Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #630134 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-04-22 22:38 +0100 |
| Last post | 2017-05-03 10:03 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 172 — 11 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-22 22:38 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-22 15:55 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-22 22:58 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-22 16:20 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-23 00:01 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-22 17:20 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-23 00:27 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-22 17:44 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-23 00:48 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-22 17:54 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-23 00:55 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-22 18:13 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-23 01:20 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-03 14:35 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-03 14:32 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-03 10:07 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> - 2017-04-23 08:15 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-23 15:17 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-23 10:07 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> - 2017-04-23 12:05 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-30 18:06 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 11:11 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 18:36 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 11:48 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 18:54 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 12:09 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 19:14 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 12:25 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2017-04-30 19:39 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 23:50 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 16:56 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-01 00:00 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 17:09 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2017-04-30 20:23 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2017-04-30 20:24 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-01 00:26 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-10 21:42 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-10 23:11 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-11 15:23 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-06 14:32 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-06 09:26 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2017-05-07 12:38 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-07 17:16 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Beezel Bub <nunya@bizz.invalid> - 2017-05-07 11:24 -0600
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-07 17:57 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2017-05-07 14:32 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-07 18:36 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-07 12:53 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-07 21:51 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-07 15:02 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-07 11:59 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2017-05-07 14:18 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-07 18:24 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2017-05-07 15:18 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-07 19:35 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-07 13:06 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-07 18:50 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-07 12:12 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-07 19:48 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-07 12:55 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-07 11:56 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-07 11:57 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-08 00:09 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-07 16:24 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-06 14:34 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-06 13:48 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-06 15:16 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-06 09:28 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-06 09:55 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2017-05-06 10:40 -0500
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-06 09:27 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@gmail.com> - 2017-04-30 14:56 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 19:04 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 12:14 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 19:16 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 12:24 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 19:25 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 13:08 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 20:27 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 20:34 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 13:56 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 21:34 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 15:01 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 22:06 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 15:13 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 22:20 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 22:23 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 15:31 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 15:31 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 22:34 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 16:00 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 23:03 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 16:18 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 23:17 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 16:29 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-06 15:17 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-06 09:38 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@gmail.com> - 2017-04-30 15:18 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 