Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.electronics.design > #462200 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Jamie M <jmorken@shaw.ca> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-05-29 13:01 -0700 |
| Last post | 2017-06-18 08:23 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 105 — 23 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.electronics.design
OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study Jamie M <jmorken@shaw.ca> - 2017-05-29 13:01 -0700
Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-29 16:40 -0400
Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-05-29 14:02 -0700
Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-05-29 17:16 -0400
Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-05-29 14:39 -0700
Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-05-29 14:49 -0700
Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-05-29 15:04 -0700
Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-05-29 18:23 -0400
Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-05-29 15:35 -0700
Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study Rheilly Phoull <rheilly@bigslong.com> - 2017-05-30 11:48 +0800
Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-05-30 00:08 -0700
Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study Robert Baer <robertbaer@localnet.com> - 2017-05-30 01:18 -0800
Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-05-30 08:18 -0700
Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-05-30 09:15 -0700
Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-05-30 09:29 -0700
Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-05-29 17:58 -0400
Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2017-05-30 07:42 +1000
Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-05-29 15:18 -0700
Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-05-29 18:43 -0400
Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-29 17:29 -0400
Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-05-29 14:50 -0700
Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-05-29 18:11 -0400
Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-05-29 15:29 -0700
Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-29 18:47 -0400
Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-05-29 19:34 -0400
Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-29 19:39 -0400
Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-05-29 17:50 -0700
Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-05-30 11:11 -0700
Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-30 17:53 -0400
Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-05-30 18:52 -0700
Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-05-30 18:39 -0700
Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-05-31 07:26 -0700
Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-05-31 07:43 -0700
Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-31 18:03 -0400
Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-05-31 17:37 -0700
Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-05-31 17:35 -0700
Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-05-31 17:28 -0700
Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-05-30 18:41 -0700
Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-29 18:46 -0400
Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-05-29 17:45 -0700
Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-05-29 16:48 -0700
Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-05-30 06:18 -0700
Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study gray_wolf <g_wolf@nospam.com> - 2017-05-29 20:26 -0500
Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-05-29 18:51 -0700
Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-05-30 06:31 -0700
Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-30 17:58 -0400
Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2017-05-30 09:09 +0100
Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-05-30 06:30 -0700
Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2017-05-30 15:00 +0100
Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-05-30 07:07 -0700
Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-30 18:10 -0400
Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-05-30 15:31 -0700
Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-30 18:44 -0400
Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-05-30 16:03 -0700
Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-30 19:29 -0400
Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-05-30 16:39 -0700
Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-30 20:00 -0400
Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2017-05-31 08:27 +0100
Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2017-05-31 17:31 +1000
Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2017-05-31 10:27 +0100
Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-05-31 07:41 -0700
Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2017-05-31 08:03 +0100
Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study Joseph Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net> - 2017-05-31 10:00 -0400
Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-05-31 07:38 -0700
Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-05-30 07:35 -0700
Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study "Tom Del Rosso" <fizzbintuesday@that-google-mail-domain.com> - 2017-05-30 22:03 -0400
Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-06-01 07:26 -0700
Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study "Tom Del Rosso" <fizzbintuesday@that-google-mail-domain.com> - 2017-06-01 17:52 -0400
Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-30 18:05 -0400
Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-05-30 19:03 -0700
Re: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-06-13 20:33 +0100
Re: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-06-13 12:54 -0700
Re: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study krw@notreal.com - 2017-06-13 17:56 -0400
Re: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-06-14 21:23 +0100
Re: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study krw@notreal.com - 2017-06-14 18:50 -0400
Re: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-06-15 20:34 +0100
Re: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study krw@notreal.com - 2017-06-15 19:24 -0400
Re: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-06-17 08:05 +0100
Re: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study krw@notreal.com - 2017-06-17 10:05 -0400
Re: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-06-17 16:53 +0100
Re: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-06-17 19:07 -0700
