Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #718524 > unrolled thread
| Started by | kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-12-15 05:15 -0500 |
| Last post | 2018-12-16 14:20 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 111 — 14 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Climate Change Is Making Sharks Right-Handed kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-15 05:15 -0500
Re: Climate Change Is Making Sharks Right-Handed "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-12-15 08:18 -0500
Re: Climate Change Is Making Sharks Right-Handed Checkmate <oshay.shad@yahoo.corn> - 2018-12-15 10:10 -0800
Re: Climate Change Is Making Sharks Right-Handed mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2018-12-15 18:49 -0500
Re: Climate Change Is Making Sharks Right-Handed Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-12-16 09:46 -0600
Re: Climate Change Is Making Sharks Right-Handed Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-12-16 06:30 +0000
Re: Climate Change Is Making Sharks Right-Handed Checkmate <oshay.shad@yahoo.corn> - 2018-12-16 00:15 -0800
Re: Climate Change Is Making Sharks Right-Handed kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-16 06:17 -0500
Re: Climate Change Is Making Sharks Right-Handed "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-12-16 08:40 -0500
Re: Climate Change Is Making Sharks Right-Handed "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-12-16 09:51 -0500
Re: Climate Change Is Making Sharks Right-Handed Checkmate <oshay.shad@yahoo.corn> - 2018-12-16 10:06 -0800
Re: Climate Change Is Making Sharks Right-Handed Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-12-17 10:19 -0600
Re: Climate Change Is Making Sharks Right-Handed kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-18 07:42 -0500
Re: Climate Change Is Making Sharks Right-Handed benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-12-18 08:26 -0500
Re: Climate Change Is Making Sharks Right-Handed "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-12-18 09:48 -0500
Re: Climate Change Is Making Sharks Right-Handed Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-12-18 09:33 -0600
Re: Climate Change Is Making Sharks Right-Handed Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-12-18 09:29 -0600
Re: Climate Change Is Making Sharks Right-Handed Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2018-12-18 14:16 -0700
Re: Climate Change Is Making Sharks Right-Handed Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-12-18 21:35 +0000
Re: Climate Change Is Making Sharks Right-Handed Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2018-12-18 15:03 -0700
Re: Climate Change Is Making Sharks Right-Handed "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-12-16 08:50 -0500
Re: Climate Change Is Making Sharks Right-Handed Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2018-12-16 08:33 -0700
Re: Climate Change Is Making Sharks Right-Handed Checkmate <oshay.shad@yahoo.corn> - 2018-12-16 12:27 -0800
Re: Climate Change Is Making Sharks Right-Handed "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-12-16 15:38 -0500
Re: Climate Change Is Making Sharks Right-Handed Checkmate <oshay.shad@yahoo.corn> - 2018-12-16 20:04 -0800
Re: Climate Change Is Making Sharks Right-Handed pandora <pandora@peak.org> - 2018-12-16 14:52 -0600
Re: Climate Change Is Making Sharks Right-Handed "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-12-16 15:59 -0500
Re: Climate Change Is Making Sharks Right-Handed invalid@invalid.invalid (Ï) - 2018-12-16 21:11 +0000
Re: Climate Change Is Making Sharks Right-Handed "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-12-16 16:29 -0500
Re: Climate Change Is Making Sharks Right-Handed tripeco.2@parody.personae.invalid (Tr!pe) - 2018-12-16 21:56 +0000
Re: Climate Change Is Making Sharks Right-Handed Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-12-17 03:44 +0000
Re: Climate Change Is Making Sharks Right-Handed "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-12-17 10:42 -0500
Re: Climate Change Is Making Sharks Right-Handed % <%> - 2018-12-16 14:13 -0700
Re: Climate Change Is Making Sharks Right-Handed mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2018-12-16 16:31 -0500
Re: Climate Change Is Making Sharks Right-Handed Checkmate <oshay.shad@yahoo.corn> - 2018-12-16 20:08 -0800
Re: Climate Change Is Making Sharks Right-Handed Checkmate <oshay.shad@yahoo.corn> - 2018-12-16 22:19 -0800
Re: Climate Change Is Making Sharks Right-Handed kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-17 05:28 -0500
Re: Climate Change Is Making Sharks Right-Handed Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2018-12-17 08:31 -0700
Re: Climate Change Is Making Sharks Right-Handed Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2018-12-16 08:32 -0700
Re: Climate Change Is Making Sharks Right-Handed % <%> - 2018-12-16 08:37 -0700
Re: Climate Change Is Making Sharks Right-Handed Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2018-12-16 08:51 -0700
Re: Climate Change Is Making Sharks Right-Handed % <%> - 2018-12-16 08:54 -0700
Re: Climate Change Is Making Sharks Right-Handed Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2018-12-16 08:57 -0700
Re: Climate Change Is Making Sharks Right-Handed % <%> - 2018-12-16 09:09 -0700
Re: Climate Change Is Making Sharks Right-Handed "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-12-16 08:39 -0500
Re: Climate Change Is Making Sharks Right-Handed Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2018-12-16 08:34 -0700
Re: Climate Change Is Making Sharks Right-Handed benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-12-15 17:11 -0500
Re: Climate Change Is Making Sharks Right-Handed Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-15 15:16 -0700
Re: Climate Change Is Making Sharks Right-Handed % <%> - 2018-12-15 15:18 -0700
Re: Climate Change Is Making Sharks Right-Handed Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-15 15:22 -0700
Re: Climate Change Is Making Sharks Right-Handed % <%> - 2018-12-15 15:25 -0700
Re: Climate Change Is Making Sharks Right-Handed Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-15 15:30 -0700
Re: Climate Change Is Making Sharks Right-Handed "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-12-15 17:32 -0500
Re: Climate Change Is Making Sharks Right-Handed Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-15 15:40 -0700
Re: Climate Change Is Making Sharks Right-Handed % <%> - 2018-12-15 15:52 -0700
Re: Climate Change Is Making Sharks Right-Handed Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-15 16:02 -0700
Re: Climate Change Is Making Sharks Right-Handed % <%> - 2018-12-15 16:06 -0700
Re: Climate Change Is Making Sharks Right-Handed "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-12-15 18:07 -0500
Re: Climate Change Is Making Sharks Right-Handed % <%> - 2018-12-15 16:14 -0700
Re: Climate Change Is Making Sharks Right-Handed Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-15 17:08 -0700
Re: Climate Change Is Making Sharks Right-Handed % <%> - 2018-12-15 17:11 -0700