19:18 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 12:23 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 19:21 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 13:07 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 12:24 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@gmail.com> - 2017-04-30 17:17 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 14:19 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@gmail.com> - 2017-04-30 17:22 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 14:28 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 21:22 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@gmail.com> - 2017-04-30 18:30 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 15:34 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Ron C <r.capik@verizon.net> - 2017-04-30 18:49 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 16:01 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 22:40 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 16:16 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 23:15 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 16:28 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 23:43 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 16:48 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 23:51 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 16:55 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 23:55 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 17:08 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-01 00:17 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 17:33 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-01 00:46 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 17:52 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-01 01:02 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 18:23 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-01 01:47 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 19:18 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-06 08:53 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-06 09:53 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-06 17:30 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-06 10:44 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-06 17:54 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-06 12:05 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-06 19:37 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2017-05-06 22:09 +0200
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Charlie <pipedroner3@kismet45.org> - 2017-05-06 16:19 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-06 13:55 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-06 13:22 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-06 13:20 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-06 20:28 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-06 13:40 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-06 22:23 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-06 15:48 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-21 22:02 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-21 22:02 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-21 14:17 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Ron C <r.capik@verizon.net> - 2017-04-30 18:33 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 15:36 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Ron C <r.capik@verizon.net> - 2017-04-30 18:43 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 16:01 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 22:45 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Ron C <r.capik@verizon.net> - 2017-04-30 18:54 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 22:53 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Ron C <r.capik@verizon.net> - 2017-04-30 19:16 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 16:17 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2017-04-30 20:13 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-01 00:23 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2017-04-30 20:42 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-01 00:57 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-23 00:48 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-22 17:16 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-23 00:18 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-22 17:22 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-02 22:07 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-02 14:17 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-03 01:02 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-02 18:55 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-03 15:17 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-03 10:03 -0700
Page 2 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
| From | "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-30 18:06 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <op.yziptvvfjs98qf@red.lan> |
| In reply to | #630221 |
On Sun, 23 Apr 2017 16:15:32 +0100, Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> wrote: > On Sat, 22 Apr 2017 22:58:57 -0000 (UTC), Sprang > <spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: > >> On Sat, 22 Apr 2017 15:55:51 -0700, Snit, after 15 edits, wrote this: > >>> Capitalism, without checks, is the selling of human rights and the >>> environment to the highest bidder and directly works AGAINST those goals. >>> With that said, pure Socialism would be no better. Having a mix of the two >>> is not perfect but works far better than either, alone. >>> >> >> Where do they sell human rights? >> Is it in the cereal isle near the froot loops? > > > Watch out for that cereal isle! With global warming, it may be under > water very soon. <g> If the globe is warmer, we'll have more evaporation, the sea will lower, and we'll get more clouds, which will cool it down.... -- Black holes are where god divided by zero.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-30 11:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D52B76EB.A278D%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #631372 |