Re: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-06-17 09:03 -0700
Re: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study Laffer <chuckles@disposable.mail> - 2017-06-14 21:40 -0700
Re: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-06-14 22:31 -0700
Re: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study jurb6006@gmail.com - 2017-06-15 06:01 -0700
Re: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-06-15 08:24 -0700
Re: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study dplatt@coop.radagast.org (Dave Platt) - 2017-06-15 13:03 -0700
Re: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study krw@notreal.com - 2017-06-15 12:38 -0400
Re: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-06-13 19:17 -0700
Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-05-29 18:04 -0700
Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study Robert Baer <robertbaer@localnet.com> - 2017-05-30 01:16 -0800
Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-05-30 04:46 -0700
Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-05-30 18:57 -0700
Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-05-31 07:42 -0700
Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-05-31 08:47 -0700
Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-05-31 09:39 -0700
Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-06-01 06:26 -0700
Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-05-31 19:28 +1000
Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study "rc12234@cox.net" <rc12234@cox.net> - 2017-05-31 11:08 -0700
Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study jurb6006@gmail.com - 2017-06-13 04:48 -0700
Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-06-13 15:25 +0200
Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study jurb6006@gmail.com - 2017-06-14 02:54 -0700
Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-06-14 12:23 +0200
Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study Jamie M <jmorken@shaw.ca> - 2017-06-18 04:37 -0700
Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-06-18 08:23 -0700
Page 2 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 Next page →
| From | Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-29 14:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ep3jcfFt6haU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #462212 |
On 2017-05-29 14:29, krw@notreal.com wrote: > On Mon, 29 May 2017 14:02:11 -0700, Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> > wrote: > >> On 2017-05-29 13:40, krw@notreal.com wrote: >>> On Mon, 29 May 2017 13:01:13 -0700, Jamie M <jmorken@shaw.ca> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> Raw milk benefits: >>>> >>>> http://www.jacionline.org/article/S0091-6749(15)01731-5/abstract >>> >>> More features of raw milk: >>> https://www.cdc.gov/features/rawmilk/ >>> >> >> That contains a lot of nonsense. For example, quote "Is raw milk a good >> source of beneficial bacteria? --- No. Raw milk contains bacteria, and >> some of them can be harmful". > > Right. The CDC doesn't know anything about illness. You know more. > Usually not but at a very young age I have stopped blindly believing everything a government entity proclaimed. You are old enough. Have you already forgotten when various government agencies proclaimed a manmade global ice age, to be coming very quickly? Then, oops, it didn't happen, so they proclaimed manmade global warming. Now that that doesn't quite stick anymore they proclaim "global change". Phhht. [...] -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-29 18:11 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <d01XA.173487$Gw3.3844@fx11.iad> |
| In reply to | #462216 |
On 05/29/2017 05:50 PM, Joerg wrote: > Usually not but at a very young age I have stopped blindly believing > everything a government entity proclaimed. > > You are old enough. Have you already forgotten when various government > agencies proclaimed a manmade global ice age, to be coming very quickly? > Then, oops, it didn't happen, so they proclaimed manmade global warming. > Now that that doesn't quite stick anymore they proclaim "global change". > Phhht. The US government didn't say shit about a global ice age in the 1970s; it was almost entirely the claim of the BS-ing media to sell copy, and there were some studies produced by NGOs where they noted some short-term temperature decreases and the conclusion essentially was "idk maybe keep an eye on this" (where NG stands for non-governmental)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-29 15:29 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study |
| Message-ID | <ep3llkFtmojU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #462220 |
On 2017-05-29 15:11, bitrex wrote: > On 05/29/2017 05:50 PM, Joerg wrote: > >> Usually not but at a very young age I have stopped blindly believing >> everything a government entity proclaimed. >> >> You are old enough. Have you already forgotten when various government >> agencies proclaimed a manmade global ice age, to be coming very >> quickly? Then, oops, it didn't happen, so they proclaimed manmade >> global warming. Now that that doesn't quite stick anymore they >> proclaim "global change". Phhht. > > The US government didn't say shit about a global ice age in the 1970s; > it was almost entirely the claim of the BS-ing media to sell copy, and > there were some studies produced by NGOs where they noted some > short-term temperature decreases and the conclusion essentially was "idk > maybe keep an eye on this" (where NG stands for non-governmental) Since when is NOAA "non-governmental"? http://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/new-allergy-guidance-most-kids-should-try-peanuts-n703316 I heard this while living in Europe but also on US stations. The only ones we could receive there were VOA and AFN, both operated by the government. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw@notreal.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-29 18:47 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <f79pic5h3iuod6phvs8oqdgle8kq9rgic1@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #462220 |
On Mon, 29 May 2017 18:11:20 -0400, bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote: >On 05/29/2017 05:50 PM, Joerg wrote: > >> Usually not but at a very young age I have stopped blindly believing >> everything a government entity proclaimed. >> >> You are old enough. Have you already forgotten when various government >> agencies proclaimed a manmade global ice age, to be coming very quickly? >> Then, oops, it didn't happen, so they proclaimed manmade global warming. >> Now that that doesn't quite stick anymore they proclaim "global change". >> Phhht. > >The US government didn't say shit about a global ice age in the 1970s; >it was almost entirely the claim of the BS-ing media to sell copy, and >there were some studies produced by NGOs where they noted some >short-term temperature decreases and the conclusion essentially was "idk >maybe keep an eye on this" (where NG stands for non-governmental) As always. You're wrong. Lefties always are.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-29 19:34 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <te2XA.100496$df3.34153@fx30.iad> |
