Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #722281 > unrolled thread
| Started by | kensi <kkensinqton01@gmail.nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2019-01-05 17:22 -0500 |
| Last post | 2019-01-08 10:00 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 150 — 20 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC kensi <kkensinqton01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2019-01-05 17:22 -0500
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2019-01-05 22:49 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-05 16:12 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2019-01-05 23:25 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-05 18:49 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2019-01-05 21:15 -0500
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-05 19:29 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2019-01-06 10:50 -0500
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 08:57 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 18:25 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 18:25 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2019-01-06 10:35 -0800
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC "Michael Ejercito" <mejercit@hotmail.com> - 2019-01-06 10:52 -0800
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 18:58 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 12:23 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2019-01-06 12:00 -0800
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2019-01-06 10:04 -0800
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2019-01-05 23:22 -0600
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2019-01-06 02:09 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-05 19:26 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2019-01-06 05:49 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 06:34 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2019-01-06 17:57 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2019-01-06 11:16 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 18:25 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 11:30 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 18:34 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2019-01-06 20:27 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 13:39 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2019-01-06 13:57 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 14:01 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 14:19 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2019-01-06 14:36 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 14:40 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2019-01-06 14:43 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 14:55 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2019-01-06 15:53 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 15:55 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2019-01-06 16:03 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 16:23 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC pandora <pandora@peak.org> - 2019-01-06 18:31 -0600
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 17:45 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Checkmate <oshay.shad@yahoo.corn> - 2019-01-06 18:28 -0800
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2019-01-06 21:36 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 22:00 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2019-01-06 23:03 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 16:17 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2019-01-06 23:43 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 16:54 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2019-01-07 00:13 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 17:20 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2019-01-06 17:32 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2019-01-07 00:47 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 18:07 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2019-01-07 02:32 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-07 02:50 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2019-01-07 04:41 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-07 06:07 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2019-01-07 18:46 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-07 19:49 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2019-01-07 20:38 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-07 13:52 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-07 14:02 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-07 14:08 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2019-01-07 16:17 -0500
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-07 14:22 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-07 16:13 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2019-01-07 17:41 -0500
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-07 15:45 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2019-01-07 17:58 -0500
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-07 16:03 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-07 16:09 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-07 16:17 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2019-01-07 18:30 -0500
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-07 16:37 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-07 16:18 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Janithor <Janithor@comcast.net> - 2019-01-07 15:22 -0800
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-07 16:14 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2019-01-07 16:28 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Checkmate <oshay.shad@yahoo.corn> - 2019-01-07 19:10 -0800
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-07 22:05 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2019-01-07 16:25 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2019-01-07 20:44 -0600
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-07 19:54 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2019-01-08 09:49 -0500
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-08 08:15 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2019-01-07 22:29 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-07 15:37 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-07 16:18 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-07 16:19 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2019-01-07 20:32 -0600
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2019-01-08 09:50 -0500
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 16:55 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 17:02 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 17:21 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2019-01-07 00:26 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 17:37 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2019-01-07 01:04 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 18:23 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 18:35 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2019-01-07 02:35 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-07 02:50 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2019-01-07 04:43 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-07 06:07 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2019-01-07 18:47 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-07 19:49 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2019-01-07 20:40 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-07 13:53 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2019-01-07 19:03 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-07 14:01 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2019-01-07 22:31 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-07 15:51 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-07 16:06 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-07 16:09 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-07 16:11 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 15:19 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2019-01-06 15:49 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2019-01-08 15:07 -0500