Re: Climate Change Is Making Sharks Right-Handed Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-15 17:26 -0700
Re: Climate Change Is Making Sharks Right-Handed % <%> - 2018-12-15 17:31 -0700
Re: Climate Change Is Making Sharks Right-Handed Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-15 17:36 -0700
Re: Climate Change Is Making Sharks Right-Handed % <%> - 2018-12-15 17:38 -0700
Re: Climate Change Is Making Sharks Right-Handed Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-15 17:41 -0700
Re: Climate Change Is Making Sharks Right-Handed % <%> - 2018-12-15 17:46 -0700
Re: Climate Change Is Making Sharks Right-Handed Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-15 17:53 -0700
Re: Climate Change Is Making Sharks Right-Handed % <%> - 2018-12-15 17:55 -0700
Re: Climate Change Is Making Sharks Right-Handed Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-15 18:02 -0700
Re: Climate Change Is Making Sharks Right-Handed % <%> - 2018-12-15 18:09 -0700
Re: Climate Change Is Making Sharks Right-Handed Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-15 18:13 -0700
Re: Climate Change Is Making Sharks Right-Handed % <%> - 2018-12-15 18:22 -0700
Re: Climate Change Is Making Sharks Right-Handed "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-12-16 08:52 -0500
Re: Climate Change Is Making Sharks Right-Handed % <%> - 2018-12-16 07:27 -0700
Re: Climate Change Is Making Sharks Right-Handed Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-15 17:09 -0700
Re: Climate Change Is Making Sharks Right-Handed Checkmate <oshay.shad@yahoo.corn> - 2018-12-15 17:55 -0800
Re: Climate Change Is Making Sharks Right-Handed Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-15 19:05 -0700
Re: Climate Change Is Making Sharks Right-Handed pandora <pandora@peak.org> - 2018-12-15 20:08 -0600
Re: Climate Change Is Making Sharks Right-Handed Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-12-16 06:34 +0000
Re: Climate Change Is Making Sharks Right-Handed Checkmate <oshay.shad@yahoo.corn> - 2018-12-16 00:16 -0800
Re: Climate Change Is Making Sharks Right-Handed % <%> - 2018-12-15 15:51 -0700
Re: Climate Change Is Making Sharks Right-Handed Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-15 16:01 -0700
Re: Climate Change Is Making Sharks Right-Handed % <%> - 2018-12-15 16:07 -0700
Re: Climate Change Is Making Sharks Right-Handed Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-15 17:11 -0700
Re: Climate Change Is Making Sharks Right-Handed % <%> - 2018-12-15 17:13 -0700
Re: Climate Change Is Making Sharks Right-Handed Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-15 17:27 -0700
Re: Climate Change Is Making Sharks Right-Handed % <%> - 2018-12-15 15:37 -0700
Re: Climate Change Is Making Sharks Right-Handed Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-15 15:53 -0700
Re: Climate Change Is Making Sharks Right-Handed % <%> - 2018-12-15 16:02 -0700
Re: Climate Change Is Making Sharks Right-Handed Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-15 16:22 -0700
Re: Climate Change Is Making Sharks Right-Handed % <%> - 2018-12-15 16:25 -0700
Re: Climate Change Is Making Sharks Right-Handed Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-15 17:08 -0700
Re: Climate Change Is Making Sharks Right-Handed % <%> - 2018-12-15 17:10 -0700
Re: Climate Change Is Making Sharks Right-Handed Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-15 17:26 -0700
Re: Climate Change Is Making Sharks Right-Handed % <%> - 2018-12-15 17:31 -0700
Re: Climate Change Is Making Sharks Right-Handed Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-15 17:35 -0700
Re: Climate Change Is Making Sharks Right-Handed % <%> - 2018-12-15 17:38 -0700
Re: Climate Change Is Making Sharks Right-Handed Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-15 17:43 -0700
Re: Climate Change Is Making Sharks Right-Handed % <%> - 2018-12-15 17:45 -0700
Re: Climate Change Is Making Sharks Right-Handed Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-15 17:54 -0700
Re: Climate Change Is Making Sharks Right-Handed "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-12-16 08:56 -0500
Re: Climate Change Is Making Sharks Right-Handed % <%> - 2018-12-16 07:28 -0700
Re: Climate Change Is Making Sharks Right-Handed mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2018-12-15 19:07 -0500
Re: Climate Change Is Making Sharks Right-Handed % <%> - 2018-12-15 17:10 -0700
Re: Climate Change Is Making Sharks Right-Handed Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-15 17:25 -0700
Re: Climate Change Is Making Sharks Right-Handed Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-12-16 06:37 +0000
Re: Climate Change Is Making Sharks Right-Handed Checkmate <oshay.shad@yahoo.corn> - 2018-12-16 00:16 -0800
Re: Climate Change Is Making Sharks Right-Handed Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-16 16:34 +0000
Re: Climate Change Is Making Sharks Right-Handed mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2018-12-15 19:04 -0500
Re: Climate Change Is Making Sharks Right-Handed Avenging Angel <Not.fucking.likely@NoWay.com> - 2018-12-16 14:20 +0000
Page 2 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 Next page →
| From | "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-16 08:50 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <9ulc1e99nh4ib7vl4s95ehgt2ep4ak2fqh@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #718721 |
On Sun, 16 Dec 2018 06:17:06 -0500, kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> wrote: >On 12/16/2018 3:15 AM, Checkmate wrote: >> Except that 99.87% of what you just dragged into the conversation >> deserves non sequitur status when you try to connect it with a squad of >> ko0ks coming to some highly speculative and probably erroneous >> conclusions as to whether there really IS such a thing as "right-handed >> sharks," or whether (if there is) it has anything to do with global >> warming, or is of any consequence regardless. This is what's commonly >> referred to as "junk science". You simply can't draw any viable >> conclusions from such sloppy "science," if the word science even belongs >> anywhere in this conversation. > >No, actually, Nadegda is 100% correct. It is a warning that we need to >expect the unexpected here. Climate change will have consequences far >beyond a slightly higher reading on a thermometer. Some of those >consequences will be bizarre and some of them will be deadly. And some will be challenging and fun. Why are you and Nads such wet blankets? Is wet-blanketry a typical liberal trait? I thought liberals were progressives who embraced change? -- Everybody here likes... Yours Truly, Gregøry Hall - Bombastic Loudmouth of the South
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-16 08:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.36801e3debfd92585a9@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #718721 |
