Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #684526 > unrolled thread
| Started by | kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-05-09 06:52 -0400 |
| Last post | 2018-05-09 15:49 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 278 — 21 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-09 06:52 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-05-09 07:57 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-09 09:17 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-05-09 09:29 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-09 10:10 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-05-10 07:55 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-10 08:55 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-05-10 19:35 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-11 08:13 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-05-12 13:44 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-05-12 18:57 +0000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-05-12 12:03 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-23 16:47 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-23 16:49 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-10 22:56 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-11 08:14 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-11 10:35 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Dinsdale <yup@ayup.yup> - 2018-05-11 10:59 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-11 10:25 -0500
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-05-11 08:48 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-11 11:02 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-11 20:45 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-11 23:01 -0500
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-12 09:33 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-12 09:31 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-11 19:47 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-11 19:09 -0500
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-12 09:33 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-14 23:59 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-15 09:24 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-05-15 07:03 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-05-15 11:43 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-15 20:12 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-05-16 00:34 +0000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-05-15 18:00 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-05-15 21:51 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-05-15 19:06 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-16 10:02 -0500
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-16 12:16 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-16 14:05 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-16 13:48 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-05-16 11:00 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-09 20:26 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-10 08:57 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-10 23:00 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-11 08:16 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-11 10:44 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-11 11:03 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-11 12:26 -0600
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-05-11 11:33 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-11 13:42 -0500
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-05-11 19:27 +0000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-05-11 12:30 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-05-11 19:32 +0000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-05-11 12:38 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-11 15:25 -0500
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-05-11 20:28 +0000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-05-11 13:39 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-05-11 20:26 +0000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-05-11 13:35 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-11 21:07 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-05-11 13:36 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-05-11 12:46 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-11 20:55 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-05-11 19:27 +0000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-11 19:48 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-11 23:27 -0500
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-12 09:35 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-15 00:00 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-15 09:24 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-05-15 11:47 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-15 14:47 -0500
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-05-15 21:13 +0000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-05-15 14:51 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-15 23:00 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-16 09:50 -0500
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-05-16 17:44 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-05-17 02:52 +0000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-05-16 20:02 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-05-16 20:33 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-05-16 20:35 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 00:29 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 11:38 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-05-16 20:37 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-17 17:16 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-15 20:00 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-05-16 00:35 +0000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-05-16 11:01 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-11 08:27 -0500
