Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #466667 > unrolled thread
| Started by | RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-09-10 17:18 +0000 |
| Last post | 2018-09-14 07:34 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 100 — 9 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy
OT: Assad has "given the order" RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-09-10 17:18 +0000
Re: OT: Assad has "given the order" Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-09-10 10:34 -0700
Re: OT: Assad has "given the order" SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-09-10 23:26 +0000
Re: OT: Assad has "given the order" RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-09-11 19:51 +0000
Re: OT: Assad has "given the order" SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-09-11 21:48 +0000
Re: OT: Assad has "given the order" RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-09-11 22:11 +0000
Re: OT: Assad has "given the order" SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-09-12 00:29 +0000
Re: OT: Assad has "given the order" Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-09-11 17:48 -0700
Re: OT: Assad has "given the order" RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-09-12 13:20 +0000
Re: OT: Assad has "given the order" chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-09-12 08:38 -0500
Re: OT: Assad has "given the order" Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2018-09-12 11:05 -0400
Re: OT: Assad has "given the order" Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-09-12 08:39 -0700
Re: OT: Assad has "given the order" RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-09-12 18:49 +0000
Re: OT: Assad has "given the order" Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2018-09-12 14:52 -0400
Re: OT: Assad has "given the order" chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-09-12 14:28 -0500
Re: OT: Assad has "given the order" RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-09-13 00:19 +0000
Re: OT: Assad has "given the order" Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2018-09-13 11:00 -0400
Re: OT: Assad has "given the order" RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-09-14 03:32 +0000
Re: OT: Assad has "given the order" Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-09-14 07:35 -0700
Re: OT: Assad has "given the order" Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-09-13 10:27 -0700
Re: OT: Assad has "given the order" RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-09-13 00:18 +0000
Re: OT: Assad has "given the order" Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2018-09-13 11:06 -0400
Re: OT: Assad has "given the order" chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-09-13 11:37 -0500
Re: OT: Assad has "given the order" RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-09-14 03:34 +0000
Re: OT: Assad has "given the order" chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-09-14 06:58 -0500
Re: OT: Assad has "given the order" SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-09-14 12:49 +0000
Re: OT: Assad has "given the order" Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-09-14 21:17 -0700
You're biased, like a used car salesman, not a scientist. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-09-15 00:11 -0700
Re: You're biased, like a used car salesman, not a scientist. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-09-15 00:50 -0700
Hillary is a racist FemiNazi; Trump is a disruptor. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-09-15 01:54 -0700
Re: OT: Assad has "given the order" RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-09-14 03:33 +0000
Re: OT: Assad has "given the order" Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-09-14 09:52 -0700
Re: OT: Assad has "given the order" Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-09-13 10:27 -0700
Re: OT: Assad has "given the order" Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-09-15 11:49 -0700
Re: OT: Assad has "given the order" RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-09-12 18:46 +0000
Re: OT: Assad has "given the order" chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-09-12 14:14 -0500
Re: OT: Assad has "given the order" Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-09-12 17:04 -0700
Re: OT: Assad has "given the order" RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-09-13 00:21 +0000
Re: OT: Assad has "given the order" owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-09-13 01:12 +0000
Re: OT: Assad has "given the order" Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-09-13 10:29 -0700
Re: OT: Assad has "given the order" chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-09-13 07:06 -0500
Re: OT: Assad has "given the order" SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-09-13 14:59 +0000
Re: OT: Assad has "given the order" SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-09-13 12:58 +0000
Re: OT: Assad has "given the order" RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-09-14 03:29 +0000
Re: OT: Assad has "given the order" Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2018-09-12 14:57 -0400
Re: OT: Assad has "given the order" RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-09-13 00:22 +0000
Re: OT: Assad has "given the order" owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-09-13 01:17 +0000
Re: OT: Assad has "given the order" Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2018-09-13 11:17 -0400
Re: OT: Assad has "given the order" owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-09-13 16:49 +0000
Re: OT: Assad has "given the order" Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2018-09-14 07:26 -0400
Re: OT: Assad has "given the order" chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-09-14 07:29 -0500
Re: OT: Assad has "given the order" Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2018-09-13 11:13 -0400
Re: OT: Assad has "given the order" chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-09-13 11:39 -0500
Re: OT: Assad has "given the order" RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-09-14 03:35 +0000
Re: OT: Assad has "given the order" RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-09-14 03:34 +0000
Re: OT: Assad has "given the order" Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-09-13 10:29 -0700
