Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #685159 > unrolled thread
| Started by | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-05-12 21:23 -0400 |
| Last post | 2018-05-15 18:09 -0400 |
| Articles | 16 on this page of 176 — 11 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-12 21:23 -0400
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-12 21:59 -0500
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-05-13 06:56 +0200
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-13 15:18 +1000
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-13 00:53 -0500
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-14 04:20 +1000
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-05-13 14:28 -0400
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-13 16:05 -0500
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-14 21:09 -0400
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-15 15:48 +1000
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-15 08:57 -0500
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-16 07:56 +1000
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-15 23:10 -0400
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-16 08:49 -0500
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-05-16 13:31 -0700
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2018-05-16 14:06 -0700
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-14 07:17 +1000
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-13 16:57 -0500
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-14 09:12 +1000
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-14 21:17 -0400
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-15 11:45 +1000
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-05-14 22:46 -0400
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-15 13:50 +1000
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-05-15 00:50 -0400
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-15 15:47 +1000
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-15 02:08 -0400
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-15 16:27 +1000
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-15 02:47 -0400
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-15 09:58 -0400
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-16 09:26 +1000
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-15 21:58 -0400
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-16 13:21 -0400
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-17 02:50 -0400
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-18 07:03 +1000
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-17 17:03 -0500
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-17 18:28 -0400
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-18 08:50 +1000
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-17 18:45 -0500
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-18 10:52 +1000
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-17 21:23 -0400
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-21 07:39 +1000
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-21 19:28 -0400
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-22 13:41 +1000
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-22 00:02 -0400
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-22 14:36 +1000
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-22 02:15 -0400
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-18 08:48 +1000
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-17 18:04 -0400
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-18 08:31 +1000
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-18 08:43 +1000
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-17 19:18 -0400
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-17 06:46 +1000
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-17 02:59 -0400
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-18 07:23 +1000
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-17 17:08 -0500
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-18 08:33 +1000
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-17 20:13 -0400
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-18 11:02 +1000
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-17 21:17 -0400
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-18 11:49 +1000
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-17 22:27 -0400
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-21 07:41 +1000
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-21 19:30 -0400
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-22 13:44 +1000
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-22 00:07 -0400
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-22 14:39 +1000
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-22 02:15 -0400
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-17 20:09 -0400
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-18 10:55 +1000
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-17 21:13 -0400
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-18 11:51 +1000
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-17 20:06 -0400
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-18 10:55 +1000
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-17 21:11 -0400
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-18 11:52 +1000
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-17 22:25 -0400
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-15 18:05 -0400
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-16 08:47 +1000
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-15 20:29 -0400
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-15 22:45 -0400
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-17 07:13 +1000
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-16 17:26 -0400
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-17 08:10 +1000
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-17 07:20 -0500
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-17 20:23 -0400
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-18 11:03 +1000
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-17 21:22 -0400
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-21 07:43 +1000
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-17 07:11 +1000
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-16 20:55 -0400
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-17 14:27 +1000
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-17 07:26 -0500
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-17 20:16 -0400
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-18 11:04 +1000
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-17 21:19 -0400
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-18 11:53 +1000
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-17 22:28 -0400
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-17 03:04 -0400
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-18 07:28 +1000
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-17 17:10 -0500
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-18 08:35 +1000
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-17 20:20 -0400
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-18 11:05 +1000
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-17 21:21 -0400
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-18 11:56 +1000
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-17 22:28 -0400
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-17 20:19 -0400
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-17 07:22 -0500
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-17 20:15 -0400
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-15 01:40 -0400
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-15 15:51 +1000
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-15 02:06 -0400
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-15 16:37 +1000
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-15 10:55 -0500
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-16 08:59 +1000
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-15 20:29 -0400
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-17 07:15 +1000
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-16 17:31 -0400
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-16 08:54 -0500