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 14:03 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2019-01-06 14:36 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 14:41 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2019-01-06 14:42 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 14:53 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2019-01-06 15:52 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 15:57 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2019-01-06 16:02 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 16:03 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2019-01-06 16:06 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 16:24 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2019-01-06 17:28 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 17:31 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2019-01-06 17:37 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2019-01-07 00:48 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2019-01-06 21:34 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2019-01-09 06:48 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2019-01-09 18:04 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2019-01-09 06:38 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2019-01-09 09:48 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2019-01-06 20:52 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 14:08 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2019-01-06 13:11 -0800
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 14:12 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2019-01-07 04:47 -0800
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2019-01-06 21:32 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2019-01-06 13:03 -0800
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2019-01-05 20:49 -0500
Kensi's religion isn't that large. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2019-01-05 22:54 -0800
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Avenging Angel <Not.fucking.likely@NoWay.com> - 2019-01-06 13:07 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2019-01-07 22:04 -0500
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC kensi <kkensinqton01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2019-01-08 10:00 -0500
Page 7 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 Next page →
| From | % <persent@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-06 14:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bsqi6g.5tt.17.3@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #722389 |
On 2019-01-06 2:36 p.m., Skeeter wrote: > In article <bsqfvh.9mj.19.3@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... >> >> On 2019-01-06 1:57 p.m., Skeeter wrote: >>> In article <g9f7c9Fqh34U2@mid.individual.net>, >>> usenet@gallopinginsanity.com says... >>>> >>>> On 1/6/19 1:27 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> <snip> >>>>> >>>>>> You are very confused and do not even know Republicans tend to deny climate >>>>>> science, and you confuse science and religion. Fair enough. >>>>> >>>>> Puerile babble. >>>> >>>> No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a >>>> formal opinion dissenting from any of these conclusions: >>>> >>>> ? "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, >>>> many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia". >>>> >>>> ? "Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous >>>> oxide have increased to levels unprecedented in at least the last >>>> 800,000 years". >>>> >>>> ? Human influence on the climate system is clear. It is extremely likely >>>> (95-100% probability) that human influence was the dominant cause of >>>> global warming between 1951-2010. >>>> >>>> ? "Increasing magnitudes of [global] warming increase the likelihood of >>>> severe, pervasive, and irreversible impacts" >>>> >>>> ? "A first step towards adaptation to future climate change is reducing >>>> vulnerability and exposure to present climate variability" >>>> >>>> ? "The overall risks of climate change impacts can be reduced by >>>> limiting the rate and magnitude of climate change" >>>> >>>> ? Without new policies to mitigate climate change, projections suggest >>>> an increase in global mean temperature in 2100 of 3.7 to 4.8 °C, >>>> relative to pre-industrial levels (median values; the range is 2.5 to >>>> 7.8 °C including climate uncertainty). >>>> >>>> ? The current trajectory of global greenhouse gas emissions is not >>>> consistent with limiting global warming to below 1.5 or 2 °C, relative >>>> to pre-industrial levels. Pledges made as part of the Cancún Agreements >>>> are broadly consistent with cost-effective scenarios that give a >>>> "likely" chance (66-100% probability) of limiting global warming (in >>>> 2100) to below 3 °C, relative to pre-industrial levels. >>>> >>>> You confused accepting these very well supported conclusions with a >>>> religion. It was an absurd thing for you to claim... and one you cannot >>>> defend. >>>> >>>> Now we are at the insult phase of your trolling. Go! >>> >>> Less people, less problem. control the population. >>> >> what's a jimp > > Jump In My Pocket? > stop being a jimp
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-06 14:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.369c2434d4dfb7b9894@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #722392 |
In article <bsqi6g.5tt.17.3@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... > >On 2019-01-06 2:36 p.m., Skeeter wrote: >> In article <bsqfvh.9mj.19.3@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... >>> >>> On 2019-01-06 1:57 p.m., Skeeter wrote: >>>> In article <g9f7c9Fqh34U2@mid.individual.net>, >>>> usenet@gallopinginsanity.com says... >>>>> >>>>> On 1/6/19 1:27 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> <snip> >>>>>> >>>>>>> You are very confused and do not even know Republicans tend to deny climate >>>>>>> science, and you confuse science and religion. Fair enough. >>>>>> >>>>>> Puerile babble. >>>>> >>>>> No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a >>>>> formal opinion dissenting from any of these conclusions: >>>>> >>>>> ? "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, >>>>> many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia". >>>>> >>>>> ? "Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous >>>>> oxide have increased to levels unprecedented in at least the last >>>>> 800,000 years". >>>>> >>>>> ? Human influence on the climate system is clear. It is extremely likely >>>>> (95-100% probability) that human influence was the dominant cause of >>>>> global warming between 1951-2010. >>>>> >>>>> ? "Increasing magnitudes of [global] warming increase the likelihood of >>>>> severe, pervasive, and irreversible impacts" >>>>> >>>>> ? "A first step towards adaptation to future climate change is reducing >>>>> vulnerability and exposure to present climate variability" >>>>> >>>>> ? "The overall risks of climate change impacts