You're a used car salesman, not a scientist. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-09-13 14:11 -0700
Re: OT: Assad has "given the order" SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-09-13 12:53 +0000
Re: OT: Assad has "given the order" Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-09-13 12:50 -0700
Re: OT: Assad has "given the order" RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-09-14 03:23 +0000
Re: OT: Assad has "given the order" SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-09-14 12:31 +0000
Re: OT: Assad has "given the order" Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2018-09-14 14:59 -0400
Re: OT: Assad has "given the order" SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-09-15 15:49 +0000
Re: OT: Assad has "given the order" Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-09-15 09:12 -0700
Re: OT: Assad has "given the order" Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-09-14 07:33 -0700
Re: OT: Assad has "given the order" RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-09-12 18:48 +0000
Re: OT: Assad has "given the order" Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2018-09-12 14:59 -0400
Re: OT: Assad has "given the order" RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-09-13 00:23 +0000
Re: OT: Assad has "given the order" Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2018-09-13 11:20 -0400
Re: OT: Assad has "given the order" Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-09-13 13:20 -0700
Re: OT: Assad has "given the order" Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-09-13 10:30 -0700
Re: OT: Assad has "given the order" chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-09-13 07:42 -0500
Re: OT: Assad has "given the order" RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-09-14 03:18 +0000
Re: OT: Assad has "given the order" Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2018-09-14 07:34 -0400
Re: OT: Assad has "given the order" Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-09-14 09:57 -0700
Re: OT: Assad has "given the order" Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-09-14 07:30 -0700
Re: OT: Assad has "given the order" Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-09-12 17:03 -0700
Re: OT: Assad has "given the order" -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2018-09-13 04:26 -0700
Re: OT: Assad has "given the order" owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-09-13 18:17 +0000
Re: OT: Assad has "given the order" -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2018-09-13 18:12 -0700
Re: OT: Assad has "given the order" RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-09-14 03:38 +0000
Re: OT: Assad has "given the order" -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2018-09-14 03:36 -0700
Re: OT: Assad has "given the order" Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-09-14 09:54 -0700
Re: OT: Assad has "given the order" Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2018-09-14 07:30 -0400
Re: OT: Assad has "given the order" -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2018-09-14 06:00 -0700
Re: OT: Assad has "given the order" Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-09-14 09:56 -0700
Re: OT: Assad has "given the order" SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-09-14 12:42 +0000
Re: OT: Assad has "given the order" Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-09-14 21:16 -0700
Re: OT: Assad has "given the order" Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-09-14 09:53 -0700
Re: OT: Assad has "given the order" Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-09-13 21:46 -0700
Re: OT: Assad has "given the order" Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-09-13 12:46 -0700
You end up robbing the poor. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-09-13 14:19 -0700
Re: You end up robbing the poor. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-09-13 21:47 -0700
If you order it, then _ you pay for it. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-09-13 21:51 -0700
Re: OT: Assad has "given the order" SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-09-13 12:56 +0000
Re: OT: Assad has "given the order" Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-09-13 13:02 -0700
Re: OT: Assad has "given the order" RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-09-14 03:28 +0000
Re: OT: Assad has "given the order" SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-09-14 12:33 +0000
Re: OT: Assad has "given the order" Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-09-14 21:15 -0700
Re: OT: Assad has "given the order" Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-09-14 07:34 -0700
Page 5 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5]
| From | RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-14 03:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pnfafr$5ck$10@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #467072 |
On 2018-09-13, owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote: >> RonB wrote: >>> If the ocean was rising, it would be rising everywhere — not just on select >>> beaches. I'll have to explain to these "armchair" scientists how water flow >>> works some day. >> >> It works that way because you’re assuming that the land datum is constant, but it isn’t. >> >> In Greenland for example, that as global warming has melted their glaciers, measures >> of absolute land elevation have gone up. The reason why is because the glaciers’ >> weight pressing down on the land had compressed the local land elevations, but with that >> mass now being reduced, the land has uncompressed, causing it to rebound, rising up >> relative to its prior elevation reference datum. >> >> This gives the appearance that locally, the sea level is going down...but it’s not. >> The land is rising locally because of glacial melt. >> >> -hh > > Are they taking into account the corresponding sinking of the ocean > floor due to the added weight of the new water? :) (See, I can pull > "science" out of my ass too). Just more lying bullshit. You'll notice the man-made global warming morons deal in long-term predictions and non-verifiable assertions — kind of like the bullshit we get from the "Deep State" about Russian collusion. "Trust us, would we lie to you?" The gullible eat up the bullshit and beg for more. Bon Appetit! -- The more I see of Windows, the more I like Linux.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-14 03:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0b9c72d1-6ab2-48ad-ad53-274ff24c25a5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #467116 |
