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 5 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 Next page →
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-30 13:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D52B9D96.A295D%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #631421 |
On 4/30/17, 1:27 PM, in article oe5har$j4a$1@dont-email.me, "Sprang" <spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: ... >>>>>>> If all the ice melts, sea levels will increase 4 inches. >>>>>> >>>>>> What makes you think four inches? >>>>> >>>>> What is it, then? >>>> >>>> Please answer the question and then we can look at the evidence. >>> >>> There is no evidence. >> >> OK, so you made up the claim of 4 inches based on no evidence. Thank you for >> the admission. > > That's based on what will actually melt with a 2 degree increase. The > Himalayas > ain't gonna melt. The Antarctic ain't gonna melt. That is your claim. Cool. But what you lack is evidence. See, this is a challenge for you: you keep making claims but then back it with nothing other than your own intuition, and show NO data. >> Do you now actually want to see what the evidence shows? > > I've seen it. > The coverage of glaciers and Greenland melting! > I live near the ocean. > It ain't no higher. So you prefer to use your own biased perceptions and not science and broader evidence. Not much I can do about that. Heck, if I told you the world was flat and told you I knew the evidence of ships sails "sinking" and had seen the images of the planet from space and even from weather balloons and the like which showed otherwise, but STILL denied it was round there would not be much point in trying to convince me otherwise. That is where you are at: you claim to be familiar with the science but still deny it. Not much to say to that. OK. You deny climate science. I hope you have a great day. > Of course, no one will pay people just to get their picture taken on a > glacier. > There has to be alarmist science happening. > > You know that Al Gore and friends will profit. > They currently want $300,000,000,000-$800,000,000,000/year to cut warming by > one-third. > > By 2050, instead of a 2 degree increase, it will be 1.6 degrees. > That's 800 billion, so that instead of galoshes, sandals will do. See: you just are going to back socializing the costs of carbon no matter what I say. You will push conspiracy theories and ignore the science no matter what I do. Really nothing left to say on the topic. -- 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 21:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oe5l88$2up$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #631443 |
On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 13:56:38 -0700, Snit, after 15 edits, wrote this: > On 4/30/17, 1:27 PM, in article oe5har$j4a$1@dont-email.me, "Sprang" ><spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: > > ... >>>>>>>> If all the ice melts, sea levels will increase 4 inches. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What makes you think four inches? >>>>>> >>>>>> What is it, then? >>>>> >>>>> Please answer the question and then we can look at the evidence. >>>> >>>> There is no evidence. >>> >>> OK, so you made up the claim of 4 inches based on no evidence. Thank you for >>> the admission. >> >> That's based on what will actually melt with a 2 degree increase. The >> Himalayas >> ain't gonna melt. The Antarctic ain't gonna melt. > > That is your claim. Cool. But what you lack is evidence. See, this is a > challenge for you: you keep making claims but then back it with nothing > other than your own intuition, and show NO data. It's what the environ Mentalist say. I'm giving that to you. > >>> Do you now actually want to see what the evidence shows? >> >> I've seen it. >> The coverage of glaciers and Greenland melting! >> I live near the ocean. >> It ain't no higher. > > So you prefer to use your own biased perceptions and not science and broader > evidence. Not much I can do about that. Heck, if I told you the world was > flat and told you I knew the evidence of ships sails "sinking" and had seen > the images of the planet from space and even from weather balloons and the > like which showed otherwise, but STILL denied it was round there would not > be much point in trying to convince me otherwise. > It's roundish. > That is where you are at: you claim to be familiar with the science but > still deny it. Not much to say to that. OK. You deny climate science. I hope > you have a great day. > >> Of course, no one will pay people just to get their picture taken on a >> glacier. >> There has to be alarmist science happening. >> >> You know that Al Gore and friends will profit. >> They currently want $300,000,000,000-$800,000,000,000/year to cut warming by >> one-third. >> >> By 2050, instead of a 2 degree increase, it will be 1.6 degrees. >> That's 800 billion, so that instead of galoshes, sandals will do. > > See: you just are going to back socializing the costs of carbon no matter > what I say. You will push conspiracy theories and ignore the science no > matter what I do. Really nothing left to say on the topic. > LOL. -- SpringSprangSprung
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-30 15:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D52BACD4.A298D%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #631444 |