| In reply to | #462231 |
On 05/29/2017 06:47 PM, krw@notreal.com wrote: > On Mon, 29 May 2017 18:11:20 -0400, bitrex > <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote: > >> On 05/29/2017 05:50 PM, Joerg wrote: >> >>> Usually not but at a very young age I have stopped blindly believing >>> everything a government entity proclaimed. >>> >>> You are old enough. Have you already forgotten when various government >>> agencies proclaimed a manmade global ice age, to be coming very quickly? >>> Then, oops, it didn't happen, so they proclaimed manmade global warming. >>> Now that that doesn't quite stick anymore they proclaim "global change". >>> Phhht. >> >> The US government didn't say shit about a global ice age in the 1970s; >> it was almost entirely the claim of the BS-ing media to sell copy, and >> there were some studies produced by NGOs where they noted some >> short-term temperature decreases and the conclusion essentially was "idk >> maybe keep an eye on this" (where NG stands for non-governmental) > > As always. You're wrong. Lefties always are. > It's hilarious how just this two page paper: <http://www.pnas.org/content/67/2/898.short> from this site: <http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/09/13/83-consensus-285-papers-from-1960s-80s-reveal-robust-global-cooling-scientific-consensus/> which uses it as a fucking _example_ of the fact there was "great scientific consensus" about the coming global cooling in the 1970s actually predicts global warming in its third paragraph. LOL!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw@notreal.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-29 19:39 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <j8cpicl9dvtjir9v4chihjijg2hdu3c4nq@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #462232 |
On Mon, 29 May 2017 19:34:48 -0400, bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote: >On 05/29/2017 06:47 PM, krw@notreal.com wrote: >> On Mon, 29 May 2017 18:11:20 -0400, bitrex >> <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote: >> >>> On 05/29/2017 05:50 PM, Joerg wrote: >>> >>>> Usually not but at a very young age I have stopped blindly believing >>>> everything a government entity proclaimed. >>>> >>>> You are old enough. Have you already forgotten when various government >>>> agencies proclaimed a manmade global ice age, to be coming very quickly? >>>> Then, oops, it didn't happen, so they proclaimed manmade global warming. >>>> Now that that doesn't quite stick anymore they proclaim "global change". >>>> Phhht. >>> >>> The US government didn't say shit about a global ice age in the 1970s; >>> it was almost entirely the claim of the BS-ing media to sell copy, and >>> there were some studies produced by NGOs where they noted some >>> short-term temperature decreases and the conclusion essentially was "idk >>> maybe keep an eye on this" (where NG stands for non-governmental) >> >> As always. You're wrong. Lefties always are. >> > >It's hilarious how just this two page paper: > ><http://www.pnas.org/content/67/2/898.short> > >from this site: > ><http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/09/13/83-consensus-285-papers-from-1960s-80s-reveal-robust-global-cooling-scientific-consensus/> > >which uses it as a fucking _example_ of the fact there was "great >scientific consensus" about the coming global cooling in the 1970s >actually predicts global warming in its third paragraph. LOL! You weren't yet a cum stain in your daddy's shorts in the '70s, snowflake.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bill.sloman@ieee.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-29 17:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <27e91b71-2920-42bd-b338-32ee6eefadbb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #462231 |
On Tuesday, May 30, 2017 at 8:47:36 AM UTC+10, k...@notreal.com wrote: > On Mon, 29 May 2017 18:11:20 -0400, bitrex > <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote: > > >On 05/29/2017 05:50 PM, Joerg wrote: > > > >> Usually not but at a very young age I have stopped blindly believing > >> everything a government entity proclaimed. > >> > >> You are old enough. Have you already forgotten when various government > >> agencies proclaimed a manmade global ice age, to be coming very quickly? > >> Then, oops, it didn't happen, so they proclaimed manmade global warming. > >> Now that that doesn't quite stick anymore they proclaim "global change". > >> Phhht. > > > >The US government didn't say shit about a global ice age in the 1970s; > >it was almost entirely the claim of the BS-ing media to sell copy, and > >there were some studies produced by NGOs where they noted some > >short-term temperature decreases and the conclusion essentially was "idk > >maybe keep an eye on this" (where NG stands for non-governmental) > > As always. You're wrong. Lefties always are. Krw can't find any example of a government agency predicting a new global ice age in the 1970's, because there weren't any, but that doesn't stop him claiming that it did happen - once a chunk of misinformation gets lodged in his brain it's absolutely true (to him) and anybody who contradicts him has to be deliberately lying. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-30 11:11 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study |
| Message-ID | <ep5qubFegkrU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #462238 |