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-16 09:37 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-23 11:07 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-22 23:18 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-23 13:23 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-22 23:58 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-23 16:26 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-23 03:03 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-24 09:35 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-08 15:02 -0500
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-08 19:00 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-09 10:07 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Boris Mohar <borism_void_@sympatico.ca> - 2018-05-10 07:51 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-09 09:59 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-15 15:56 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-15 02:14 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-15 09:27 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-05-15 11:48 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-15 15:04 -0500
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-15 20:02 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-05-15 17:28 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-05-15 06:55 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-15 10:13 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-15 10:53 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-15 20:06 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2018-05-15 22:17 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-16 08:19 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-15 22:03 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-16 13:38 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-17 06:11 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-05-16 13:16 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-16 15:31 -0500
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-17 20:51 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-18 11:23 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-17 21:52 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-21 07:19 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-21 23:05 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-22 14:44 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-22 02:46 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-22 11:08 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-23 10:24 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-22 20:26 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-23 13:23 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-23 00:03 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-23 16:01 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-05-23 08:39 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-23 10:43 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-24 07:54 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-23 03:08 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-24 09:38 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-23 19:41 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-24 10:05 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-23 20:13 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-05-24 08:59 +0000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist kdthrge@gmail.com - 2018-05-24 07:16 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Leo Sgouros <adravirgo@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 07:26 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-24 12:02 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist kdthrge@gmail.com - 2018-05-24 10:36 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist kdthrge@gmail.com - 2018-05-24 12:29 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist kdthrge@gmail.com - 2018-05-24 14:35 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-24 20:32 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 19:56 -0500
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist kdthrge@gmail.com - 2018-05-25 21:36 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist kdthrge@gmail.com - 2018-05-25 23:34 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist kdthrge@gmail.com - 2018-05-26 07:06 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2018-05-26 12:48 -0500
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist kdthrge@gmail.com - 2018-05-26 13:20 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist kdthrge@gmail.com - 2018-05-27 12:30 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist kdthrge@gmail.com - 2018-05-28 10:43 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist kdthrge@gmail.com - 2018-05-28 14:03 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist kdthrge@gmail.com - 2018-05-29 05:54 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist kdthrge@gmail.com - 2018-06-06 16:56 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist kdthrge@gmail.com - 2018-06-06 17:20 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist kdthrge@gmail.com - 2018-06-06 19:36 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist kdthrge@gmail.com - 2018-06-09 12:13 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist kdthrge@gmail.com - 2018-06-09 18:28 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist kdthrge@gmail.com - 2018-06-06 21:12 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist kdthrge@gmail.com - 2018-06-07 06:13 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-06 16:56 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-23 20:09 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-24 10:55 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-23 23:03 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-17 20:50 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-18 11:20 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-17 21:27 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-18 11:45 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-17 22:31 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-18 14:07 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-18 00:50 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-18 15:20 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-18 15:42 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-18 03:40 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-21 07:28 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-18 15:28 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-18 15:33 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-18 15:48 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-05-20 21:58 +0000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-21 23:06 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-15 22:28 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-17 11:35 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-17 07:14 -0500