On 4/30/17, 2:34 PM, in article oe5l88$2up$1@dont-email.me, "Sprang" <spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: > On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 13:56:38 -0700, Snit, after 15 edits, wrote this: >> On 4/30/17, 1:27 PM, in article oe5har$j4a$1@dont-email.me, "Sprang" >> <spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: >> >> ... >>>>>>>>> If all the ice melts, sea levels will increase 4 inches. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What makes you think four inches? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What is it, then? >>>>>> >>>>>> Please answer the question and then we can look at the evidence. >>>>> >>>>> There is no evidence. >>>> >>>> OK, so you made up the claim of 4 inches based on no evidence. Thank you >>>> for >>>> the admission. >>> >>> That's based on what will actually melt with a 2 degree increase. The >>> Himalayas >>> ain't gonna melt. The Antarctic ain't gonna melt. >> >> That is your claim. Cool. But what you lack is evidence. See, this is a >> challenge for you: you keep making claims but then back it with nothing >> other than your own intuition, and show NO data. > > It's what the environ Mentalist say. > I'm giving that to you. At this point it is clear that no matter how often you are asked to show evidence you not only will fail to do so, you will not show any understanding of the concept. You will not point to any scientific article nor a respected scientific group's website, etc. So be it. You have made up your mind to believe those who are working to socialize the costs of our use of carbon. That is a shame and I disagree with your position but I will not pretend I will change your mind with actual evidence. You are resistant to it. So be it. >>>> Do you now actually want to see what the evidence shows? >>> >>> I've seen it. >>> The coverage of glaciers and Greenland melting! >>> I live near the ocean. >>> It ain't no higher. >> >> So you prefer to use your own biased perceptions and not science and broader >> evidence. Not much I can do about that. Heck, if I told you the world was >> flat and told you I knew the evidence of ships sails "sinking" and had seen >> the images of the planet from space and even from weather balloons and the >> like which showed otherwise, but STILL denied it was round there would not >> be much point in trying to convince me otherwise. > > It's roundish. Fair enough. OK, off the topic a bit but fun: about 1 in 4 Americans think the sun goes around the Earth: <https://goo.gl/TMGmO3>. Most of the rest think the Earth goes around the sun. What do you think? >> That is where you are at: you claim to be familiar with the science but >> still deny it. Not much to say to that. OK. You deny climate science. I hope >> you have a great day. >> >>> Of course, no one will pay people just to get their picture taken on a >>> glacier. >>> There has to be alarmist science happening. >>> >>> You know that Al Gore and friends will profit. >>> They currently want $300,000,000,000-$800,000,000,000/year to cut warming by >>> one-third. >>> >>> By 2050, instead of a 2 degree increase, it will be 1.6 degrees. >>> That's 800 billion, so that instead of galoshes, sandals will do. >> >> See: you just are going to back socializing the costs of carbon no matter >> what I say. You will push conspiracy theories and ignore the science no >> matter what I do. Really nothing left to say on the topic.> > > LOL. Just because there is nothing left to say does not mean we will not keep saying it! :) -- 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 22:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oe5n4c$7ip$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #631447 |
On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 15:01:40 -0700, Snit, after 15 edits, wrote this: > On 4/30/17, 2:34 PM, in article oe5l88$2up$1@dont-email.me, "Sprang" ><spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: > >> On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 13:56:38 -0700, Snit, after 15 edits, wrote this: >>> On 4/30/17, 1:27 PM, in article oe5har$j4a$1@dont-email.me, "Sprang" >>> <spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: >>> >>> ... >>>>>>>>>> If all the ice melts, sea levels will increase 4 inches. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> What makes you think four inches? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What is it, then? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Please answer the question and then we can look at the evidence. >>>>>> >>>>>> There is no evidence. >>>>> >>>>> OK, so you made up the claim of 4 inches based on no evidence. Thank you >>>>> for >>>>> the admission. >>>> >>>> That's based on what will actually melt with a 2 degree increase. The >>>> Himalayas >>>> ain't gonna melt. The Antarctic ain't gonna melt. >>> >>> That is your claim. Cool. But what you lack is evidence. See, this is a >>> challenge for you: you keep making claims but then back it with nothing >>> other than your own intuition, and show NO data. >> >> It's what the environ Mentalist say. >> I'm giving that to you. > > At this point it is clear that no matter how often you are asked to show > evidence you not only will fail to do so, you will not show any > understanding of the concept. You will not point to any scientific article > nor a respected scientific group's website, etc. Read them yourself. Then state the part of them you believe. I've stated what I believe. My mind will change when the climate does... never, or of it's own volition. > > So be it. You have made up your mind to believe those who are working to > socialize the costs of our use of carbon. That