on this subject that he > barely comprehends at an Al Gore level (that is to say, “Duh”) is so right, > when so many other scientific conclusions have been proven so wrong? > > He can’t. He just wants to end the argument by threats and force, that’s > all. Just like authoritarians, dictators, bullies and tyrants always have, > even though Weinstein presumably knows the carnage and horror the > enslavement of human thought has always wrought. > > By Adam Weinstein’s own logic, there should be a law to protect us against > him. > > All of this shows that climate change is a hoax. > > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. > https://www.avg.com > > You call science left wing. I agree. Right wingers tend to deny evidence and data and reason. Those things are deemed liberal. One place where you show a lacking here is pointing to studies found to be wrong. That is how science works — peer review and replication WITHOUT the assumption that any one study must be right. It is a key difference between science and most religions and is a strength of science. You push to make it seem a weakness.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-06 12:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <g9f2tvFpig3U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #245940 |
On 1/6/19 11:35 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote: > On 6 Jan 2019 18:25:32 GMT, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >>>> You deny climate science is science. I get that. But that does not make >>>> the science any less scientific. >>> >>> What science? >> >> Science accepted by every scientific organization on the planet with a >> position on the topic, and the ongoing research into it. > > Snit keeps repeating this like it's a fact, but when asked to prove > it, he runs away. > > Every. > > Time. > I have backed it repeatedly, and NO counter-example has been shown. Here are list of major scientific organizations and academies and government agencies intergovernmental bodies and more: https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ Then there is this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Scientific_consensus ----- No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these main points. The last national or international scientific body to drop dissent was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which in 2007 updated its statement to its current non-committal position. Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions. ----- And what is very well known -- to the point that "No scientific body of national or international standing" denies: ----- • "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. ----- This, of course, does not mean these things cannot be updated in the future as newer data comes out, but those things are based on the best data we have and are very well accepted by the experts. They are evidence-based... things backed by research and data and science. They are not faith-based as is your denial. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-06 12:00 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <jcn43ela7cgb8sf85e5prronigoqtof7di@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #245946 |
On Sun, 6 Jan 2019 12:23:42 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
wrote:
>On 1/6/19 11:35 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>> On 6 Jan 2019 18:25:32 GMT, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> You deny climate science is science. I get that. But that does not make
>>>>> the science any less scientific.
>>>>
>>>> What science?
>>>
>>> Science accepted by every scientific organization on the planet with a
>>> position on the topic, and the ongoing research into it.
>>
>> Snit keeps repeating this like it's a fact, but when asked to prove
>> it, he runs away.
>>
>> Every.
>>
>> Time.
>>
>
>I have backed it repeatedly, and NO counter-example has been shown.
As I predicted!
SO easy to tell what you're going to do or--in this case-- NOT do,
Snitty!
LOL
==================================================
==================================================
================= WARNING! ========================
**** GOAL POST MOVES AHEAD! ****
================= WARNING! ========================
==================================================
==================================================
>Here are list of major scientific organizations
Note how Snit goes from
"every scientific organization on the planet"
to
"Well, gee, um, well, here's a list of what I'll just refer to as the
'major' ones....."
Pathetic.
Predictable.
Puerile.
That's Snit for 2019!
ROFLMAO
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-06 10:04 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <iog43e5u9los8haoio2q98uhatrkhnf333@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #245813 |
On Sat, 5 Jan 2019 19:29:37 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >You deny climate science is science. You're lying. NO such statement was ever made. We enjoy your angry desperation, though. Interesting.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-05 23:22 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <q0s3ak$196p$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #245805 |
On 1/5/2019 8:15 PM, Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. wrote: > On Sat, 5 Jan 2019 18:49:34 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> On 1/5/19 4:25 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>> On 1/5/19 3:49 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>> In sci.physics kensi <kkensinqton01@gmail.nospam.invalid> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> There is never any good news and it gets worse the more climate deniers >>>>>> deny the reality. >>>>> >>>>> If there already is no good news, how could it get worse? >>>> >>>> Because things are not black and white. >>> >>> Tell that to kensi. >> >> I just said it in a public forum. >> >>>>> If "climate deniers" acknowledge the reality then all the news will be good? >>>> >>>> If they stop denying science then we can work better to cause less harm. >>> >>> Who is "we" and how does the beliefs of others keep "we" from working >>> better? >> >> We is all of us. And if we all accepted at least the basics of climate >> science, or at least stopped denying it, the world would be a better >> place. The more people accept the evidence the better. > > "Climate science" is a misnomer. It is not science > at all. It is propaganda, bias, rigged and false > data, speculation, hysterical projection and outright > lies. > > Never is a real scientific theory put forth. > Never is there any scientific study that attempts > to REFUTE human-caused climate change. > > The climate change alarmists/taxation fanatics' > sole purpose is to slow down human progress and > make prosperous nations poor. They have taken > science and turned it into "consensus thinking" > under the false premise that a politically > motivated consensus is always correct. > France yellow Vest riots are anti climate change tax and have been going on for 2 months. so....... what would France do with the tax collected ? put it in their the general fund and spend it on anything. politicians smell money and use the Gov to take it, grow Gov.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-06 02:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ck48gf-4vd.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #245777 |
In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 1/5/19 4:25 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> On 1/5/19 3:49 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>> In sci.physics kensi <kkensinqton01@gmail.nospam.invalid> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> There is never any good news and it gets worse the more climate deniers >>>>> deny the reality. >>>> >>>> If there already is no good news, how could it get worse? >>> >>> Because things are not black and white. >> >> Tell that to kensi. > > I just said it in a public forum. Do you think kensi will pay any attention? >>>> If "climate deniers" acknowledge the reality then all the news will be good? >>> >>> If they stop denying science then we can work better to cause less harm. >> >> Who is "we" and how does the beliefs of others keep "we" from working >> better? > > We is all of us. If we is all of us, how can there be any "they"? > And if we all accepted at least the basics of climate > science, or at least stopped denying it, the world would be a better > place. The more people accept the evidence the better. Sounds like religion to me, i.e. you must believe. "We all" accept a lot of things and that does not seem to make the slightest difference in the state of the world. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 8 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.checkmate
csiph-web