Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #449199 > unrolled thread
| Started by | -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-04-26 11:49 -0700 |
| Last post | 2018-04-27 18:29 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 139 — 16 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy
Possibly good? -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2018-04-26 11:49 -0700
Re: Possibly good? Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-26 12:28 -0700
Re: Possibly good? "F. Russell" <fr@random.info> - 2018-04-26 22:24 +0000
Re: Possibly good? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-26 15:38 -0700
Re: Possibly good? Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-26 21:47 -0700
Re: Possibly good? Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-26 15:51 -0700
Re: Possibly good? Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-27 00:39 -0700
Re: Possibly good? "F. Russell" <fr@random.info> - 2018-04-26 23:32 +0000
Re: Possibly good? Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-27 03:45 -0700
Re: Possibly good? chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-04-27 11:03 -0500
Re: Possibly good? "F. Russell" <fr@random.info> - 2018-04-27 22:03 +0000
Re: Possibly good? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-27 17:28 -0700
Re: Possibly good? a.m <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-04-28 11:01 -0400
Re: Possibly good? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-28 08:52 -0700
Re: Possibly good? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-28 16:01 +0000
Re: Possibly good? a.m <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-04-28 12:43 -0400
Re: Possibly good? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-28 09:56 -0700
Re: Possibly good? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-28 09:48 -0700
Re: Possibly good? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-28 19:08 +0000
Re: Possibly good? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-28 13:00 -0700
Re: Possibly good? a.m <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-04-28 16:23 -0400
Re: Possibly good? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-28 13:36 -0700
Re: Possibly good? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-28 20:59 +0000
Re: Possibly good? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-28 14:11 -0700
Re: Possibly good? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-28 22:33 +0000
Re: Possibly good? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-28 15:35 -0700
Re: Possibly good? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-28 22:56 +0000
Re: Possibly good? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-28 16:06 -0700
Re: Possibly good? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-28 23:21 +0000
Re: Possibly good? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-28 16:42 -0700
Re: Possibly good? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-29 14:27 +0000
Re: Possibly good? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-29 10:26 -0700
Re: Possibly good? Doomsdrzej <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-04-29 19:27 -0400
Re: Possibly good? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-29 16:54 -0700
Re: Possibly good? Doomsdrzej <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-04-28 19:41 -0400
Re: Possibly good? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-28 20:56 +0000
Re: Possibly good? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-28 14:07 -0700
Re: Possibly good? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-28 22:06 +0000
Re: Possibly good? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-28 15:30 -0700
Re: Possibly good? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-28 22:43 +0000
Re: Possibly good? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-28 16:07 -0700
Re: Possibly good? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-28 23:17 +0000
Re: Possibly good? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-28 16:42 -0700
Re: Possibly good? Brick <brick@mortar.invalid> - 2018-04-29 00:58 +0000
Re: Possibly good? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-28 18:22 -0700
Re: Possibly good? Brick <brick@mortar.invalid> - 2018-04-29 01:37 +0000
Re: Possibly good? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-28 18:44 -0700
Re: Possibly good? Brick <brick@mortar.invalid> - 2018-04-29 01:53 +0000
Re: Possibly good? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-28 19:06 -0700
Re: Possibly good? Brick <brick@mortar.invalid> - 2018-04-29 02:16 +0000
Re: Possibly good? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-28 19:30 -0700
Re: Possibly good? Brick <brick@mortar.invalid> - 2018-04-29 02:44 +0000
Re: Possibly good? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-28 19:46 -0700
Re: Possibly good? Brick <brick@mortar.invalid> - 2018-04-29 02:54 +0000
Re: Possibly good? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-28 20:00 -0700
Re: Possibly good? Brick <brick@mortar.invalid> - 2018-04-29 03:03 +0000
Our planet is greener now, vs. 100 years ago. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-04-29 04:44 -0700
Re: Our planet is greener now, vs. 100 years ago. Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-29 05:13 -0700
Re: Our planet is greener now, vs. 100 years ago. Doomsdrzej <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-04-29 19:21 -0400
Re: Our planet is greener now, vs. 100 years ago. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-29 16:54 -0700
Re: Possibly good? Doomsdrzej <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-04-28 17:11 -0400
Re: Possibly good? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-28 14:18 -0700
Re: Possibly good? Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2018-04-29 09:42 -0400
Re: Possibly good? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-29 14:21 +0000
Re: Possibly good? Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-29 07:34 -0700
Re: Possibly good? Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2018-04-29 10:43 -0400
Re: Possibly good? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-29 15:28 +0000
Re: Possibly good? Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2018-04-29 13:13 -0400
Re: Possibly good? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-29 17:37 +0000
Re: Possibly good? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-29 10:44 -0700