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-18 07:33 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-17 21:08 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-18 11:24 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-17 22:29 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-21 07:28 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-21 23:05 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-22 14:44 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-22 02:47 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-22 11:07 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-22 20:17 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-23 10:25 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-15 08:52 -0500
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-15 10:02 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-05-15 07:04 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-05-15 11:51 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-16 08:28 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-15 19:48 -0500
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-15 22:36 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-16 09:36 -0500
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-16 10:51 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-16 14:07 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-16 14:01 -0500
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-17 06:16 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-16 15:42 -0500
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-17 11:37 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-16 17:13 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-17 11:26 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-15 22:30 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-16 09:45 -0500
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-17 06:18 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-16 15:45 -0500
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-17 11:22 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-17 07:51 -0500
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-17 11:27 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-17 17:47 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-05-17 23:36 +0000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-18 09:39 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-17 20:55 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-05-17 18:12 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-18 11:24 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 16:41 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2018-05-17 20:06 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-17 20:20 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-05-18 01:37 +0000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 19:03 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-17 22:36 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-05-18 03:03 +0000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 20:09 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2018-05-17 23:25 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-05-18 09:56 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 17:55 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2018-05-17 21:01 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 18:02 -0700
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2018-05-17 21:09 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-17 17:29 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-17 20:53 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-18 11:25 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-17 22:30 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-18 14:08 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-18 00:42 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-18 15:22 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-18 03:31 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-18 07:06 -0500
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-18 11:49 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-18 13:25 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-05-18 19:40 +0000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-18 20:23 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-05-19 03:39 +0000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-18 18:41 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-05-19 03:40 +0000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-21 07:36 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-21 23:05 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-22 14:45 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-22 02:48 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-23 10:26 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-22 23:17 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-23 13:21 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-22 23:59 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-23 16:03 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-23 03:04 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-24 09:40 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-23 20:20 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-24 11:00 +1000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-23 23:06 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-05-24 05:03 +0000