On Thursday, September 13, 2018 at 11:38:37 PM UTC-4, RonB wrote: > On 2018-09-13, owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > > -hh wrote: > >> RonB wrote: > >>> If the ocean was rising, it would be rising everywhere — not just on select > >>> beaches. I'll have to explain to these "armchair" scientists how water flow > >>> works some day. > >> > >> It works that way because you’re assuming that the land datum is constant, but it isn’t. > >> > >> In Greenland for example, that as global warming has melted their glaciers, measures > >> of absolute land elevation have gone up. The reason why is because the glaciers’ > >> weight pressing down on the land had compressed the local land elevations, but with that > >> mass now being reduced, the land has uncompressed, causing it to rebound, rising up > >> relative to its prior elevation reference datum. > >> > >> This gives the appearance that locally, the sea level is going down...but it’s not. > >> The land is rising locally because of glacial melt. > >> > >> -hh > > > > Are they taking into account the corresponding sinking of the ocean > > floor due to the added weight of the new water? :) (See, I can pull > > "science" out of my ass too). [see my other post that addresses owl's attempt at sarcasm] > Just more lying bullshit. Its been published scientific data in peer-reviewed systems & journals, which is a lot more rigor than we get from the likes of political stump speeches: <https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/09/160923123732.htm> And if a parent has an anti-science agenda that influences their kids' futures and careers ... then the only sorts of jobs that those kids will be qualified for is to run the fryer at McDonald's and to ride the back of a garbage truck. FWIW, fifty years ago we would have also included piece part assemblies in manufacturing, but those jobs are overwhelmingly gone from America, and those that remain have been largely replaced with robots. > You'll notice the man-made global warming morons > deal in long-term predictions and non-verifiable assertions Well, except for there there's been photography projects to document the historical changes - - no predictions here: <https://www2.usgs.gov/climate_landuse/glaciers/repeat_photography.asp> FYI, these have included photographic proof of changes over time periods even as brief as just ten years. Case in point, an article highlighting two examples from 2006-2015 and one from 2009-2015: <https://newatlas.com/before-after-photos-glaciers-climate-change/49143/> > — kind of like the bullshit we get from the "Deep State" about Russian collusion. The truth will eventually come out. And some people will be wrong about what it actually is. The only question is how early did some people call it correctly, and what people go down kicking & screaming in denial even in the face of overwhelming evidence. For example, with the current political administration, its hard to claim that they're all a bunch of wonderful good choir boys when there's been not only formal court convictions, but there's also been guilty plea confessions made. > "Trust us, would we lie to you?" Simply put, "Because money." It has already been noted that when Enterprise sees that there's opportunity for them in addressing global climate change, their tunes of stonewall denial will turn on a dime to embrace it ... because money & profits. Sure, some of this will be snake oil, but not all of it. Particularly when you look into just what some large governments are spending money on as an element of their long term strategic policy (China & solar panels, for example)...its not merely some communist jobs program, because for all they care about their people, they can still just go plant rice by hand & sustenance live. > The gullible eat up the bullshit and beg for more. Bon Appetit! Whereas RonB has convinced himself to believe that that's he's not the gullible one. What it really comes down to is that he doesn't want to be convinced, so he'll stonewall refuse all data that's an affront to his current worldview. It won't actually change reality, but it will make revelations much more rude and disruptive. The question will then be who will RonB try to blame (since he'll never blame himself) for him getting blindsided? -hh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-14 09:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <g027etFf007U4@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #467124 |
On 9/14/18 3:36 AM, -hh wrote: > On Thursday, September 13, 2018 at 11:38:37 PM UTC-4, RonB wrote: >> On 2018-09-13, owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >>> -hh wrote: >>>> RonB wrote: >>>>> If the ocean was rising, it would be rising everywhere — not just on select >>>>> beaches. I'll have to explain to these "armchair" scientists how water flow >>>>> works some day. >>>> >>>> It works that way because you’re assuming that the land datum is constant, but it isn’t. >>>> >>>> In Greenland for example, that as global warming has melted their glaciers, measures >>>> of absolute land elevation have gone up. The reason why is because the glaciers’ >>>> weight pressing down on the land had compressed the local land elevations, but with that >>>> mass now being reduced, the land has uncompressed, causing it to rebound, rising up >>>> relative to its prior elevation reference datum. >>>> >>>> This gives the appearance that locally, the sea level is going down...but it’s not. >>>> The land is rising locally because of glacial melt. >>>> >>>> -hh >>> >>> Are they taking into account the corresponding sinking of the ocean >>> floor due to the added weight of the new water? :) (See, I can pull >>> "science" out of my ass too). > > [see my other post that addresses owl's attempt at sarcasm] > > >> Just more lying bullshit. > > Its been published scientific data in peer-reviewed systems & journals, which is a > lot more rigor than we get from the likes of political stump speeches: > > <https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/09/160923123732.htm> > > And if a parent has an anti-science agenda that influences their