On 4/30/17, 10:06 AM, in article op.yziptvvfjs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: > On Sun, 23 Apr 2017 16:15:32 +0100, Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> wrote: > >> On Sat, 22 Apr 2017 22:58:57 -0000 (UTC), Sprang >> <spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: >> >>> On Sat, 22 Apr 2017 15:55:51 -0700, Snit, after 15 edits, wrote this: >> >>>> Capitalism, without checks, is the selling of human rights and the >>>> environment to the highest bidder and directly works AGAINST those goals. >>>> With that said, pure Socialism would be no better. Having a mix of the two >>>> is not perfect but works far better than either, alone. >>>> >>> >>> Where do they sell human rights? >>> Is it in the cereal isle near the froot loops? >> >> >> Watch out for that cereal isle! With global warming, it may be under >> water very soon. <g> > > If the globe is warmer, we'll have more evaporation, the sea will lower, and > we'll get more clouds, which will cool it down.... I look forward to the links to peer reviewed articles you used to come to this conclusion. When will you be posting 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 | Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-30 18:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oe5arn$qnu$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #631376 |
On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 11:11:39 -0700, Snit, after 15 edits, wrote this: > On 4/30/17, 10:06 AM, in article op.yziptvvfjs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson > Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: > >> On Sun, 23 Apr 2017 16:15:32 +0100, Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> wrote: >> >>> On Sat, 22 Apr 2017 22:58:57 -0000 (UTC), Sprang >>> <spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> On Sat, 22 Apr 2017 15:55:51 -0700, Snit, after 15 edits, wrote this: >>> >>>>> Capitalism, without checks, is the selling of human rights and the >>>>> environment to the highest bidder and directly works AGAINST those goals. >>>>> With that said, pure Socialism would be no better. Having a mix of the two >>>>> is not perfect but works far better than either, alone. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Where do they sell human rights? >>>> Is it in the cereal isle near the froot loops? >>> >>> >>> Watch out for that cereal isle! With global warming, it may be under >>> water very soon. <g> >> >> If the globe is warmer, we'll have more evaporation, the sea will lower, and >> we'll get more clouds, which will cool it down.... > > I look forward to the links to peer reviewed articles you used to come to > this conclusion. When will you be posting those? > Fill a glass with ice and water. Place outside in the sun on a warm day. Leave for 24 hours. Return to retrieve glass, notice even with the bugs floating in it, the water level is lower. Tell others. -- SpringSprangSprung
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-30 11:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D52B7F7E.A27A2%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #631379 |
On 4/30/17, 11:36 AM, in article oe5arn$qnu$1@dont-email.me, "Sprang" <spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: > On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 11:11:39 -0700, Snit, after 15 edits, wrote this: >> On 4/30/17, 10:06 AM, in article op.yziptvvfjs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson >> Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: >> >>> On Sun, 23 Apr 2017 16:15:32 +0100, Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On Sat, 22 Apr 2017 22:58:57 -0000 (UTC), Sprang >>>> <spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Sat, 22 Apr 2017 15:55:51 -0700, Snit, after 15 edits, wrote this: >>>> >>>>>> Capitalism, without checks, is the selling of human rights and the >>>>>> environment to the highest bidder and directly works AGAINST those goals. >>>>>> With that said, pure Socialism would be no better. Having a mix of the >>>>>> two >>>>>> is not perfect but works far better than either, alone. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Where do they sell human rights? >>>>> Is it in the cereal isle near the froot loops? >>>> >>>> >>>> Watch out for that cereal isle! With global warming, it may be under >>>> water very soon. <g> >>> >>> If the globe is warmer, we'll have more evaporation, the sea will lower, and >>> we'll get more clouds, which will cool it down.... >> >> I look forward to the links to peer reviewed articles you used to come to >> this conclusion. When will you be posting those? >> > > Fill a glass with ice and water. > Place outside in the sun on a warm day. > Leave for 24 hours. It will not be a warm day for that whole time. :) > Return to retrieve glass, notice even with the bugs floating in it, > the water level is lower. Nobody has said, suggested, hinted, or implied otherwise... but that does not back your initial claim. > Tell others. So you really have nothing to say to support your comments about climate change. OK. -- 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 | Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-30 18:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oe5btv$c1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #631381 |
On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 11:48:14 -0700, Snit, after 15 edits, wrote this: > On 4/30/17, 11:36 AM, in article oe5arn$qnu$1@dont-email.me, "Sprang" ><spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: > >> On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 11:11:39 -0700, Snit, after 15 edits, wrote this: >>> On 4/30/17, 10:06 AM, in article op.yziptvvfjs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson >>> Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On Sun, 23 Apr 2017 16:15:32 +0100, Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Sat, 22 Apr 2017 22:58:57 -0000 (UTC), Sprang >>>>> <spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Sat, 22 Apr 2017 15:55:51 -0700, Snit, after 15 edits, wrote this: >>>>> >>>>>>> Capitalism, without checks, is the selling of human rights and the >>>>>>> environment to the highest bidder and directly works AGAINST those goals. >>>>>>> With that said, pure Socialism would be no better. Having a mix of the >>>>>>> two >>>>>>> is not perfect but works far better than either, alone. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Where do they sell human rights? >>>>>> Is it in the cereal isle near the froot loops? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Watch out for that cereal isle! With global warming, it may be under >>>>> water very soon. <g> >>>> >>>> If the globe is warmer, we'll have more evaporation, the sea will lower, and >>>> we'll get more clouds, which will cool it down.... >>> >>> I look forward to the links to peer reviewed articles you used to come to >>> this conclusion. When will you be posting those? >>> >> >> Fill a glass with ice and water. >> Place outside in the sun on a warm day. >> Leave for 24 hours. > > It will not be a warm day for that whole time. :) Sure, a day is 24 hours. If it gets cold at night, you'll have less bugs. > >> Return to retrieve glass, notice even with the bugs floating in it, >> the water level is lower. > > Nobody has said, suggested, hinted, or implied otherwise... but that does > not back your initial claim. > My initial claim was that human rights are sold in the cereal (aisle). >> Tell others. > > So you really have nothing to say to support your comments about climate > change. OK. > Yes, climate varies. -- SpringSprangSprung
