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 2 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-05 19:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <g9d7bcFd2p4U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #245806 |
On 1/5/19 7:09 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > 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"? Who would they be if we all agreed to accept evidence? But you will always have SOME that do. I understand that. Right now we have one whole major political party. >> 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. Accepting evidence does not make someone religious. The two are not only different, they are pretty much opposites. > "We all" accept a lot of things and that does not seem to make the > slightest difference in the state of the world. Such as? -- 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 | 2019-01-06 05:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <3gh8gf-k4f.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #245810 |
In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 1/5/19 7:09 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> 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"? > > Who would they be if we all agreed to accept evidence? Non sequitur. If we is all of us, there is no one left to be "they". > But you will always have SOME that do. I understand that. Right now we > have one whole major political party. Puerile nonsense. >>> 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. > > Accepting evidence does not make someone religious. The two are not only > different, they are pretty much opposites. That whooshing noise you hear is the point going over your head at high speed. >> "We all" accept a lot of things and that does not seem to make the >> slightest difference in the state of the world. > > Such as? Ignoring the insane, murder is evil, gravity works, rainbows are pretty, pollution is bad, children should be protected... -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-06 06:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <g9dls3FfvdqU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #245847 |
<jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote: > In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> On 1/5/19 7:09 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> 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"? Odd non sequitur but whatever. >> >> Who would they be if we all agreed to accept evidence? > > Non sequitur. > > If we is all of us, there is no one left to be "they". > >> But you will always have SOME that do. I understand that. Right now we >> have one whole major political party. > > Puerile nonsense. Lack of counter noted. Do you deny Republicans generally deny climate science? > >>>> 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. >> >> Accepting evidence does not make someone religious. The two are not only >> different, they are pretty much opposites. > > That whooshing noise you hear is the point going over your head at > high speed. I get your failed analogy. Do you get why it is a failure? You tried to equate blind faith with acceptance of well backed evidence. That was a false equivalency on your part. > >>> "We all" accept a lot of things and that does not seem to make the >>> slightest difference in the state of the world. >> >> Such as? > > Ignoring the insane, murder is evil, gravity works, rainbows are pretty, > pollution is bad, children should be protected... > You see no impact from any of those?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-06 17:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <55s9gf-hdj.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #245851 |
In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote: >> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> On 1/5/19 7:09 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>> 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"? > > Odd non sequitur but whatever. It is your logic, mostly your lack of it, that is odd. >>> >>> Who would they be if we all agreed to accept evidence? >> >> Non sequitur. >> >> If we is all of us, there is no one left to be "they". >> >>> But you will always have SOME that do. I understand that. Right now we >>> have one whole major political party. >> >> Puerile nonsense. > > Lack of counter noted. Do you deny Republicans generally deny climate > science? I neither confirm nor deny such childish, idiotic generalities. >> >>>>> 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. >>> >>> Accepting evidence does not make someone religious. The two are not only >>> different, they are pretty much opposites. >> >> That whooshing noise you hear is the point going over your head at >> high speed. > > I get your failed analogy. Do you get why it is a failure? You tried to > equate blind faith with acceptance of well backed evidence. That was a > false equivalency on your part. Nope, as it whooshes by once more. I equated your "you MUST all believe" with religion. >>>> "We all" accept a lot of things and that does not seem to make the >>>> slightest difference in the state of the world. >>> >>> Such as? >> >> Ignoring the insane, murder is evil, gravity works, rainbows are pretty, >> pollution is bad, children should be protected... >> > > You see no impact from any of those? Such as? -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-06 11:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.369bf3f2b9d2e0e9889@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #245911 |