kids' > futures and careers ... then the only sorts of jobs that those kids will be > qualified for is to run the fryer at McDonald's and to ride the back of a > garbage truck. FWIW, fifty years ago we would have also included piece > part assemblies in manufacturing, but those jobs are overwhelmingly gone > from America, and those that remain have been largely replaced with robots. > > >> You'll notice the man-made global warming morons >> deal in long-term predictions and non-verifiable assertions > > Well, except for there there's been photography projects to document the > historical changes - - no predictions here: > > <https://www2.usgs.gov/climate_landuse/glaciers/repeat_photography.asp> > > FYI, these have included photographic proof of changes over time periods even > as brief as just ten years. Case in point, an article highlighting two examples > from 2006-2015 and one from 2009-2015: > > <https://newatlas.com/before-after-photos-glaciers-climate-change/49143/> > >> — kind of like the bullshit we get from the "Deep State" about Russian collusion. > > The truth will eventually come out. And some people will be wrong about > what it actually is. The only question is how early did some people call it > correctly, and what people go down kicking & screaming in denial even in > the face of overwhelming evidence. > > For example, with the current political administration, its hard to claim that > they're all a bunch of wonderful good choir boys when there's been not only > formal court convictions, but there's also been guilty plea confessions made. > > >> "Trust us, would we lie to you?" > > Simply put, "Because money." > > It has already been noted that when Enterprise sees that there's opportunity > for them in addressing global climate change, their tunes of stonewall denial > will turn on a dime to embrace it ... because money & profits. Sure, some of > this will be snake oil, but not all of it. Particularly when you look into just > what some large governments are spending money on as an element of their > long term strategic policy (China & solar panels, for example)...its not merely > some communist jobs program, because for all they care about their people, > they can still just go plant rice by hand & sustenance live. > > >> The gullible eat up the bullshit and beg for more. Bon Appetit! > > Whereas RonB has convinced himself to believe that that's he's not the gullible one. > What it really comes down to is that he doesn't want to be convinced, so he'll > stonewall refuse all data that's an affront to his current worldview. It won't actually > change reality, but it will make revelations much more rude and disruptive. The > question will then be who will RonB try to blame (since he'll never blame himself) > for him getting blindsided? > > > -hh > He could spend 10 minutes on a scientific site and actually learn. But he wants to be ignorant. -- 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 | Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-14 07:30 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <png7au$i2h$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #467116 |
RonB wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties: > On 2018-09-13, owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >> >> Are they taking into account the corresponding sinking of the ocean >> floor due to the added weight of the new water? :) (See, I can pull >> "science" out of my ass too). That's not "science". The new water comes from melting ice, which has the same weight once it melts. However, I do thank you for showing how easy it is for people with an agenda to air irrelevant statements. Take a bow, RonB, for your agenda to smear solid science with an unending snarling refrain of: > Just more lying bullshit. You'll notice the man-made global warming morons > deal in long-term predictions and non-verifiable assertions — kind of like > the bullshit we get from the "Deep State" about Russian collusion. "Trust > us, would we lie to you?" > > The gullible eat up the bullshit and beg for more. Bon Appetit! My God, RonB. You are seriously way too angry. -- All say, "How hard it is that we have to die"--a strange complaint to come from the mouths of people who have had to live. -- Mark Twain, "Pudd'nhead Wilson's Calendar"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-14 06:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <765a27be-8710-4225-9680-73cac3f61508@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #467126 |
On Friday, September 14, 2018 at 7:50:56 AM UTC-4, Chris Ahlstrom wrote: > RonB wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties: > > > On 2018-09-13, owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > >> > >> Are they taking into account the corresponding sinking of the ocean > >> floor due to the added weight of the new water? :) (See, I can pull > >> "science" out of my ass too). > > That's not "science". The new water comes from melting ice, which has > the same weight once it melts. In fairness, it is a reasonable application of physics to ask the question. Upon review, the answer is that the additional water mass to the world's oceans that upon distribution, it just isn't a significant enough change to matter. Parametrically, the area ratio of Greenland to the Earth's oceans is 2 million km^2 vs 360 million km^2, a ratio of 1:180. This means that for each 180m of ice melt on Greenland, the world's oceans go up by 1m. Now Greenland's postglacial rebound rate is currently being reported as 12 millimeters per year), which if we assume is due to this example's 180m ice loss, since Greenland's ice cap is roughly 2000m thick, this is the magnitude of rebound from a ~10% change. Applying this as a baseline then to the world's oceans, a +1m increase in depth relative to their average depth (12,100ft = 3688 meters), isn't a 10% change, but only a 1m/3688m = 0.027% change. As such, if the oceans were to subside at this percentage-proportional rate equivalent to Greenland's postglacial rebound rate (and there's reasons why it should be less), then their rate of change would be (0.027%/10%)*12mm/yr = 0.0325mm/yr, or 0.325mm/decade. FYI, the reason why the oceans' rate of subsidence can be expected to be less than Greenland's postglacial rebound is because it is known that the mantle under Greenland is hotter than baseline and is therefore more pliable (lower viscosity). This is because the mantle hot spot that's currently under Iceland had previously been under Greenland. > However, I do thank you for showing how easy it is for people with > an agenda to air irrelevant statements. A classical "whataboutism" distraction attempt. -hh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-14 09:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <g027hhFf007U5@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #467126 |