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-17 07:21 +1000
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-17 02:21 -0400
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-17 07:30 -0500
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-15 01:39 -0400
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-15 15:54 +1000
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-15 02:03 -0400
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-15 09:04 -0500
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-16 09:30 +1000
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-15 19:18 -0600
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-15 22:01 -0400
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-17 07:34 +1000
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-17 07:31 -0500
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-16 09:00 +1000
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-15 20:30 -0400
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-05-12 22:27 -0700
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-13 00:55 -0500
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-13 12:22 -0400
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-14 21:08 -0400
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-15 15:48 +1000
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-15 02:02 -0400
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-15 16:45 +1000
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-15 09:06 -0500
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-16 08:01 +1000
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-15 20:16 -0500
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-17 07:36 +1000
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-14 21:06 -0400
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-15 15:48 +1000
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-05-15 08:40 -0400
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-16 09:05 +1000
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-15 20:31 -0400
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-05-15 22:07 -0400
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-16 04:06 -0600
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-17 07:48 +1000
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-05-17 00:57 -0400
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-17 16:06 +1000
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-17 07:33 -0500
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-17 20:26 -0400
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-18 11:18 +1000
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-05-16 08:00 -0400
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-17 07:39 +1000
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-05-17 00:54 -0400
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-17 15:43 +1000
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-17 07:36 -0500
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-17 18:06 -0400
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-05-17 19:01 -0400
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-18 09:04 +1000
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-05-17 19:29 -0400
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-18 09:30 +1000
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-18 09:32 +1000
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-05-17 19:39 -0400
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-18 09:42 +1000
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-05-17 19:53 -0400
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-18 11:09 +1000
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-17 19:55 -0400
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-17 02:10 -0400
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-15 10:24 -0400
Re: Climate Change causing eruptions in Hawaii "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-15 18:09 -0400
Page 9 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9]
| From | Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-17 15:43 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <fm4j53FfmdnU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #685901 |
On 17/05/2018 2:54 PM, Wally W. wrote: > On Thu, 17 May 2018 07:39:30 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: > >> On 16/05/2018 10:00 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>> On Wed, 16 May 2018 09:05:57 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>> >>>> On 15/05/2018 10:40 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>> >>>>> You are trying to make points with a tautology. >>>> >>>> **No. >>> >>> Yes, you are. >> >> **OK. We disagree. > > It's worse than that. > > One possibility is you lied above when you said, "No." > > Another possibility is you are displaying ignorance now. > > Another possibility is you are doubling down on your denial that you > were trying to make points with a tautology. > > Let's restore some context: > > :On Wed, 16 May 2018 09:05:57 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: > :>On 15/05/2018 10:40 PM, Wally W. wrote: > :>> On Tue, 15 May 2018 15:48:31 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: > :>>> Do you think it is a potential problem? > :>> > :>> Do you think there is *anything* that isn't a *potential* problem? > :> > :<snip weasel words> > :>> You are trying to make points with a tautology. > > Now let's try to educate you with a definition, if you weren't lying: > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(logic)> > In logic, a tautology ... is a formula or assertion that is true in > every possible interpretation. > > Let's return to your bait: "Do you think it is a potential problem?" > > If *everything* is a "potential" problem, then the answer to your > "question" has to be be "yes," regardless whether "it" is AGW or > winning a million dollars. > > So you were trying to lead into a non sequitur with a question for > which a "no" answer was not an option. **OK, I'm not going to argue semantics with you. Your knowledge is clearly far greater than mine. My purpose here is to discuss the ramifications of the present warming trend. > > The alarmist camp is full of smarmy weasels. **What is "the alarmist camp"? Who are the members of "the alarmist camp"? A dozen members' names will suffice. What are the aims of "the alarmist camp"? I have no idea what this "alarmist camp" you speak of is. > > >>>> I am dealing with a bunch of very stupid people. >>> >>> ... or not. >> >> **Oh, absolutely. Now, I perceive from your writing that you appear to >> be reasonably intelligent. > > Oooh ... I am flattered than someone as smart as Trevor thinks I am > "reasonably" intelligent. > >> However, writers like Sergio, benj and a few >> others lack education and are clearly unable to think critically. They >> make basic scientific and logical errors regularly. >> >> So, yes, I am dealing with a bunch of very stupid people. > > Are you in a hall of mirrors? **Are you attempting to suggest that I am stupid? Do you really want to go there? Really? -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-17 07:36 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pdjt0l$1jah$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #685907 |
