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 6 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 Next page →
| From | Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-30 19:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oe5dg8$c1$6@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #631403 |
On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 12:23:39 -0700, Snit, after 15 edits, wrote this: > On 4/30/17, 12:18 PM, in article oe5db1$c1$5@dont-email.me, "Sprang" ><spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: > >>>>> I hesitate to introduce facts into this stupid discussion, but yes water >>>>> is one of those a atypical molecules which expands when transition from >>>>> liquid to solid. You application here to explain that global warning >>>>> resulting Arctic and Antarctic ice to melt would not cause cause sea >>>>> level rise is fundamentally flawed. The reason is that the ice that will >>>>> melt has a significant portion resting on *land* and not in the water. >>>>> If the ice sheets melt the melt-water will *not* stay on the land. >>>>> >>>> >>>> If all the ice melts, sea levels will increase 4 inches. >>>> Wear galoshes. >>>> Of course, with a measly 0.8 degree increase over a century, get cheap >>>> galoshes. >>>> >>> >>> Except if you employ facts, it would not be 4 inches. The problem is >>> there have been times in Earth history were there was no ice and you >>> could have snorkeled in Kansas. >>> >> >> Wierd how the climate was changed back then. > > What do you find weird about that? Seriously, I think you are trying to make > a point but you are simply not educated enough about the topic to do so in a > reasoned way. > Oh, you know the point. It doesn't fit well within the snowflakes diet. -- SpringSprangSprung
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-30 13:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D52B922E.A2941%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #631406 |
On 4/30/17, 12:21 PM, in article oe5dg8$c1$6@dont-email.me, "Sprang" <spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: > On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 12:23:39 -0700, Snit, after 15 edits, wrote this: >> On 4/30/17, 12:18 PM, in article oe5db1$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. > > Oh, you know the point. Sure: you want to deny the science and evidence to push socializing the costs of carbon use. And I will never accept such socialization for the rich (which is what that turns out to mostly be). > It doesn't fit well within the snowflakes diet. I chew up snowflakes such as you but in the end I spit you out... so you are not really a part of my diet. :) -- 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 12:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D52B87E8.A27EE%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #631399 |
On 4/30/17, 12:18 PM, in article oe5d4g$6jn$1@dont-email.me, "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@gmail.com> wrote: >>> I hesitate to introduce facts into this stupid discussion, but yes water >>> is one of those a atypical molecules which expands when transition from >>> liquid to solid. You application here to explain that global warning >>> resulting Arctic and Antarctic ice to melt would not cause cause sea >>> level rise is fundamentally flawed. The reason is that the ice that will >>> melt has a significant portion resting on *land* and not in the water. >>> If the ice sheets melt the melt-water will *not* stay on the land. >> >> If all the ice melts, sea levels will increase 4 inches. >> Wear galoshes. >> Of course, with a measly 0.8 degree increase over a century, get cheap >> galoshes. > > Except if you employ facts, it would not be 4 inches. The problem is > there have been times in Earth history were there was no ice and you > could have snorkeled in Kansas. Not me. I do not own a snorkel. :) -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-30 17:17 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <oe5k2q$vga$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #631404 |
Snit wrote: > On 4/30/17, 12:18 PM, in article oe5d4g$6jn$1@dont-email.me, "Jonathan N. > Little" <lws4art@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> I hesitate to introduce facts into this stupid discussion, but yes water >>>> is one of those a atypical molecules which expands when transition from >>>> liquid to solid. You application here to explain that global warning >>>> resulting Arctic and Antarctic ice to melt would not cause cause sea >>>> level rise is fundamentally flawed. The reason is that the ice that will >>>> melt has a significant portion resting on *land* and not in the water. >>>> If the ice sheets melt the melt-water will *not* stay on the land. >>> >>> If all the ice melts, sea levels will increase 4 inches. >>> Wear galoshes. >>> Of course, with a measly 0.8 degree increase over a century, get cheap >>> galoshes. >> >> Except if you employ facts, it would not be 4 inches. The problem is >> there have been times in Earth history were there was no ice and you >> could have snorkeled in Kansas. > > Not me. I do not own a snorkel. :) > Yes it is difficult discussing this with folks who know nothing of geology. Problem is if you are that guy on the tracks as the train approaches, being ignorant of the train will not help you as some seem to think. -- Take care, Jonathan ------------------- LITTLE WORKS STUDIO http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-30 14:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D52BA2FC.A2966%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #631437 |