On 9/14/18 4:30 AM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote: > RonB wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties: > >> On 2018-09-13, owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >>> >>> Are they taking into account the corresponding sinking of the ocean >>> floor due to the added weight of the new water? :) (See, I can pull >>> "science" out of my ass too). > > That's not "science". The new water comes from melting ice, which has > the same weight once it melts. > > However, I do thank you for showing how easy it is for people with an agenda > to air irrelevant statements. > > Take a bow, RonB, for your agenda to smear solid science with an unending > snarling refrain of: Well, snow is melting off of land masses too, so there is SOME level of increased weight on the oceans. By percent I doubt that it is much. >> Just more lying bullshit. You'll notice the man-made global warming morons >> deal in long-term predictions and non-verifiable assertions — kind of like >> the bullshit we get from the "Deep State" about Russian collusion. "Trust >> us, would we lie to you?" >> >> The gullible eat up the bullshit and beg for more. Bon Appetit! > > My God, RonB. You are seriously way too angry. He is willfully ignorant. -- 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 | SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-14 12:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <k1OmD.12479$um3.7080@fx32.iad> |
| In reply to | #467116 |
On Fri, 14 Sep 2018 03:38:35 +0000, RonB wrote: > On 2018-09-13, owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >> -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote: >>> RonB wrote: >>>> If the ocean was rising, it would be rising everywhere — not just on >>>> select beaches. I'll have to explain to these "armchair" scientists >>>> how water flow works some day. >>> >>> It works that way because you’re assuming that the land datum is >>> constant, but it isn’t. >>> >>> In Greenland for example, that as global warming has melted their >>> glaciers, measures of absolute land elevation have gone up. The >>> reason why is because the glaciers’ >>> weight pressing down on the land had compressed the local land >>> elevations, but with that mass now being reduced, the land has >>> uncompressed, causing it to rebound, rising up relative to its prior >>> elevation reference datum. >>> >>> This gives the appearance that locally, the sea level is going >>> down...but it’s not. >>> The land is rising locally because of glacial melt. >>> >>> -hh >> >> Are they taking into account the corresponding sinking of the ocean >> floor due to the added weight of the new water? :) (See, I can pull >> "science" out of my ass too). > > Just more lying bullshit. You'll notice the man-made global warming > morons deal in long-term predictions and non-verifiable assertions — > kind of like the bullshit we get from the "Deep State" about Russian > collusion. "Trust us, would we lie to you?" > > The gullible eat up the bullshit and beg for more. Bon Appetit! I have to concur with you that it's going to take a real fool to believe anything coming out of CNN nowadays. I don't have the channel myself (since I don't subscribe to cable anymore) but I was exposed to it as the only news source when I was in Mexico in July. I was shocked at how much of a propaganda network it has become since I last had the channel back around 2002 or so. When they claim to be truthful and objective, it's very hard not to laugh. I know nothing of MSNBC but I find Rachel Maddow, in the videos I've seen of her, very pompous and arrogant. She has a clear leftist slant and is wholly unable to say anything good about anyone even close to the centre of the spectrum. I can't imagine why the network believed that she was a fitting choice to host her own primetime show. What strikes me the most though is how the leftist networks seem to insist on having homosexuals as hosts though. Anderson Cooper is a homosexual, as are Don Lemon and Rachel Maddow. Brian Stelter probably hasn't announced that he is gay, but with a high-pitched, effeminate voice like his, it's hard to imagine that he doesn't go home to a man every night. -- SilverSlimer FSF Contributor / EFF Member / Free speech advocate Absolute centrist, proud Catholic
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-14 21:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <g03fckFmkfpU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #467133 |
On 9/14/18 5:42 AM, SilverSlimer wrote: > On Fri, 14 Sep 2018 03:38:35 +0000, RonB wrote: > >> On 2018-09-13, owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >>> -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote: >>>> RonB wrote: >>>>> If the ocean was rising, it would be rising everywhere — not just on >>>>> select beaches. I'll have to explain to these "armchair" scientists >>>>> how water flow works some day. >>>> >>>> It works that way because you’re assuming that the land datum is >>>> constant, but it isn’t. >>>> >>>> In Greenland for example, that as global warming has melted their >>>> glaciers, measures of absolute land elevation have gone up. The >>>> reason why is because the glaciers’ >>>> weight pressing down on the land had compressed the local land >>>> elevations, but with that mass now being reduced, the land has >>>> uncompressed, causing it to rebound, rising up relative to its prior >>>> elevation reference datum. >>>> >>>> This gives the appearance that locally, the sea level is going >>>> down...but it’s not. >>>> The land is rising locally because of glacial melt. >>>> >>>> -hh >>> >>> Are they taking into account the corresponding sinking of the ocean >>> floor due to the added weight of the new water? :) (See, I can pull >>> "science" out of my ass too). >> >> Just more lying bullshit. You'll notice the man-made global warming >> morons deal in long-term predictions and non-verifiable assertions — >> kind of like the bullshit