is a shame and I disagree > with your position but I will not pretend I will change your mind with > actual evidence. You are resistant to it. So be it. > >>>>> Do you now actually want to see what the evidence shows? >>>> >>>> I've seen it. >>>> The coverage of glaciers and Greenland melting! >>>> I live near the ocean. >>>> It ain't no higher. >>> >>> So you prefer to use your own biased perceptions and not science and broader >>> evidence. Not much I can do about that. Heck, if I told you the world was >>> flat and told you I knew the evidence of ships sails "sinking" and had seen >>> the images of the planet from space and even from weather balloons and the >>> like which showed otherwise, but STILL denied it was round there would not >>> be much point in trying to convince me otherwise. >> >> It's roundish. > > Fair enough. OK, off the topic a bit but fun: about 1 in 4 Americans think > the sun goes around the Earth: <https://goo.gl/TMGmO3>. Most of the rest > think the Earth goes around the sun. > > What do you think? > That 1 in 4 people believe in anthropogenic global warming. ;) > >>> That is where you are at: you claim to be familiar with the science but >>> still deny it. Not much to say to that. OK. You deny climate science. I hope >>> you have a great day. >>> >>>> Of course, no one will pay people just to get their picture taken on a >>>> glacier. >>>> There has to be alarmist science happening. >>>> >>>> You know that Al Gore and friends will profit. >>>> They currently want $300,000,000,000-$800,000,000,000/year to cut warming by >>>> one-third. >>>> >>>> By 2050, instead of a 2 degree increase, it will be 1.6 degrees. >>>> That's 800 billion, so that instead of galoshes, sandals will do. >>> >>> See: you just are going to back socializing the costs of carbon no matter >>> what I say. You will push conspiracy theories and ignore the science no >>> matter what I do. Really nothing left to say on the topic.> >> >> LOL. > > Just because there is nothing left to say does not mean we will not keep > saying it! :) > No doubt. -- SpringSprangSprung
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-30 15:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D52BAFA7.A2997%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #631448 |
On 4/30/17, 3:06 PM, in article oe5n4c$7ip$1@dont-email.me, "Sprang" <spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: ... >>>> That is your claim. Cool. But what you lack is evidence. See, this is a >>>> challenge for you: you keep making claims but then back it with nothing >>>> other than your own intuition, and show NO data. >>> >>> It's what the environ Mentalist say. >>> I'm giving that to you. >> >> At this point it is clear that no matter how often you are asked to show >> evidence you not only will fail to do so, you will not show any >> understanding of the concept. You will not point to any scientific article >> nor a respected scientific group's website, etc. > > Read them yourself. Well, there are far more scholarly articles than I will ever read but I have read some and I do look at such websites. That is what I am talking about. My view is informed via science and evidence and the data, yours with your wishes and pushed by those who wish to socialize the costs of carbon based energy. > Then state the part of them you believe. The science. We can go into detail it you want. > I've stated what I believe. But when asked to show evidence you failed. > My mind will change when the climate does... never, or of it's own volition. See: this is a claim you make with NO support. ... >>> It's roundish. >> >> Fair enough. OK, off the topic a bit but fun: about 1 in 4 Americans think >> the sun goes around the Earth: <https://goo.gl/TMGmO3>. Most of the rest >> think the Earth goes around the sun. >> >> What do you think? > > That 1 in 4 people believe in anthropogenic global warming. ;) What about the topic? Earth. Sun. Does one revolve around the other and if so which? ... >>>> See: you just are going to back socializing the costs of carbon no matter >>>> what I say. You will push conspiracy theories and ignore the science no >>>> matter what I do. Really nothing left to say on the topic.> >>> >>> LOL. >> >> Just because there is nothing left to say does not mean we will not keep >> saying it! :) > > No doubt. :) -- 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 22:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oe5o02$cra$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #631449 |
On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 15:13:43 -0700, Snit, after 15 edits, wrote this: > On 4/30/17, 3:06 PM, in article oe5n4c$7ip$1@dont-email.me, "Sprang" ><spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: > > ... >>>>> That is your claim. Cool. But what you lack is evidence. See, this is a >>>>> challenge for you: you keep making claims but then back it with nothing >>>>> other than your own intuition, and show NO data. >>>> >>>> It's what the environ Mentalist say. >>>> I'm giving that to you. >>> >>> At this point it is clear that no matter how often you are asked to show >>> evidence you not only will fail to do so, you will not show any >>> understanding of the concept. You will not point to any scientific article >>> nor a respected scientific group's website, etc. >> >> Read them yourself. > > Well, there are far more scholarly articles than I will ever read but I have > read some and I do look at such websites. > > That is what I am talking about. My view is informed via science and > evidence and the data, yours with your wishes and pushed by those who wish > to socialize the costs of carbon based energy. > >> Then state the part of them you believe. > > The science. We can go into detail it you want. > >> I've stated what I believe. > > But when asked to show evidence you failed. > >> My mind will change when the climate does... never, or of it's own volition. > > See: this is a claim you make with NO support. So if you don't read it, you don't believe it? Or, if you do read it, you believe it? Do you have a bomb shelter? > > ... >>>> It's roundish. >>> >>> Fair enough. OK, off the topic a bit but fun: about 1 in 4 Americans think >>> the sun goes around the Earth: <https://goo.gl/TMGmO3>. Most of the rest >>> think the Earth goes around the sun. >>> >>> What do you think? >> >> That 1 in 4 people believe in anthropogenic global warming. ;) > > What about the topic? Earth. Sun. Does one revolve around the other and if > so which? > The Earth makes a yearly revolution/orbit around the Sun. > ... >>>>> See: you just are going to back socializing the costs of carbon no matter >>>>> what I say. You will push conspiracy theories and ignore the science no >>>>> matter what I do. Really nothing left to say on the topic.> >>>> >>>> LOL. >>> >>> Just because there is nothing left to say does not mean we will not keep >>> saying it! :) >> >> No doubt. > >:) > -- SpringSprangSprung
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-30 22:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oe5o45$cra$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #631450 |
On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 22:20:50 -0000 (UTC), Sprang, after 15 edits, wrote this: > On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 15:13:43 -0700, Snit, after 15 edits, wrote this: >> On 4/30/17, 3:06 PM, in article oe5n4c$7ip$1@dont-email.me, "Sprang" >><spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: >> >> ... >>>>>> That is your claim. Cool. But what you lack is evidence. See, this is a >>>>>> challenge for you: you keep making claims but then back it with nothing >>>>>> other than your own intuition, and show NO data. >>>>> >>>>> It's what the environ Mentalist say. >>>>> I'm giving that to you. >>>> >>>> At this point it is clear that no matter how often you are asked to show >>>> evidence you not only will fail to do so, you will not show any >>>> understanding of the concept. You will not point to any scientific article >>>> nor a respected scientific group's website, etc. >>> >>> Read them yourself. >> >> Well, there are far more scholarly articles than I will ever read but I have >> read some and I do look at such websites. >> >> That is what I am talking about. My view is informed via science and >> evidence and the data, yours with your wishes and pushed by those who wish >> to socialize the costs of carbon based energy. >> >>> Then state the part of them you believe. >> >> The science. We can go into detail it you want. >> >>> I've stated what I believe. >> >> But when asked to show evidence you failed. >> >>> My mind will change when the climate does... never, or of it's own volition. >> >> See: this is a claim you make with NO support. > > So if you don't read it, you don't believe it? > Or, if you do read it, you believe it? > Do you have a bomb shelter? > >> >> ... >>>>> It's roundish. >>>> >>>> Fair enough. OK, off the topic a bit but fun: about 1 in 4 Americans think >>>> the sun goes around the Earth: <https://goo.gl/TMGmO3>. Most of the rest >>>> think the Earth goes around the sun. >>>> >>>> What do you think? >>> >>> That 1 in 4 people believe in anthropogenic global warming. ;) >> >> What about the topic? Earth. Sun. Does one revolve around the other and if >> so which? >> > > The Earth makes a yearly revolution/orbit around the Sun. By the way, I know where this is going. :) > >> ... >>>>>> See: you just are going to back socializing the costs of carbon no matter >>>>>> what I say. You will push conspiracy theories and ignore the science no >>>>>> matter what I do. Really nothing left to say on the topic.> >>>>> >>>>> LOL. >>>> >>>> Just because there is nothing left to say does not mean we will not keep >>>> saying it! :) >>> >>> No doubt. >> >>:) >> > > -- SpringSprangSprung
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-30 15:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D52BB3BD.A29A7%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #631451 |
On 4/30/17, 3:23 PM, in article oe5o45$cra$2@dont-email.me, "Sprang" <spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: ... >>>>> Fair enough. OK, off the topic a bit but fun: about 1 in 4 Americans think >>>>> the sun goes around the Earth: <https://goo.gl/TMGmO3>. Most of the rest >>>>> think the Earth goes around the sun. >>>>> >>>>> What do you think? >>>> >>>> That 1 in 4 people believe in anthropogenic global warming. ;) >>> >>> What about the topic? Earth. Sun. Does one revolve around the other and if >>> so which? >>> >> >> The Earth makes a yearly revolution/orbit around the Sun. > > By the way, I know where this is going. :) Around in, roughly, a circle. But what is your answer? And, yes, especially with the intro I have given I expect you to know or at least find the right answer. Once you do, can you state why it is important to know -- what value has this information given us in helping to understand the universe? Oh, and it has nothing to do with climate change (or nothing I can think off hand anyway). -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-30 15:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D52BB3E8.A29A8%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #631450 |