On 2017-05-29 17:50, bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote: > On Tuesday, May 30, 2017 at 8:47:36 AM UTC+10, k...@notreal.com > wrote: >> On Mon, 29 May 2017 18:11:20 -0400, bitrex >> <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote: >> >>> On 05/29/2017 05:50 PM, Joerg wrote: >>> >>>> Usually not but at a very young age I have stopped blindly >>>> believing everything a government entity proclaimed. >>>> >>>> You are old enough. Have you already forgotten when various >>>> government agencies proclaimed a manmade global ice age, to be >>>> coming very quickly? Then, oops, it didn't happen, so they >>>> proclaimed manmade global warming. Now that that doesn't quite >>>> stick anymore they proclaim "global change". Phhht. >>> >>> The US government didn't say shit about a global ice age in the >>> 1970s; it was almost entirely the claim of the BS-ing media to >>> sell copy, and there were some studies produced by NGOs where >>> they noted some short-term temperature decreases and the >>> conclusion essentially was "idk maybe keep an eye on this" (where >>> NG stands for non-governmental) >> >> As always. You're wrong. Lefties always are. > > Krw can't find any example of a government agency predicting a new > global ice age in the 1970's, because there weren't any, ... You have not seen my link? NOAA was and still is a government entity. > ... but that > doesn't stop him claiming that it did happen - once a chunk of > misinformation gets lodged in his brain it's absolutely true (to him) > and anybody who contradicts him has to be deliberately lying. > I suggest to read more carefully before making such accusations. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw@notreal.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-30 17:53 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <bbqricd1n0uiihfro9fnbobfhgjgh57ova@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #462317 |
On Tue, 30 May 2017 11:11:28 -0700, Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> wrote: >On 2017-05-29 17:50, bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote: >> On Tuesday, May 30, 2017 at 8:47:36 AM UTC+10, k...@notreal.com >> wrote: >>> On Mon, 29 May 2017 18:11:20 -0400, bitrex >>> <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote: >>> >>>> On 05/29/2017 05:50 PM, Joerg wrote: >>>> >>>>> Usually not but at a very young age I have stopped blindly >>>>> believing everything a government entity proclaimed. >>>>> >>>>> You are old enough. Have you already forgotten when various >>>>> government agencies proclaimed a manmade global ice age, to be >>>>> coming very quickly? Then, oops, it didn't happen, so they >>>>> proclaimed manmade global warming. Now that that doesn't quite >>>>> stick anymore they proclaim "global change". Phhht. >>>> >>>> The US government didn't say shit about a global ice age in the >>>> 1970s; it was almost entirely the claim of the BS-ing media to >>>> sell copy, and there were some studies produced by NGOs where >>>> they noted some short-term temperature decreases and the >>>> conclusion essentially was "idk maybe keep an eye on this" (where >>>> NG stands for non-governmental) >>> >>> As always. You're wrong. Lefties always are. >> >> Krw can't find any example of a government agency predicting a new >> global ice age in the 1970's, because there weren't any, ... > > >You have not seen my link? NOAA was and still is a government entity. Like snowrex, Slowman is impervious to facts. Just killfile him and be done with it. > >> ... but that >> doesn't stop him claiming that it did happen - once a chunk of >> misinformation gets lodged in his brain it's absolutely true (to him) >> and anybody who contradicts him has to be deliberately lying. >> > >I suggest to read more carefully before making such accusations. Impossible for a socialist.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bill.sloman@ieee.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-30 18:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e80a2727-09fe-4233-9d29-0321e91cb375@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #462342 |
On Wednesday, May 31, 2017 at 7:54:00 AM UTC+10, k...@notreal.com wrote: > On Tue, 30 May 2017 11:11:28 -0700, Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> > wrote: > > >On 2017-05-29 17:50, bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote: > >> On Tuesday, May 30, 2017 at 8:47:36 AM UTC+10, k...@notreal.com > >> wrote: > >>> On Mon, 29 May 2017 18:11:20 -0400, bitrex > >>> <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote: > >>> > >>>> On 05/29/2017 05:50 PM, Joerg wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Usually not but at a very young age I have stopped blindly > >>>>> believing everything a government entity proclaimed. > >>>>> > >>>>> You are old enough. Have you already forgotten when various > >>>>> government agencies proclaimed a manmade global ice age, to be > >>>>> coming very quickly? Then, oops, it didn't happen, so they > >>>>> proclaimed manmade global warming. Now that that doesn't quite > >>>>> stick anymore they proclaim "global change". Phhht. > >>>> > >>>> The US government didn't say shit about a global ice age in the > >>>> 1970s; it was almost entirely the claim of the BS-ing media to > >>>> sell copy, and there were some studies produced by NGOs where > >>>> they noted some short-term temperature decreases and the > >>>> conclusion essentially was "idk maybe keep an eye on this" (where > >>>> NG stands for non-governmental) > >>> > >>> As always. You're wrong. Lefties always are. > >> > >> Krw can't find any example of a government agency predicting a new > >> global ice age in the 1970's, because there weren't any, ... > > > > > >You have not seen my link? NOAA was and still is a government entity. > > Like snowrex, Slowman is impervious to facts. Just killfile him and > be done with it. Joerg didn't actually provide a link to the site he refers to, and I haven't been able to find anything in this thread which might constitute a "fact" or anything like it. Krw "facts" are always based on what he thinks he knows (much of which is wrong). > >> ... but that > >> doesn't stop him claiming that it did happen - once a chunk of > >> misinformation gets lodged in his brain it's absolutely true (to him) > >> and anybody who contradicts him has to be deliberately lying. > >> > > > >I suggest to read more carefully before making such accusations. > > Impossible for a socialist. Speaking as socialist, I do find relevant information on the web, read it, and provide links to it. In this particular case I've not been able to find any link posted by Jeorg or krw which I might have read. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bill.sloman@ieee.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-30 18:39 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study |
| Message-ID | <2f29c881-4361-46fd-8509-5f00895b548b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #462317 |
On Wednesday, May 31, 2017 at 4:11:28 AM UTC+10, Joerg wrote:
> On 2017-05-29 17:50, bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:
> > On Tuesday, May 30, 2017 at 8:47:36 AM UTC+10, k...@notreal.com
> > wrote:
> >> On Mon, 29 May 2017 18:11:20 -0400, bitrex
> >> <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 05/29/2017 05:50 PM, Joerg wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Usually not but at a very young age I have stopped blindly
> >>>> believing everything a government entity proclaimed.