In article <pv5c7k$1rfb$1@gioia.aioe.org>, kkensington01 @gmail.nospam.invalid says... > >On 12/16/2018 3:15 AM, Checkmate wrote: >> Except that 99.87% of what you just dragged into the conversation >> deserves non sequitur status when you try to connect it with a squad of >> ko0ks coming to some highly speculative and probably erroneous >> conclusions as to whether there really IS such a thing as "right-handed >> sharks," or whether (if there is) it has anything to do with global >> warming, or is of any consequence regardless. This is what's commonly >> referred to as "junk science". You simply can't draw any viable >> conclusions from such sloppy "science," if the word science even belongs >> anywhere in this conversation. > >No, actually, Nadegda is 100% correct. It is a warning that we need to >expect the unexpected here. Climate change will have consequences far >beyond a slightly higher reading on a thermometer. Some of those >consequences will be bizarre and some of them will be deadly. Like left handed sharks and trees that pack up and move north?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Checkmate <oshay.shad@yahoo.corn> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-16 12:27 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.3680550d73b3cd3d995b2c@news.altopia.com> |
| In reply to | #718721 |
Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts by Checkmate! In article <pv5c7k$1rfb$1@gioia.aioe.org>, kkensington01 @gmail.nospam.invalid says... LeBork LeBorkOn 12/16/2018 3:15 AM, Checkmate wrote: LeBork> Except that 99.87% of what you just dragged into the conversation LeBork> deserves non sequitur status when you try to connect it with a squad of LeBork> ko0ks coming to some highly speculative and probably erroneous LeBork> conclusions as to whether there really IS such a thing as "right-handed LeBork> sharks," or whether (if there is) it has anything to do with global LeBork> warming, or is of any consequence regardless. This is what's commonly LeBork> referred to as "junk science". You simply can't draw any viable LeBork> conclusions from such sloppy "science," if the word science even belongs LeBork> anywhere in this conversation. LeBork LeBorkNo, actually, Nadegda is 100% correct. It is a warning that we need to LeBorkexpect the unexpected here. Climate change will have consequences far LeBorkbeyond a slightly higher reading on a thermometer. Some of those LeBorkconsequences will be bizarre and some of them will be deadly. That much may very well be true, as it always has been in the past. The climate is going to do what the climate's going to do, and we're powerless to alter that to suit our perceived convenience. Far more drastic changes have occurred in the past... without our influence, and far more drastic changes will occur in the future. We don't live in a static world, but we've always found ways to survive in a changing world. As I've said all along, even if it could be established that we have changed the climate, and that we theoretically had the power to "change it back" to something more to our liking, we would STILL never do it due to the catastrophic effects of the socio- economical sacrifices it would take to accomplish such a feat. The real problem, if you choose to call any of this a problem, is that there are far too many humans populating the world, and all those people need to eat, stay within a reasonably comfortable living environment, and find some sort of employment or way to contribute to society. If we were to suddenly cut the population in half, our consumer-driven economy would collapse, causing much more serious repercussions than a slight variation in global temperatures. I believe there was a link somewhere above referring to the adverse effects that occurred in Yellowstone when all the wolves were removed. I'm familiar with the story. Grazing herds grew without any apex predators to control them, vegetation was "destroyed," and the grazing animals overpopulated and ultimately went hungry. In a sense, humans have put themselves in the same position through medical advancements, and the discovery and use of fossil fuels, which led to the Industrial Age. Humans have kept their wolves at bay, and nothing will fix that until nature decides to step in and cull the human herds. We can't fix our problems on our own any more than the herds of deer in Yellowstone were able to fix theirs. That's because it takes sacrifices that we as a species are inherently unwilling and unable to fix on our own. Trust in nature. It isn't always nice, but long-term, it's been proven to always work. -- Checkmate ® Author, Humorist, Cynic Philosopher, Humanitarian Poet, Elektrishun to the Stars Usenet Shot-Caller 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 | "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-16 15:38 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <1odd1e5fg3anos0qdadd2cpdd065oq3rho@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #718809 |
On Sun, 16 Dec 2018 12:27:29 -0800, Checkmate <oshay.shad@yahoo.corn> wrote: <courteously snipped unwanted and unnecessary quoted material> >That much may very well be true, as it always has been in the past. The >climate is going to do what the climate's going to do, and we're >powerless to alter that to suit our perceived convenience. Far more >drastic changes have occurred in the past... without our influence, and >far more drastic changes will occur in the future. > >We don't live in a static world, but we've always found ways to survive >in a changing world. As I've said all along, even if it could be >established that we have changed the climate, and that we theoretically >had the power to "change it back" to something more to our liking, we >would STILL never do it due to the catastrophic effects of the socio- >economical sacrifices it would take to accomplish such a feat. > >The real problem, if you choose to call any of this a problem, is that >there are far too many humans populating the world, and all those people >need to eat, stay within a reasonably comfortable living environment, and >find some sort of employment or way to contribute to society. If we were >to suddenly cut the population in half, our consumer-driven economy would >collapse, causing much more serious repercussions than a slight variation >in global temperatures. > >I believe there was a link somewhere above referring to the adverse >effects that occurred in Yellowstone when all the wolves were removed. >I'm familiar with the story. Grazing herds grew without any apex >predators to control them, vegetation was "destroyed," and the grazing >animals overpopulated and ultimately went hungry. In a sense, humans >have put themselves in the same position through medical advancements, >and the discovery and use of fossil fuels, which led to the Industrial >Age. > >Humans have kept their wolves at bay, and nothing will fix that until >nature decides to step in and cull the human herds. We can't fix our >problems on our own any more than the herds of deer in Yellowstone were >able to fix theirs. That's because it takes sacrifices that we as a >species are inherently unwilling and unable to fix on our own. Trust in >nature. It isn't always nice, but long-term, it's been proven to always >work. You are a wind bag. I can say it better and more succinctly. "It takes predation for a species to become stronger." Both prey and predator become stronger and wiser. A changing vs. a static environment is a form of predator albeit one that doesn't benefit from predation. -- Everybody here likes... Yours Truly, Gregøry Hall - Bombastic Loudmouth of the South