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-30 12:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D52B8479.A27CC%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #631389 |
On 4/30/17, 11:54 AM, in article oe5btv$c1$1@dont-email.me, "Sprang" <spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: ... >>>>> If the globe is warmer, we'll have more evaporation, the sea will lower, >>>>> and we'll get more clouds, which will cool it down.... >>>>> >>>> I look forward to the links to peer reviewed articles you used to come to >>>> this conclusion. When will you be posting those? >>>> >>> >>> Fill a glass with ice and water. >>> Place outside in the sun on a warm day. >>> Leave for 24 hours. >> >> It will not be a warm day for that whole time. :) > > Sure, a day is 24 hours. > If it gets cold at night, you'll have less bugs. Fewer. >>> Return to retrieve glass, notice even with the bugs floating in it, >>> the water level is lower. >> >> Nobody has said, suggested, hinted, or implied otherwise... but that does >> not back your initial claim. > > My initial claim was that human rights are sold in the cereal (aisle). That is not in contention. The other claim, quoted above, is... and has not been supported. Oh, and is wrong. :) >>> Tell others. >> >> So you really have nothing to say to support your comments about climate >> change. OK. > > Yes, climate varies. Again, not in contention. But your claim is still a silly one. Those who back socializing the cost of carbon, though, will go through amazing claims to support their idea that such things should not be paid for by those who use them. It is amazing to watch. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-30 19:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oe5d2a$c1$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #631396 |
On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 12:09:29 -0700, Snit, after 15 edits, wrote this: > On 4/30/17, 11:54 AM, in article oe5btv$c1$1@dont-email.me, "Sprang" ><spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: > > ... >>>>>> If the globe is warmer, we'll have more evaporation, the sea will lower, >>>>>> and we'll get more clouds, which will cool it down.... >>>>>> >>>>> I look forward to the links to peer reviewed articles you used to come to >>>>> this conclusion. When will you be posting those? >>>>> >>>> >>>> Fill a glass with ice and water. >>>> Place outside in the sun on a warm day. >>>> Leave for 24 hours. >>> >>> It will not be a warm day for that whole time. :) >> >> Sure, a day is 24 hours. >> If it gets cold at night, you'll have less bugs. > > Fewer. Fahrvergnügen > >>>> Return to retrieve glass, notice even with the bugs floating in it, >>>> the water level is lower. >>> >>> Nobody has said, suggested, hinted, or implied otherwise... but that does >>> not back your initial claim. >> >> My initial claim was that human rights are sold in the cereal (aisle). > > That is not in contention. The other claim, quoted above, is... and has not > been supported. Oh, and is wrong. :) You don't think evaporation is a process in the water cycle? You don't think "warming" will increase that? > >>>> Tell others. >>> >>> So you really have nothing to say to support your comments about climate >>> change. OK. >> >> Yes, climate varies. > > Again, not in contention. But your claim is still a silly one. Those who > back socializing the cost of carbon, though, will go through amazing claims > to support their idea that such things should not be paid for by those who > use them. It is amazing to watch. > Another pet rock. -- SpringSprangSprung
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-30 12:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D52B8844.A27F0%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #631398 |
On 4/30/17, 12:14 PM, in article oe5d2a$c1$3@dont-email.me, "Sprang" <spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: ... >>>>> Return to retrieve glass, notice even with the bugs floating in it, >>>>> the water level is lower. >>>> >>>> Nobody has said, suggested, hinted, or implied otherwise... but that does >>>> not back your initial claim. >>> >>> My initial claim was that human rights are sold in the cereal (aisle). >> >> That is not in contention. The other claim, quoted above, is... and has not >> been supported. Oh, and is wrong. :) > > You don't think evaporation is a process in the water cycle? Straw man. > You don't think "warming" will increase that? Straw man. ... >>> Yes, climate varies. >> >> Again, not in contention. But your claim is still a silly one. Those who >> back socializing the cost of carbon, though, will go through amazing claims >> to support their idea that such things should not be paid for by those who >> use them. It is amazing to watch. > > Another pet rock. You either are pushing socialism of the costs of carbon or are listening to people who do and do not understand the fact they are rejecting science. -- 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 | Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-30 19:39 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <DAuNA.122844$5a6.13793@fx29.iad> |
| In reply to | #631398 |
On 2017-04-30 15:14, Sprang wrote:\ [...] > You don't think evaporation is a process in the water cycle? > You don't think "warming" will increase that? [...] Oh, definitely. No question about that. And what will be the effect of a faster water cycle? -- Best, Wolf K https://kirkwood40.blogspot.com "What good is it having lower taxes when you can’t drink the water?”