> >>>>
> >>>> You are old enough. Have you already forgotten when various
> >>>> government agencies proclaimed a manmade global ice age, to be
> >>>> coming very quickly? Then, oops, it didn't happen, so they
> >>>> proclaimed manmade global warming. Now that that doesn't quite
> >>>> stick anymore they proclaim "global change". Phhht.
> >>>
> >>> The US government didn't say shit about a global ice age in the
> >>> 1970s; it was almost entirely the claim of the BS-ing media to
> >>> sell copy, and there were some studies produced by NGOs where
> >>> they noted some short-term temperature decreases and the
> >>> conclusion essentially was "idk maybe keep an eye on this" (where
> >>> NG stands for non-governmental)
> >>
> >> As always. You're wrong. Lefties always are.
> >
> > Krw can't find any example of a government agency predicting a new
> > global ice age in the 1970's, because there weren't any, ...
>
>
> You have not seen my link? NOAA was and still is a government entity.
I've been right through this thread - as displayed on google groups - and I haven't found any link to any place where NOAA talked about a new global ice age.
All things are possible, but an actual government agency prediction of a new global ice age, even in the 1970's, strikes me as a little improbable. They might have said that it might happen, but anything as strong as a "prediction" would have had to have been based on the kind of mindless extrapolation that John Larkin thinks that today's climate scientists go in for.
... but that
> > doesn't stop him claiming that it did happen - once a chunk of
> > misinformation gets lodged in his brain it's absolutely true (to him)
> > and anybody who contradicts him has to be deliberately lying.
> >
>
> I suggest to read more carefully before making such accusations.
So re-post the link to whatever it is that you think I should have read. My bet is that it's you, rather than me, who has got his facts wrong.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-31 07:26 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study |
| Message-ID | <ep824eFuaabU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #462374 |
On 2017-05-30 18:39, bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote: > On Wednesday, May 31, 2017 at 4:11:28 AM UTC+10, Joerg wrote: >> On 2017-05-29 17:50, bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote: >>> On Tuesday, May 30, 2017 at 8:47:36 AM UTC+10, k...@notreal.com >>> wrote: >>>> On Mon, 29 May 2017 18:11:20 -0400, bitrex >>>> <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 05/29/2017 05:50 PM, Joerg wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Usually not but at a very young age I have stopped blindly >>>>>> believing everything a government entity proclaimed. >>>>>> >>>>>> You are old enough. Have you already forgotten when >>>>>> various government agencies proclaimed a manmade global ice >>>>>> age, to be coming very quickly? Then, oops, it didn't >>>>>> happen, so they proclaimed manmade global warming. Now that >>>>>> that doesn't quite stick anymore they proclaim "global >>>>>> change". Phhht. >>>>> >>>>> The US government didn't say shit about a global ice age in >>>>> the 1970s; it was almost entirely the claim of the BS-ing >>>>> media to sell copy, and there were some studies produced by >>>>> NGOs where they noted some short-term temperature decreases >>>>> and the conclusion essentially was "idk maybe keep an eye on >>>>> this" (where NG stands for non-governmental) >>>> >>>> As always. You're wrong. Lefties always are. >>> >>> Krw can't find any example of a government agency predicting a >>> new global ice age in the 1970's, because there weren't any, ... >> >> >> You have not seen my link? NOAA was and still is a government >> entity. > > I've been right through this thread - as displayed on google groups - > and I haven't found any link to any place where NOAA talked about a > new global ice age. > You have not looked hard enough. Or probably looked hardly at all yet make such statements. See below. > All things are possible, but an actual government agency prediction > of a new global ice age, even in the 1970's, strikes me as a little > improbable. They might have said that it might happen, but anything > as strong as a "prediction" would have had to have been based on the > kind of mindless extrapolation that John Larkin thinks that today's > climate scientists go in for. > > ... but that >>> doesn't stop him claiming that it did happen - once a chunk of >>> misinformation gets lodged in his brain it's absolutely true (to >>> him) and anybody who contradicts him has to be deliberately >>> lying. >>> >> >> I suggest to read more carefully before making such accusations. > > So re-post the link to whatever it is that you think I should have > read. My bet is that it's you, rather than me, who has got his facts > wrong. > There were plenty. Read under "A Small Sampling of 1970's Reports Warning of Global Cooling": http://www.climatedepot.com/2009/10/06/dont-miss-it-climate-depots-factsheet-on-1970s-coming-ice-age-claims-2/ As you can see there were lots of government sources. It was also widely broadcast on government run radio stations around the world. Of course you can also declare all this fake news and stick the head in the sand so you won't see it :-) -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-31 07:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ejltich8121dsb5hmsopsq9n106h4frk3i@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #462424 |