On 5/17/2018 12:43 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote: > On 17/05/2018 2:54 PM, Wally W. wrote: >> On Thu, 17 May 2018 07:39:30 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: >> >>> On 16/05/2018 10:00 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>>> On Wed, 16 May 2018 09:05:57 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 15/05/2018 10:40 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>>> >>>>>> You are trying to make points with a tautology. >>>>> >>>>> **No. >>>> >>>> Yes, you are. >>> >>> **OK. We disagree. >> >> It's worse than that. >> >> One possibility is you lied above when you said, "No." >> >> Another possibility is you are displaying ignorance now. >> >> Another possibility is you are doubling down on your denial that you >> were trying to make points with a tautology. >> >> Let's restore some context: >> >> :On Wed, 16 May 2018 09:05:57 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: >> :>On 15/05/2018 10:40 PM, Wally W. wrote: >> :>> On Tue, 15 May 2018 15:48:31 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: >> :>>> Do you think it is a potential problem? >> :>> >> :>> Do you think there is *anything* that isn't a *potential* problem? >> :> >> :<snip weasel words> >> :>> You are trying to make points with a tautology. >> >> Now let's try to educate you with a definition, if you weren't lying: >> >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(logic)> >> In logic, a tautology ... is a formula or assertion that is true in >> every possible interpretation. >> >> Let's return to your bait: "Do you think it is a potential problem?" >> >> If *everything* is a "potential" problem, then the answer to your >> "question" has to be be "yes," regardless whether "it" is AGW or >> winning a million dollars. >> >> So you were trying to lead into a non sequitur with a question for >> which a "no" answer was not an option. > > **OK, I'm not going to argue semantics with you. Your knowledge is > clearly far greater than mine. My purpose here is to discuss the > ramifications of the present warming trend. > >> >> The alarmist camp is full of smarmy weasels. > > **What is "the alarmist camp"? > Who are the members of "the alarmist camp"? A dozen members' names will > suffice. > What are the aims of "the alarmist camp"? > > I have no idea what this "alarmist camp" you speak of is. google for it > >> >> >>>>> I am dealing with a bunch of very stupid people. >>>> >>>> ... or not. >>> >>> **Oh, absolutely. Now, I perceive from your writing that you appear to >>> be reasonably intelligent. >> >> Oooh ... I am flattered than someone as smart as Trevor thinks I am >> "reasonably" intelligent. >> >>> However, writers like Sergio, benj and a few >>> others lack education and are clearly unable to think critically. They >>> make basic scientific and logical errors regularly. >>> >>> So, yes, I am dealing with a bunch of very stupid people. >> >> Are you in a hall of mirrors? > > **Are you attempting to suggest that I am stupid? you stated you do not have a science degree, and it is obvious you cannot do ratios (math). Perhaps you are stupid at science and math only, and not just stupid at everything ? > > Do you really want to go there? to your stupid house ? > > Really? did you open the windows ?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-17 18:06 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <A1nLC.41814$p05.22001@fx28.iad> |
| In reply to | #685926 |
On 5/17/2018 8:36 AM, Sergio wrote: > On 5/17/2018 12:43 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >> On 17/05/2018 2:54 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>> On Thu, 17 May 2018 07:39:30 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>> >>>> On 16/05/2018 10:00 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>> On Wed, 16 May 2018 09:05:57 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 15/05/2018 10:40 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>> You are trying to make points with a tautology. >>>>>> >>>>>> **No. >>>>> >>>>> Yes, you are. >>>> >>>> **OK. We disagree. >>> >>> It's worse than that. >>> >>> One possibility is you lied above when you said, "No." >>> >>> Another possibility is you are displaying ignorance now. >>> >>> Another possibility is you are doubling down on your denial that you >>> were trying to make points with a tautology. >>> >>> Let's restore some context: >>> >>> :On Wed, 16 May 2018 09:05:57 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>> :>On 15/05/2018 10:40 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>> :>> On Tue, 15 May 2018 15:48:31 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>> :>>> Do you think it is a potential problem? >>> :>> >>> :>> Do you think there is *anything* that isn't a *potential* problem? >>> :> >>> :<snip weasel words> >>> :>> You are trying to make points with a tautology. >>> >>> Now let's try to educate you with a definition, if you weren't lying: >>> >>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(logic)> >>> In logic, a tautology ... is a formula or assertion that is true in >>> every possible interpretation. >>> >>> Let's return to your bait: "Do you think it is a potential problem?" >>> >>> If *everything* is a "potential" problem, then the answer to your >>> "question" has to be be "yes," regardless whether "it" is AGW or >>> winning a million dollars. >>> >>> So you were trying to lead into a non sequitur with a question for >>> which a "no" answer was not an option. >> >> **OK, I'm not going to argue semantics with you. Your knowledge is >> clearly far greater than mine. My purpose here is to discuss the >> ramifications of the present warming trend. >> >>> >>> The alarmist camp is full of smarmy weasels. >> >> **What is "the alarmist camp"? >> Who are the members of "the alarmist camp"? A dozen members' names will >> suffice. >> What are the aims of "the alarmist camp"? >> >> I have no idea what this "alarmist camp" you speak of is. > > google for it > >> >>> >>> >>>>>> I am dealing with a bunch of very stupid people. >>>>> >>>>> ... or not. >>>> >>>> **Oh, absolutely. Now, I perceive from your writing that you appear to >>>> be reasonably intelligent. >>> >>> Oooh ... I am flattered than someone as smart as Trevor thinks I am >>> "reasonably" intelligent. >>> >>>> However, writers like Sergio, benj and a few >>>> others lack education and are clearly unable to think critically. They >>>> make basic scientific and logical errors regularly. >>>> >>>> So, yes, I am dealing with a bunch of very stupid people. >>> >>> Are you in a hall of mirrors? >> >> **Are you attempting to suggest that I am stupid? > > you stated you do not have a science degree, and it is obvious you > cannot do ratios (math). > > Perhaps you are stupid at science and math only, and not just stupid at > everything ? Excellent theory Sergio, but to date there is considerable evidence that your theory is just plain wrong. (He is from OZ you know)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-17 19:01 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <sv1sfdp1l2g1q9if7oejkfbuh9r3e8u7m9@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #685907 |
On Thu, 17 May 2018 15:43:39 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: >On 17/05/2018 2:54 PM, Wally W. wrote: >> On Thu, 17 May 2018 07:39:30 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: >> >>> On 16/05/2018 10:00 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>>> On Wed, 16 May 2018 09:05:57 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 15/05/2018 10:40 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>>> >>>>>> You are trying to make points with a tautology. >>>>> >>>>> **No. >>>> >>>> Yes, you are. >>> >>> **OK. We disagree. >> >> It's worse than that. >> >> One possibility is you lied above when you said, "No." >> >> Another possibility is you are displaying ignorance now. >> >> Another possibility is you are doubling down on your denial that you >> were trying to make points with a tautology. >> >> Let's restore some context: >> >> :On Wed, 16 May 2018 09:05:57 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: >> :>On 15/05/2018 10:40 PM, Wally W. wrote: >> :>> On Tue, 15 May 2018 15:48:31 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: >> :>>> Do you think it is a potential problem? >> :>> >> :>> Do you think there is *anything* that isn't a *potential* problem? >> :> >> :<snip weasel words> >> :>> You are trying to make points with a tautology. >> >> Now let's try to educate you with a definition, if you weren't lying: >> >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(logic)> >> In logic, a tautology ... is a formula or assertion that is true in >> every possible interpretation. >> >> Let's return to your bait: "Do you think it is a potential problem?" >> >> If *everything* is a "potential" problem, then the answer to your >> "question" has to be be "yes," regardless whether "it" is AGW or >> winning a million dollars. >> >> So you were trying to lead into a non sequitur with a question for >> which a "no" answer was not an option. > >**OK, I'm not going to argue semantics with you. It's worse than we thought. You want to discount a bit of skullduggery as semantics. Your question had only one reasonable answer. The answer had nothing to do with whether AGW is a problem that deserves the amount of attention you apparently want it to have. It was a foot in the door to mischief. Try this: Q: Do you think it is a potential problem for someone to win a million dollars? A: Yes. [No other answer is possible without guile.] Conclusion: It is for *this* reason we should ban the lottery. No one should be exposed to the potential problems of winning a million dollars.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-18 09:04 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <fm6g48Ft0abU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #686020 |