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-30 23:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oe5t92$nmg$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #631486 |
On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 19:39:10 -0400, Wolf K, after 15 edits, wrote this: > On 2017-04-30 15:14, Sprang wrote:\ > [...] >> You don't think evaporation is a process in the water cycle? >> You don't think "warming" will increase that? > [...] > > Oh, definitely. No question about that. And what will be the effect of a > faster water cycle? > Big, green trees. Nice, juicy crops. Beach front houses here are already on stilts. And are usually new, because they get damaged being so close to the ocean. Living inches from large bodies of water is risky. -- SpringSprangSprung
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-30 16:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D52BC7BD.A2A1D%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #631489 |
On 4/30/17, 4:50 PM, in article oe5t92$nmg$2@dont-email.me, "Sprang" <spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: > On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 19:39:10 -0400, Wolf K, after 15 edits, wrote this: >> On 2017-04-30 15:14, Sprang wrote:\ >> [...] >>> You don't think evaporation is a process in the water cycle? >>> You don't think "warming" will increase that? >> [...] >> >> Oh, definitely. No question about that. And what will be the effect of a >> faster water cycle? >> > > Big, green trees. > Nice, juicy crops. > Beach front houses here are already on stilts. > And are usually new, because they get damaged being so close to the ocean. > Living inches from large bodies of water is risky. Look forward to seeing the peer reviewed articles that back your view! -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-01 00:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oe5tqi$nmg$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #631492 |
On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 16:56:29 -0700, Snit, after 15 edits, wrote this: > On 4/30/17, 4:50 PM, in article oe5t92$nmg$2@dont-email.me, "Sprang" ><spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: > >> On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 19:39:10 -0400, Wolf K, after 15 edits, wrote this: >>> On 2017-04-30 15:14, Sprang wrote:\ >>> [...] >>>> You don't think evaporation is a process in the water cycle? >>>> You don't think "warming" will increase that? >>> [...] >>> >>> Oh, definitely. No question about that. And what will be the effect of a >>> faster water cycle? >>> >> >> Big, green trees. >> Nice, juicy crops. >> Beach front houses here are already on stilts. >> And are usually new, because they get damaged being so close to the ocean. >> Living inches from large bodies of water is risky. > > Look forward to seeing the peer reviewed articles that back your view! > http://lmgtfy.com/?q=agw+fraud -- SpringSprangSprung
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-30 17:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D52BCABE.A2A2F%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #631495 |
On 4/30/17, 5:00 PM, in article oe5tqi$nmg$5@dont-email.me, "Sprang" <spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: > On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 16:56:29 -0700, Snit, after 15 edits, wrote this: >> On 4/30/17, 4:50 PM, in article oe5t92$nmg$2@dont-email.me, "Sprang" >> <spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: >> >>> On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 19:39:10 -0400, Wolf K, after 15 edits, wrote this: >>>> On 2017-04-30 15:14, Sprang wrote:\ >>>> [...] >>>>> You don't think evaporation is a process in the water cycle? >>>>> You don't think "warming" will increase that? >>>> [...] >>>> >>>> Oh, definitely. No question about that. And what will be the effect of a >>>> faster water cycle? >>>> >>> >>> Big, green trees. >>> Nice, juicy crops. >>> Beach front houses here are already on stilts. >>> And are usually new, because they get damaged being so close to the ocean. >>> Living inches from large bodies of water is risky. >> >> Look forward to seeing the peer reviewed articles that back your view! >> > > http://lmgtfy.com/?q=agw+fraud LOL! So your best evidence is you are a "fraud". No argument here. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-30 20:23 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <EevNA.43602$Tn5.24880@fx12.iad> |
| In reply to | #631489 |
On 2017-04-30 19:50, Sprang wrote: > On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 19:39:10 -0400, Wolf K, after 15 edits, wrote this: >> On 2017-04-30 15:14, Sprang wrote:\ >> [...] >>> You don't think evaporation is a process in the water cycle? >>> You don't think "warming" will increase that? >> [...] >> >> Oh, definitely. No question about that. And what will be the effect of a >> faster water cycle? >> > > Big, green trees. > Nice, juicy crops. > Beach front houses here are already on stilts. > And are usually new, because they get damaged being so close to the ocean. > Living inches from large bodies of water is risky. -- Best, Wolf K https://kirkwood40.blogspot.com "What good is it having lower taxes when you can’t drink the water?”