Re: Possibly good? chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-04-30 08:15 -0500
Re: Possibly good? Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-30 06:36 -0700
Re: Possibly good? "F. Russell" <fr@random.info> - 2018-04-29 15:29 +0000
Re: Possibly good? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-29 15:43 +0000
Re: Possibly good? "F. Russell" <fr@random.info> - 2018-04-29 16:05 +0000
Re: Possibly good? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-29 16:44 +0000
Re: Possibly good? "F. Russell" <fr@random.info> - 2018-04-29 17:40 +0000
Re: Possibly good? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-29 17:58 +0000
Re: Possibly good? "F. Russell" <fr@random.info> - 2018-04-29 19:24 +0000
Re: Possibly good? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-29 12:43 -0700
Re: Possibly good? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-29 20:26 +0000
Re: Possibly good? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-29 13:46 -0700
Re: Possibly good? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-29 20:24 +0000
Re: Possibly good? Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-29 14:05 -0700
Re: Possibly good? Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-29 09:23 -0700
Re: Possibly good? a.m <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-04-28 12:27 -0400
Re: Possibly good? RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-04-28 17:24 +0000
Re: Possibly good? a.m <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-04-28 13:44 -0400
Re: Possibly good? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-28 10:54 -0700
Re: Possibly good? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-28 10:56 -0700
Re: Possibly good? Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2018-04-28 21:01 +0200
Re: Possibly good? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-28 12:59 -0700
Re: Possibly good? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-28 20:51 +0000
Re: Possibly good? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-28 13:57 -0700
Re: Possibly good? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-28 21:04 +0000
Re: Possibly good? Doomsdrzej <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-04-28 17:13 -0400
Re: Possibly good? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-28 14:17 -0700
Re: Possibly good? RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 03:37 +0000
Re: Possibly good? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-30 20:41 -0700
Re: Possibly good? Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 01:21 -0700
Re: Possibly good? Doomsdrzej <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-04-28 17:09 -0400
Re: Possibly good? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-28 14:12 -0700
Re: Possibly good? RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 03:36 +0000
Re: Possibly good? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-30 20:40 -0700
Re: Possibly good? Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2018-05-01 09:26 +0200
Re: Possibly good? Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-28 23:13 -0700
Re: Possibly good? chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-04-30 08:19 -0500
Re: Possibly good? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-30 08:04 -0700
Re: Possibly good? RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 03:38 +0000
Re: Possibly good? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-30 20:42 -0700
Re: Possibly good? Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2018-05-01 09:24 +0200
Re: Possibly good? Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2018-05-01 05:34 -0400
Re: Possibly good? Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 02:53 -0700
Re: Possibly good? RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 03:34 +0000
Re: Possibly good? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-30 20:39 -0700
Re: Possibly good? Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2018-05-01 09:20 +0200
Re: Possibly good? Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2018-05-01 05:37 -0400
Re: Possibly good? Doomsdrzej <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-05-01 11:11 -0400
Re: Possibly good? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-01 15:17 +0000
Re: Possibly good? Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2018-05-01 19:47 -0400
Re: Possibly good? Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2018-04-29 09:40 -0400
Re: Possibly good? Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-29 07:03 -0700
Re: Possibly good? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-29 10:26 -0700
Re: Possibly good? chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-04-30 08:03 -0500
Re: Possibly good? William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2018-04-30 14:14 +0100
Re: Possibly good? RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 03:44 +0000
Re: Possibly good? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-01 04:43 +0000
Re: Possibly good? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-05-01 05:28 +0000
Re: Possibly good? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-01 05:36 +0000
Re: Possibly good? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-05-01 06:09 +0000
Re: Possibly good? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-01 07:12 -0700
Re: Possibly good? Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2018-05-01 14:52 +0000
Re: Possibly good? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-01 14:56 +0000
Re: Possibly good? Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2018-05-01 15:01 +0000
Re: Possibly good? chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-01 07:01 -0500
Re: Possibly good? Doomsdrzej <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-05-01 11:21 -0400
Re: Possibly good? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-01 08:31 -0700
Re: Possibly good? Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2018-05-01 19:41 -0400
Re: Possibly good? Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-27 18:29 -0700
Page 2 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →
| From | a.m <.m@nsn.s> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-28 16:23 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <evl9edtr0nd63btrkpvt12l911jlbfu8or@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #449385 |