On 17/05/2018 2:54 PM, Wally W. wrote: > On Thu, 17 May 2018 07:39:30 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: > >> On 16/05/2018 10:00 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>> On Wed, 16 May 2018 09:05:57 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>> >>>> On 15/05/2018 10:40 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>> >>>>> You are trying to make points with a tautology. >>>> >>>> **No. >>> >>> Yes, you are. >> >> **OK. We disagree. > > It's worse than that. > > One possibility is you lied above when you said, "No." > > Another possibility is you are displaying ignorance now. > > Another possibility is you are doubling down on your denial that you > were trying to make points with a tautology. > > Let's restore some context: > > :On Wed, 16 May 2018 09:05:57 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: > :>On 15/05/2018 10:40 PM, Wally W. wrote: > :>> On Tue, 15 May 2018 15:48:31 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: > :>>> Do you think it is a potential problem? > :>> > :>> Do you think there is *anything* that isn't a *potential* problem? > :> > :<snip weasel words> > :>> You are trying to make points with a tautology. > > Now let's try to educate you with a definition, if you weren't lying: > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(logic)> > In logic, a tautology ... is a formula or assertion that is true in > every possible interpretation. > > Let's return to your bait: "Do you think it is a potential problem?" > > If *everything* is a "potential" problem, then the answer to your > "question" has to be be "yes," regardless whether "it" is AGW or > winning a million dollars. > > So you were trying to lead into a non sequitur with a question for > which a "no" answer was not an option. **OK, I'm not going to argue semantics with you. Your knowledge is clearly far greater than mine. My purpose here is to discuss the ramifications of the present warming trend. > > The alarmist camp is full of smarmy weasels. **What is "the alarmist camp"? Who are the members of "the alarmist camp"? A dozen members' names will suffice. What are the aims of "the alarmist camp"? I have no idea what this "alarmist camp" you speak of is. > > >>>> I am dealing with a bunch of very stupid people. >>> >>> ... or not. >> >> **Oh, absolutely. Now, I perceive from your writing that you appear to >> be reasonably intelligent. > > Oooh ... I am flattered than someone as smart as Trevor thinks I am > "reasonably" intelligent. > >> However, writers like Sergio, benj and a few >> others lack education and are clearly unable to think critically. They >> make basic scientific and logical errors regularly. >> >> So, yes, I am dealing with a bunch of very stupid people. > > Are you in a hall of mirrors? **Are you attempting to suggest that I am stupid? Do you really want to go there? Really? -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-17 19:29 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <2v3sfd5tc6jml8oqh09qkgqampf7m3fkdt@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #686022 |
On Fri, 18 May 2018 09:04:17 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: >On 17/05/2018 2:54 PM, Wally W. wrote: > > On Thu, 17 May 2018 07:39:30 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: > > > >> On 16/05/2018 10:00 PM, Wally W. wrote: > >>> On Wed, 16 May 2018 09:05:57 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: > >>> > >>>> On 15/05/2018 10:40 PM, Wally W. wrote: > >>> > >>>>> You are trying to make points with a tautology. > >>>> > >>>> **No. > >>> > >>> Yes, you are. > >> > >> **OK. We disagree. > > > > It's worse than that. > > > > One possibility is you lied above when you said, "No." > > > > Another possibility is you are displaying ignorance now. > > > > Another possibility is you are doubling down on your denial that you > > were trying to make points with a tautology. > > > > Let's restore some context: > > > > :On Wed, 16 May 2018 09:05:57 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: > > :>On 15/05/2018 10:40 PM, Wally W. wrote: > > :>> On Tue, 15 May 2018 15:48:31 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: > > :>>> Do you think it is a potential problem? > > :>> > > :>> Do you think there is *anything* that isn't a *potential* problem? > > :> > > :<snip weasel words> > > :>> You are trying to make points with a tautology. > > > > Now let's try to educate you with a definition, if you weren't lying: > > > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(logic)> > > In logic, a tautology ... is a formula or assertion that is true in > > every possible interpretation. > > > > Let's return to your bait: "Do you think it is a potential problem?" > > > > If *everything* is a "potential" problem, then the answer to your > > "question" has to be be "yes," regardless whether "it" is AGW or > > winning a million dollars. > > > > So you were trying to lead into a non sequitur with a question for > > which a "no" answer was not an option. > >**OK, I'm not going to argue semantics with you. Your knowledge is >clearly far greater than mine. My purpose here is to discuss the >ramifications of the present warming trend. > > > > > The alarmist camp is full of smarmy weasels. > >**What is "the alarmist camp"? >Who are the members of "the alarmist camp"? A dozen members' names will >suffice. >What are the aims of "the alarmist camp"? > >I have no idea what this "alarmist camp" you speak of is. > > > > > > >>>> I am dealing with a bunch of very stupid people. > >>> > >>> ... or not. > >> > >> **Oh, absolutely. Now, I perceive from your writing that you appear to > >> be reasonably intelligent. > > > > Oooh ... I am flattered than someone as smart as Trevor thinks I am > > "reasonably" intelligent. > > > >> However, writers like Sergio, benj and a few > >> others lack education and are clearly unable to think critically. They > >> make basic scientific and logical errors regularly. > >> > >> So, yes, I am dealing with a bunch of very stupid people. > > > > Are you in a hall of mirrors? > >**Are you attempting to suggest that I am stupid? > >Do you really want to go there? > >Really? Someone is a fan of saying "rerun." You completely ignored the post you made it look like you were replying to and substituted text from a prior post. Whether you are stupid or not: are you a weasel?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-18 09:30 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <fm6hm6Ftb2mU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #686029 |
On 17/05/2018 2:54 PM, Wally W. wrote: > On Thu, 17 May 2018 07:39:30 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: > >> On 16/05/2018 10:00 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>> On Wed, 16 May 2018 09:05:57 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>> >>>> On 15/05/2018 10:40 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>> >>>>> You are trying to make points with a tautology. >>>> >>>> **No. >>> >>> Yes, you are. >> >> **OK. We disagree. > > It's worse than that. > > One possibility is you lied above when you said, "No." > > Another possibility is you are displaying ignorance now. > > Another possibility is you are doubling down on your denial that you > were trying to make points with a tautology. > > Let's restore some context: > > :On Wed, 16 May 2018 09:05:57 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: > :>On 15/05/2018 10:40 PM, Wally W. wrote: > :>> On Tue, 15 May 2018 15:48:31 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: > :>>> Do you think it is a potential problem? > :>> > :>> Do you think there is *anything* that isn't a *potential* problem? > :> > :<snip weasel words> > :>> You are trying to make points with a tautology. > > Now let's try to educate you with a definition, if you weren't lying: > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(logic)> > In logic, a tautology ... is a formula or assertion that is true in > every possible interpretation. > > Let's return to your bait: "Do you think it is a potential problem?" > > If *everything* is a "potential" problem, then