On 4/30/17, 2:17 PM, in article oe5k2q$vga$1@dont-email.me, "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@gmail.com> wrote: > Snit wrote: >> On 4/30/17, 12:18 PM, in article oe5d4g$6jn$1@dont-email.me, "Jonathan N. >> Little" <lws4art@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>>> I hesitate to introduce facts into this stupid discussion, but yes water >>>>> is one of those a atypical molecules which expands when transition from >>>>> liquid to solid. You application here to explain that global warning >>>>> resulting Arctic and Antarctic ice to melt would not cause cause sea >>>>> level rise is fundamentally flawed. The reason is that the ice that will >>>>> melt has a significant portion resting on *land* and not in the water. >>>>> If the ice sheets melt the melt-water will *not* stay on the land. >>>> >>>> If all the ice melts, sea levels will increase 4 inches. >>>> Wear galoshes. >>>> Of course, with a measly 0.8 degree increase over a century, get cheap >>>> galoshes. >>> >>> Except if you employ facts, it would not be 4 inches. The problem is >>> there have been times in Earth history were there was no ice and you >>> could have snorkeled in Kansas. >> >> Not me. I do not own a snorkel. :) > > Yes it is difficult discussing this with folks who know nothing of > geology. Problem is if you are that guy on the tracks as the train > approaches, being ignorant of the train will not help you as some seem > to think. I was, of course, just being silly. The science is clear: man-made global climate change is, beyond any reasonable doubt, real and happening now and is already having bad effects -- and will have more in the future. Those in denial are causing great harm to others. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-30 17:22 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <oe5kch$vga$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #631438 |
Snit wrote: > On 4/30/17, 2:17 PM, in article oe5k2q$vga$1@dont-email.me, "Jonathan N. > Little" <lws4art@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Snit wrote: >>> On 4/30/17, 12:18 PM, in article oe5d4g$6jn$1@dont-email.me, "Jonathan N. >>> Little" <lws4art@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>>>> I hesitate to introduce facts into this stupid discussion, but yes water >>>>>> is one of those a atypical molecules which expands when transition from >>>>>> liquid to solid. You application here to explain that global warning >>>>>> resulting Arctic and Antarctic ice to melt would not cause cause sea >>>>>> level rise is fundamentally flawed. The reason is that the ice that will >>>>>> melt has a significant portion resting on *land* and not in the water. >>>>>> If the ice sheets melt the melt-water will *not* stay on the land. >>>>> >>>>> If all the ice melts, sea levels will increase 4 inches. >>>>> Wear galoshes. >>>>> Of course, with a measly 0.8 degree increase over a century, get cheap >>>>> galoshes. >>>> >>>> Except if you employ facts, it would not be 4 inches. The problem is >>>> there have been times in Earth history were there was no ice and you >>>> could have snorkeled in Kansas. >>> >>> Not me. I do not own a snorkel. :) >> >> Yes it is difficult discussing this with folks who know nothing of >> geology. Problem is if you are that guy on the tracks as the train >> approaches, being ignorant of the train will not help you as some seem >> to think. > > I was, of course, just being silly. The science is clear: man-made global > climate change is, beyond any reasonable doubt, real and happening now and > is already having bad effects -- and will have more in the future. > > Those in denial are causing great harm to others. > > I saw the smiley, you were not that guy on the tracks... -- Take care, Jonathan ------------------- LITTLE WORKS STUDIO http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-30 14:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D52BA529.A297C%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #631439 |