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-24 01:59 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-24 01:57 -0400
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-09 09:33 -0500
Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-09 15:49 -0400
Page 2 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 14 Next page →
| From | kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-11 11:02 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pd4bah$1tqh$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #684910 |
On 5/11/2018 10:35 AM, benj wrote: > A transition to "renewables" IS a return to substance farming. No, it's not. [snip nonsensical babble that proves benj doesn't know about metastable and bistable systems, where in his ignorance he categorically rules out their existence and therefore asserts by implication that Ice Ages don't exist, rendering the whole textwall as relevant to the real world as a flat-Earth screed] -- "To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks "I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade in here." ~Checkmate
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-11 20:45 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <xOqJC.66873$np1.29944@fx06.iad> |
| In reply to | #684915 |
On 5/11/2018 11:02 AM, kensi wrote: > On 5/11/2018 10:35 AM, benj wrote: >> A transition to "renewables" IS a return to substance farming. > > No, it's not. > > [snip nonsensical babble that proves benj doesn't know about metastable > and bistable systems, where in his ignorance he categorically rules out > their existence and therefore asserts by implication that Ice Ages don't > exist, rendering the whole textwall as relevant to the real world as a > flat-Earth screed] > What utter garbage! *I* can make bistable and metastable systems (does "Kanzi" even know what that means?) disappear with just a word? That is YOUR Kind of fantasy not mine. I see no evidence of it. Please tell us exactly where each type is found in climate, OK? As usual I seen no Nyqust plot or even an understanding of what that means. (Sergio will have to explain to "them") Like all journalists, they are all about "personalities" and name-calling and no science. You think an ice age "requires" a cybernetic system? Where is your evidence? You just babble on and on snickering and making "fun" of science. She sets up a strawman and then tears it to pieces to "prove" "she's" won. Please tell me your FEELINGS about an ice age. I want to hear your EMOTIONS about it! Loudmouth idiot.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-11 23:01 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pd5oum$3bj$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #685002 |
On 5/11/2018 7:45 PM, benj wrote: > On 5/11/2018 11:02 AM, kensi wrote: >> On 5/11/2018 10:35 AM, benj wrote: >>> A transition to "renewables" IS a return to substance farming. >> >> No, it's not. >> >> [snip nonsensical babble that proves benj doesn't know about >> metastable and bistable systems, where in his ignorance he >> categorically rules out their existence and therefore asserts by >> implication that Ice Ages don't exist, rendering the whole textwall as >> relevant to the real world as a flat-Earth screed] >> > What utter garbage! *I* can make bistable and metastable systems (does > "Kanzi" even know what that means?) disappear with just a word? That is > YOUR Kind of fantasy not mine. I see no evidence of it. Please tell us > exactly where each type is found in climate, OK? As usual I seen no > Nyqust plot or even an understanding of what that means. (Sergio will > have to explain to "them") Like all journalists, they are all about > "personalities" and name-calling and no science. You think an ice age > "requires" a cybernetic system? Where is your evidence? You just babble > on and on snickering and making "fun" of science. She sets up a strawman > and then tears it to pieces to "prove" "she's" won. Please tell me your > FEELINGS about an ice age. I want to hear your EMOTIONS about it! > > Loudmouth idiot. I have yet to see anything of a scientific nature from kensi, just very old stale leftist matra, worn out 1950's communist ideas that were tried and failed. composted crap Hillary and Burnie grew up on. But kensi's little weasel rat dog "Nads" is another story, always following up, trying to lick clean up after the little twat princess has c+p'ed a fake news. Nads is so subservient to kensi, like kensi is Sister Superior.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-12 09:33 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pd6qeo$1r4s$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #685031 |
On 5/12/2018 12:01 AM, Sergio wrote: > But kensi's little weasel rat dog "Nads" is another story, always > following up, trying to lick clean up after the little twat princess has > c+p'ed a fake news. Nads is so subservient to kensi, like kensi is > Sister Superior. Nicely fanficced. Just goes to show how pwn3d you are by the both of us. *snicker* -- "To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks "I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade in here." ~Checkmate
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-12 09:31 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pd6qc3$1r4s$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #685002 |