we get from the "Deep State" about Russian >> collusion. "Trust us, would we lie to you?" >> >> The gullible eat up the bullshit and beg for more. Bon Appetit! > > I have to concur with you that it's going to take a real fool to believe > anything coming out of CNN nowadays. I don't have the channel myself > (since I don't subscribe to cable anymore) but I was exposed to it as the > only news source when I was in Mexico in July. I was shocked at how much > of a propaganda network it has become since I last had the channel back > around 2002 or so. When they claim to be truthful and objective, it's > very hard not to laugh. > > I know nothing of MSNBC but I find Rachel Maddow, in the videos I've seen > of her, very pompous and arrogant. She has a clear leftist slant and is > wholly unable to say anything good about anyone even close to the centre > of the spectrum. I can't imagine why the network believed that she was a > fitting choice to host her own primetime show. > > What strikes me the most though is how the leftist networks seem to > insist on having homosexuals as hosts though. Anderson Cooper is a > homosexual, as are Don Lemon and Rachel Maddow. Brian Stelter probably > hasn't announced that he is gay, but with a high-pitched, effeminate > voice like his, it's hard to imagine that he doesn't go home to a man > every night. > Nothing wrong with having a gay host, and you listen to AND BELIEVE Alex Jones. And Breitbart. Your ability to discern reliable sources is severely lacking. -- 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 | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-14 09:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <g027boFf007U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #467116 |
On 9/13/18 8:38 PM, RonB wrote: > On 2018-09-13, owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >> -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote: >>> RonB wrote: >>>> If the ocean was rising, it would be rising everywhere — not just on select >>>> beaches. I'll have to explain to these "armchair" scientists how water flow >>>> works some day. >>> >>> It works that way because you’re assuming that the land datum is constant, but it isn’t. >>> >>> In Greenland for example, that as global warming has melted their glaciers, measures >>> of absolute land elevation have gone up. The reason why is because the glaciers’ >>> weight pressing down on the land had compressed the local land elevations, but with that >>> mass now being reduced, the land has uncompressed, causing it to rebound, rising up >>> relative to its prior elevation reference datum. >>> >>> This gives the appearance that locally, the sea level is going down...but it’s not. >>> The land is rising locally because of glacial melt. >>> >>> -hh >> >> Are they taking into account the corresponding sinking of the ocean >> floor due to the added weight of the new water? :) (See, I can pull >> "science" out of my ass too). > > Just more lying bullshit. You'll notice the man-made global warming morons > deal in long-term predictions and non-verifiable assertions — kind of like > the bullshit we get from the "Deep State" about Russian collusion. "Trust > us, would we lie to you?" > > The gullible eat up the bullshit and beg for more. Bon Appetit! > They deal in predictions we are seeing NOW. Please, seriously, go to some science websites and learn about the topic you are speaking about! -- 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 | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-13 21:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <g00sq3F6g2bU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #467072 |
On 9/13/18 11:17 AM, owl wrote: > -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote: >> RonB wrote: >>> If the ocean was rising, it would be rising everywhere — not just on select >>> beaches. I'll have to explain to these "armchair" scientists how water flow >>> works some day. >> >> It works that way because you’re assuming that the land datum is constant, but it isn’t. >> >> In Greenland for example, that as global warming has melted their glaciers, measures >> of absolute land elevation have gone up. The reason why is because the glaciers’ >> weight pressing down on the land had compressed the local land elevations, but with that >> mass now being reduced, the land has uncompressed, causing it to rebound, rising up >> relative to its prior elevation reference datum. >> >> This gives the appearance that locally, the sea level is going down...but it’s not. >> The land is rising locally because of glacial melt. >> >> -hh > > Are they taking into account the corresponding sinking of the ocean > floor due to the added weight of the new water? :) (See, I can pull > "science" out of my ass too). > Why not actually look to the evidence instead of pulling things out of your ass? -- 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 | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-13 12:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fvvt59Fgv8U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #467034 |
On 9/13/18 4:26 AM, -hh wrote: > RonB wrote: >> If the ocean was rising, it would be rising everywhere — not just on select >> beaches. I'll have to explain to these "armchair" scientists how water flow >> works some day. > > It works that way because you’re assuming that the land datum is constant, but it isn’t. > > In Greenland for example, that as global warming has melted their glaciers, measures > of absolute land elevation have gone up. The reason why is because the glaciers’ > weight pressing down on the land had compressed the local land elevations, but with that > mass now being reduced, the land has uncompressed, causing it to rebound, rising up > relative to its prior elevation reference datum. > > This gives the appearance that locally, the sea level is going down...but it’s not. > The land is rising locally because of glacial melt. > > -hh > He will never listen to reason, nor look to scientific sources for his understanding. He values socialism for the wealthy too much to do so. -- 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 | Jeff-Relf.Me @. |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-13 14:19 -0700 |
| Subject | You end up robbing the poor. |
| Message-ID | <Jeff-Relf.Me@Sep.13--2.19pm.Seattle.2018> |
| In reply to | #467074 |