the answer to your > "question" has to be be "yes," regardless whether "it" is AGW or > winning a million dollars. > > So you were trying to lead into a non sequitur with a question for > which a "no" answer was not an option. **OK, I'm not going to argue semantics with you. Your knowledge is clearly far greater than mine. My purpose here is to discuss the ramifications of the present warming trend. > > The alarmist camp is full of smarmy weasels. **What is "the alarmist camp"? Who are the members of "the alarmist camp"? A dozen members' names will suffice. What are the aims of "the alarmist camp"? I have no idea what this "alarmist camp" you speak of is. > > >>>> I am dealing with a bunch of very stupid people. >>> >>> ... or not. >> >> **Oh, absolutely. Now, I perceive from your writing that you appear to >> be reasonably intelligent. > > Oooh ... I am flattered than someone as smart as Trevor thinks I am > "reasonably" intelligent. > >> However, writers like Sergio, benj and a few >> others lack education and are clearly unable to think critically. They >> make basic scientific and logical errors regularly. >> >> So, yes, I am dealing with a bunch of very stupid people. > > Are you in a hall of mirrors? **Are you attempting to suggest that I am stupid? Do you really want to go there? Really? -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-18 09:32 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <fm6hovFtb2mU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #686029 |
On 18/05/2018 9:29 AM, Wally W. wrote: > On Fri, 18 May 2018 09:04:17 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: > >> On 17/05/2018 2:54 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>> On Thu, 17 May 2018 07:39:30 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>> >>>> On 16/05/2018 10:00 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>> On Wed, 16 May 2018 09:05:57 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 15/05/2018 10:40 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>> You are trying to make points with a tautology. >>>>>> >>>>>> **No. >>>>> >>>>> Yes, you are. >>>> >>>> **OK. We disagree. >>> >>> It's worse than that. >>> >>> One possibility is you lied above when you said, "No." >>> >>> Another possibility is you are displaying ignorance now. >>> >>> Another possibility is you are doubling down on your denial that you >>> were trying to make points with a tautology. >>> >>> Let's restore some context: >>> >>> :On Wed, 16 May 2018 09:05:57 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>> :>On 15/05/2018 10:40 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>> :>> On Tue, 15 May 2018 15:48:31 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>> :>>> Do you think it is a potential problem? >>> :>> >>> :>> Do you think there is *anything* that isn't a *potential* problem? >>> :> >>> :<snip weasel words> >>> :>> You are trying to make points with a tautology. >>> >>> Now let's try to educate you with a definition, if you weren't lying: >>> >>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(logic)> >>> In logic, a tautology ... is a formula or assertion that is true in >>> every possible interpretation. >>> >>> Let's return to your bait: "Do you think it is a potential problem?" >>> >>> If *everything* is a "potential" problem, then the answer to your >>> "question" has to be be "yes," regardless whether "it" is AGW or >>> winning a million dollars. >>> >>> So you were trying to lead into a non sequitur with a question for >>> which a "no" answer was not an option. >> >> **OK, I'm not going to argue semantics with you. Your knowledge is >> clearly far greater than mine. My purpose here is to discuss the >> ramifications of the present warming trend. >> >>> >>> The alarmist camp is full of smarmy weasels. >> >> **What is "the alarmist camp"? >> Who are the members of "the alarmist camp"? A dozen members' names will >> suffice. >> What are the aims of "the alarmist camp"? >> >> I have no idea what this "alarmist camp" you speak of is. >> >>> >>> >>>>>> I am dealing with a bunch of very stupid people. >>>>> >>>>> ... or not. >>>> >>>> **Oh, absolutely. Now, I perceive from your writing that you appear to >>>> be reasonably intelligent. >>> >>> Oooh ... I am flattered than someone as smart as Trevor thinks I am >>> "reasonably" intelligent. >>> >>>> However, writers like Sergio, benj and a few >>>> others lack education and are clearly unable to think critically. They >>>> make basic scientific and logical errors regularly. >>>> >>>> So, yes, I am dealing with a bunch of very stupid people. >>> >>> Are you in a hall of mirrors? >> >> **Are you attempting to suggest that I am stupid? >> >> Do you really want to go there? >> >> Really? > > Someone is a fan of saying "rerun." > > You completely ignored the post you made it look like you were > replying to and substituted text from a prior post. > > Whether you are stupid or not: are you a weasel? > **Neither. You failed to respond to my questions. I will continue posting them until you respond. Failure to respond will be taken as an admission by you, that you have no clear understanding of the topic under discussion. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-17 19:39 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <di4sfdddorbpmsocodbd9gmppb0gp4q6b5@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #686031 |
On Fri, 18 May 2018 09:32:24 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: >On 18/05/2018 9:29 AM, Wally W. wrote: >> On Fri, 18 May 2018 09:04:17 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: >> >>> On 17/05/2018 2:54 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>>> On Thu, 17 May 2018 07:39:30 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 16/05/2018 10:00 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>>> On Wed, 16 May 2018 09:05:57 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 15/05/2018 10:40 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>> You are trying to make points with a tautology. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> **No. >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes, you are. >>>>> >>>>> **OK. We disagree. >>>> >>>> It's worse than that. >>>> >>>> One possibility is you lied above when you said, "No." >>>> >>>> Another possibility is you are displaying ignorance now. >>>> >>>> Another possibility is you are doubling down on your denial that you >>>> were trying to make points with a tautology. >>>> >>>> Let's restore some context: >>>> >>>> :On Wed, 16 May 2018 09:05:57 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>> :>On 15/05/2018 10:40 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>>> :>> On Tue, 15 May 2018 15:48:31 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>> :>>> Do you think it is a potential problem? >>>> :>> >>>> :>> Do you think there is *anything* that isn't a *potential* problem? >>>> :> >>>> :<snip weasel words> >>>> :>> You are trying to make points with a tautology. >>>> >>>> Now let's try to educate you with a definition, if you weren't lying: >>>> >>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(logic)> >>>> In logic, a tautology ... is a formula or assertion that is true in >>>> every possible interpretation. >>>> >>>> Let's return to your bait: "Do you think it is a potential problem?" >>>> >>>> If *everything* is a "potential" problem, then the answer to your >>>> "question" has to be be "yes," regardless whether "it" is AGW or >>>> winning a million dollars. >>>> >>>> So you were trying to lead into a non sequitur with a question for >>>> which a "no" answer was not an option. >>> >>> **OK, I'm not going to argue semantics with you. Your knowledge is >>> clearly far greater than mine. My purpose here is to discuss the >>> ramifications of the present warming trend. >>> >>>> >>>> The alarmist camp is full of smarmy weasels. >>> >>> **What is "the alarmist camp"? >>> Who are the members of "the alarmist camp"? A dozen members' names will >>> suffice. >>> What are the aims of "the alarmist camp"? >>> >>> I have no idea what this "alarmist camp" you speak of is. >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> I am dealing with a bunch of very stupid people. >>>>>> >>>>>> ... or not. >>>>> >>>>> **Oh, absolutely. Now, I perceive from your writing that you appear to >>>>> be reasonably intelligent. >>>> >>>> Oooh ... I am flattered than someone as smart as Trevor thinks I am >>>> "reasonably" intelligent. >>>> >>>>> However, writers like Sergio, benj and a few >>>>> others lack education and are clearly unable to think critically. They >>>>> make basic scientific and logical errors regularly. >>>>> >>>>> So, yes, I am dealing with a bunch of very stupid people. >>>> >>>> Are you in a hall of mirrors? >>> >>> **Are you attempting to suggest that I am stupid? >>> >>> Do you really want to go there? >>> >>> Really? >> >> Someone is a fan of saying "rerun." >> >> You completely ignored the post you made it look like you were >> replying to and substituted text from a prior post. >> >> Whether you are stupid or not: are you a weasel? >> > >**Neither. You failed to respond to my questions. I will continue >posting them until you respond. Failure to respond will be taken as an >admission by you, that you have no clear understanding of the topic >under discussion. IOW: You want to divert attention away from the bit of skullduggery that you want to cloak as semantics. Perhaps you have answered my last question.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-18 09:42 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <fm6ickFtdg6U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #686034 |