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Checkmate <oshay.shad@yahoo.corn> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-16 20:04 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.3680c00927f6e26995b42@news.altopia.com> |
| In reply to | #718813 |
Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts by Checkmate! In article <1odd1e5fg3anos0qdadd2cpdd065oq3rho@4ax.com>, greghall@yacht_maester.fake says... LeBork LeBorkOn Sun, 16 Dec 2018 12:27:29 -0800, Checkmate <oshay.shad@yahoo.corn> wrote: LeBork<courteously snipped unwanted and unnecessary quoted material> LeBork LeBork>That much may very well be true, as it always has been in the past. The LeBork>climate is going to do what the climate's going to do, and we're LeBork>powerless to alter that to suit our perceived convenience. Far more LeBork>drastic changes have occurred in the past... without our influence, and LeBork>far more drastic changes will occur in the future. LeBork> LeBork>We don't live in a static world, but we've always found ways to survive LeBork>in a changing world. As I've said all along, even if it could be LeBork>established that we have changed the climate, and that we theoretically LeBork>had the power to "change it back" to something more to our liking, we LeBork>would STILL never do it due to the catastrophic effects of the socio- LeBork>economical sacrifices it would take to accomplish such a feat. LeBork> LeBork>The real problem, if you choose to call any of this a problem, is that LeBork>there are far too many humans populating the world, and all those people LeBork>need to eat, stay within a reasonably comfortable living environment, and LeBork>find some sort of employment or way to contribute to society. If we were LeBork>to suddenly cut the population in half, our consumer-driven economy would LeBork>collapse, causing much more serious repercussions than a slight variation LeBork>in global temperatures. LeBork> LeBork>I believe there was a link somewhere above referring to the adverse LeBork>effects that occurred in Yellowstone when all the wolves were removed. LeBork>I'm familiar with the story. Grazing herds grew without any apex LeBork>predators to control them, vegetation was "destroyed," and the grazing LeBork>animals overpopulated and ultimately went hungry. In a sense, humans LeBork>have put themselves in the same position through medical advancements, LeBork>and the discovery and use of fossil fuels, which led to the Industrial LeBork>Age. LeBork> LeBork>Humans have kept their wolves at bay, and nothing will fix that until LeBork>nature decides to step in and cull the human herds. We can't fix our LeBork>problems on our own any more than the herds of deer in Yellowstone were LeBork>able to fix theirs. That's because it takes sacrifices that we as a LeBork>species are inherently unwilling and unable to fix on our own. Trust in LeBork>nature. It isn't always nice, but long-term, it's been proven to always LeBork>work. LeBork LeBorkYou are a wind bag. I can say it better and more succinctly. LeBork LeBork"It takes predation for a species to become stronger." LeBorkBoth prey and predator become stronger and wiser. LeBork LeBorkA changing vs. a static environment is a form of predator LeBorkalbeit one that doesn't benefit from predation. Save your short version for your boyfriend. -- Checkmate ® Author, Humorist, Cynic Philosopher, Humanitarian Poet, Elektrishun to the Stars Usenet Shot-Caller 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 | pandora <pandora@peak.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-16 14:52 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <08adnW5KEOyFJovBnZ2dnUU7-audnZ2d@scnresearch.com> |
| In reply to | #718809 |
On Sun, 16 Dec 2018 12:27:29 -0800, Checkmate wrote: > Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts by > Checkmate! In article <pv5c7k$1rfb$1@gioia.aioe.org>, kkensington01 > @gmail.nospam.invalid says... > > > LeBork LeBorkOn 12/16/2018 3:15 AM, Checkmate wrote: > LeBork> Except that 99.87% of what you just dragged into the > conversation LeBork> deserves non sequitur status when you try to > connect it with a squad of LeBork> ko0ks coming to some highly > speculative and probably erroneous LeBork> conclusions as to whether > there really IS such a thing as "right-handed LeBork> sharks," or > whether (if there is) it has anything to do with global LeBork> warming, > or is of any consequence regardless. This is what's commonly LeBork> > referred to as "junk science". You simply can't draw any viable LeBork> > conclusions from such sloppy "science," if the word science even belongs > LeBork> anywhere in this conversation. > LeBork LeBorkNo, actually, Nadegda is 100% correct. It is a warning that > we need to LeBorkexpect the unexpected here. Climate change will have > consequences far LeBorkbeyond a slightly higher reading on a > thermometer. Some of those LeBorkconsequences will be bizarre and some > of them will be deadly. > > That much may very well be true, as it always has been in the past. The > climate is going to do what the climate's going to do, and we're > powerless to alter that to suit our perceived convenience. Far more > drastic changes have occurred in the past... without our influence, and > far more drastic changes will occur in the future. > > We don't live in a static world, but we've always found ways to survive > in a changing world. As I've said all along, even if it could be > established that we have changed the climate, and that we theoretically > had the power to "change it back" to something more to our liking, we > would STILL never do it due to the catastrophic effects of the socio- > economical sacrifices it would take to accomplish such a feat. > > The real problem, if you choose to call any of this a problem, is that > there are far too many humans populating the world, and all those people > need to eat, stay within a reasonably comfortable living environment, > and find some sort of employment or way to contribute to society. If we > were to suddenly cut the population in half, our consumer-driven economy > would collapse, causing much more serious repercussions than a slight > variation in global temperatures. > > I believe there was a link somewhere above referring to the adverse > effects that occurred in Yellowstone when all the wolves were removed. > I'm familiar with the story. Grazing herds grew without any apex > predators to control them, vegetation was "destroyed," and the grazing > animals overpopulated and ultimately went hungry. In a sense, humans > have put themselves in the same position through medical advancements, > and the discovery and use of fossil fuels, which led to the Industrial > Age. > > Humans have kept their wolves at bay, and nothing will fix that until > nature decides to step in and cull the human herds. We can't fix our > problems on our own any more than the herds of deer in Yellowstone were > able to fix theirs. That's because it takes sacrifices that we as a > species are inherently unwilling and unable to fix on our own. Trust in > nature. It isn't always nice, but long-term, it's been proven to always > work. Extremely well said. Humans have always changed and adapted to fit their environment. We may be able to continue doing so or perhaps not. It all depends on how much it changes and how fast.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-16 15:59 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <q3fd1e5hmkq4gvghq7i0v6ulvbe7sl3rnp@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #718819 |