On Wed, 31 May 2017 07:26:28 -0700, Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com>
wrote:
>On 2017-05-30 18:39, bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:
[Slowman gibberish deleted]
>
>There were plenty. Read under "A Small Sampling of 1970's Reports
>Warning of Global Cooling":
>
>http://www.climatedepot.com/2009/10/06/dont-miss-it-climate-depots-factsheet-on-1970s-coming-ice-age-claims-2/
>
>As you can see there were lots of government sources. It was also widely
>broadcast on government run radio stations around the world.
>
>Of course you can also declare all this fake news and stick the head in
>the sand so you won't see it :-)
No "sticking" required, Slowman's head permanently resides in the
sand.
...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson | mens |
| Analog Innovations | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| STV, Queen Creek, AZ 85142 Skype: skypeanalog | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
Thinking outside the box... producing elegant solutions.
"It is not in doing what you like, but in liking what you do that
is the secret of happiness." -James Barrie
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw@notreal.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-31 18:03 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <edfuichh5s1rofken4hu6bm5kcmrhc0qod@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #462437 |
On Wed, 31 May 2017 07:43:57 -0700, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote: >On Wed, 31 May 2017 07:26:28 -0700, Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> >wrote: > >>On 2017-05-30 18:39, bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote: >[Slowman gibberish deleted] >> >>There were plenty. Read under "A Small Sampling of 1970's Reports >>Warning of Global Cooling": >> >>http://www.climatedepot.com/2009/10/06/dont-miss-it-climate-depots-factsheet-on-1970s-coming-ice-age-claims-2/ >> >>As you can see there were lots of government sources. It was also widely >>broadcast on government run radio stations around the world. >> >>Of course you can also declare all this fake news and stick the head in >>the sand so you won't see it :-) > >No "sticking" required, Slowman's head permanently resides in the >sand. It's not sand.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bill.sloman@ieee.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-31 17:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6d0855c3-bc03-47cc-a44b-deffe37b9e12@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #462493 |
On Thursday, June 1, 2017 at 8:03:40 AM UTC+10, k...@notreal.com wrote: > On Wed, 31 May 2017 07:43:57 -0700, Jim Thompson > <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote: > > >On Wed, 31 May 2017 07:26:28 -0700, Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> > >wrote: > > > >>On 2017-05-30 18:39, bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote: > >[Slowman gibberish deleted] > >> > >>There were plenty. Read under "A Small Sampling of 1970's Reports > >>Warning of Global Cooling": > >> > >>http://www.climatedepot.com/2009/10/06/dont-miss-it-climate-depots-factsheet-on-1970s-coming-ice-age-claims-2/ > >> > >>As you can see there were lots of government sources. It was also widely > >>broadcast on government run radio stations around the world. > >> > >>Of course you can also declare all this fake news and stick the head in > >>the sand so you won't see it :-) > > > >No "sticking" required, Slowman's head permanently resides in the > >sand. > > It's not sand. Krw is right for once, but for quite the wrong reason. It's Jeorg and Jim who have got their heads in the wrong place on this particular occasion. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bill.sloman@ieee.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-31 17:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <037f3af6-e583-4e0f-b1b0-26f6fd76126d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #462437 |
On Thursday, June 1, 2017 at 12:44:07 AM UTC+10, Jim Thompson wrote: > On Wed, 31 May 2017 07:26:28 -0700, Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> > wrote: > > >On 2017-05-30 18:39, bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote: > [Slowman gibberish deleted] > > > >There were plenty. Read under "A Small Sampling of 1970's Reports > >Warning of Global Cooling": > > > >http://www.climatedepot.com/2009/10/06/dont-miss-it-climate-depots-factsheet-on-1970s-coming-ice-age-claims-2/ > > > >As you can see there were lots of government sources. It was also widely > >broadcast on government run radio stations around the world. That is link to denialist propaganda . Bitrex identifed it as such when he posted it, and added a link to a real 1970 paper which was being misrepresented. http://www.pnas.org/content/67/2/898.short > >Of course you can also declare all this fake news and stick the head in > >the sand so you won't see it :-) Since it really was fake news - and identified as such by Bitrex - it is Jeorg whose head is stuck in the sand. > No "sticking" required, Sloman's head permanently resides in the > sand. Jim-out-of-touch-with-reality-Thompson in typical form. He buys into an argument he can't follow and backs quite the wrong horse. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bill.sloman@ieee.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-31 17:28 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study |