In article <55s9gf-hdj.ln1@mail.specsol.com>, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com says... > >In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote: >>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>> On 1/5/19 7:09 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>> 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"? >> >> Odd non sequitur but whatever. > >It is your logic, mostly your lack of it, that is odd. > >>>> >>>> Who would they be if we all agreed to accept evidence? >>> >>> Non sequitur. >>> >>> If we is all of us, there is no one left to be "they". >>> >>>> But you will always have SOME that do. I understand that. Right now we >>>> have one whole major political party. >>> >>> Puerile nonsense. >> >> Lack of counter noted. Do you deny Republicans generally deny climate >> science? > >I neither confirm nor deny such childish, idiotic generalities. >>> >>>>>> 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. >>>> >>>> Accepting evidence does not make someone religious. The two are not only >>>> different, they are pretty much opposites. >>> >>> That whooshing noise you hear is the point going over your head at >>> high speed. >> >> I get your failed analogy. Do you get why it is a failure? You tried to >> equate blind faith with acceptance of well backed evidence. That was a >> false equivalency on your part. > >Nope, as it whooshes by once more. > >I equated your "you MUST all believe" with religion. > >>>>> "We all" accept a lot of things and that does not seem to make the >>>>> slightest difference in the state of the world. >>>> >>>> Such as? >>> >>> Ignoring the insane, murder is evil, gravity works, rainbows are pretty, >>> pollution is bad, children should be protected... >>> >> >> You see no impact from any of those? > >Such as? So did you ever figure out what a jimp is?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-06 18:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <g9evguFoqmsU4@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #245911 |
<jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote: > In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote: >>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>> On 1/5/19 7:09 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>> 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"? >> >> Odd non sequitur but whatever. > > It is your logic, mostly your lack of it, that is odd. > >>>> >>>> Who would they be if we all agreed to accept evidence? >>> >>> Non sequitur. >>> >>> If we is all of us, there is no one left to be "they". >>> >>>> But you will always have SOME that do. I understand that. Right now we >>>> have one whole major political party. >>> >>> Puerile nonsense. >> >> Lack of counter noted. Do you deny Republicans generally deny climate >> science? > > I neither confirm nor deny such childish, idiotic generalities. >>> >>>>>> 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. >>>> >>>> Accepting evidence does not make someone religious. The two are not only >>>> different, they are pretty much opposites. >>> >>> That whooshing noise you hear is the point going over your head at >>> high speed. >> >> I get your failed analogy. Do you get why it is a failure? You tried to >> equate blind faith with acceptance of well backed evidence. That was a >> false equivalency on your part. > > Nope, as it whooshes by once more. > > I equated your "you MUST all believe" with religion. > >>>>> "We all" accept a lot of things and that does not seem to make the >>>>> slightest difference in the state of the world. >>>> >>>> Such as? >>> >>> Ignoring the insane, murder is evil, gravity works, rainbows are pretty, >>> pollution is bad, children should be protected... >>> >> >> You see no impact from any of those? > > Such as? > You are very confused and do not even know Republicans tend to deny climate science, and you confuse science and religion. Fair enough.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | % <persent@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-06 11:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bsq70t.opb.17.1@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #245935 |
On 2019-01-06 11:25 a.m., Snit wrote: > <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote: >> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote: >>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>> On 1/5/19 7:09 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>> 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"? >>> >>> Odd non sequitur but whatever. >> >> It is your logic, mostly your lack of it, that is odd. >> >>>>> >>>>> Who would they be if we all agreed to accept evidence? >>>> >>>> Non sequitur. >>>> >>>> If we is all of us, there is no one left to be "they". >>>> >>>>> But you will always have SOME that do. I understand that. Right now we >>>>> have one whole major political party. >>>> >>>> Puerile nonsense. >>> >>> Lack of counter noted. Do you deny Republicans generally deny climate >>> science? >> >> I neither confirm nor deny such childish, idiotic generalities. >>>> >>>>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> Accepting evidence does not make someone religious. The two are not only >>>>> different, they are pretty much opposites. >>>> >>>> That whooshing noise you hear is the point going over your head at >>>> high speed. >>> >>> I get your failed analogy. Do you get why it is a failure? You tried to >>> equate blind faith with acceptance of well backed evidence. That was a >>> false equivalency on your part. >> >> Nope, as it whooshes by once more. >> >> I equated your "you MUST all believe" with religion. >> >>>>>> "We all" accept a lot of things and that does not seem to make the >>>>>> slightest difference in the state of the world. >>>>> >>>>> Such as? >>>> >>>> Ignoring the insane, murder is evil, gravity works, rainbows are pretty, >>>> pollution is bad, children should be protected... >>>> >>> >>> You see no impact from any of those? >> >> Such as? >> > > You are very confused and do not even know Republicans tend to deny climate > science, and you confuse science and religion. Fair enough. > he's trapped in a snit