On 5/11/2018 8:45 PM, benj wrote: > On 5/11/2018 11:02 AM, kensi wrote: >> On 5/11/2018 10:35 AM, benj wrote: >>> A transition to "renewables" IS a return to substance farming. >> >> No, it's not. >> >> [snip nonsensical babble that proves benj doesn't know about >> metastable and bistable systems, where in his ignorance he >> categorically rules out their existence and therefore asserts by >> implication that Ice Ages don't exist, rendering the whole textwall as >> relevant to the real world as a flat-Earth screed] > > What utter garbage! Nope. You might want to start your education here. Though, it might be paywalled for you: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/1999PA000461 "Sea ice as the glacial cycles' Climate switch" "Abstract. A box model of the coupled ocean, atmosphere, sea ice, and land ice climate system is used to study glacial-interglacial oscillations." See also: https://books.google.ca/books?id=QRu_8wFzNtgC&pg=PA341&lpg=PA341&dq=%22climate+switch%22&source=bl&ots=s-bPMA97w9&sig=IlvShZuZt_QQjG8AmH1FIh5mb20&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi7pZfYo4DbAhVkZN8KHcDsAbU4ChDoAQhBMAM https://books.google.ca/books?id=4cX-AAAAQBAJ&pg=PA350&lpg=PA350&dq=%22climate+switch%22&source=bl&ots=pLHmpKg7uE&sig=0ZWqfDAWuasLgavLDJMmEZTdOnk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi7pZfYo4DbAhVkZN8KHcDsAbU4ChDoAQhHMAU (Dunno if your local library has either of those, but you can probably order them off Amazon.) > You just babble on and on snickering and making "fun" of science. No, I have a great deal of respect for science. I babble on and on snickering and making fun of *you*. *snicker* -- "To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks "I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade in here." ~Checkmate
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-11 19:47 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pd5a9p$lgl$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #684895 |
"kensi" <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> wrote in message news:pd41fo$1bip$6@gioia.aioe.org... > On 5/10/2018 10:56 PM, Scout wrote: >> >> >> "kensi" <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> wrote in message >> news:pd1fgr$1644$2@gioia.aioe.org... >>> On 5/10/2018 7:55 AM, Wally W. wrote: >>> >>>> "if it turns out that the climate system is robust an insensitive, >>>> then destroying our engine of wealth creation and reducing >>>> civilization back to its pre-industrial roots will have been for >>>> NOTHING." >>> >>> Nicely straw-manned. Too bad for you nobody was talking about "reducing >>> civilization back to its pre-industrial roots" ... >> >> Well then, global warming must not be as bad as you're making it out to >> be then...... > > Non sequitur. On the contrary, it is totally relevant. If we don't have to eliminate all things you claim cause global warming...then clearly global warming must not be that bad.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-11 19:09 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pd5bcb$1i4s$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #684995 |
On 5/11/2018 6:47 PM, Scout wrote: > > > "kensi" <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> wrote in message > news:pd41fo$1bip$6@gioia.aioe.org... >> On 5/10/2018 10:56 PM, Scout wrote: >>> >>> >>> "kensi" <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> wrote in message >>> news:pd1fgr$1644$2@gioia.aioe.org... >>>> On 5/10/2018 7:55 AM, Wally W. wrote: >>>> >>>>> "if it turns out that the climate system is robust an insensitive, >>>>> then destroying our engine of wealth creation and reducing >>>>> civilization back to its pre-industrial roots will have been for >>>>> NOTHING." >>>> >>>> Nicely straw-manned. Too bad for you nobody was talking about >>>> "reducing civilization back to its pre-industrial roots" ... >>> >>> Well then, global warming must not be as bad as you're making it out >>> to be then...... >> >> Non sequitur. > > On the contrary, it is totally relevant. If we don't have to eliminate > all things you claim cause global warming...then clearly global warming > must not be that bad. > > kensi pupa still learning, 'her' very small brain at birth is now growing, but not very fast because of Glowball Worming, now defective, degeneration has set in, like Alzie Hillary, down the path kensi pupa goes stuck posting on the internet
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-12 09:33 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pd6qfv$1r4s$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #684995 |
On 5/11/2018 7:47 PM, Scout wrote: > On the contrary, it is totally relevant. If we don't have to eliminate > all things you claim cause global warming...then clearly global warming > must not be that bad. False dichotomy. -- "To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks "I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade in here." ~Checkmate
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-14 23:59 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pddmqh$8ij$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #685057 |
"kensi" <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> wrote in message news:pd6qfv$1r4s$3@gioia.aioe.org... > On 5/11/2018 7:47 PM, Scout wrote: >> On the contrary, it is totally relevant. If we don't have to eliminate >> all things you claim cause global warming...then clearly global warming >> must not be that bad. > > False dichotomy. Really? Then who decides what we have to get rid of and what we can still keep and what if they guess wrong?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-15 09:24 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pden1k$ta1$8@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #685513 |
On 5/14/2018 11:59 PM, Scout wrote: > > > "kensi" <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> wrote in message > news:pd6qfv$1r4s$3@gioia.aioe.org... >> On 5/11/2018 7:47 PM, Scout wrote: >>> On the contrary, it is totally relevant. If we don't have to >>> eliminate all things you claim cause global warming...then clearly >>> global warming must not be that bad. >> >> False dichotomy. > > Really? > > Then who decides what we have to get rid of and what we can still keep > and what if they guess wrong? We have to get rid of about 100ppm of CO2 from the atmosphere, and the emissions pushing the equilibrium level much above 300ppm. A couple of the biggest developed countries going 100% renewable ought to suffice. -- "To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks "I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade in here." ~Checkmate
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-15 07:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9ad7d7b8-0f2e-4dc9-8691-35569b91dcde@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #685557 |