On 18/05/2018 9:39 AM, Wally W. wrote: > On Fri, 18 May 2018 09:32:24 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: > >> On 18/05/2018 9:29 AM, Wally W. wrote: >>> On Fri, 18 May 2018 09:04:17 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>> >>>> On 17/05/2018 2:54 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>> On Thu, 17 May 2018 07:39:30 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 16/05/2018 10:00 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>>>> On Wed, 16 May 2018 09:05:57 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 15/05/2018 10:40 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You are trying to make points with a tautology. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> **No. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes, you are. >>>>>> >>>>>> **OK. We disagree. >>>>> >>>>> It's worse than that. >>>>> >>>>> One possibility is you lied above when you said, "No." >>>>> >>>>> Another possibility is you are displaying ignorance now. >>>>> >>>>> Another possibility is you are doubling down on your denial that you >>>>> were trying to make points with a tautology. >>>>> >>>>> Let's restore some context: >>>>> >>>>> :On Wed, 16 May 2018 09:05:57 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>> :>On 15/05/2018 10:40 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>> :>> On Tue, 15 May 2018 15:48:31 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>> :>>> Do you think it is a potential problem? >>>>> :>> >>>>> :>> Do you think there is *anything* that isn't a *potential* problem? >>>>> :> >>>>> :<snip weasel words> >>>>> :>> You are trying to make points with a tautology. >>>>> >>>>> Now let's try to educate you with a definition, if you weren't lying: >>>>> >>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(logic)> >>>>> In logic, a tautology ... is a formula or assertion that is true in >>>>> every possible interpretation. >>>>> >>>>> Let's return to your bait: "Do you think it is a potential problem?" >>>>> >>>>> If *everything* is a "potential" problem, then the answer to your >>>>> "question" has to be be "yes," regardless whether "it" is AGW or >>>>> winning a million dollars. >>>>> >>>>> So you were trying to lead into a non sequitur with a question for >>>>> which a "no" answer was not an option. >>>> >>>> **OK, I'm not going to argue semantics with you. Your knowledge is >>>> clearly far greater than mine. My purpose here is to discuss the >>>> ramifications of the present warming trend. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> The alarmist camp is full of smarmy weasels. >>>> >>>> **What is "the alarmist camp"? >>>> Who are the members of "the alarmist camp"? A dozen members' names will >>>> suffice. >>>> What are the aims of "the alarmist camp"? >>>> >>>> I have no idea what this "alarmist camp" you speak of is. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>> I am dealing with a bunch of very stupid people. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ... or not. >>>>>> >>>>>> **Oh, absolutely. Now, I perceive from your writing that you appear to >>>>>> be reasonably intelligent. >>>>> >>>>> Oooh ... I am flattered than someone as smart as Trevor thinks I am >>>>> "reasonably" intelligent. >>>>> >>>>>> However, writers like Sergio, benj and a few >>>>>> others lack education and are clearly unable to think critically. They >>>>>> make basic scientific and logical errors regularly. >>>>>> >>>>>> So, yes, I am dealing with a bunch of very stupid people. >>>>> >>>>> Are you in a hall of mirrors? >>>> >>>> **Are you attempting to suggest that I am stupid? >>>> >>>> Do you really want to go there? >>>> >>>> Really? >>> >>> Someone is a fan of saying "rerun." >>> >>> You completely ignored the post you made it look like you were >>> replying to and substituted text from a prior post. >>> >>> Whether you are stupid or not: are you a weasel? >>> >> >> **Neither. You failed to respond to my questions. I will continue >> posting them until you respond. Failure to respond will be taken as an >> admission by you, that you have no clear understanding of the topic >> under discussion. > > IOW: You want to divert attention away from the bit of skullduggery > that you want to cloak as semantics. **No. I want you to answer the questions that you have carefully and consistently failed to answer. Why is that? Oops, there's another question you won't, or cannot answer. > > Perhaps you have answered my last question. **I am happy to respond to your questions, AFTER you answer mine. Bet you don't. You don't understand the science. That much is very clear. My suggestion to you is this: LISTEN to those who know the science. You may learn something. And that can only be a good thing for all concerned. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-17 19:53 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <u45sfdhfm5ne5lpdeckuqn5t3i4c1j94or@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #686037 |
On Fri, 18 May 2018 09:42:53 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: >On 18/05/2018 9:39 AM, Wally W. wrote: >> On Fri, 18 May 2018 09:32:24 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: >> >>> On 18/05/2018 9:29 AM, Wally W. wrote: >>>> On Fri, 18 May 2018 09:04:17 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 17/05/2018 2:54 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>>> On Thu, 17 May 2018 07:39:30 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 16/05/2018 10:00 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>>>>> On Wed, 16 May 2018 09:05:57 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 15/05/2018 10:40 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You are trying to make points with a tautology. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> **No. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Yes, you are. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> **OK. We disagree. >>>>>> >>>>>> It's worse than that. >>>>>> >>>>>> One possibility is you lied above when you said, "No." >>>>>> >>>>>> Another possibility is you are displaying ignorance now. >>>>>> >>>>>> Another possibility is you are doubling down on your denial that you >>>>>> were trying to make points with a tautology. >>>>>> >>>>>> Let's restore some context: >>>>>> >>>>>> :On Wed, 16 May 2018 09:05:57 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>> :>On 15/05/2018 10:40 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>>> :>> On Tue, 15 May 2018 15:48:31 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>> :>>> Do you think it is a potential problem? >>>>>> :>> >>>>>> :>> Do you think there is *anything* that isn't a *potential* problem? >>>>>> :> >>>>>> :<snip weasel words> >>>>>> :>> You are trying to make points with a tautology. >>>>>> >>>>>> Now let's try to educate you with a definition, if you weren't lying: >>>>>> >>>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(logic)> >>>>>> In logic, a tautology ... is a formula or assertion that is true in >>>>>> every possible interpretation. >>>>>> >>>>>> Let's return to your bait: "Do you think it is a potential problem?" >>>>>> >>>>>> If *everything* is a "potential" problem, then the answer to your >>>>>> "question" has to be be "yes," regardless whether "it" is AGW or >>>>>> winning a million dollars. >>>>>> >>>>>> So you were trying to lead into a non sequitur with a question for >>>>>> which a "no" answer was not an option. >>>>> >>>>> **OK, I'm not going to argue semantics with you. Your knowledge is >>>>> clearly far greater than mine. My purpose here is to discuss the >>>>> ramifications of the present warming trend. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The alarmist camp is full of smarmy weasels. >>>>> >>>>> **What is "the alarmist camp"? >>>>> Who are the members of "the alarmist camp"? A dozen members' names will >>>>> suffice. >>>>> What are the aims of "the alarmist camp"? >>>>> >>>>> I have no idea what this "alarmist camp" you speak of is. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I am dealing with a bunch of very stupid people. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ... or not. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> **Oh, absolutely. Now, I perceive from your writing that you appear to >>>>>>> be reasonably intelligent. >>>>>> >>>>>> Oooh ... I am flattered than someone as smart as Trevor thinks I am >>>>>> "reasonably" intelligent. >>>>>> >>>>>>> However, writers like Sergio, benj and a few >>>>>>> others lack education and are clearly unable to think critically. They >>>>>>> make basic scientific and logical errors regularly. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So, yes, I am dealing with a bunch of very stupid people. >>>>>> >>>>>> Are you in a hall of mirrors? >>>>> >>>>> **Are you attempting to suggest that I am stupid? >>>>> >>>>> Do you really want to go there? >>>>> >>>>> Really? >>>> >>>> Someone is a fan of saying "rerun." >>>> >>>> You completely ignored the post you made it look like you were >>>> replying to and substituted text from a prior post. >>>> >>>> Whether you are stupid or not: are you a weasel? >>>> >>> >>> **Neither. You failed to respond to my questions. I will continue >>> posting them until you respond. Failure to respond will be taken as an >>> admission by you, that you have no clear understanding of the topic >>> under discussion. >> >> IOW: You want to divert attention away from the bit of skullduggery >> that you want to cloak as semantics. > >**No. I want you to answer the questions that you have carefully and >consistently failed to answer. Why is that? > >Oops, there's another question you won't, or cannot answer. > >> >> Perhaps you have answered my last question. > >**I am happy to respond to your questions, AFTER you answer mine. > >Bet you don't. Wanna bet? The acceptable amount is at least three times the payouts (plus lawyer fees) from the libel suits you want me to provoke. >You don't understand the science. ***The*** science? >That much is very >clear. My suggestion to you is this: LISTEN to those who know the >science. You may learn something. And that can only be a good thing for >all concerned. Is that how you came to learn ***the*** science? It's amazing how frequently the ignorance of those who know ***the*** science is displayed when they proclaim, "It's worse than we thought." Might someone with a bit of scientific literacy have a problem with a self-serving, skewed portion of current knowledge being called ***the*** science?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-18 11:09 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <fm6nfuFue8eU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #686039 |
On 18/05/2018 9:53 AM, Wally W. wrote: > On Fri, 18 May 2018 09:42:53 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: > >> On 18/05/2018 9:39 AM, Wally W. wrote: >>> On Fri, 18 May 2018 09:32:24 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>> >>>> On 18/05/2018 9:29 AM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>> On Fri, 18 May 2018 09:04:17 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 17/05/2018 2:54 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>>>> On Thu, 17 May 2018 07:39:30 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 16/05/2018 10:00 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Wed, 16 May 2018 09:05:57 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 15/05/2018 10:40 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> You are trying to make points with a tautology. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> **No. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Yes, you are. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> **OK. We disagree. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It's worse than that. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> One possibility is you lied above when you said, "No." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Another possibility is you are displaying ignorance now. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Another possibility is you are doubling down on your denial that you >>>>>>> were trying to make points with a tautology. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Let's restore some context: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> :On Wed, 16 May 2018 09:05:57 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>>> :>On 15/05/2018 10:40 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>>>> :>> On Tue, 15 May 2018 15:48:31 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>>> :>>> Do you think it is a potential problem? >>>>>>> :>> >>>>>>> :>> Do you think there is *anything* that isn't a *potential* problem? >>>>>>> :> >>>>>>> :<snip weasel words> >>>>>>> :>> You are trying to make points with a tautology. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Now let's try to educate you with a definition, if you weren't lying: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(logic)> >>>>>>> In logic, a tautology ... is a formula or assertion that is true in >>>>>>> every possible interpretation. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Let's return to your bait: "Do you think it is a potential problem?" >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If *everything* is a "potential" problem, then the answer to your >>>>>>> "question" has to be be "yes," regardless whether "it" is AGW or >>>>>>> winning a million dollars. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So you were trying to lead into a non sequitur with a question for >>>>>>> which a "no" answer was not an option. >>>>>> >>>>>> **OK, I'm not going to argue semantics with you. Your knowledge is >>>>>> clearly far greater than mine. My purpose here is to discuss the >>>>>> ramifications of the present warming trend. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The alarmist camp is full of smarmy weasels. >>>>>> >>>>>> **What is "the alarmist camp"? >>>>>> Who are the members of "the alarmist camp"? A dozen members' names will >>>>>> suffice. >>>>>> What are the aims of "the alarmist camp"? >>>>>> >>>>>> I have no idea what this "alarmist camp" you speak of is. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I am dealing with a bunch of very stupid people. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ... or not. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> **Oh, absolutely. Now, I perceive from your writing that you appear to >>>>>>>> be reasonably intelligent. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Oooh ... I am flattered than someone as smart as Trevor thinks I am >>>>>>> "reasonably" intelligent. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> However, writers like Sergio, benj and a few >>>>>>>> others lack education and are clearly unable to think critically. They >>>>>>>> make basic scientific and logical errors regularly. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So, yes, I am dealing with a bunch of very stupid people. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Are you in a hall of mirrors? >>>>>> >>>>>> **Are you attempting to suggest that I am stupid? >>>>>> >>>>>> Do you really want to go there? >>>>>> >>>>>> Really? >>>>> >>>>> Someone is a fan of saying "rerun." >>>>> >>>>> You completely ignored the post you made it look like you were >>>>> replying to and substituted text from a prior post. >>>>> >>>>> Whether you are stupid or not: are you a weasel? >>>>> >>>> >>>> **Neither. You failed to respond to my questions. I will continue >>>> posting them until you respond. Failure to respond will be taken as an >>>> admission by you, that you have no clear understanding of the topic >>>> under discussion. >>> >>> IOW: You want to divert attention away from the bit of skullduggery >>> that you want to cloak as semantics. >> >> **No. I want you to answer the questions that you have carefully and >> consistently failed to answer. Why is that? >> >> Oops, there's another question you won't, or cannot answer. >> >>> >>> Perhaps you have answered my last question. >> >> **I am happy to respond to your questions, AFTER you answer mine. >> >> Bet you don't. > > Wanna bet? > > The acceptable amount is at least three times the payouts (plus lawyer > fees) from the libel suits you want me to provoke. > >> You don't understand the science. > > ***The*** science? **Yes. The science pertaining to the issue of anthropogenic global warming. > >> That much is very >> clear. My suggestion to you is this: LISTEN to those who know the >> science. You may learn something. And that can only be a good thing for >> all concerned. > > > Is that how you came to learn ***the*** science? **Mostly I read what I needed to learn. > > It's amazing how frequently the ignorance of those who know ***the*** > science is displayed when they proclaim, "It's worse than we thought." **Cite. > > Might someone with a bit of scientific literacy have a problem with a > self-serving, skewed portion of current knowledge being called > ***the*** science? **No. And here, again, are the questions you refuse to answer: What is "the alarmist camp"? Who are the members of "the alarmist camp"? A dozen members' names will suffice. What are the aims of "the alarmist camp"? I have no idea what this "alarmist camp" you speak of is. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-17 19:55 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pdl6f8$j4d$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #685907 |
"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message news:fm4j53FfmdnU1@mid.individual.net... > On 17/05/2018 2:54 PM, Wally W. wrote: >> On Thu, 17 May 2018 07:39:30 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: >> >>> On 16/05/2018 10:00 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>>> On Wed, 16 May 2018 09:05:57 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 15/05/2018 10:40 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>>> >>>>>> You are trying to make points with a tautology. >>>>> >>>>> **No. >>>> >>>> Yes, you are. >>> >>> **OK. We disagree. >> >> It's worse than that. >> >> One possibility is you lied above when you said, "No." >> >> Another possibility is you are displaying ignorance now. >> >> Another possibility is you are doubling down on your denial that you >> were trying to make points with a tautology. >> >> Let's restore some context: >> >> :On Wed, 16 May 2018 09:05:57 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: >> :>On 15/05/2018 10:40 PM, Wally W. wrote: >> :>> On Tue, 15 May 2018 15:48:31 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: >> :>>> Do you think it is a potential problem? >> :>> >> :>> Do you think there is *anything* that isn't a *potential* problem? >> :> >> :<snip weasel words> >> :>> You are trying to make points with a tautology. >> >> Now let's try to educate you with a definition, if you weren't lying: >> >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(logic)> >> In logic, a tautology ... is a formula or assertion that is true in >> every possible interpretation. >> >> Let's return to your bait: "Do you think it is a potential problem?" >> >> If *everything* is a "potential" problem, then the answer to your >> "question" has to be be "yes," regardless whether "it" is AGW or >> winning a million dollars. >> >> So you were trying to lead into a non sequitur with a question for >> which a "no" answer was not an option. > > **OK, I'm not going to argue semantics with you. Your knowledge is clearly > far greater than mine. My purpose here is to discuss the ramifications of > the present warming trend. Which you know next to nothing about, other than what you've been fed by the tabloids.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-17 02:10 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pdj83l$2ap$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #685846 |
"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message news:fm3mp9Fa532U1@mid.individual.net... > On 16/05/2018 10:00 PM, Wally W. wrote: >> On Wed, 16 May 2018 09:05:57 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: >> >>> On 15/05/2018 10:40 PM, Wally W. wrote: >> >>>> You are trying to make points with a tautology. >>> >>> **No. >> >> Yes, you are. > > **OK. We disagree. > >> >>> I am dealing with a bunch of very stupid people. >> >> ... or not. > > **Oh, absolutely. Now, I perceive from your writing that you appear to be > reasonably intelligent. However, writers like Sergio, benj and a few > others lack education and are clearly unable to think critically. They > make basic scientific and logical errors regularly. > > So, yes, I am dealing with a bunch of very stupid people. The stupidest of which is the person in your own mirror.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-15 10:24 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <q4CKC.101254$nq5.52589@fx36.iad> |
| In reply to | #685487 |
On 5/14/2018 9:06 PM, Scout wrote: > > > "benj" <benj@nobody.net> wrote in message > news:zsMJC.79358$oR2.18165@fx25.iad... >> With Hawaii half underwater from rising sea levels, a new threat has >> now emerged with Global Warming creating volcanic eruptions that are >> engulfing the Big Island and have residents running for their lives! >> Whole neighborhoods have been eaten alive but still nobody takes >> climate change seriously! >> >> http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/category/326542/climate-change-in-hawaii > > Oh, come on...that's just the Earth insuring the Hawaii stays above the > rising water levels. > Well yes, we can all dig the intent of Gaia! But as it turns out destruction is good, because: 1. It can be blamed on climate change. 2. It allows reporters on TV to interview blubbering home owners about the destruction and demand that people who did not build their homes on the side of an active volcano pay those who did for the inevitable outcome. Excellent theory, by the way, linking lava flow to climate change! I love climate science!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-15 18:09 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pdfs6f$on8$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #685579 |
"benj" <benj@nobody.net> wrote in message news:q4CKC.101254$nq5.52589@fx36.iad... > On 5/14/2018 9:06 PM, Scout wrote: >> >> >> "benj" <benj@nobody.net> wrote in message >> news:zsMJC.79358$oR2.18165@fx25.iad... >>> With Hawaii half underwater from rising sea levels, a new threat has now >>> emerged with Global Warming creating volcanic eruptions that are >>> engulfing the Big Island and have residents running for their lives! >>> Whole neighborhoods have been eaten alive but still nobody takes climate >>> change seriously! >>> >>> http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/category/326542/climate-change-in-hawaii >> >> Oh, come on...that's just the Earth insuring the Hawaii stays above the >> rising water levels. >> > > Well yes, we can all dig the intent of Gaia! > > But as it turns out destruction is good, because: > > 1. It can be blamed on climate change. > > 2. It allows reporters on TV to interview blubbering home owners about the > destruction and demand that people who did not build their homes on the > side of an active volcano pay those who did for the inevitable outcome. > > Excellent theory, by the way, linking lava flow to climate change! Thank you, and I could even advance a theory as to the actual process. As the water level increases it puts more pressure on the crust, building pressure within the inner core which is then going to leak out of any holes in the crust. Give me a few million in grant money, and within a couple of years I will produce a long wordy paper denoting this process and it's mechanics. > I love climate science! Not sure how much 'science' there is in most of the current 'climate science', but it's certainly nice they are inventing all kinds of theories.
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 9 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9]
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web