On 4/30/17, 2:22 PM, in article oe5kch$vga$2@dont-email.me, "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@gmail.com> wrote: > Snit wrote: >> On 4/30/17, 2:17 PM, in article oe5k2q$vga$1@dont-email.me, "Jonathan N. >> Little" <lws4art@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Snit wrote: >>>> On 4/30/17, 12:18 PM, in article oe5d4g$6jn$1@dont-email.me, "Jonathan N. >>>> Little" <lws4art@gmail.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. >>>>>> 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. >>>> >>>> Not me. I do not own a snorkel. :) >>> >>> Yes it is difficult discussing this with folks who know nothing of >>> geology. Problem is if you are that guy on the tracks as the train >>> approaches, being ignorant of the train will not help you as some seem >>> to think. >> >> I was, of course, just being silly. The science is clear: man-made global >> climate change is, beyond any reasonable doubt, real and happening now and >> is already having bad effects -- and will have more in the future. >> >> Those in denial are causing great harm to others. > > I saw the smiley, you were not that guy on the tracks... It is not uncommon for me to be off-track. Wait... not quite what I mean. :) -- 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 21:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oe5kil$voa$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #631437 |
On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 17:17:12 -0400, Jonathan N. Little, after 15 edits, wrote this: > Snit wrote: >> On 4/30/17, 12:18 PM, in article oe5d4g$6jn$1@dont-email.me, "Jonathan N. >> Little" <lws4art@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>>> I hesitate to introduce facts into this stupid discussion, but yes water >>>>> is one of those a atypical molecules which expands when transition from >>>>> liquid to solid. You application here to explain that global warning >>>>> resulting Arctic and Antarctic ice to melt would not cause cause sea >>>>> level rise is fundamentally flawed. The reason is that the ice that will >>>>> melt has a significant portion resting on *land* and not in the water. >>>>> If the ice sheets melt the melt-water will *not* stay on the land. >>>> >>>> If all the ice melts, sea levels will increase 4 inches. >>>> Wear galoshes. >>>> Of course, with a measly 0.8 degree increase over a century, get cheap >>>> galoshes. >>> >>> Except if you employ facts, it would not be 4 inches. The problem is >>> there have been times in Earth history were there was no ice and you >>> could have snorkeled in Kansas. >> >> Not me. I do not own a snorkel. :) >> > > Yes it is difficult discussing this with folks who know nothing of > geology. Problem is if you are that guy on the tracks as the train > approaches, being ignorant of the train will not help you as some seem > to think. > Kansas wasn't where it is now, then. Africa was almost still in contact with S.America. Yeah, who knows nothing. -- SpringSprangSprung
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-30 18:30 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <oe5ocs$fc6$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #631441 |
Sprang wrote: > Kansas wasn't where it is now, then. > Africa was almost still in contact with S.America. > Yeah, who knows nothing. Okay at least you got the concept of continental drift down, Wegener would be proud. Now you have to understand elevation, Kansas hadn't sunk, sea level was much higher then. -- Take care, Jonathan ------------------- LITTLE WORKS STUDIO http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-30 15:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D52BB49C.A29AD%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #631453 |
On 4/30/17, 3:30 PM, in article oe5ocs$fc6$1@dont-email.me, "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@gmail.com> wrote: > Sprang wrote: >> Kansas wasn't where it is now, then. >> Africa was almost still in contact with S.America. >> Yeah, who knows nothing. > > Okay at least you got the concept of continental drift down, Wegener > would be proud. Now you have to understand elevation, Kansas hadn't > sunk, sea level was much higher then. Ever looked into the theory of continental drip? <https://goo.gl/fcFJPW> -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ron C <r.capik@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-30 18:49 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <BfydneTYe5WE95vEnZ2dnUU7-ePNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #631457 |
On 4/30/2017 6:34 PM, Snit wrote: > On 4/30/17, 3:30 PM, in article oe5ocs$fc6$1@dont-email.me, "Jonathan N. > Little" <lws4art@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Sprang wrote: >>> Kansas wasn't where it is now, then. >>> Africa was almost still in contact with S.America. >>> Yeah, who knows nothing. >> >> Okay at least you got the concept of continental drift down, Wegener >> would be proud. Now you have to understand elevation, Kansas hadn't >> sunk, sea level was much higher then. > > Ever looked into the theory of continental drip? > > <https://goo.gl/fcFJPW> > It seems to explain why there's land at the south pole but not at the north pole. It obviously all dripped down there. ;-) :-) -- == Later... Ron C --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-30 16:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D52BBACE.A29D1%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #631464 |