On 4/30/17, 3:20 PM, in article oe5o02$cra$1@dont-email.me, "Sprang" <spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: >>>>> It's roundish. >>>> >>>> Fair enough. OK, off the topic a bit but fun: about 1 in 4 Americans think >>>> the sun goes around the Earth: <https://goo.gl/TMGmO3>. Most of the rest >>>> think the Earth goes around the sun. >>>> >>>> What do you think? >>> >>> That 1 in 4 people believe in anthropogenic global warming. ;) >> >> What about the topic? Earth. Sun. Does one revolve around the other and if >> so which? > > The Earth makes a yearly revolution/orbit around the Sun. Incorrect. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-30 22:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oe5oph$g01$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #631455 |
On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 15:31:52 -0700, Snit, after 15 edits, wrote this: > On 4/30/17, 3:20 PM, in article oe5o02$cra$1@dont-email.me, "Sprang" ><spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: > >>>>>> It's roundish. >>>>> >>>>> Fair enough. OK, off the topic a bit but fun: about 1 in 4 Americans think >>>>> the sun goes around the Earth: <https://goo.gl/TMGmO3>. Most of the rest >>>>> think the Earth goes around the sun. >>>>> >>>>> What do you think? >>>> >>>> That 1 in 4 people believe in anthropogenic global warming. ;) >>> >>> What about the topic? Earth. Sun. Does one revolve around the other and if >>> so which? >> >> The Earth makes a yearly revolution/orbit around the Sun. > > Incorrect. > bullshit :) -- SpringSprangSprung
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-30 16:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D52BBAA1.A29CF%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #631459 |
On 4/30/17, 3:34 PM, in article oe5oph$g01$1@dont-email.me, "Sprang" <spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: > On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 15:31:52 -0700, Snit, after 15 edits, wrote this: >> On 4/30/17, 3:20 PM, in article oe5o02$cra$1@dont-email.me, "Sprang" >> <spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: >> >>>>>>> It's roundish. >>>>>> >>>>>> Fair enough. OK, off the topic a bit but fun: about 1 in 4 Americans >>>>>> think >>>>>> the sun goes around the Earth: <https://goo.gl/TMGmO3>. Most of the rest >>>>>> think the Earth goes around the sun. >>>>>> >>>>>> What do you think? >>>>> >>>>> That 1 in 4 people believe in anthropogenic global warming. ;) >>>> >>>> What about the topic? Earth. Sun. Does one revolve around the other and if >>>> so which? >>> >>> The Earth makes a yearly revolution/orbit around the Sun. >> >> Incorrect. > > bullshit :) Well, your answer is close enough for elementary science books, so it is not as if your answer is completely outlandish, I guess. But for understanding how we know of so many exoplanets it is important to know why your answer is wrong. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-30 23:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oe5qg0$ju5$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #631468 |
On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 16:00:33 -0700, Snit, after 15 edits, wrote this: > On 4/30/17, 3:34 PM, in article oe5oph$g01$1@dont-email.me, "Sprang" ><spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: > >> On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 15:31:52 -0700, Snit, after 15 edits, wrote this: >>> On 4/30/17, 3:20 PM, in article oe5o02$cra$1@dont-email.me, "Sprang" >>> <spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>>>>>> It's roundish. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Fair enough. OK, off the topic a bit but fun: about 1 in 4 Americans >>>>>>> think >>>>>>> the sun goes around the Earth: <https://goo.gl/TMGmO3>. Most of the rest >>>>>>> think the Earth goes around the sun. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What do you think? >>>>>> >>>>>> That 1 in 4 people believe in anthropogenic global warming. ;) >>>>> >>>>> What about the topic? Earth. Sun. Does one revolve around the other and if >>>>> so which? >>>> >>>> The Earth makes a yearly revolution/orbit around the Sun. >>> >>> Incorrect. >> >> bullshit :) > > Well, your answer is close enough for elementary science books, so it is not > as if your answer is completely outlandish, I guess. But for understanding > how we know of so many exoplanets it is important to know why your answer is > wrong. Well? We know of exoplanets because of their gravitational disturbance of the star they orbit, and the effect they have on light from that star as the exoplanet traverses between it and us. -- SpringSprangSprung
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-30 16:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D52BBEC8.A29F1%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #631471 |