| Message-ID | <c52951ea-3f5e-4ba8-b47a-a18b5577df1b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #462424 |
On Thursday, June 1, 2017 at 12:26:32 AM UTC+10, Joerg wrote: > On 2017-05-30 18:39, bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote: > > On Wednesday, May 31, 2017 at 4:11:28 AM UTC+10, Joerg wrote: > >> On 2017-05-29 17:50, bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote: > >>> On Tuesday, May 30, 2017 at 8:47:36 AM UTC+10, k...@notreal.com > >>> wrote: > >>>> On Mon, 29 May 2017 18:11:20 -0400, bitrex > >>>> <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> On 05/29/2017 05:50 PM, Joerg wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Usually not but at a very young age I have stopped blindly > >>>>>> believing everything a government entity proclaimed. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> You are old enough. Have you already forgotten when > >>>>>> various government agencies proclaimed a manmade global ice > >>>>>> age, to be coming very quickly? Then, oops, it didn't > >>>>>> happen, so they proclaimed manmade global warming. Now that > >>>>>> that doesn't quite stick anymore they proclaim "global > >>>>>> change". Phhht. > >>>>> > >>>>> The US government didn't say shit about a global ice age in > >>>>> the 1970s; it was almost entirely the claim of the BS-ing > >>>>> media to sell copy, and there were some studies produced by > >>>>> NGOs where they noted some short-term temperature decreases > >>>>> and the conclusion essentially was "idk maybe keep an eye on > >>>>> this" (where NG stands for non-governmental) > >>>> > >>>> As always. You're wrong. Lefties always are. > >>> > >>> Krw can't find any example of a government agency predicting a > >>> new global ice age in the 1970's, because there weren't any, ... > >> > >> > >> You have not seen my link? NOAA was and still is a government > >> entity. > > > > I've been right through this thread - as displayed on google groups - > > and I haven't found any link to any place where NOAA talked about a > > new global ice age. > > > > You have not looked hard enough. Or probably looked hardly at all yet > make such statements. See below. > > > > All things are possible, but an actual government agency prediction > > of a new global ice age, even in the 1970's, strikes me as a little > > improbable. They might have said that it might happen, but anything > > as strong as a "prediction" would have had to have been based on the > > kind of mindless extrapolation that John Larkin thinks that today's > > climate scientists go in for. > > > > ... but that > >>> doesn't stop him claiming that it did happen - once a chunk of > >>> misinformation gets lodged in his brain it's absolutely true (to > >>> him) and anybody who contradicts him has to be deliberately > >>> lying. > >>> > >> > >> I suggest to read more carefully before making such accusations. > > > > So re-post the link to whatever it is that you think I should have > > read. My bet is that it's you, rather than me, who has got his facts > > wrong. > > There were plenty. Read under "A Small Sampling of 1970's Reports > Warning of Global Cooling": > > http://www.climatedepot.com/2009/10/06/dont-miss-it-climate-depots-factsheet-on-1970s-coming-ice-age-claims-2/ This is actually denialist propaganda, and bitrex seems to have found it - not you. He looked at it hard enough to notice that it included a 1970 paper from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science as prediction of global cooling http://www.pnas.org/content/67/2/898.short when in fact it gives equal weight to a predictions of global warming. It concludes "Some years from now, man will control his climate, inadvertently or advertently. Before that day arrives, it is essential that scientists understand thoroughly the dynamics ofclimate. Only by such an understanding and by active intervention can man assure himself in the long run that this planet will continue to be a suitable place to live". > As you can see there were lots of government sources. It was also widely > broadcast on government run radio stations around the world. I was there then. It wasn't. Predictions of a coming ice age were strictly pseudo-science guff, dreamed up to frighten potential readers into reading more. > Of course you can also declare all this fake news and stick the head in > the sand so you won't see it :-) It was fake news, and it is sad that you don't read carefully enough to realise it. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bill.sloman@ieee.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-30 18:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <54f6aac5-44ef-4357-bc5f-eeb0550898ac@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #462231 |