BotBoy wrote: > He values socialism for the wealthy too much. You focus on robbing the "rich", but you end up robbing the poor. I won't be forced to pay collectivists' absurdly high HealthCare costs ( for women and junkies, mostly ); I spent nothing on _ my HealthCare, last 30 years.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-13 21:47 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: You end up robbing the poor. |
| Message-ID | <g00srkF6g2bU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #467086 |
On 9/13/18 2:19 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote: > BotBoy wrote: >> He values socialism for the wealthy too much. > > You focus on robbing the "rich", but you end up robbing the poor. > > I won't be forced to pay collectivists' absurdly high HealthCare costs > ( for women and junkies, mostly ); > I spent nothing on _ my HealthCare, last 30 years. > You are letting others cover your health care costs (the cost of the risks?) -- 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 | Jeff-Relf.Me @. |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-13 21:51 -0700 |
| Subject | If you order it, then _ you pay for it. |
| Message-ID | <Jeff-Relf.Me@Sep.13--9.51pm.Seattle.2018> |
| In reply to | #467119 |
BotBoy replied ( to me ): > > You focus on robbing the "rich", but you end up robbing the poor. > > > > I won't be forced to pay collectivists' absurdly high HealthCare costs > > ( for women and junkies, mostly ); > > I spent nothing on _ my HealthCare, last 30 years. > > You are letting others cover your health care costs > (the cost of the risks?) If I didn't order it, then I won't pay for it. If you order it, then _ you pay for it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-13 12:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <88tmD.42990$OM2.30301@fx37.iad> |
| In reply to | #466996 |
On Wed, 12 Sep 2018 18:48:16 +0000, RonB wrote: > On 2018-09-12, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote: >> RonB wrote: >> >>>>> As for Trump, he's just another sleazy politician who kisses the >>>>> asses of those who yank his chain. >>>> >>>> I'd like to hope that he is going to go down as mostly good with a >>>> few errors along the way but if he is going to war in the Middle >>>> East, it sounds to me like it's more of the same. >>> >>>What's mostly good about a man who runs around on his wives and uses >>>the bankruptcy laws to enrich himself while harming small businesses? >>>He sounds "mostly sleazy" to me. >> >> And there's stuff like this: >> >> https://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/donald-trump-climate-change- golf-course-223436 >> >> Really, it just goes on and on, with Trump. > > If the ocean was rising, it would be rising everywhere — not just on > select beaches. I'll have to explain to these "armchair" scientists how > water flow works some day. I have to agree with your logic here. I've seen reports of rising water levels around the Maritimes here in Canada, but they come from CBC which is a state-sponsored, leftist media network. I'm not sure how believable it is. -- SilverSlimer FSF Contributor / EFF Member / Free speech advocate Absolute centrist, proud Catholic
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-13 13:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fvvu39FmqvU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #467039 |
On 9/13/18 5:56 AM, SilverSlimer wrote: > On Wed, 12 Sep 2018 18:48:16 +0000, RonB wrote: > >> On 2018-09-12, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote: >>> RonB wrote: >>> >>>>>> As for Trump, he's just another sleazy politician who kisses the >>>>>> asses of those who yank his chain. >>>>> >>>>> I'd like to hope that he is going to go down as mostly good with a >>>>> few errors along the way but if he is going to war in the Middle >>>>> East, it sounds to me like it's more of the same. >>>> >>>> What's mostly good about a man who runs around on his wives and uses >>>> the bankruptcy laws to enrich himself while harming small businesses? >>>> He sounds "mostly sleazy" to me. >>> >>> And there's stuff like this: >>> >>> https://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/donald-trump-climate-change- > golf-course-223436 >>> >>> Really, it just goes on and on, with Trump. >> >> If the ocean was rising, it would be rising everywhere — not just on >> select beaches. I'll have to explain to these "armchair" scientists how >> water flow works some day. > > I have to agree with your logic here. I've seen reports of rising water > levels around the Maritimes here in Canada, but they come from CBC which > is a state-sponsored, leftist media network. I'm not sure how believable > it is. > Yeah, it is the fault of the media that the ocean levels are rising... not the result of using ancient stores of carbon (and some other pollutants). Oy. -- 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 | RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-14 03:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pnf9sq$5ck$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #467039 |
On 2018-09-13, SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> wrote: > On Wed, 12 Sep 2018 18:48:16 +0000, RonB wrote: > >> On 2018-09-12, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote: >>> RonB wrote: >>> >>>>>> As for Trump, he's just another sleazy politician who kisses the >>>>>> asses of those who yank his chain. >>>>> >>>>> I'd like to hope that he is going to go down as mostly good with a >>>>> few errors along the way but if he is going to war in the Middle >>>>> East, it sounds to me like it's more of the same. >>>> >>>>What's mostly good about a man who runs around on his wives and uses >>>>the bankruptcy laws to enrich himself while harming small businesses? >>>>He sounds "mostly sleazy" to me. >>> >>> And there's stuff like this: >>> >>> https://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/donald-trump-climate-change- > golf-course-223436 >>> >>> Really, it just goes on and on, with Trump. >> >> If the ocean was rising, it would be rising everywhere — not just on >> select beaches. I'll have to explain to these "armchair" scientists how >> water flow works some day. > > I have to agree with your logic here. I've seen reports of rising water > levels around the Maritimes here in Canada, but they come from CBC which > is a state-sponsored, leftist media network. I'm not sure how believable > it is. There's always been coastal areas where water is "rising," because ground settles, tectonic plates shift, tide patterns change. Man made global warming morons glom on to these instances as "proof" of melting ice. They know they're full of shit and are lying — or, if they don't, they're incompetent. -- The more I see of Windows, the more I like Linux.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-14 12:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <OUNmD.12466$um3.5404@fx32.iad> |