On Sat, 28 Apr 2018 19:08:58 +0000 (UTC), owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> On 4/28/18 9:01 AM, owl wrote: >>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>> On 4/28/18 8:01 AM, a.m wrote: >>>>> On Fri, 27 Apr 2018 17:28:42 -0700, Snit >>>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 4/27/18 3:03 PM, F. Russell wrote: >>>>>>> On Fri, 27 Apr 2018 11:03:28 -0500, chrisv wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In another month, the EU's General Data Protection Regulation becomes >>>>>>>> enforceable. It provides strict requirements >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I don't know that law so I cannot comment. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But I do know that both European _and_ American politics is >>>>>>> REACTIVE rather than PROACTIVE. The politicians should see >>>>>>> these things coming far in advance but they never do. Consequently >>>>>>> most laws are unfortunately always "too little and too late." >>>>>> >>>>>> Climate change is a great examples of this. >>>>> >>>>> The same scientists who claimed that we'd all be underwater right now >>>>> are now admitting that they were wrong. >>>> >>>> Who said we would be under water? The oceans HAVE risen. The predictions >>>> have been amazingly accurate. >>>> >>>>> <https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/950748/climate-change-scientists-impact-not-as-bad-on-planet> >>>> >>>> You hand-picked one study. One. In the past you have hand-picked some >>>> others. But you are hand-picking and ignoring the overall picture... the >>>> overall science. You are seeking confirmation bias and finding it. >>> >>> >>> That is the essence of "climate science." >>> >>> >>>> >>>> As far as you picking and choosing, here is another recent study (or >>>> article, from a more scientific source, which talks about the study): >>>> >>>> <https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/we-just-breached-the-410-ppm-threshold-for-co2/> >>>> OR <https://goo.gl/nZkZmM> >>>> ----- >>>> The world just passed another round-numbered climate milestone. >>>> Scientists predicted it would happen this year and lo and behold, it >>>> has. >>>> ... >>>> Earlier this year, U.K. Met Office scientists issued their >>>> first-ever carbon dioxide forecast. They projected carbon dioxide >>>> could reach 410 ppm in March and almost certainly would by April. >>>> Their forecast has been borne out with Tuesday's daily record. They >>>> project that the monthly average will peak near 407 ppm in May, >>>> setting a monthly record. >>>> >>>> Carbon dioxide concentrations have skyrocketed over the past two >>>> years due to in part to natural factors like El Nino causing more of >>>> it to end up in the atmosphere. But it's mostly driven by the record >>>> amounts of carbon dioxide humans are creating by burning fossil >>>> fuels. >>>> ----- >>>> >>> >>> The plants of Earth rejoice! >>> >> If you truly want to learn about man-made global climate change go to >> any -- literally ANY -- scientific site that states a position. Follow >> some of their references to learn more. >> > >I would love to see Antarctica uncovered in my lifetime, and I couldn't >care less about Florida. Let that shit sink. Yes owl, make sure you go to _ANY_ scientific site that states a position but makes sure that it states whatever position the Prescott cockroach agrees with otherwise go to any _OTHER_ scientific site and do the same. If you can't find one that agrees with Michael Glasser, make sure that you ask him to send you his pre-approved list of _ANY_ scientific site.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-28 13:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fkk49jFmqt0U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #449399 |
On 4/28/18 1:23 PM, a.m wrote: >>> If you truly want to learn about man-made global climate change go to >>> any -- literally ANY -- scientific site that states a position. Follow >>> some of their references to learn more. >>> >> I would love to see Antarctica uncovered in my lifetime, and I couldn't >> care less about Florida. Let that shit sink. > Yes owl, make sure you go to_ANY_ scientific site that states a > position but makes sure that it states whatever position the Prescott > cockroach agrees with otherwise go to any_OTHER_ scientific site and > do the same. If you can't find one that agrees with Michael Glasser, > make sure that you ask him to send you his pre-approved list of_ANY_ > scientific site. I am speaking of ANY scientific site. ANY scientific organization. ANY. Not some group that formed to try to debunk science, but any science-focused organization. You have NO leg to stand on here. I am talking fact... you are whining that facts are "biased". -- 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 | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-28 20:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <z90z80bw.baho3@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #449400 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 4/28/18 1:23 PM, a.m wrote: >>>> If you truly want to learn about man-made global climate change go to >>>> any -- literally ANY -- scientific site that states a position. Follow >>>> some of their references to learn more. >>>> >>> I would love to see Antarctica uncovered in my lifetime, and I couldn't >>> care less about Florida. Let that shit sink. > >> Yes owl, make sure you go to_ANY_ scientific site that states a >> position but makes sure that it states whatever position the Prescott >> cockroach agrees with otherwise go to any_OTHER_ scientific site and >> do the same. If you can't find one that agrees with Michael Glasser, >> make sure that you ask him to send you his pre-approved list of_ANY_ >> scientific site. > > I am speaking of ANY scientific site. ANY scientific organization. ANY. > Not some group that formed to try to debunk science, but any > science-focused organization. > > You have NO leg to stand on here. I am talking fact... you are whining > that facts are "biased". > Believe the Discovery Channel University if you want. https://climatechange.procon.org/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-28 14:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fkk6b5Fn9vpU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #449406 |