On 4/30/17, 3:49 PM, in article BfydneTYe5WE95vEnZ2dnUU7-ePNnZ2d@giganews.com, "Ron C" <r.capik@verizon.net> wrote: > On 4/30/2017 6:34 PM, Snit wrote: >> On 4/30/17, 3:30 PM, in article oe5ocs$fc6$1@dont-email.me, "Jonathan N. >> Little" <lws4art@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Sprang wrote: >>>> Kansas wasn't where it is now, then. >>>> Africa was almost still in contact with S.America. >>>> Yeah, who knows nothing. >>> >>> Okay at least you got the concept of continental drift down, Wegener >>> would be proud. Now you have to understand elevation, Kansas hadn't >>> sunk, sea level was much higher then. >> >> Ever looked into the theory of continental drip? >> >> <https://goo.gl/fcFJPW> >> > It seems to explain why there's land at the south pole but > not at the north pole. It obviously all dripped down there. ;-) :-) Exactly! -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-30 22:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oe5p4g$g01$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #631453 |
On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 18:30:51 -0400, Jonathan N. Little, after 15 edits, wrote this: > Sprang wrote: >> Kansas wasn't where it is now, then. >> Africa was almost still in contact with S.America. >> Yeah, who knows nothing. > > Okay at least you got the concept of continental drift down, Wegener > would be proud. Now you have to understand elevation, Kansas hadn't > sunk, sea level was much higher then. You had no left coast. You also could not acheive the same climatic conditions now, as then. Ocean currents were different. -- SpringSprangSprung
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-30 16:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D52BBE67.A29E6%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #631462 |
On 4/30/17, 3:40 PM, in article oe5p4g$g01$2@dont-email.me, "Sprang" <spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: > On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 18:30:51 -0400, Jonathan N. Little, after 15 edits, wrote > this: >> Sprang wrote: >>> Kansas wasn't where it is now, then. >>> Africa was almost still in contact with S.America. >>> Yeah, who knows nothing. >> >> Okay at least you got the concept of continental drift down, Wegener >> would be proud. Now you have to understand elevation, Kansas hadn't >> sunk, sea level was much higher then. > > You had no left coast. > You also could not acheive the same climatic conditions now, as then. > Ocean currents were different. Back then you did not have ocean currents, you had ocean pasts. It was a very tense time. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-30 23:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oe5r5v$m81$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #631474 |
On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 16:16:39 -0700, Snit, after 15 edits, wrote this: > On 4/30/17, 3:40 PM, in article oe5p4g$g01$2@dont-email.me, "Sprang" ><spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: > >> On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 18:30:51 -0400, Jonathan N. Little, after 15 edits, wrote >> this: >>> Sprang wrote: >>>> Kansas wasn't where it is now, then. >>>> Africa was almost still in contact with S.America. >>>> Yeah, who knows nothing. >>> >>> Okay at least you got the concept of continental drift down, Wegener >>> would be proud. Now you have to understand elevation, Kansas hadn't >>> sunk, sea level was much higher then. >> >> You had no left coast. >> You also could not acheive the same climatic conditions now, as then. >> Ocean currents were different. > > Back then you did not have ocean currents, you had ocean pasts. It was a > very tense time. With large shifts in climate :) And no factories. -- SpringSprangSprung
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-30 16:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D52BC147.A2A02%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #631477 |
On 4/30/17, 4:15 PM, in article oe5r5v$m81$1@dont-email.me, "Sprang" <spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: > On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 16:16:39 -0700, Snit, after 15 edits, wrote this: >> On 4/30/17, 3:40 PM, in article oe5p4g$g01$2@dont-email.me, "Sprang" >> <spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: >> >>> On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 18:30:51 -0400, Jonathan N. Little, after 15 edits, >>> wrote >>> this: >>>> Sprang wrote: >>>>> Kansas wasn't where it is now, then. >>>>> Africa was almost still in contact with S.America. >>>>> Yeah, who knows nothing. >>>> >>>> Okay at least you got the concept of continental drift down, Wegener >>>> would be proud. Now you have to understand elevation, Kansas hadn't >>>> sunk, sea level was much higher then. >>> >>> You had no left coast. >>> You also could not acheive the same climatic conditions now, as then. >>> Ocean currents were different. >> >> Back then you did not have ocean currents, you had ocean pasts. It was a >> very tense time. > > With large shifts in climate :) > And no factories. You seem to think shifts in climate in the past somehow are contrary to the current science and not a part of it. Is that the case or are you just not expressing yourself well? -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-30 23:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oe5srn$nmg$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #631482 |