| In reply to | #467108 |
On Fri, 14 Sep 2018 03:28:26 +0000, RonB wrote: > On 2018-09-13, SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> wrote: >> On Wed, 12 Sep 2018 18:48:16 +0000, RonB wrote: >> >>> On 2018-09-12, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote: >>>> RonB wrote: >>>> >>>>>>> As for Trump, he's just another sleazy politician who kisses the >>>>>>> asses of those who yank his chain. >>>>>> >>>>>> I'd like to hope that he is going to go down as mostly good with a >>>>>> few errors along the way but if he is going to war in the Middle >>>>>> East, it sounds to me like it's more of the same. >>>>> >>>>>What's mostly good about a man who runs around on his wives and uses >>>>>the bankruptcy laws to enrich himself while harming small businesses? >>>>>He sounds "mostly sleazy" to me. >>>> >>>> And there's stuff like this: >>>> >>>> https://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/donald-trump-climate-change- >> golf-course-223436 >>>> >>>> Really, it just goes on and on, with Trump. >>> >>> If the ocean was rising, it would be rising everywhere — not just on >>> select beaches. I'll have to explain to these "armchair" scientists >>> how water flow works some day. >> >> I have to agree with your logic here. I've seen reports of rising water >> levels around the Maritimes here in Canada, but they come from CBC >> which is a state-sponsored, leftist media network. I'm not sure how >> believable it is. > > There's always been coastal areas where water is "rising," because > ground settles, tectonic plates shift, tide patterns change. Man made > global warming morons glom on to these instances as "proof" of melting > ice. They know they're full of shit and are lying — or, if they don't, > they're incompetent. I'm mostly with you, but I would still want to say that because I don't fully know, I can't fully conclude. For me, cautious behaviour is always the best approach. The same way that I'd build walls around a coast to protect from potential waves or tsunamis, I'd build a wall around my country to protect from dangerous criminals. I don't think anyone is wrong to want to prepare for an "what if" situation. I DO think it's wrong to behave as though the "what if" situation is an absolute certainty though. -- SilverSlimer FSF Contributor / EFF Member / Free speech advocate Absolute centrist, proud Catholic
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-14 21:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <g03fafFmkfpU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #467132 |
On 9/14/18 5:33 AM, SilverSlimer wrote: ... >> There's always been coastal areas where water is "rising," because >> ground settles, tectonic plates shift, tide patterns change. Man made >> global warming morons glom on to these instances as "proof" of melting >> ice. They know they're full of shit and are lying — or, if they don't, >> they're incompetent. > > I'm mostly with you, but I would still want to say that because I don't > fully know, I can't fully conclude. For me, cautious behaviour is always > the best approach. The same way that I'd build walls around a coast to > protect from potential waves or tsunamis, I'd build a wall around my > country to protect from dangerous criminals. How would a wall AROUND your country stop dangerous criminals INSIDE your country? Prevent them from escaping as easily? > I don't think anyone is > wrong to want to prepare for an "what if" situation. > > I DO think it's wrong to behave as though the "what if" situation is an > absolute certainty though. > > > -- 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 | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-14 07:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <g01v8cFdbu4U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #467108 |
On 9/13/18 8:28 PM, RonB wrote: > On 2018-09-13, SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> wrote: >> On Wed, 12 Sep 2018 18:48:16 +0000, RonB wrote: >> >>> On 2018-09-12, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote: >>>> RonB wrote: >>>> >>>>>>> As for Trump, he's just another sleazy politician who kisses the >>>>>>> asses of those who yank his chain. >>>>>> >>>>>> I'd like to hope that he is going to go down as mostly good with a >>>>>> few errors along the way but if he is going to war in the Middle >>>>>> East, it sounds to me like it's more of the same. >>>>> >>>>> What's mostly good about a man who runs around on his wives and uses >>>>> the bankruptcy laws to enrich himself while harming small businesses? >>>>> He sounds "mostly sleazy" to me. >>>> >>>> And there's stuff like this: >>>> >>>> https://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/donald-trump-climate-change- >> golf-course-223436 >>>> >>>> Really, it just goes on and on, with Trump. >>> >>> If the ocean was rising, it would be rising everywhere — not just on >>> select beaches. I'll have to explain to these "armchair" scientists how >>> water flow works some day. >> >> I have to agree with your logic here. I've seen reports of rising water >> levels around the Maritimes here in Canada, but they come from CBC which >> is a state-sponsored, leftist media network. I'm not sure how believable >> it is. > > There's always been coastal areas where water is "rising," because ground > settles, tectonic plates shift, tide patterns change. Man made global > warming morons glom on to these instances as "proof" of melting ice. They > know they're full of shit and are lying — or, if they don't, they're > incompetent. > Seeing the ice melt is the proof of melting ice. And we see a lot of that. Deniers such as yourself look at how the ice has spread and think in two dimensions... failing to look at thickness and other factors. -- 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] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5]
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy
csiph-web