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-06 18:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <g9f00nFous5U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #245938 |
% <persent@gmail.com> wrote: > On 2019-01-06 11:25 a.m., Snit wrote: >> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote: >>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote: >>>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 1/5/19 7:09 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>> 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"? >>>> >>>> Odd non sequitur but whatever. >>> >>> It is your logic, mostly your lack of it, that is odd. >>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Who would they be if we all agreed to accept evidence? >>>>> >>>>> Non sequitur. >>>>> >>>>> If we is all of us, there is no one left to be "they". >>>>> >>>>>> But you will always have SOME that do. I understand that. Right now we >>>>>> have one whole major political party. >>>>> >>>>> Puerile nonsense. >>>> >>>> Lack of counter noted. Do you deny Republicans generally deny climate >>>> science? >>> >>> I neither confirm nor deny such childish, idiotic generalities. >>>>> >>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>> >>>>>> Accepting evidence does not make someone religious. The two are not only >>>>>> different, they are pretty much opposites. >>>>> >>>>> That whooshing noise you hear is the point going over your head at >>>>> high speed. >>>> >>>> I get your failed analogy. Do you get why it is a failure? You tried to >>>> equate blind faith with acceptance of well backed evidence. That was a >>>> false equivalency on your part. >>> >>> Nope, as it whooshes by once more. >>> >>> I equated your "you MUST all believe" with religion. >>> >>>>>>> "We all" accept a lot of things and that does not seem to make the >>>>>>> slightest difference in the state of the world. >>>>>> >>>>>> Such as? >>>>> >>>>> Ignoring the insane, murder is evil, gravity works, rainbows are pretty, >>>>> pollution is bad, children should be protected... >>>>> >>>> >>>> You see no impact from any of those? >>> >>> Such as? >>> >> >> You are very confused and do not even know Republicans tend to deny climate >> science, and you confuse science and religion. Fair enough. >> > he's trapped in a snit > He is trolling a snit.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-06 20:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ot4agf-f8k.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #245935 |
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. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-06 13:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <g9f7c9Fqh34U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #245949 |
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! -- 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 | Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-06 13:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.369c19b225ac9fb388f@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #245950 |
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-06 14:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <g9f8lsFqqmiU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #245951 |
On 1/6/19 1:57 PM, 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. > Certainly a good thing to do... but would not stop the problem (unless you take it to an extreme). -- 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 | % <persent@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-06 14:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bsqguf.9mj.19.12@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #245954 |
On 2019-01-06 2:01 p.m., Snit wrote: > On 1/6/19 1:57 PM, 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. >> > > Certainly a good thing to do... but would not stop the problem (unless > you take it to an extreme). > what's a jimp
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-06 14:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.369c22b38a176c85890@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #245961 |
In article <bsqguf.9mj.19.12@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... > >On 2019-01-06 2:01 p.m., Snit wrote: >> On 1/6/19 1:57 PM, 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. >>> >> >> Certainly a good thing to do... but would not stop the problem (unless >> you take it to an extreme). >> >what's a jimp I knew a gal once who walked with a jimp.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | % <persent@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-06 14:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bsqi59.5tt.17.2@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #245964 |
On 2019-01-06 2:36 p.m., Skeeter wrote: > In article <bsqguf.9mj.19.12@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... >> >> On 2019-01-06 2:01 p.m., Snit wrote: >>> On 1/6/19 1:57 PM, 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. >>>> >>> >>> Certainly a good thing to do... but would not stop the problem (unless >>> you take it to an extreme). >>> >> what's a jimp > > I knew a gal once who walked with a jimp. > we used to go to the jimp once a week in high school
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-06 14:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.369c246c976ca051895@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #245967 |