On Sun, 16 Dec 2018 14:52:40 -0600, pandora <pandora@peak.org> wrote: <snipped excessive Checktard verbosity) >Extremely well said. Humans have always changed and adapted to fit their >environment. We may be able to continue doing so or perhaps not. It all >depends on how much it changes and how fast. No, it was poorly said as it was way too verbose and scattered. See my reply to his overly long treatise and become educated and more literate. -- Everybody here likes... Yours Truly, Gregøry Hall - Bombastic Loudmouth of the South
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | invalid@invalid.invalid (Ï) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-16 21:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <1nzx6tu.efe4lqwqfco8N%invalid@invalid.invalid> |
| In reply to | #718824 |
Skidmark Gerqory Hall <moot@fake.yacht_mooter> mooted: > Everybody here likes... > Yours Truly, > Gregøry Hall - Bombastic Loudmouth of the South
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-16 16:29 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <msgd1epoa9868gasehuhkc04jk659r7ti5@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #718828 |
On Sun, 16 Dec 2018 21:11:24 +0000, invalid@invalid.invalid (Ï) wrote: >Skidmark Gerqory Hall <moot@fake.yacht_mooter> mooted: > >> Everybody here likes... >> Yours Truly, >> Gregøry Hall - Bombastic Loudmouth of the South > Go away, Tr!pe. Your socks are boring. -- Everybody here likes... Yours Truly, Gregøry Hall - Bombastic Loudmouth of the South
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | tripeco.2@parody.personae.invalid (Tr!pe) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-16 21:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <1nzx7xs.ph7ogpz9gruN%tripeco.2@parody.personae.invalid> |
| In reply to | #718836 |
Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> wrote: > On Sun, 16 Dec 2018 21:11:24 +0000, invalid@invalid.invalid (Ï) wrote: > > >Skidmark Gerqory Hall <moot@fake.yacht_mooter> mooted: > > > >> Everybody here likes... > >> Yours Truly, > >> Gregøry Hall - Bombastic Loudmouth of the South > > > > Go away, Tr!pe. Your socks are boring. > They may be boring but at least they aren't frogs, nor yet are they outright forgeries. Unable to command our attention by wielding your "astute erudition" and "world class wordsmithery" you are reduced to routinely frogging, forging, and post-editing, supplemented by your crossposting and followup-to games. You think yourself clever; you even go so far as to imagine that you are -better- than us lesser mortals who are here for simple amusement, banter and good- fellowship. Aways an outsider, do you ever ask yourself -why- you are so reviled? Has it ever crossed your plane of consciousness that you are just plainly and simply -obnoxious?- In my humble opinion, most of us who have been subjected to your oh-so-funny Usenet games know exactly why. In words of one syllable: you are a shit who should just fuck off. Fuck off, Crapstain Neal Warren, fuck right off. Take the Great Cornholio with you, and g8dgc too. TYVM P. S. Nobody here likes you, you're moot. P. P. S. [thrrrrbt] [fu2: bit-bucket] -- Tr!pe My pet croc Gøran just ate but then threw up.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-17 03:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pv762q$qih$20@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #718856 |
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt! On Sun, 16 Dec 2018 21:56:04 +0000, Tr!pe wrote: > Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> wrote: > >> On Sun, 16 Dec 2018 21:11:24 +0000, invalid@invalid.invalid (Ï) wrote: >> >> >Skidmark Gerqory Hall <moot@fake.yacht_mooter> mooted: >> > >> >> Everybody here likes... >> >> Yours Truly, >> >> Gregøry Hall - Bombastic Loudmouth of the South >> > >> > >> Go away, Tr!pe. Your socks are boring. > > They may be boring but at least they aren't frogs, > nor yet are they outright forgeries. > > Unable to command our attention by wielding your "astute erudition" and > "world class wordsmithery" > you are reduced to routinely frogging, forging, and post-editing, > supplemented by your crossposting and followup-to games. > > You think yourself clever; you even go so far as to imagine that you are > -better- than us lesser mortals who are here for simple amusement, > banter and good- fellowship. > > Aways an outsider, do you ever ask yourself -why- > you are so reviled? Has it ever crossed your plane of consciousness > that you are just plainly and simply > -obnoxious?- > > In my humble opinion, most of us who have been subjected to your > oh-so-funny Usenet games know exactly why. > In words of one syllable: you are a shit who should just fuck off. > > Fuck off, Crapstain Neal Warren, fuck right off. > Take the Great Cornholio with you, and g8dgc too. > TYVM > > > > P. S. Nobody here likes you, you're moot. > > P. P. S. [thrrrrbt] > > [fu2: bit-bucket] Nicely frothed. Gerzggls pwnz j00. -- FNVWe Nadegda "By all means, compare these shitheads to Nazis. Again and again. I'm with you." -- Mike Godwin, Aug 13, 2017, 8:03 PM Skeeter admits he mooches his mother's laptop: http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=154073947600
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-17 10:42 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <9qgf1eph69pgojc0ed6ek0ql69od52487p@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #718912 |
On Mon, 17 Dec 2018, Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote: >On Sun, 16 Dec 2018, Tr!pe wrote: >> Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> wrote: >>> On Sun, 16 Dec 2018, invalid@invalid.invalid (Ï) wrote: >>> >Skidmark Gerqory Hall <moot@fake.yacht_mooter> mooted: >>> > >>> >> Everybody here likes... >>> >> Yours Truly, >>> >> Gregøry Hall - Bombastic Loudmouth of the South >>> > >>> Go away, Tr!pe. Your socks are boring. >> >> They may be boring but at least they aren't frogs, >> nor yet are they outright forgeries. >> >> Unable to command our attention by wielding your "astute erudition" and >> "world class wordsmithery" >> you are reduced to routinely frogging, forging, and post-editing, >> supplemented by your crossposting and followup-to games. >> >> You think yourself clever; you even go so far as to imagine that you are >> -better- than us lesser mortals who are here for simple amusement, >> banter and good- fellowship. >> >> Aways an outsider, do you ever ask yourself -why- >> you are so reviled? Has it ever crossed your plane of consciousness >> that you are just plainly and simply >> -obnoxious?- >> >> In my humble opinion, most of us who have been subjected to your >> oh-so-funny Usenet games know exactly why. >> In words of one syllable: you are a shit who should just fuck off. >> >> Fuck off, Crapstain Neal Warren, fuck right off. >> Take the Great Cornholio with you, and g8dgc too. >> TYVM >> >> P. S. Nobody here likes you, you're moot. >> >> P. P. S. [thrrrrbt] >> >> [fu2: bit-bucket] > >Nicely frothed. Gerzggls pwnz j00. Just following in Paul Derbyshire's footsteps. The Tr!pe and his army of exclamation point socks have been owned by Paul almost as badly as they've been owned by Murphy, aka phlat_Arse. LOL! -- Everybody here likes... Yours Truly, Gregøry Hall - Bombastic Loudmouth of the South