On Tuesday, May 15, 2018 at 6:24:09 AM UTC-7, kensi wrote: > On 5/14/2018 11:59 PM, Scout wrote: > > > > > > "kensi" <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> wrote in message > > news:pd6qfv$1r4s$3@gioia.aioe.org... > >> On 5/11/2018 7:47 PM, Scout wrote: > >>> On the contrary, it is totally relevant. If we don't have to > >>> eliminate all things you claim cause global warming...then clearly > >>> global warming must not be that bad. > >> > >> False dichotomy. > > > > Really? > > > > Then who decides what we have to get rid of and what we can still keep > > and what if they guess wrong? > > We have to get rid of about 100ppm of CO2 from the atmosphere, and the > emissions pushing the equilibrium level much above 300ppm. A couple of > the biggest developed countries going 100% renewable ought to suffice. We need more CO2. It is literally fertilizer for plant growth. Food is good. Global warming advocates are silly fools that believe that their emotions about the future are more significant than the facts that's that fail to support their alarmist beliefs. Same is true for believers in "cold steam." The world is chock full of millions upon millions of braindead retards who believe all kinds of ridiculous nonsense. > > -- > "To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain > the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks > "I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade > in here." ~Checkmate
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-15 11:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.3564ca25f2c462a4993a00@news.altopia.com> |
| In reply to | #685557 |
Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts by Checkmate! In article <pden1k$ta1$8@gioia.aioe.org>, kkensington01 @gmail.nospam.invalid says... > > On 5/14/2018 11:59 PM, Scout wrote: > > > > > > "kensi" <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> wrote in message > > news:pd6qfv$1r4s$3@gioia.aioe.org... > >> On 5/11/2018 7:47 PM, Scout wrote: > >>> On the contrary, it is totally relevant. If we don't have to > >>> eliminate all things you claim cause global warming...then clearly > >>> global warming must not be that bad. > >> > >> False dichotomy. > > > > Really? > > > > Then who decides what we have to get rid of and what we can still keep > > and what if they guess wrong? > > We have to get rid of about 100ppm of CO2 from the atmosphere, and the > emissions pushing the equilibrium level much above 300ppm. A couple of > the biggest developed countries going 100% renewable ought to suffice. Let's start with China. -- Checkmate ® Author, Humorist, Cynic Philosopher, Humanitarian Poet, Elektrishun to the Stars Copyright © 2018 all rights reserved In loving memory of The Battle Kitten May 2010-February 12, 2017 "There are many here among us, who feel that life is but a joke." "I am the author of nearly as much kook butthurt as kensi." -Nadegda Message-ID: <pbg8ne$p9k$21@dont-email.me>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-15 20:12 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pdftg8$1p5$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #685557 |
"kensi" <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> wrote in message news:pden1k$ta1$8@gioia.aioe.org... > On 5/14/2018 11:59 PM, Scout wrote: >> >> >> "kensi" <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> wrote in message >> news:pd6qfv$1r4s$3@gioia.aioe.org... >>> On 5/11/2018 7:47 PM, Scout wrote: >>>> On the contrary, it is totally relevant. If we don't have to eliminate >>>> all things you claim cause global warming...then clearly global warming >>>> must not be that bad. >>> >>> False dichotomy. >> >> Really? >> >> Then who decides what we have to get rid of and what we can still keep >> and what if they guess wrong? > > We have to get rid of about 100ppm of CO2 from the atmosphere, and the > emissions pushing the equilibrium level much above 300ppm. A couple of the > biggest developed countries going 100% renewable ought to suffice. Two problems with that. Even if man were to cut 100% of his admissions we can't cut 25% from atmospheric CO2 since by your own admission our TOTAL contribution only amounts to 9% 9% being less than the 25% you're asking for. Second, 100% renewable does NOT mean that green house gases are totally eliminated. Take hydroelectric for example, which BTW constitutes the overwhelming bulk of renewable energy. Hydroelectric requires dams that create a reservoir. The resulting reservoir produces a lot of methane gas which is a green house gas. So simply waving your hands in the air and claiming 100% renewable ought to suffice shows just how little on the subject you actually know. Besides I'm still waiting for you to show me how man's greenhouse gas emissions which constitute a fraction of 1% of the greenhouse gases naturally produced is going to be at all relevant in controlling global climate changes which have been regularly taking place for hundreds of millions of years.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-16 00:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pdfuao$jvq$63@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #685687 |
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt! On Tue, 15 May 2018 20:12:46 -0400, Scout wrote: > "kensi" <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> wrote in message > news:pden1k$ta1$8@gioia.aioe.org... >> On 5/14/2018 11:59 PM, Scout wrote: >>> >>> >>> "kensi" <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> wrote in message >>> news:pd6qfv$1r4s$3@gioia.aioe.org... >>>> On 5/11/2018 7:47 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>> On the contrary, it is totally relevant. If we don't have to >>>>> eliminate all things you claim cause global warming...then clearly >>>>> global warming must not be that bad. >>>> >>>> False dichotomy. >>> >>> Really? >>> >>> Then who decides what we have to get rid of and what we can still keep >>> and what if they guess wrong? >> >> We have to get rid of about 100ppm of CO2 from the atmosphere, and the >> emissions pushing the equilibrium level much above 300ppm. A couple of >> the biggest developed countries going 100% renewable ought to suffice. > > Two problems with that. Even if man were to cut 100% of his admissions > we can't cut 25% from atmospheric CO2 since by your own admission our > TOTAL contribution only amounts to 