On 4/30/17, 4:03 PM, in article oe5qg0$ju5$1@dont-email.me, "Sprang" <spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: > On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 16:00:33 -0700, Snit, after 15 edits, wrote this: >> On 4/30/17, 3:34 PM, in article oe5oph$g01$1@dont-email.me, "Sprang" >> <spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: >> >>> On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 15:31:52 -0700, Snit, after 15 edits, wrote this: >>>> On 4/30/17, 3:20 PM, in article oe5o02$cra$1@dont-email.me, "Sprang" >>>> <spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: >>>> >>>>>>>>> It's roundish. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Fair enough. OK, off the topic a bit but fun: about 1 in 4 Americans >>>>>>>> think >>>>>>>> the sun goes around the Earth: <https://goo.gl/TMGmO3>. Most of the >>>>>>>> rest >>>>>>>> think the Earth goes around the sun. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What do you think? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That 1 in 4 people believe in anthropogenic global warming. ;) >>>>>> >>>>>> What about the topic? Earth. Sun. Does one revolve around the other and >>>>>> if >>>>>> so which? >>>>> >>>>> The Earth makes a yearly revolution/orbit around the Sun. >>>> >>>> Incorrect. >>> >>> bullshit :) >> >> Well, your answer is close enough for elementary science books, so it is not >> as if your answer is completely outlandish, I guess. But for understanding >> how we know of so many exoplanets it is important to know why your answer is >> wrong. > > Well? > We know of exoplanets because of their gravitational disturbance of the star > they orbit, and the effect they have on light from that star as the exoplanet > traverses between it and us. In other words, at least in part from the fact neither the planet not the star go around each other but each goes around the barycenter of their system. :) -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-30 23:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oe5r9j$m81$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #631476 |
On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 16:18:16 -0700, Snit, after 15 edits, wrote this: > On 4/30/17, 4:03 PM, in article oe5qg0$ju5$1@dont-email.me, "Sprang" ><spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: > >> On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 16:00:33 -0700, Snit, after 15 edits, wrote this: >>> On 4/30/17, 3:34 PM, in article oe5oph$g01$1@dont-email.me, "Sprang" >>> <spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 15:31:52 -0700, Snit, after 15 edits, wrote this: >>>>> On 4/30/17, 3:20 PM, in article oe5o02$cra$1@dont-email.me, "Sprang" >>>>> <spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It's roundish. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Fair enough. OK, off the topic a bit but fun: about 1 in 4 Americans >>>>>>>>> think >>>>>>>>> the sun goes around the Earth: <https://goo.gl/TMGmO3>. Most of the >>>>>>>>> rest >>>>>>>>> think the Earth goes around the sun. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> What do you think? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That 1 in 4 people believe in anthropogenic global warming. ;) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What about the topic? Earth. Sun. Does one revolve around the other and >>>>>>> if >>>>>>> so which? >>>>>> >>>>>> The Earth makes a yearly revolution/orbit around the Sun. >>>>> >>>>> Incorrect. >>>> >>>> bullshit :) >>> >>> Well, your answer is close enough for elementary science books, so it is not >>> as if your answer is completely outlandish, I guess. But for understanding >>> how we know of so many exoplanets it is important to know why your answer is >>> wrong. >> >> Well? >> We know of exoplanets because of their gravitational disturbance of the star >> they orbit, and the effect they have on light from that star as the exoplanet >> traverses between it and us. > > In other words, at least in part from the fact neither the planet not the > star go around each other but each goes around the barycenter of their > system. :) > Weak. I didn't know where this was going. :) -- SpringSprangSprung
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-30 16:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D52BC166.A2A03%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #631478 |
On 4/30/17, 4:17 PM, in article oe5r9j$m81$2@dont-email.me, "Sprang" <spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: > On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 16:18:16 -0700, Snit, after 15 edits, wrote this: >> On 4/30/17, 4:03 PM, in article oe5qg0$ju5$1@dont-email.me, "Sprang" >> <spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: >> >>> On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 16:00:33 -0700, Snit, after 15 edits, wrote this: >>>> On 4/30/17, 3:34 PM, in article oe5oph$g01$1@dont-email.me, "Sprang" >>>> <spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 15:31:52 -0700, Snit, after 15 edits, wrote this: >>>>>> On 4/30/17, 3:20 PM, in article oe5o02$cra$1@dont-email.me, "Sprang" >>>>>> <spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> It's roundish. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Fair enough. OK, off the topic a bit but fun: about 1 in 4 Americans >>>>>>>>>> think >>>>>>>>>> the sun goes around the Earth: <https://goo.gl/TMGmO3>. Most of the >>>>>>>>>> rest >>>>>>>>>> think the Earth goes around the sun. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> What do you think? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> That 1 in 4 people believe in anthropogenic global warming. ;) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What about the topic? Earth. Sun. Does one revolve around the other and >>>>>>>> if >>>>>>>> so which? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The Earth makes a yearly revolution/orbit around the Sun. >>>>>> >>>>>> Incorrect. >>>>> >>>>> bullshit :) >>>> >>>> Well, your answer is close enough for elementary science books, so it is >>>> not >>>> as if your answer is completely outlandish, I guess. But for understanding >>>> how we know of so many exoplanets it is important to know why your answer >>>> is >>>> wrong. >>> >>> Well? >>> We know of exoplanets because of their gravitational disturbance of the star >>> they orbit, and the effect they have on light from that star as the >>> exoplanet >>> traverses between it and us. >> >> In other words, at least in part from the fact neither the planet not the >> star go around each other but each goes around the barycenter of their >> system. :) >> > > Weak. > I didn't know where this was going. :) Round and round and round... :) -- 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 | "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-06 15:17 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <op.yztlzkgwjs98qf@red.lan> |
| In reply to | #631405 |
On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 20:24:40 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 4/30/17, 12:16 PM, in article oe5d62$c1$4@dont-email.me, "Sprang" > <spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: > >> On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 12:14:21 -0700, Snit, after 15 edits, wrote this: >>> On 4/30/17, 12:04 PM, in article oe5cg4$c1$2@dont-email.me, "Sprang" >>> <spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 14:56:21 -0400, Jonathan N. Little, after 15 edits, >>>> wrote >>>> this: >>>>> Sprang wrote: >>>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> I hesitate to introduce facts into this stupid discussion, but yes water >>>>> is one of those a atypical molecules which expands when transition from >>>>> liquid to solid. You application here to explain that global warning >>>>> resulting Arctic and Antarctic ice to melt would not cause cause sea >>>>> level rise is fundamentally flawed. The reason is that the ice that will >>>>> melt has a significant portion resting on *land* and not in the water. >>>>> If the ice sheets melt the melt-water will *not* stay on the land. >>>>> >>>> >>>> If all the ice melts, sea levels will increase 4 inches. >>> >>> What makes you think four inches? >> >> What is it, then? > > Please answer the question and then we can look at the evidence. Why don't you? Don't you know? -- The longest recorded flight of a chicken is thirteen seconds.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-06 09:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D5334A30.A3CA7%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #632104 |
On 5/6/17, 7:17 AM, in article op.yztlzkgwjs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson
Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote:
>>>>>> I hesitate to introduce facts into this stupid discussion, but yes water
>>>>>> is one of those a atypical molecules which expands when transition from
>>>>>> liquid to solid. You application here to explain that global warning
>>>>>> resulting Arctic and Antarctic ice to melt would not cause cause sea
>>>>>> level rise is fundamentally flawed. The reason is that the ice that will
>>>>>> melt has a significant portion resting on *land* and not in the water.
>>>>>> If the ice sheets melt the melt-water will *not* stay on the land.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If all the ice melts, sea levels will increase 4 inches.
>>>>
>>>> What makes you think four inches?
>>>
>>> What is it, then?
>>
>> Please answer the question and then we can look at the evidence.
>
> Why don't you? Don't you know?
OK, so this is you directly admitting you cannot support your claim of ocean
level changes. Cool! Now let us see what scientific sites say:
<https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level>
-----
Sea level rise is caused primarily by two factors related to global
warming: the added water from melting land ice and the expansion of
sea water as it warms. The first chart tracks the change in sea
level since 1993 as observed by satellites.
The second chart, derived from coastal tide gauge data, shows how
much sea level changed from about 1870 to 2000.
-----
It, of course, shows the charts of the actual rising from the different data
sources.
<http://climate.org/sea-level-rise-risk-and-resilience-in-coastal-cities>
-----
Climate change is already causing sea levels worldwide to rise, and
we can only expect this trend to continue. Our best, most current
science predicts that ice cap melting and thermal expansion of
seawater will produce a combined average rise of up to 6.6 feet by
the beginning of the next century. This level of rise would
inundate some beaches and overflow many barrier islands that serve
as natural protection against storm surge from tropical and
non-tropical cyclones. It would also raise the risk of tidal
flooding, and in areas that are expected to see an increase in
rainfall, flash flooding and river flooding would compound the flood
risk associated with coastal waters. The risks of sea level rise to
coastal cities must be taken seriously, and the kinds of concrete,
specific, individually tailored flood resilience plans illustrated
here are a very positive step. While emissions reductions can
lessen the magnitude of this impact, some rise is going to occur.
It is imperative for areas at risk to adapt to this new hazard, and
fortunately, they are beginning to do just that. These pioneering
coastal cities have created plans that offer excellent guidance.
Hopefully, resilience planners in other locations around the world
will follow their lead.