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | % <%> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-16 14:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <br34mb.dpe.17.1@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #718824 |
On 2018-12-16 1:59 p.m., Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. wrote: > On Sun, 16 Dec 2018 14:52:40 -0600, pandora <pandora@peak.org> wrote: > > <snipped excessive Checktard verbosity) > >> Extremely well said. Humans have always changed and adapted to fit their >> environment. We may be able to continue doing so or perhaps not. It all >> depends on how much it changes and how fast. > > No, it was poorly said as it was way too verbose and > scattered. See my reply to his overly long treatise > and become educated and more literate. > what a freakin punk , trolling posts to get people to read his shit , if that's not an act of eating off the basement floor ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-16 16:31 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pv6g7f$10ou$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #718824 |
On 12/16/2018 3:59 PM, Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. wrote: > On Sun, 16 Dec 2018 14:52:40 -0600, pandora <pandora@peak.org> wrote: > > <snipped excessive Checktard verbosity) > >> Extremely well said. Humans have always changed and adapted to fit their >> environment. We may be able to continue doing so or perhaps not. It all >> depends on how much it changes and how fast. > > No, it was poorly said as it was way too verbose and > scattered. See my reply to his overly long treatise > and become educated and more literate. If you quote great philosophers and the bible, people will know that you're more educated and literate. -- Grizzly H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Checkmate <oshay.shad@yahoo.corn> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-16 20:08 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.3680c11885c2240c995b43@news.altopia.com> |
| In reply to | #718824 |
Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts by Checkmate! In article <q3fd1e5hmkq4gvghq7i0v6ulvbe7sl3rnp@4ax.com>, greghall@yacht_maester.fake says... LeBork LeBorkOn Sun, 16 Dec 2018 14:52:40 -0600, pandora <pandora@peak.org> wrote: LeBork LeBork<snipped excessive Checktard verbosity) LeBork LeBork>Extremely well said. Humans have always changed and adapted to fit their LeBork>environment. We may be able to continue doing so or perhaps not. It all LeBork>depends on how much it changes and how fast. LeBork LeBorkNo, it was poorly said as it was way too verbose and LeBorkscattered. See my reply to his overly long treatise LeBorkand become educated and more literate. Pandora said it was EXTREMELY well said. Do you know what that means? It means that Pandora is much smarter than your ignorant gay ass. -- Checkmate ® Author, Humorist, Cynic Philosopher, Humanitarian Poet, Elektrishun to the Stars Usenet Shot-Caller 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 | Checkmate <oshay.shad@yahoo.corn> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-16 22:19 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.3680dfbe6c39a73a995b4e@news.altopia.com> |
| In reply to | #718819 |
Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts by Checkmate! In article <08adnW5KEOyFJovBnZ2dnUU7- audnZ2d@scnresearch.com>, pandora@peak.org says... LeBork LeBorkOn Sun, 16 Dec 2018 12:27:29 -0800, Checkmate wrote: LeBork LeBork> Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts by LeBork> Checkmate! In article <pv5c7k$1rfb$1@gioia.aioe.org>, kkensington01 LeBork> @gmail.nospam.invalid says... LeBork> LeBork> LeBork> LeBork LeBorkOn 12/16/2018 3:15 AM, Checkmate wrote: LeBork> LeBork> Except that 99.87% of what you just dragged into the LeBork> conversation LeBork> deserves non sequitur status when you try to LeBork> connect it with a squad of LeBork> ko0ks coming to some highly LeBork> speculative and probably erroneous LeBork> conclusions as to whether LeBork> there really IS such a thing as "right-handed LeBork> sharks," or LeBork> whether (if there is) it has anything to do with global LeBork> warming, LeBork> or is of any consequence regardless. This is what's commonly LeBork> LeBork> referred to as "junk science". You simply can't draw any viable LeBork> LeBork> conclusions from such sloppy "science," if the word science even belongs LeBork> LeBork> anywhere in this conversation. LeBork> LeBork LeBorkNo, actually, Nadegda is 100% correct. It is a warning that LeBork> we need to LeBorkexpect the unexpected here. Climate change will have LeBork> consequences far LeBorkbeyond a slightly higher reading on a LeBork> thermometer. Some of those LeBorkconsequences will be bizarre and some LeBork> of them will be deadly. LeBork> LeBork> That much may very well be true, as it always has been in the past. The LeBork> climate is going to do what the climate's going to do, and we're LeBork> powerless to alter that to suit our perceived convenience. Far more LeBork> drastic changes have occurred in the past... without our influence, and LeBork> far more drastic changes will occur in the future. LeBork> LeBork> We don't live in a static world, but we've always found ways to survive LeBork> in a changing world. As I've said all along, even if it could be LeBork> established that we have changed the climate, and that we theoretically LeBork> had the power to "change it back" to something more to our liking, we LeBork> would STILL never do it due to the catastrophic effects of the socio- LeBork> economical sacrifices it would take to accomplish such a feat. LeBork> LeBork> The real problem, if you choose to call any of this a problem, is that LeBork> there are far too many humans populating the world, and all those people LeBork> need to eat, stay within a reasonably comfortable living environment, LeBork> and find some sort of employment or way to contribute to society. If we LeBork> were to suddenly cut the population in half, our consumer-driven economy LeBork> would collapse, causing much more serious repercussions than a slight LeBork> variation in global temperatures. LeBork> LeBork> I believe there was a link somewhere above referring to the adverse LeBork> effects that occurred in Yellowstone when all the wolves were removed. LeBork> I'm familiar with the story. Grazing herds grew without any apex LeBork> predators to control