In article <bsqi59.5tt.17.2@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... > >On 2019-01-06 2:36 p.m., Skeeter wrote: >> In article <bsqguf.9mj.19.12@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... >>> >>> On 2019-01-06 2:01 p.m., Snit wrote: >>>> On 1/6/19 1:57 PM, 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. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Certainly a good thing to do... but would not stop the problem (unless >>>> you take it to an extreme). >>>> >>> what's a jimp >> >> I knew a gal once who walked with a jimp. >> > >we used to go to the jimp once a week in high school Now that I got Medicare I got Silver Sneakers program and can go to the jimp for free.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | % <persent@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-06 14:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bsqj1s.ft3.17.2@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #245970 |
On 2019-01-06 2:43 p.m., Skeeter wrote: > In article <bsqi59.5tt.17.2@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... >> >> On 2019-01-06 2:36 p.m., Skeeter wrote: >>> In article <bsqguf.9mj.19.12@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... >>>> >>>> On 2019-01-06 2:01 p.m., Snit wrote: >>>>> On 1/6/19 1:57 PM, 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. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Certainly a good thing to do... but would not stop the problem (unless >>>>> you take it to an extreme). >>>>> >>>> what's a jimp >>> >>> I knew a gal once who walked with a jimp. >>> >> >> we used to go to the jimp once a week in high school > > Now that I got Medicare I got Silver Sneakers program and can go to the > jimp for free. > well i'm getting jimpped i have to pay 5 bucks a month
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-06 15:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.369c34bf740e805898@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #245978 |
In article <bsqj1s.ft3.17.2@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... > >On 2019-01-06 2:43 p.m., Skeeter wrote: >> In article <bsqi59.5tt.17.2@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... >>> >>> On 2019-01-06 2:36 p.m., Skeeter wrote: >>>> In article <bsqguf.9mj.19.12@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... >>>>> >>>>> On 2019-01-06 2:01 p.m., Snit wrote: >>>>>> On 1/6/19 1:57 PM, 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. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Certainly a good thing to do... but would not stop the problem (unless >>>>>> you take it to an extreme). >>>>>> >>>>> what's a jimp >>>> >>>> I knew a gal once who walked with a jimp. >>>> >>> >>> we used to go to the jimp once a week in high school >> >> Now that I got Medicare I got Silver Sneakers program and can go to the >> jimp for free. >> >well i'm getting jimpped i have to pay 5 bucks a month I like to watch the gals workout in their jimpsuits.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | % <persent@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-06 15:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bsqmik.mv7.17.3@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #246000 |
On 2019-01-06 3:53 p.m., Skeeter wrote: > In article <bsqj1s.ft3.17.2@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... >> >> On 2019-01-06 2:43 p.m., Skeeter wrote: >>> In article <bsqi59.5tt.17.2@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... >>>> >>>> On 2019-01-06 2:36 p.m., Skeeter wrote: >>>>> In article <bsqguf.9mj.19.12@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... >>>>>> >>>>>> On 2019-01-06 2:01 p.m., Snit wrote: >>>>>>> On 1/6/19 1:57 PM, 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. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Certainly a good thing to do... but would not stop the problem (unless >>>>>>> you take it to an extreme). >>>>>>> >>>>>> what's a jimp >>>>> >>>>> I knew a gal once who walked with a jimp. >>>>> >>>> >>>> we used to go to the jimp once a week in high school >>> >>> Now that I got Medicare I got Silver Sneakers program and can go to the >>> jimp for free. >>> >> well i'm getting jimpped i have to pay 5 bucks a month > > I like to watch the gals workout in their jimpsuits. > i like to run behind them
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-06 16:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.369c371e1d666e6289b@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #246001 |
In article <bsqmik.mv7.17.3@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... > >On 2019-01-06 3:53 p.m., Skeeter wrote: >> In article <bsqj1s.ft3.17.2@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... >>> >>> On 2019-01-06 2:43 p.m., Skeeter wrote: >>>> In article <bsqi59.5tt.17.2@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... >>>>> >>>>> On 2019-01-06 2:36 p.m., Skeeter wrote: >>>>>> In article <bsqguf.9mj.19.12@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 2019-01-06 2:01 p.m., Snit wrote: >>>>>>>> On 1/6/19 1:57 PM, 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. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Certainly a good thing to do... but would not stop the problem (unless >>>>>>>> you take it to an extreme). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> what's a jimp >>>>>> >>>>>> I knew a gal once who walked with a jimp. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> we used to go to the jimp once a week in high school >>>> >>>> Now that I got Medicare I got Silver Sneakers program and can go to the >>>> jimp for free. >>>> >>> well i'm getting jimpped i have to pay 5 bucks a month >> >> I like to watch the gals workout in their jimpsuits. >> >i like to run behind them Yea, this gym dont have a track, and they dont like it when i run behind them on the treadmill.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.checkmate
csiph-web