On 4/28/18 1:59 PM, owl wrote: > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> On 4/28/18 1:23 PM, a.m wrote: >>>>> If you truly want to learn about man-made global climate change go to >>>>> any -- literally ANY -- scientific site that states a position. Follow >>>>> some of their references to learn more. >>>>> >>>> I would love to see Antarctica uncovered in my lifetime, and I couldn't >>>> care less about Florida. Let that shit sink. >> >>> Yes owl, make sure you go to_ANY_ scientific site that states a >>> position but makes sure that it states whatever position the Prescott >>> cockroach agrees with otherwise go to any_OTHER_ scientific site and >>> do the same. If you can't find one that agrees with Michael Glasser, >>> make sure that you ask him to send you his pre-approved list of_ANY_ >>> scientific site. >> >> I am speaking of ANY scientific site. ANY scientific organization. ANY. >> Not some group that formed to try to debunk science, but any >> science-focused organization. >> >> You have NO leg to stand on here. I am talking fact... you are whining >> that facts are "biased". >> > > Believe the Discovery Channel University if you want. > https://climatechange.procon.org/ > Not a scientific site and their anti-science claims are trivially easy to debunk. For example, they lie about the number of scientists who disagree with the consensus and push the insane straw man about the climate always changing as if someone suggested otherwise. -- 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 | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-28 22:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <zxcb03.agnui4@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #449411 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 4/28/18 1:59 PM, owl wrote: >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> On 4/28/18 1:23 PM, a.m wrote: >>>>>> If you truly want to learn about man-made global climate change go to >>>>>> any -- literally ANY -- scientific site that states a position. Follow >>>>>> some of their references to learn more. >>>>>> >>>>> I would love to see Antarctica uncovered in my lifetime, and I couldn't >>>>> care less about Florida. Let that shit sink. >>> >>>> Yes owl, make sure you go to_ANY_ scientific site that states a >>>> position but makes sure that it states whatever position the Prescott >>>> cockroach agrees with otherwise go to any_OTHER_ scientific site and >>>> do the same. If you can't find one that agrees with Michael Glasser, >>>> make sure that you ask him to send you his pre-approved list of_ANY_ >>>> scientific site. >>> >>> I am speaking of ANY scientific site. ANY scientific organization. ANY. >>> Not some group that formed to try to debunk science, but any >>> science-focused organization. >>> >>> You have NO leg to stand on here. I am talking fact... you are whining >>> that facts are "biased". >>> >> >> Believe the Discovery Channel University if you want. >> https://climatechange.procon.org/ >> > > Not a scientific site and their anti-science claims are trivially easy > to debunk. For example, they lie about the number of scientists who > disagree with the consensus and push the insane straw man about the > climate always changing as if someone suggested otherwise. > They are not "pushing" anything. They present arguments for both sides of issues. That's why it's called procon.org. Climate change is just one of them.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-28 15:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fkkb9qFo95vU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #449425 |
On 4/28/18 3:33 PM, owl wrote: > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> On 4/28/18 1:59 PM, owl wrote: >>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>> On 4/28/18 1:23 PM, a.m wrote: >>>>>>> If you truly want to learn about man-made global climate change go to >>>>>>> any -- literally ANY -- scientific site that states a position. Follow >>>>>>> some of their references to learn more. >>>>>>> >>>>>> I would love to see Antarctica uncovered in my lifetime, and I couldn't >>>>>> care less about Florida. Let that shit sink. >>>> >>>>> Yes owl, make sure you go to_ANY_ scientific site that states a >>>>> position but makes sure that it states whatever position the Prescott >>>>> cockroach agrees with otherwise go to any_OTHER_ scientific site and >>>>> do the same. If you can't find one that agrees with Michael Glasser, >>>>> make sure that you ask him to send you his pre-approved list of_ANY_ >>>>> scientific site. >>>> >>>> I am speaking of ANY scientific site. ANY scientific organization. ANY. >>>> Not some group that formed to try to debunk science, but any >>>> science-focused organization. >>>> >>>> You have NO leg to stand on here. I am talking fact... you are whining >>>> that facts are "biased". >>>> >>> >>> Believe the Discovery Channel University if you want. >>> https://climatechange.procon.org/ >>> >> >> Not a scientific site and their anti-science claims are trivially easy >> to debunk. For example, they lie about the number of scientists who >> disagree with the consensus and push the insane straw man about the >> climate always changing as if someone suggested otherwise. > > They are not "pushing" anything. They present arguments for both sides of > issues. That's why it's called procon.org. Climate change is just one of them. Fair enough: I mean they were presenting the anti-science agenda that others push, even though it is clearly not tied to evidence or reason. -- 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 | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-28 22:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <z9b008ba.aho3@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #449426 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 4/28/18 3:33 PM, owl wrote: >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> On 4/28/18 1:59 PM, owl wrote: >>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>> On 4/28/18 1:23 PM, a.m wrote: >>>>>>>> If you truly want to learn about man-made global climate change go to >>>>>>>> any -- literally ANY -- scientific site that states a position. Follow >>>>>>>> some of their references to learn more. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> I would love to see Antarctica uncovered in my lifetime, and I couldn't >>>>>>> care less about Florida. Let that shit sink. >>>>> >>>>>> Yes owl, make sure you go to_ANY_ scientific site that states a >>>>>> position but makes sure that it states whatever position the Prescott >>>>>> cockroach agrees with otherwise go to any_OTHER_ scientific site and >>>>>> do the same. If you can't find one that agrees with Michael Glasser, >>>>>> make sure that you ask him to send you his pre-approved list of_ANY_ >>>>>> scientific site. >>>>> >>>>> I am speaking of ANY scientific site. ANY scientific organization. ANY. >>>>> Not some group that formed to try to debunk science, but any >>>>> science-focused organization. >>>>> >>>>> You have NO leg to stand on here. I am talking fact... you are whining >>>>> that facts are "biased". >>>>> >>>> >>>> Believe the Discovery Channel University if you want. >>>> https://climatechange.procon.org/ >>>> >>> >>> Not a scientific site and their anti-science claims are trivially easy >>> to debunk. For example, they lie about the number of scientists who >>> disagree with the consensus and push the insane straw man about the >>> climate always changing as if someone suggested otherwise. >> >> They are not "pushing" anything. They present arguments for both sides of >> issues. That's why it's called procon.org. Climate change is just one of them. > > Fair enough: I mean they were presenting the anti-science agenda that > others push, even though it is clearly not tied to evidence or reason. > Climate "science" is heavily political. The same can be said for much of "science" in general. Whenever big money is involved (as it is in pretty much all aspects of science), agendas get pushed for profit. Just because the people on "the other side" have a financial stake, don't think for minute that the people on "your side" aren't similarly motivated.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-28 16:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fkkd3sFom7jU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #449430 |
On 4/28/18 3:56 PM, owl wrote: ... >>>> Not a scientific site and their anti-science claims are trivially easy >>>> to debunk. For example, they lie about the number of scientists who >>>> disagree with the consensus and push the insane straw man about the >>>> climate always changing as if someone suggested otherwise. >>> >>> They are not "pushing" anything. They present arguments for both sides of >>> issues. That's why it's called procon.org. Climate change is just one of them. >> >> Fair enough: I mean they were presenting the anti-science agenda that >> others push, even though it is clearly not tied to evidence or reason. > > Climate "science" is heavily political. The same can be said for much > of "science" in general. Whenever big money is involved (as it is in > pretty much all aspects of science), agendas get pushed for profit. > Just because the people on "the other side" have a financial stake, > don't think for minute that the people on "your side" aren't similarly > motivated. The science is backed by scientists of different political views from different countries and different funding sources. The DENIAL of the science is political (the goal being to socialize the costs and risks of using ancient stores of carbon). -- 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 | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-28 23:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <szx9bv0z.faeu@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #449434 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 4/28/18 3:56 PM, owl wrote: > ... >>>>> Not a scientific site and their anti-science claims are trivially easy >>>>> to debunk. For example, they lie about the number of scientists who >>>>> disagree with the consensus and push the insane straw man about the >>>>> climate always changing as if someone suggested otherwise. >>>> >>>> They are not "pushing" anything. They present arguments for both sides of >>>> issues. That's why it's called procon.org. Climate change is just one of them. >>> >>> Fair enough: I mean they were presenting the anti-science agenda that >>> others push, even though it is clearly not tied to evidence or reason. >> >> Climate "science" is heavily political. The same can be said for much >> of "science" in general. Whenever big money is involved (as it is in >> pretty much all aspects of science), agendas get pushed for profit. >> Just because the people on "the other side" have a financial stake, >> don't think for minute that the people on "your side" aren't similarly >> motivated. > > The science is backed by scientists of different political views from > different countries and different funding sources. The DENIAL of the > science is political (the goal being to socialize the costs and risks of > using ancient stores of carbon). > The junk science is also rejected by scientists who are not dependent on those in charge of the dogma.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-28 16:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fkkf6dFp263U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #449439 |
On 4/28/18 4:21 PM, owl wrote: > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> On 4/28/18 3:56 PM, owl wrote: >> ... >>>>>> Not a scientific site and their anti-science claims are trivially easy >>>>>> to debunk. For example, they lie about the number of scientists who >>>>>> disagree with the consensus and push the insane straw man about the >>>>>> climate always changing as if someone suggested otherwise. >>>>> >>>>> They are not "pushing" anything. They present arguments for both sides of >>>>> issues. That's why it's called procon.org. Climate change is just one of them. >>>> >>>> Fair enough: I mean they were presenting the anti-science agenda that >>>> others push, even though it is clearly not tied to evidence or reason. >>> >>> Climate "science" is heavily political. The same can be said for much >>> of "science" in general. Whenever big money is involved (as it is in >>> pretty much all aspects of science), agendas get pushed for profit. >>> Just because the people on "the other side" have a financial stake, >>> don't think for minute that the people on "your side" aren't similarly >>> motivated. >> >> The science is backed by scientists of different political views from >> different countries and different funding sources. The DENIAL of the >> science is political (the goal being to socialize the costs and risks of >> using ancient stores of carbon). >> > > The junk science is also rejected by scientists who are not dependent > on those in charge of the dogma. I am sincere in saying it you want to learn about the science you should go to a scientific site. Seriously, I would love to see you be able to talk intelligently about this. -- 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 | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-29 14:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <szcv9080g3.gvbhu@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #449445 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 4/28/18 4:21 PM, owl wrote: >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> On 4/28/18 3:56 PM, owl wrote: >>> ... >>>>>>> Not a scientific site and their anti-science claims are trivially easy >>>>>>> to debunk. For example, they lie about the number of scientists who >>>>>>> disagree with the consensus and push the insane straw man about the >>>>>>> climate always changing as if someone suggested otherwise. >>>>>> >>>>>> They are not "pushing" anything. They present arguments for both sides of >>>>>> issues. That's why it's called procon.org. Climate change is just one of them. >>>>> >>>>> Fair enough: I mean they were presenting the anti-science agenda that >>>>> others push, even though it is clearly not tied to evidence or reason. >>>> >>>> Climate "science" is heavily political. The same can be said for much >>>> of "science" in general. Whenever big money is involved (as it is in >>>> pretty much all aspects of science), agendas get pushed for profit. >>>> Just because the people on "the other side" have a financial stake, >>>> don't think for minute that the people on "your side" aren't similarly >>>> motivated. >>> >>> The science is backed by scientists of different political views from >>> different countries and different funding sources. The DENIAL of the >>> science is political (the goal being to socialize the costs and risks of >>> using ancient stores of carbon). >>> >> >> The junk science is also rejected by scientists who are not dependent >> on those in charge of the dogma. > > I am sincere in saying it you want to learn about the science you should > go to a scientific site. Seriously, I would love to see you be able to > talk intelligently about this. > You are brainwashed, and the sum of your education on this matter comes from 30-minute television shows.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-29 10:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fkmdj3F7f7rU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #449491 |
On 4/29/18 7:27 AM, owl wrote: > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> On 4/28/18 4:21 PM, owl wrote: >>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>> On 4/28/18 3:56 PM, owl wrote: >>>> ... >>>>>>>> Not a scientific site and their anti-science claims are trivially easy >>>>>>>> to debunk. For example, they lie about the number of scientists who >>>>>>>> disagree with the consensus and push the insane straw man about the >>>>>>>> climate always changing as if someone suggested otherwise. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> They are not "pushing" anything. They present arguments for both sides of >>>>>>> issues. That's why it's called procon.org. Climate change is just one of them. >>>>>> >>>>>> Fair enough: I mean they were presenting the anti-science agenda that >>>>>> others push, even though it is clearly not tied to evidence or reason. >>>>> >>>>> Climate "science" is heavily political. The same can be said for much >>>>> of "science" in general. Whenever big money is involved (as it is in >>>>> pretty much all aspects of science), agendas get pushed for profit. >>>>> Just because the people on "the other side" have a financial stake, >>>>> don't think for minute that the people on "your side" aren't similarly >>>>> motivated. >>>> >>>> The science is backed by scientists of different political views from >>>> different countries and different funding sources. The DENIAL of the >>>> science is political (the goal being to socialize the costs and risks of >>>> using ancient stores of carbon). >>>> >>> >>> The junk science is also rejected by scientists who are not dependent >>> on those in charge of the dogma. >> >> I am sincere in saying it you want to learn about the science you should >> go to a scientific site. Seriously, I would love to see you be able to >> talk intelligently about this. >> > > You are brainwashed, and the sum of your education on this matter comes > from 30-minute television shows. > > See: I look at science and peer-review evidence, personal observations and well respected fact checking sites, reason and logic and data. You reject that all with insults. It is sad how common that is in the US. -- 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 | Doomsdrzej <.m@nsn.s> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-29 19:27 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <a6lced9bhnn8crt0m8m1k13vsip5sqhplh@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #449491 |
On Sun, 29 Apr 2018 14:27:10 +0000 (UTC), owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> On 4/28/18 4:21 PM, owl wrote: >>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>> On 4/28/18 3:56 PM, owl wrote: >>>> ... >>>>>>>> Not a scientific site and their anti-science claims are trivially easy >>>>>>>> to debunk. For example, they lie about the number of scientists who >>>>>>>> disagree with the consensus and push the insane straw man about the >>>>>>>> climate always changing as if someone suggested otherwise. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> They are not "pushing" anything. They present arguments for both sides of >>>>>>> issues. That's why it's called procon.org. Climate change is just one of them. >>>>>> >>>>>> Fair enough: I mean they were presenting the anti-science agenda that >>>>>> others push, even though it is clearly not tied to evidence or reason. >>>>> >>>>> Climate "science" is heavily political. The same can be said for much >>>>> of "science" in general. Whenever big money is involved (as it is in >>>>> pretty much all aspects of science), agendas get pushed for profit. >>>>> Just because the people on "the other side" have a financial stake, >>>>> don't think for minute that the people on "your side" aren't similarly >>>>> motivated. >>>> >>>> The science is backed by scientists of different political views from >>>> different countries and different funding sources. The DENIAL of the >>>> science is political (the goal being to socialize the costs and risks of >>>> using ancient stores of carbon). >>>> >>> >>> The junk science is also rejected by scientists who are not dependent >>> on those in charge of the dogma. >> >> I am sincere in saying it you want to learn about the science you should >> go to a scientific site. Seriously, I would love to see you be able to >> talk intelligently about this. >> > >You are brainwashed, and the sum of your education on this matter comes >from 30-minute television shows. I'm convinced that most of it comes from Elmo on Sesame Street and Bill Nye the Science Guy.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-29 16:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fkn493Fca94U5@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #449578 |