them, vegetation was "destroyed," and the grazing LeBork> animals overpopulated and ultimately went hungry. In a sense, humans LeBork> have put themselves in the same position through medical advancements, LeBork> and the discovery and use of fossil fuels, which led to the Industrial LeBork> Age. LeBork> LeBork> Humans have kept their wolves at bay, and nothing will fix that until LeBork> nature decides to step in and cull the human herds. We can't fix our LeBork> problems on our own any more than the herds of deer in Yellowstone were LeBork> able to fix theirs. That's because it takes sacrifices that we as a LeBork> species are inherently unwilling and unable to fix on our own. Trust in LeBork> nature. It isn't always nice, but long-term, it's been proven to always LeBork> work. LeBork LeBorkExtremely well said. Humans have always changed and adapted to fit their LeBorkenvironment. We may be able to continue doing so or perhaps not. It all LeBorkdepends on how much it changes and how fast. It's always been that way, no reason to suddenly think we can make it otherwise. -- Checkmate ® Author, Humorist, Cynic Philosopher, Humanitarian Poet, Elektrishun to the Stars Usenet Shot-Caller 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 | kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-17 05:28 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pv7tog$15el$5@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #718809 |
On 12/16/2018 3:27 PM, Checkmate wrote: > The climate is going to do what the climate's going to do, and we're > powerless to alter that Wrong, as we're already demonstrating (unfortunately). > drastic changes have occurred in the past... without our influence, and > far more drastic changes will occur in the future. Arguing that we should ignore anthropogenic global warming because of that is like arguing that the police shouldn't investigate a homicide because the victim would have eventually died of old age anyway. [rest of excuse-making and misanthropic rant deleted] -- "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 | Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-17 08:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.36816f3fa31932475c9@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #718967 |
In article <pv7tog$15el$5@gioia.aioe.org>, kkensington01 @gmail.nospam.invalid says... > >On 12/16/2018 3:27 PM, Checkmate wrote: >> The climate is going to do what the climate's going to do, and we're >> powerless to alter that > >Wrong, as we're already demonstrating (unfortunately). > >> drastic changes have occurred in the past... without our influence, and >> far more drastic changes will occur in the future. > >Arguing that we should ignore anthropogenic global warming because of >that is like arguing that the police shouldn't investigate a homicide >because the victim would have eventually died of old age anyway. > >[rest of excuse-making and misanthropic rant deleted] Do you think whining about it on usenet helps?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-16 08:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.36801e051dc753975a8@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #718717 |
In article <MPG.367fa9663ac8a6bf995b22@news.altopia.com>, oshay.shad@yahoo.corn says... > >Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts by >Checkmate! In article <pv4red$qih$9@dont-email.me>, nad318b404 >@gmail.invalid says... > > >LeBork >LeBorkTime to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt! >LeBorkOn Sat, 15 Dec 2018 10:10:15 -0800, Checkmate wrote: >LeBork >LeBork> [This followup was posted to alt.checkmate and a copy was sent to the >LeBork> cited author.] >LeBork> >LeBork> Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts by >LeBork> Checkmate! In article <pv2k8l$1tt2$1@gioia.aioe.org>, kkensington01 >LeBork> @gmail.nospam.invalid says... >LeBork> >LeBork> >LeBork>>>bork borkAustralian researchers recently bred Port Jackson sharks in a >LeBork>>>tank borkwarmed to a temperature likely to occur at the end of the >LeBork>>>century if borkclimate change continues: >LeBork>>>bork >LeBork>>>borkhttps://www.livescience.com/64261-global-warming-makes-sharks-right- >LeBorkhanded.html >LeBork> >LeBork> I wonder how much this ridiculous "scientific study" cost the Australian >LeBork> taxpayers? I'm not surprised that some of the sharks died. Sharks tend >LeBork> to not survive well in aquarium tanks. Whether sharks show a preference >LeBork> for swimming to the left or right... who gives a fuck? Perhaps the >LeBork> first shark decided to go right, and the others just followed him. >LeBork> >LeBork> I also liked this little gem: "Sharks born in hotter waters may be >LeBork> forced to develop more quickly and may be left with physically smaller >LeBork> brains than sharks who develop under today's conditions, the team >LeBork> wrote." >LeBork> Will they be drafting a research grant proposal to try to answer this >LeBork> burning question as well? Do "right-handed" sharks have smaller brains? >LeBork> Is being right-handed a sign of smaller braininess? Are you going to >LeBork> stay up nights worrying about small-brained, right-handed sharks now? >LeBork> Are you right-handed? >LeBork >LeBorkThe point kensi is making is: warming the planet is going to have all >LeBorkkinds of consequences one might not expect. Consider this: if shark >LeBorkbehavior is affected at all, what if they also become more aggressive >LeBorktoward humans? On the other hand, perhaps they go extinct, removing a >LeBorkkeystone predator from marine ecosystems, with the kind of knock-on >LeBorkconsequences that happened when wolves were removed from Yellowstone for >LeBorkdecades before eventually being reintroduced? >LeBork >LeBorkAnd if there's weird stuff like this that we only will be able to >LeBorkanticipate because of an unlikely experiment that was done, how much else >LeBorkwill take us completely by surprise? And how will these surprises >LeBork*interact* with one another? >LeBork >LeBorkWe see all these things doing something unusual. This thingy teetering >LeBorkhere, that thing out of position over there, and so forth. And you have to >LeBorkask yourself: is it more likely that we're in a slapstick comedy or a >LeBorkFinal Destination movie plot? >LeBork >LeBorkI suggest you study a few real-world disaster reels. A lot of tragedies >LeBorkstarted off with seemingly minor or innocuous warning sings, even humorous >LeBorkones, before it suddenly stopped being funny at all. The Tacoma Narrows >LeBorkcollapse, for one. Or: >LeBork >LeBorkhttps://youtu.be/1MFzcl-kZHo >LeBork >LeBorkhttps://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/2005/01/news-animals-tsunami- >LeBorksense-coming/ >LeBork >LeBorkhttp://www.rmmagazine.com/2011/05/01/early-warning-signs-of-disasters/ >LeBork >LeBorkhttps://leapfrogservices.com/smartphone-acting-weird-6-signs-you-may-be- >LeBorkhacked/ >LeBork >LeBorkhttps://www.deviantart.com/koshplappit/art/The-Beautiful-Warning-Signs-of- >LeBorkDisaster-324218488 >LeBork >LeBorkhttps://www.history.com/news/6-bizarre-natural-disasters >LeBork >LeBorkFrom animals behaving oddly right