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-30 20:24 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <sfvNA.43603$Tn5.14950@fx12.iad> |
| In reply to | #631489 |
On 2017-04-30 19:50, Sprang wrote: > On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 19:39:10 -0400, Wolf K, after 15 edits, wrote this: >> On 2017-04-30 15:14, Sprang wrote:\ >> [...] >>> You don't think evaporation is a process in the water cycle? >>> You don't think "warming" will increase that? >> [...] >> >> Oh, definitely. No question about that. And what will be the effect of a >> faster water cycle? >> > > Big, green trees. > Nice, juicy crops. > Beach front houses here are already on stilts. > And are usually new, because they get damaged being so close to the ocean. > Living inches from large bodies of water is risky. What's difference between a shower and a rainstorm? How come? -- Best, Wolf K https://kirkwood40.blogspot.com "What good is it having lower taxes when you can’t drink the water?”
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-01 00:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oe5vb4$nmg$8@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #631501 |
On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 20:24:52 -0400, Wolf K, after 15 edits, wrote this: > On 2017-04-30 19:50, Sprang wrote: >> On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 19:39:10 -0400, Wolf K, after 15 edits, wrote this: >>> On 2017-04-30 15:14, Sprang wrote:\ >>> [...] >>>> You don't think evaporation is a process in the water cycle? >>>> You don't think "warming" will increase that? >>> [...] >>> >>> Oh, definitely. No question about that. And what will be the effect of a >>> faster water cycle? >>> >> >> Big, green trees. >> Nice, juicy crops. >> Beach front houses here are already on stilts. >> And are usually new, because they get damaged being so close to the ocean. >> Living inches from large bodies of water is risky. > > What's difference between a shower and a rainstorm? How come? > A shower is in the house. A rainstorm is outside. I came here though eternal-september. -- SpringSprangSprung
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-10 21:42 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <op.yz1igik4js98qf@red.lan> |
| In reply to | #631489 |
On Mon, 01 May 2017 00:50:58 +0100, Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: > On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 19:39:10 -0400, Wolf K, after 15 edits, wrote this: >> On 2017-04-30 15:14, Sprang wrote:\ >> [...] >>> You don't think evaporation is a process in the water cycle? >>> You don't think "warming" will increase that? >> [...] >> >> Oh, definitely. No question about that. And what will be the effect of a >> faster water cycle? >> > > Big, green trees. > Nice, juicy crops. > Beach front houses here are already on stilts. > And are usually new, because they get damaged being so close to the ocean. > Living inches from large bodies of water is risky. Don't use common sense with treehuggers, they won't understand it. -- A father buys a lie detector robot that slaps you when you lie. He decides to test it out on his son at supper. "Where were you last night?" "I was at the library." The robot slaps the son. "Okay, I was at a friend's house," the son admits. "Doing what?" asked the father. "Watching a movie: Toy Story." The robot slaps the son. "Okay, it was porn!" cried the son. Father yells "What? When I was your age I didn't know what porn was!" The robot slaps the father. The mother laughs and says, "He certainly is your son!" The robot slaps the mother.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-10 23:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <of06m4$9oo$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #632859 |