On 4/29/18 4:27 PM, Doomsdrzej wrote: >>>> The junk science is also rejected by scientists who are not dependent >>>> on those in charge of the dogma. >>> I am sincere in saying it you want to learn about the science you should >>> go to a scientific site. Seriously, I would love to see you be able to >>> talk intelligently about this. >>> >> You are brainwashed, and the sum of your education on this matter comes >>from 30-minute television shows. > > I'm convinced that most of it comes from Elmo on Sesame Street and > Bill Nye the Science Guy. My .sig is right again! -- 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 | Doomsdrzej <.m@nsn.s> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-28 19:41 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <rj1aedlte43cemqotbaknq0rr8gsa0roe4@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #449425 |
On Sat, 28 Apr 2018 22:33:18 +0000 (UTC), owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> On 4/28/18 1:59 PM, owl wrote: >>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>> On 4/28/18 1:23 PM, a.m wrote: >>>>>>> If you truly want to learn about man-made global climate change go to >>>>>>> any -- literally ANY -- scientific site that states a position. Follow >>>>>>> some of their references to learn more. >>>>>>> >>>>>> I would love to see Antarctica uncovered in my lifetime, and I couldn't >>>>>> care less about Florida. Let that shit sink. >>>> >>>>> Yes owl, make sure you go to_ANY_ scientific site that states a >>>>> position but makes sure that it states whatever position the Prescott >>>>> cockroach agrees with otherwise go to any_OTHER_ scientific site and >>>>> do the same. If you can't find one that agrees with Michael Glasser, >>>>> make sure that you ask him to send you his pre-approved list of_ANY_ >>>>> scientific site. >>>> >>>> I am speaking of ANY scientific site. ANY scientific organization. ANY. >>>> Not some group that formed to try to debunk science, but any >>>> science-focused organization. >>>> >>>> You have NO leg to stand on here. I am talking fact... you are whining >>>> that facts are "biased". >>>> >>> >>> Believe the Discovery Channel University if you want. >>> https://climatechange.procon.org/ >>> >> >> Not a scientific site and their anti-science claims are trivially easy >> to debunk. For example, they lie about the number of scientists who >> disagree with the consensus and push the insane straw man about the >> climate always changing as if someone suggested otherwise. >> > >They are not "pushing" anything. They present arguments for both sides of >issues. That's why it's called procon.org. Climate change is just one of them. It's not sponsored by George Soros so it's automatically incorrect.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-28 20:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <9aa0b80a.3ha@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #449399 |
a.m <.m@nsn.s> wrote: > On Sat, 28 Apr 2018 19:08:58 +0000 (UTC), owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> > wrote: > >>Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> On 4/28/18 9:01 AM, owl wrote: >>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>> On 4/28/18 8:01 AM, a.m wrote: >>>>>> On Fri, 27 Apr 2018 17:28:42 -0700, Snit >>>>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 4/27/18 3:03 PM, F. Russell wrote: >>>>>>>> On Fri, 27 Apr 2018 11:03:28 -0500, chrisv wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> In another month, the EU's General Data Protection Regulation becomes >>>>>>>>> enforceable. It provides strict requirements >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I don't know that law so I cannot comment. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> But I do know that both European _and_ American politics is >>>>>>>> REACTIVE rather than PROACTIVE. The politicians should see >>>>>>>> these things coming far in advance but they never do. Consequently >>>>>>>> most laws are unfortunately always "too little and too late." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Climate change is a great examples of this. >>>>>> >>>>>> The same scientists who claimed that we'd all be underwater right now >>>>>> are now admitting that they were wrong. >>>>> >>>>> Who said we would be under water? The oceans HAVE risen. The predictions >>>>> have been amazingly accurate. >>>>> >>>>>> <https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/950748/climate-change-scientists-impact-not-as-bad-on-planet> >>>>> >>>>> You hand-picked one study. One. In the past you have hand-picked some >>>>> others. But you are hand-picking and ignoring the overall picture... the >>>>> overall science. You are seeking confirmation bias and finding it. >>>> >>>> >>>> That is the essence of "climate science." >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> As far as you picking and choosing, here is another recent study (or >>>>> article, from a more scientific source, which talks about the study): >>>>> >>>>> <https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/we-just-breached-the-410-ppm-threshold-for-co2/> >>>>> OR <https://goo.gl/nZkZmM> >>>>> ----- >>>>> The world just passed another round-numbered climate milestone. >>>>> Scientists predicted it would happen this year and lo and behold, it >>>>> has. >>>>> ... >>>>> Earlier this year, U.K. Met Office scientists issued their >>>>> first-ever carbon dioxide forecast. They projected carbon dioxide >>>>> could reach 410 ppm in March and almost certainly would by April. >>>>> Their forecast has been borne out with Tuesday's daily record. They >>>>> project that the monthly average will peak near 407 ppm in May, >>>>> setting a monthly record. >>>>> >>>>> Carbon dioxide concentrations have skyrocketed over the past two >>>>> years due to in part to natural factors like El Nino causing more of >>>>> it to end up in the atmosphere. But it's mostly driven by the record >>>>> amounts of carbon dioxide humans are creating by burning fossil >>>>> fuels. >>>>> ----- >>>>> >>>> >>>> The plants of Earth rejoice! >>>> >>> If you truly want to learn about man-made global climate change go to >>> any -- literally ANY -- scientific site that states a position. Follow >>> some of their references to learn more. >>> >> >>I would love to see Antarctica uncovered in my lifetime, and I couldn't >>care less about Florida. Let that shit sink. > > Yes owl, make sure you go to _ANY_ scientific site that states a > position but makes sure that it states whatever position the Prescott > cockroach agrees with otherwise go to any _OTHER_ scientific site and > do the same. If you can't find one that agrees with Michael Glasser, > make sure that you ask him to send you his pre-approved list of _ANY_ > scientific site. What does snit know about science? He thinks psychology is a science. You know, that field of "study" that changes its determinations based on political pressure.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-28 14:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fkk64iFn849U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #449404 |