before a major quake, to odd and >LeBorkbeautiful signs in the sky before a severe storm, to the weirdness in the >LeBorkelection season that culminated in the disastrous Trump presidency, to >LeBorkgorgeous sunsets in 1815 that presaged a lethally bitter winter, to a >LeBorkbridge wobbling and flexing strangely shortly before it fell to pieces, >LeBorkdisasters have often been presaged by weird signs and symptoms that often >LeBorkdidn't seem ominous at the time, and can range from amusing to just plain >LeBorkodd. >LeBork >LeBorkWe should heed the message of the sharks: further global warming WILL have >LeBorkunexpected consequences, and some of these WILL be unpleasant. > >Except that 99.87% of what you just dragged into the conversation >deserves non sequitur status when you try to connect it with a squad of >ko0ks coming to some highly speculative and probably erroneous >conclusions as to whether there really IS such a thing as "right-handed >sharks," or whether (if there is) it has anything to do with global >warming, or is of any consequence regardless. This is what's commonly >referred to as "junk science". You simply can't draw any viable >conclusions from such sloppy "science," if the word science even belongs >anywhere in this conversation. Sharks don't have hands.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | % <%> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-16 08:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <br2h0i.6re.17.1@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #718744 |
On 2018-12-16 8:32 a.m., Skeeter wrote: > In article <MPG.367fa9663ac8a6bf995b22@news.altopia.com>, > oshay.shad@yahoo.corn says... >> >> Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts by >> Checkmate! In article <pv4red$qih$9@dont-email.me>, nad318b404 >> @gmail.invalid says... >> >> >> LeBork >> LeBorkTime to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt! >> LeBorkOn Sat, 15 Dec 2018 10:10:15 -0800, Checkmate wrote: >> LeBork >> LeBork> [This followup was posted to alt.checkmate and a copy was sent to the >> LeBork> cited author.] >> LeBork> >> LeBork> Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts by >> LeBork> Checkmate! In article <pv2k8l$1tt2$1@gioia.aioe.org>, kkensington01 >> LeBork> @gmail.nospam.invalid says... >> LeBork> >> LeBork> >> LeBork>>>bork borkAustralian researchers recently bred Port Jackson sharks in a >> LeBork>>>tank borkwarmed to a temperature likely to occur at the end of the >> LeBork>>>century if borkclimate change continues: >> LeBork>>>bork >> LeBork>>>borkhttps://www.livescience.com/64261-global-warming-makes-sharks-right- >> LeBorkhanded.html >> LeBork> >> LeBork> I wonder how much this ridiculous "scientific study" cost the Australian >> LeBork> taxpayers? I'm not surprised that some of the sharks died. Sharks tend >> LeBork> to not survive well in aquarium tanks. Whether sharks show a preference >> LeBork> for swimming to the left or right... who gives a fuck? Perhaps the >> LeBork> first shark decided to go right, and the others just followed him. >> LeBork> >> LeBork> I also liked this little gem: "Sharks born in hotter waters may be >> LeBork> forced to develop more quickly and may be left with physically smaller >> LeBork> brains than sharks who develop under today's conditions, the team >> LeBork> wrote." >> LeBork> Will they be drafting a research grant proposal to try to answer this >> LeBork> burning question as well? Do "right-handed" sharks have smaller brains? >> LeBork> Is being right-handed a sign of smaller braininess? Are you going to >> LeBork> stay up nights worrying about small-brained, right-handed sharks now? >> LeBork> Are you right-handed? >> LeBork >> LeBorkThe point kensi is making is: warming the planet is going to have all >> LeBorkkinds of consequences one might not expect. Consider this: if shark >> LeBorkbehavior is affected at all, what if they also become more aggressive >> LeBorktoward humans? On the other hand, perhaps they go extinct, removing a >> LeBorkkeystone predator from marine ecosystems, with the kind of knock-on >> LeBorkconsequences that happened when wolves were removed from Yellowstone for >> LeBorkdecades before eventually being reintroduced? >> LeBork >> LeBorkAnd if there's weird stuff like this that we only will be able to >> LeBorkanticipate because of an unlikely experiment that was done, how much else >> LeBorkwill take us completely by surprise? And how will these surprises >> LeBork*interact* with one another? >> LeBork >> LeBorkWe see all these things doing something unusual. This thingy teetering >> LeBorkhere, that thing out of position over there, and so forth. And you have to >> LeBorkask yourself: is it more likely that we're in a slapstick comedy or a >> LeBorkFinal Destination movie plot? >> LeBork >> LeBorkI suggest you study a few real-world disaster reels. A lot of tragedies >> LeBorkstarted off with seemingly minor or innocuous warning sings, even humorous >> LeBorkones, before it suddenly stopped being funny at all. The Tacoma Narrows >> LeBorkcollapse, for one. Or: >> LeBork >> LeBorkhttps://youtu.be/1MFzcl-kZHo >> LeBork >> LeBorkhttps://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/2005/01/news-animals-tsunami- >> LeBorksense-coming/ >> LeBork >> LeBorkhttp://www.rmmagazine.com/2011/05/01/early-warning-signs-of-disasters/ >> LeBork >> LeBorkhttps://leapfrogservices.com/smartphone-acting-weird-6-signs-you-may-be- >> LeBorkhacked/ >> LeBork >> LeBorkhttps://www.deviantart.com/koshplappit/art/The-Beautiful-Warning-Signs-of- >> LeBorkDisaster-324218488 >> LeBork >> LeBorkhttps://www.history.com/news/6-bizarre-natural-disasters >> LeBork >> LeBorkFrom animals behaving oddly right before a major quake, to odd and >> LeBorkbeautiful signs in the sky before a severe storm, to the weirdness in the >> LeBorkelection season that culminated in the disastrous Trump presidency, to >> LeBorkgorgeous sunsets in 1815 that presaged a lethally bitter winter, to a >> LeBorkbridge wobbling and flexing strangely shortly before it fell to pieces, >> LeBorkdisasters have often been presaged by weird signs and symptoms that often >> LeBorkdidn't seem ominous at the time, and can range from amusing to just plain >> LeBorkodd. >> LeBork >> LeBorkWe should heed the message of the sharks: further global warming WILL have >> LeBorkunexpected consequences, and some of these WILL be unpleasant. >> >> Except that 99.87% of what you just dragged into the conversation >> deserves non sequitur status when you try to connect it with a squad of >> ko0ks coming to some highly speculative and probably erroneous >> conclusions as to whether there really IS such a thing as "right-handed >> sharks," or whether (if there is) it has anything to do with global >> warming, or is of any consequence regardless. This is what's commonly >> referred to as "junk science". You simply can't draw any viable >> conclusions from such sloppy "science," if the word science even belongs >> anywhere in this conversation. > > Sharks don't have hands. > stop quoting the text it makes the posts too long , troll
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web