On Wed, 10 May 2017 21:42:08 +0100, James Wilkinson Sword, after 15 edits, wrote this: > On Mon, 01 May 2017 00:50:58 +0100, Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: > >> On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 19:39:10 -0400, Wolf K, after 15 edits, wrote this: >>> On 2017-04-30 15:14, Sprang wrote:\ >>> [...] >>>> You don't think evaporation is a process in the water cycle? >>>> You don't think "warming" will increase that? >>> [...] >>> >>> Oh, definitely. No question about that. And what will be the effect of a >>> faster water cycle? >>> >> >> Big, green trees. >> Nice, juicy crops. >> Beach front houses here are already on stilts. >> And are usually new, because they get damaged being so close to the ocean. >> Living inches from large bodies of water is risky. > > Don't use common sense with treehuggers, they won't understand it. > Prius huggers. This climate is making my trees too fat to hug. The squirrels are so fat, cars are afraid of 'em :) . With all the CO² my trees are using, I expect a carbon credit check soon. -- SpringSprangSprung
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-11 15:23 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <op.yz2vluewjs98qf@red.lan> |
| In reply to | #632886 |
On Thu, 11 May 2017 00:11:00 +0100, Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: > On Wed, 10 May 2017 21:42:08 +0100, James Wilkinson Sword, after 15 edits, wrote this: >> On Mon, 01 May 2017 00:50:58 +0100, Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: >> >>> On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 19:39:10 -0400, Wolf K, after 15 edits, wrote this: >>>> On 2017-04-30 15:14, Sprang wrote:\ >>>> [...] >>>>> You don't think evaporation is a process in the water cycle? >>>>> You don't think "warming" will increase that? >>>> [...] >>>> >>>> Oh, definitely. No question about that. And what will be the effect of a >>>> faster water cycle? >>>> >>> >>> Big, green trees. >>> Nice, juicy crops. >>> Beach front houses here are already on stilts. >>> And are usually new, because they get damaged being so close to the ocean. >>> Living inches from large bodies of water is risky. >> >> Don't use common sense with treehuggers, they won't understand it. >> > > Prius huggers. > This climate is making my trees too fat to hug. > The squirrels are so fat, cars are afraid of 'em :) . > With all the CO² my trees are using, I expect a carbon credit check soon. It's about time the plants stood up to the climate change believers. CO2 is basic food for them. -- Gargoyle (n), olive-flavored mouthwash.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-06 14:32 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <op.yztjw4ubjs98qf@red.lan> |
| In reply to | #631396 |
On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 20:09:29 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 4/30/17, 11:54 AM, in article oe5btv$c1$1@dont-email.me, "Sprang" > <spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: > > ... >>>>>> If the globe is warmer, we'll have more evaporation, the sea will lower, >>>>>> and we'll get more clouds, which will cool it down.... >>>>>> >>>>> I look forward to the links to peer reviewed articles you used to come to >>>>> this conclusion. When will you be posting those? >>>>> >>>> >>>> Fill a glass with ice and water. >>>> Place outside in the sun on a warm day. >>>> Leave for 24 hours. >>> >>> It will not be a warm day for that whole time. :) >> >> Sure, a day is 24 hours. >> If it gets cold at night, you'll have less bugs. > > Fewer. Get medical help for your OCD. >>>> Return to retrieve glass, notice even with the bugs floating in it, >>>> the water level is lower. >>> >>> Nobody has said, suggested, hinted, or implied otherwise... but that does >>> not back your initial claim. >> >> My initial claim was that human rights are sold in the cereal (aisle). > > That is not in contention. The other claim, quoted above, is... and has not > been supported. Oh, and is wrong. :) > >>>> Tell others. >>> >>> So you really have nothing to say to support your comments about climate >>> change. OK. >> >> Yes, climate varies. > > Again, not in contention. If you agree it varies, you won't be worrying about us changing it then will you? -- I don't care what they say, I don't think "phone sex" is any fun at all, unless you happen to be in the same booth with her.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web