On 4/28/18 1:56 PM, owl wrote: >>> I would love to see Antarctica uncovered in my lifetime, and I couldn't >>> care less about Florida. Let that shit sink. >> Yes owl, make sure you go to_ANY_ scientific site that states a >> position but makes sure that it states whatever position the Prescott >> cockroach agrees with otherwise go to any_OTHER_ scientific site and >> do the same. If you can't find one that agrees with Michael Glasser, >> make sure that you ask him to send you his pre-approved list of_ANY_ >> scientific site. > What does snit know about science? He thinks psychology is a science. > You know, that field of "study" that changes its determinations based > on political pressure. I clearly know more about climate science and psychology than you do. You clearly know more than I do about computer science, or at least programming. No shame in either of those. -- 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 | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-28 22:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <plz908bz0.ag@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #449409 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 4/28/18 1:56 PM, owl wrote: >>>> I would love to see Antarctica uncovered in my lifetime, and I couldn't >>>> care less about Florida. Let that shit sink. > >>> Yes owl, make sure you go to_ANY_ scientific site that states a >>> position but makes sure that it states whatever position the Prescott >>> cockroach agrees with otherwise go to any_OTHER_ scientific site and >>> do the same. If you can't find one that agrees with Michael Glasser, >>> make sure that you ask him to send you his pre-approved list of_ANY_ >>> scientific site. > >> What does snit know about science? He thinks psychology is a science. >> You know, that field of "study" that changes its determinations based >> on political pressure. > > I clearly know more about climate science and psychology than you do. > You clearly know more than I do about computer science, or at least > programming. > > No shame in either of those. > So you know a lot about some junk science fields. What about Bigfoot and UFOs?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-28 15:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fkkaveFo95vU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #449419 |
On 4/28/18 3:06 PM, owl wrote: > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> On 4/28/18 1:56 PM, owl wrote: >>>>> I would love to see Antarctica uncovered in my lifetime, and I couldn't >>>>> care less about Florida. Let that shit sink. >> >>>> Yes owl, make sure you go to_ANY_ scientific site that states a >>>> position but makes sure that it states whatever position the Prescott >>>> cockroach agrees with otherwise go to any_OTHER_ scientific site and >>>> do the same. If you can't find one that agrees with Michael Glasser, >>>> make sure that you ask him to send you his pre-approved list of_ANY_ >>>> scientific site. >> >>> What does snit know about science? He thinks psychology is a science. >>> You know, that field of "study" that changes its determinations based >>> on political pressure. >> >> I clearly know more about climate science and psychology than you do. >> You clearly know more than I do about computer science, or at least >> programming. >> >> No shame in either of those. >> > > So you know a lot about some junk science fields. And here you prove me right. Thanks! > What about Bigfoot and UFOs? What about them? -- 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 | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-28 22:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <szb9083ga.u@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #449423 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 4/28/18 3:06 PM, owl wrote: >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> On 4/28/18 1:56 PM, owl wrote: >>>>>> I would love to see Antarctica uncovered in my lifetime, and I couldn't >>>>>> care less about Florida. Let that shit sink. >>> >>>>> Yes owl, make sure you go to_ANY_ scientific site that states a >>>>> position but makes sure that it states whatever position the Prescott >>>>> cockroach agrees with otherwise go to any_OTHER_ scientific site and >>>>> do the same. If you can't find one that agrees with Michael Glasser, >>>>> make sure that you ask him to send you his pre-approved list of_ANY_ >>>>> scientific site. >>> >>>> What does snit know about science? He thinks psychology is a science. >>>> You know, that field of "study" that changes its determinations based >>>> on political pressure. >>> >>> I clearly know more about climate science and psychology than you do. >>> You clearly know more than I do about computer science, or at least >>> programming. >>> >>> No shame in either of those. >>> >> >> So you know a lot about some junk science fields. > > And here you prove me right. Thanks! > Prove you right about what? That you know a lot about some junk science fields? Well, if you accept a mere statement as proof, then that says a lot about your "scientific" mind, so I guess in a roundabout way it does prove that you are a junk science expert. >> What about Bigfoot and UFOs? > > What about them? > How is climate change going to affect Bigfoot's habitat? Will he be happy or sad to see more plant life spring up over the next few decades? How is climate change going to affect UFOs? Will they need to add more solar shielding to protect themselves from that crazy Sun?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy
csiph-web