-----
<https://www.climate.gov/node/8438>
-----
Sea level has been rising over the past century, and the rate has
increased in recent decades. In 2014, global sea level was 2.6
inches (67 mm) above the 1993 average‹the highest annual average in
the satellite record (1993-present). Sea level continues to rise at
a rate of about one-eighth of an inch (3.2 mm) per year, due to a
combination of melting glaciers and ice sheets, and thermal
expansion of seawater as it warms.
-----
To keep this shorter I will just provide URLs for other sources and not
specific quotes for you to read. Really, though, even with the above there
is a LOT more (including references to peer reviewed articles).
<https://www.epa.gov/node/153335>
<https://goo.gl/QrHwrv> [National Geographic]
<http://sealevel.climatecentral.org>
<http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html>
And if that is not enough for you, there is the "Further Reading" and
"External Links" section of this Wikipedia article which will lead you to
far, far more information on the topic:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise#Further_reading>
Now I will admit I have not read though all of those in depth, but I do not
think any of those support the rise is limited to 4 inches. If you DO happen
to find a source to back your claim please let me know!
--
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 | "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-30 15:18 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <oe5d4g$6jn$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #631395 |
Sprang wrote: > On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 14:56:21 -0400, Jonathan N. Little, after 15 edits, wrote this: >> Sprang wrote: >>> Fill a glass with ice and water. >>> Place outside in the sun on a warm day. >>> Leave for 24 hours. >>> Return to retrieve glass, notice even with the bugs floating in it, >>> the water level is lower. >>> Tell others. >> >> I hesitate to introduce facts into this stupid discussion, but yes water >> is one of those a atypical molecules which expands when transition from >> liquid to solid. You application here to explain that global warning >> resulting Arctic and Antarctic ice to melt would not cause cause sea >> level rise is fundamentally flawed. The reason is that the ice that will >> melt has a significant portion resting on *land* and not in the water. >> If the ice sheets melt the melt-water will *not* stay on the land. >> > > If all the ice melts, sea levels will increase 4 inches. > Wear galoshes. > Of course, with a measly 0.8 degree increase over a century, get cheap galoshes. > Except if you employ facts, it would not be 4 inches. The problem is there have been times in Earth history were there was no ice and you could have snorkeled in Kansas. -- Take care, Jonathan ------------------- LITTLE WORKS STUDIO http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-30 19:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oe5db1$c1$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #631399 |
On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 15:18:38 -0400, Jonathan N. Little, after 15 edits, wrote this: > Sprang wrote: >> On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 14:56:21 -0400, Jonathan N. Little, after 15 edits, wrote this: >>> Sprang wrote: >>>> Fill a glass with ice and water. >>>> Place outside in the sun on a warm day. >>>> Leave for 24 hours. >>>> Return to retrieve glass, notice even with the bugs floating in it, >>>> the water level is lower. >>>> Tell others. >>> >>> I hesitate to introduce facts into this stupid discussion, but yes water >>> is one of those a atypical molecules which expands when transition from >>> liquid to solid. You application here to explain that global warning >>> resulting Arctic and Antarctic ice to melt would not cause cause sea >>> level rise is fundamentally flawed. The reason is that the ice that will >>> melt has a significant portion resting on *land* and not in the water. >>> If the ice sheets melt the melt-water will *not* stay on the land. >>> >> >> If all the ice melts, sea levels will increase 4 inches. >> Wear galoshes. >> Of course, with a measly 0.8 degree increase over a century, get cheap galoshes. >> > > Except if you employ facts, it would not be 4 inches. The problem is > there have been times in Earth history were there was no ice and you > could have snorkeled in Kansas. > Wierd how the climate was changed back then. -- SpringSprangSprung
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-30 12:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D52B87CB.A27ED%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #631401 |
On 4/30/17, 12:18 PM, in article oe5db1$c1$5@dont-email.me, "Sprang" <spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: >>>> I hesitate to introduce facts into this stupid discussion, but yes water >>>> is one of those a atypical molecules which expands when transition from >>>> liquid to solid. You application here to explain that global warning >>>> resulting Arctic and Antarctic ice to melt would not cause cause sea >>>> level rise is fundamentally flawed. The reason is that the ice that will >>>> melt has a significant portion resting on *land* and not in the water. >>>> If the ice sheets melt the melt-water will *not* stay on the land. >>>> >>> >>> If all the ice melts, sea levels will increase 4 inches. >>> Wear galoshes. >>> Of course, with a measly 0.8 degree increase over a century, get cheap >>> galoshes. >>> >> >> Except if you employ facts, it would not be 4 inches. The problem is >> there have been times in Earth history were there was no ice and you >> could have snorkeled in Kansas. >> > > Wierd how the climate was changed back then. What do you find weird about that? Seriously, I think you are trying to make a point but you are simply not educated enough about the topic to do so in a reasoned way. -- 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]
Page 5 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web