On Tuesday, May 30, 2017 at 8:47:36 AM UTC+10, k...@notreal.com wrote: > On Mon, 29 May 2017 18:11:20 -0400, bitrex > <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote: > > >On 05/29/2017 05:50 PM, Joerg wrote: > > > >> Usually not but at a very young age I have stopped blindly believing > >> everything a government entity proclaimed. > >> > >> You are old enough. Have you already forgotten when various government > >> agencies proclaimed a manmade global ice age, to be coming very quickly? > >> Then, oops, it didn't happen, so they proclaimed manmade global warming. > >> Now that that doesn't quite stick anymore they proclaim "global change". > >> Phhht. > > > >The US government didn't say shit about a global ice age in the 1970s; > >it was almost entirely the claim of the BS-ing media to sell copy, and > >there were some studies produced by NGOs where they noted some > >short-term temperature decreases and the conclusion essentially was "idk > >maybe keep an eye on this" (where NG stands for non-governmental) > > As always. You're wrong. Lefties always are. Not for the first time, it's krw who is wrong - he doesn't know much, and most of what he thinks he knows happens to be wrong. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw@notreal.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-29 18:46 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <l49pic5ihkcshqfnd7tipvctbfstii1q01@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #462216 |
On Mon, 29 May 2017 14:50:08 -0700, Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> wrote: >On 2017-05-29 14:29, krw@notreal.com wrote: >> On Mon, 29 May 2017 14:02:11 -0700, Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> >> wrote: >> >>> On 2017-05-29 13:40, krw@notreal.com wrote: >>>> On Mon, 29 May 2017 13:01:13 -0700, Jamie M <jmorken@shaw.ca> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> Raw milk benefits: >>>>> >>>>> http://www.jacionline.org/article/S0091-6749(15)01731-5/abstract >>>> >>>> More features of raw milk: >>>> https://www.cdc.gov/features/rawmilk/ >>>> >>> >>> That contains a lot of nonsense. For example, quote "Is raw milk a good >>> source of beneficial bacteria? --- No. Raw milk contains bacteria, and >>> some of them can be harmful". >> >> Right. The CDC doesn't know anything about illness. You know more. >> > >Usually not but at a very young age I have stopped blindly believing >everything a government entity proclaimed. It's a long trip from "everything" from "_some_thing the doctors are paid to know". Again, an EE knows better. > >You are old enough. Have you already forgotten when various government >agencies proclaimed a manmade global ice age, to be coming very quickly? >Then, oops, it didn't happen, so they proclaimed manmade global warming. >Now that that doesn't quite stick anymore they proclaim "global change". >Phhht. See above.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bill.sloman@ieee.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-29 17:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7e4a37a2-57a2-464a-bc84-e5fce8f876cb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #462216 |
On Tuesday, May 30, 2017 at 7:50:12 AM UTC+10, Joerg wrote: > On 2017-05-29 14:29, krw@notreal.com wrote: > > On Mon, 29 May 2017 14:02:11 -0700, Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> > > wrote: > > > >> On 2017-05-29 13:40, krw@notreal.com wrote: > >>> On Mon, 29 May 2017 13:01:13 -0700, Jamie M <jmorken@shaw.ca> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Hi, > >>>> > >>>> Raw milk benefits: > >>>> > >>>> http://www.jacionline.org/article/S0091-6749(15)01731-5/abstract > >>> > >>> More features of raw milk: > >>> https://www.cdc.gov/features/rawmilk/ > >>> > >> > >> That contains a lot of nonsense. For example, quote "Is raw milk a good > >> source of beneficial bacteria? --- No. Raw milk contains bacteria, and > >> some of them can be harmful". > > > > Right. The CDC doesn't know anything about illness. You know more. > > > > Usually not but at a very young age I have stopped blindly believing > everything a government entity proclaimed. > > You are old enough. Have you already forgotten when various government > agencies proclaimed a man-made global ice age, to be coming very quickly? Nobody ever did. The idea was floated by some academics, but there wasn't remotely enough evidence to make it a plausible hypothesis. We did inject enough SO2 into the atmosphere to cause some cooling, as well as acidic rain. Mount Pinatuba's eruption in 1991 injected 22 million tones of SO2 and caused half a degree of cooling, after we'd put sulphur scubbers on most generator smoke stacks, and gave us a chance to calibrate how effective they had been. > Then, oops, it didn't happen, so they proclaimed manmade global warming. The scientific case for anthropogenic global warming took quite while to build up. Keeling statted measuring atmospheric CO2 in 1958 (when it was 315ppm) and by roughly 1990 (when it was closer to 355ppm), there was enough global warming to look statistically significant. The case was strong enough in 1990 for Al Gore to write his book https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_in_the_Balance which was more a popularisation of the science than any kind of proclamation. > Now that that doesn't quite stick anymore they proclaim "global change". > Phhht. Global Warming is going on, and getting worse. It doesn't mean uniform warming at a every point - if the Barents and Kara Seas are ice-free you get snow further south in Europe in winter http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009JD013568/full so "climate change" works better for the scientifically illiterate. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.electronics.design
csiph-web