On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 16:28:55 -0700, Snit, after 15 edits, wrote this: > On 4/30/17, 4:15 PM, in article oe5r5v$m81$1@dont-email.me, "Sprang" ><spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: > >> On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 16:16:39 -0700, Snit, after 15 edits, wrote this: >>> On 4/30/17, 3:40 PM, in article oe5p4g$g01$2@dont-email.me, "Sprang" >>> <spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 18:30:51 -0400, Jonathan N. Little, after 15 edits, >>>> wrote >>>> this: >>>>> Sprang wrote: >>>>>> Kansas wasn't where it is now, then. >>>>>> Africa was almost still in contact with S.America. >>>>>> Yeah, who knows nothing. >>>>> >>>>> Okay at least you got the concept of continental drift down, Wegener >>>>> would be proud. Now you have to understand elevation, Kansas hadn't >>>>> sunk, sea level was much higher then. >>>> >>>> You had no left coast. >>>> You also could not acheive the same climatic conditions now, as then. >>>> Ocean currents were different. >>> >>> Back then you did not have ocean currents, you had ocean pasts. It was a >>> very tense time. >> >> With large shifts in climate :) >> And no factories. > > You seem to think shifts in climate in the past somehow are contrary to the > current science and not a part of it. Is that the case or are you just not > expressing yourself well? Right, the current shifts in climate have happened before. I'm not sure what is difficult about this. -- SpringSprangSprung
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-30 16:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D52BC5FB.A2A12%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #631487 |
On 4/30/17, 4:43 PM, in article oe5srn$nmg$1@dont-email.me, "Sprang" <spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: >>>>> You had no left coast. >>>>> You also could not acheive the same climatic conditions now, as then. >>>>> Ocean currents were different. >>>> >>>> Back then you did not have ocean currents, you had ocean pasts. It was a >>>> very tense time. >>> >>> With large shifts in climate :) >>> And no factories. >> >> You seem to think shifts in climate in the past somehow are contrary to the >> current science and not a part of it. Is that the case or are you just not >> expressing yourself well? > > Right, the current shifts in climate have happened before. > I'm not sure what is difficult about this. I agree you are not aware of what is different about this time. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-30 23:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oe5tas$nmg$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #631488 |
On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 16:48:59 -0700, Snit, after 15 edits, wrote this: > On 4/30/17, 4:43 PM, in article oe5srn$nmg$1@dont-email.me, "Sprang" ><spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: > >>>>>> You had no left coast. >>>>>> You also could not acheive the same climatic conditions now, as then. >>>>>> Ocean currents were different. >>>>> >>>>> Back then you did not have ocean currents, you had ocean pasts. It was a >>>>> very tense time. >>>> >>>> With large shifts in climate :) >>>> And no factories. >>> >>> You seem to think shifts in climate in the past somehow are contrary to the >>> current science and not a part of it. Is that the case or are you just not >>> expressing yourself well? >> >> Right, the current shifts in climate have happened before. >> I'm not sure what is difficult about this. > > I agree you are not aware of what is different about this time. It's a career now. -- SpringSprangSprung
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-30 16:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D52BC79E.A2A1C%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #631490 |
On 4/30/17, 4:51 PM, in article oe5tas$nmg$3@dont-email.me, "Sprang" <spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: > On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 16:48:59 -0700, Snit, after 15 edits, wrote this: >> On 4/30/17, 4:43 PM, in article oe5srn$nmg$1@dont-email.me, "Sprang" >> <spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: >> >>>>>>> You had no left coast. >>>>>>> You also could not acheive the same climatic conditions now, as then. >>>>>>> Ocean currents were different. >>>>>> >>>>>> Back then you did not have ocean currents, you had ocean pasts. It was a >>>>>> very tense time. >>>>> >>>>> With large shifts in climate :) >>>>> And no factories. >>>> >>>> You seem to think shifts in climate in the past somehow are contrary to the >>>> current science and not a part of it. Is that the case or are you just not >>>> expressing yourself well? >>> >>> Right, the current shifts in climate have happened before. >>> I'm not sure what is difficult about this. >> >> I agree you are not aware of what is different about this time. > > It's a career now. Science is a good career for some. Pretty clearly not for you. -- 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 6 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web