9% > > 9% being less than the 25% you're asking for. > > Second, 100% renewable does NOT mean that green house gases are totally > eliminated. Take hydroelectric for example, which BTW constitutes the > overwhelming bulk of renewable energy. Hydroelectric requires dams that > create a reservoir. The resulting reservoir produces a lot of methane > gas which is a green house gas. > > So simply waving your hands in the air and claiming 100% renewable ought > to suffice shows just how little on the subject you actually know. The existence of complications does not disprove kensi's case, you twit. > Besides I'm still waiting for you to show me how man's greenhouse gas > emissions which constitute a fraction of 1% of the greenhouse gases > naturally produced is going to be at all relevant in controlling global > climate changes which have been regularly taking place for hundreds of > millions of years. Pure denialist balderdash. -- FNVWe Nadegda Fakey couldn't teach a monkey to eat a banana, much less answer a direct question posed to him. -- Fakey's Dogwhistle Holder
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | % <persent@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-15 18:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b9clbs.1ff.19.1@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #685691 |
On 2018-05-15 5:34 PM, Nadegda wrote: > Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt! > On Tue, 15 May 2018 20:12:46 -0400, Scout wrote: > >> "kensi" <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> wrote in message >> news:pden1k$ta1$8@gioia.aioe.org... >>> On 5/14/2018 11:59 PM, Scout wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> "kensi" <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> wrote in message >>>> news:pd6qfv$1r4s$3@gioia.aioe.org... >>>>> On 5/11/2018 7:47 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>> On the contrary, it is totally relevant. If we don't have to >>>>>> eliminate all things you claim cause global warming...then clearly >>>>>> global warming must not be that bad. >>>>> >>>>> False dichotomy. >>>> >>>> Really? >>>> >>>> Then who decides what we have to get rid of and what we can still keep >>>> and what if they guess wrong? >>> >>> We have to get rid of about 100ppm of CO2 from the atmosphere, and the >>> emissions pushing the equilibrium level much above 300ppm. A couple of >>> the biggest developed countries going 100% renewable ought to suffice. >> >> Two problems with that. Even if man were to cut 100% of his admissions >> we can't cut 25% from atmospheric CO2 since by your own admission our >> TOTAL contribution only amounts to 9% >> >> 9% being less than the 25% you're asking for. >> >> Second, 100% renewable does NOT mean that green house gases are totally >> eliminated. Take hydroelectric for example, which BTW constitutes the >> overwhelming bulk of renewable energy. Hydroelectric requires dams that >> create a reservoir. The resulting reservoir produces a lot of methane >> gas which is a green house gas. >> >> So simply waving your hands in the air and claiming 100% renewable ought >> to suffice shows just how little on the subject you actually know. > > The existence of complications does not disprove kensi's case, you twit. > >> Besides I'm still waiting for you to show me how man's greenhouse gas >> emissions which constitute a fraction of 1% of the greenhouse gases >> naturally produced is going to be at all relevant in controlling global >> climate changes which have been regularly taking place for hundreds of >> millions of years. > > Pure denialist balderdash. > you lied
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-15 21:51 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <cl3nfdl7sfovc4rhcorou9g3ur2i2jlk37@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #685691 |
On Wed, 16 May 2018 00:34:32 -0000 (UTC), Nadegda wrote: >The existence of complications does not disprove kensi's case, you twit. What case?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | % <persent@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-15 19:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b9cp84.8jr.19.1@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #685706 |
On 2018-05-15 6:51 PM, Wally W. wrote: > On Wed, 16 May 2018 00:34:32 -0000 (UTC), Nadegda wrote: > >> The existence of complications does not disprove kensi's case, you twit. > > What case? > the case of wine she keeps under the bed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-16 10:02 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pdhh66$1ls6$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #685706 |
On 5/15/2018 8:51 PM, Wally W. wrote: > On Wed, 16 May 2018 00:34:32 -0000 (UTC), Nadegda wrote: > >> The existence of complications does not disprove kensi's case, you twit. > > What case? > zero case kensi pupa is alarmist, is little puppy with tail under rocking chair Miami beach condos for sale on the beach for about $500,000 and up https://www.zillow.com/oceanfront-miami-beach-fl/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-16 12:16 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pdhlhq$1u36$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #685764 |
On 5/16/2018 11:02 AM, Sergio wrote: > kensi pupa is alarmist, is little puppy with tail under rocking chair Hehehehehehehehehehe ... yer so pwn3d. *snicker* -- "To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks "I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade in here." ~Checkmate
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-16 14:05 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <bq_KC.164297$g%2.117291@fx17.iad> |
| In reply to | #685767 |
On 5/16/2018 12:16 PM, kensi wrote: > On 5/16/2018 11:02 AM, Sergio wrote: >> kensi pupa is alarmist, is little puppy with tail under rocking chair > > Hehehehehehehehehehe ... yer so pwn3d. > > *snicker* > Easy on the stash, "Kanzi". You are making no sense and you have done nothing to "pwn" anyone. Your little "funny" is all in your own head. Sergio is the one calling woot here. Chortle (Rule #5)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 14 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web