can be reduced by >>>>> limiting the rate and magnitude of climate change" >>>>> >>>>> ? Without new policies to mitigate climate change, projections suggest >>>>> an increase in global mean temperature in 2100 of 3.7 to 4.8 °C, >>>>> relative to pre-industrial levels (median values; the range is 2.5 to >>>>> 7.8 °C including climate uncertainty). >>>>> >>>>> ? The current trajectory of global greenhouse gas emissions is not >>>>> consistent with limiting global warming to below 1.5 or 2 °C, relative >>>>> to pre-industrial levels. Pledges made as part of the Cancún Agreements >>>>> are broadly consistent with cost-effective scenarios that give a >>>>> "likely" chance (66-100% probability) of limiting global warming (in >>>>> 2100) to below 3 °C, relative to pre-industrial levels. >>>>> >>>>> You confused accepting these very well supported conclusions with a >>>>> religion. It was an absurd thing for you to claim... and one you cannot >>>>> defend. >>>>> >>>>> Now we are at the insult phase of your trolling. Go! >>>> >>>> Less people, less problem. control the population. >>>> >>> what's a jimp >> >> Jump In My Pocket? >> >stop being a jimp I bet if that's his name he is really pissed at his mom.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | % <persent@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-06 14:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bsqiu7.ft3.17.1@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #722393 |
On 2019-01-06 2:42 p.m., Skeeter wrote: > In article <bsqi6g.5tt.17.3@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... >> >> On 2019-01-06 2:36 p.m., Skeeter wrote: >>> In article <bsqfvh.9mj.19.3@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... >>>> >>>> On 2019-01-06 1:57 p.m., Skeeter wrote: >>>>> In article <g9f7c9Fqh34U2@mid.individual.net>, >>>>> usenet@gallopinginsanity.com says... >>>>>> >>>>>> On 1/6/19 1:27 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <snip> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You are very confused and do not even know Republicans tend to deny climate >>>>>>>> science, and you confuse science and religion. Fair enough. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Puerile babble. >>>>>> >>>>>> No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a >>>>>> formal opinion dissenting from any of these conclusions: >>>>>> >>>>>> ? "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, >>>>>> many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia". >>>>>> >>>>>> ? "Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous >>>>>> oxide have increased to levels unprecedented in at least the last >>>>>> 800,000 years". >>>>>> >>>>>> ? Human influence on the climate system is clear. It is extremely likely >>>>>> (95-100% probability) that human influence was the dominant cause of >>>>>> global warming between 1951-2010. >>>>>> >>>>>> ? "Increasing magnitudes of [global] warming increase the likelihood of >>>>>> severe, pervasive, and irreversible impacts" >>>>>> >>>>>> ? "A first step towards adaptation to future climate change is reducing >>>>>> vulnerability and exposure to present climate variability" >>>>>> >>>>>> ? "The overall risks of climate change impacts can be reduced by >>>>>> limiting the rate and magnitude of climate change" >>>>>> >>>>>> ? Without new policies to mitigate climate change, projections suggest >>>>>> an increase in global mean temperature in 2100 of 3.7 to 4.8 °C, >>>>>> relative to pre-industrial levels (median values; the range is 2.5 to >>>>>> 7.8 °C including climate uncertainty). >>>>>> >>>>>> ? The current trajectory of global greenhouse gas emissions is not >>>>>> consistent with limiting global warming to below 1.5 or 2 °C, relative >>>>>> to pre-industrial levels. Pledges made as part of the Cancún Agreements >>>>>> are broadly consistent with cost-effective scenarios that give a >>>>>> "likely" chance (66-100% probability) of limiting global warming (in >>>>>> 2100) to below 3 °C, relative to pre-industrial levels. >>>>>> >>>>>> You confused accepting these very well supported conclusions with a >>>>>> religion. It was an absurd thing for you to claim... and one you cannot >>>>>> defend. >>>>>> >>>>>> Now we are at the insult phase of your trolling. Go! >>>>> >>>>> Less people, less problem. control the population. >>>>> >>>> what's a jimp >>> >>> Jump In My Pocket? >>> >> stop being a jimp > > I bet if that's his name he is really pissed at his mom. > i wonder how many jimps equal a jump
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-06 15:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.369c3485aff24a5897@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #722403 |
In article <bsqiu7.ft3.17.1@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... > >On 2019-01-06 2:42 p.m., Skeeter wrote: >> In article <bsqi6g.5tt.17.3@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... >>> >>> On 2019-01-06 2:36 p.m., Skeeter wrote: >>>> In article <bsqfvh.9mj.19.3@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... >>>>> >>>>> On 2019-01-06 1:57 p.m., Skeeter wrote: >>>>>> In article <g9f7c9Fqh34U2@mid.individual.net>, >>>>>> usenet@gallopinginsanity.com says... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 1/6/19 1:27 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> <snip> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You are very confused and do not even know Republicans tend to deny climate >>>>>>>>> science, and you confuse science and religion. Fair enough. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Puerile babble. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a >>>>>>> formal opinion dissenting from any of these conclusions: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ? "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, >>>>>>> many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia". >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ? "Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous >>>>>>> oxide have increased to levels unprecedented in at least the last >>>>>>> 800,000 years". >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ? Human influence on the climate system is clear. It is extremely likely >>>>>>> (95-100% probability) that human influence was the dominant cause of >>>>>>> global warming between 1951-2010. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ? "Increasing magnitudes of [global] warming increase the likelihood of >>>>>>> severe, pervasive, and irreversible impacts" >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ? "A first step towards adaptation to future climate change is reducing >>>>>>> vulnerability and exposure to present climate variability" >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ? "The overall risks of climate change impacts can be reduced by >>>>>>> limiting the rate and magnitude of climate change" >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ? Without new policies to mitigate climate change, projections suggest >>>>>>> an increase in global mean temperature in 2100 of 3.7 to 4.8 °C, >>>>>>> relative to pre-industrial levels (median values; the range is 2.5 to >>>>>>> 7.8 °C including climate uncertainty). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ? The current trajectory of global greenhouse gas emissions is not >>>>>>> consistent with limiting global warming to below 1.5 or 2 °C, relative >>>>>>> to pre-industrial levels. Pledges made as part of the Cancún Agreements >>>>>>> are broadly consistent with cost-effective scenarios that give a >>>>>>> "likely" chance (66-100% probability) of limiting global warming (in >>>>>>> 2100) to below 3 °C, relative to pre-industrial levels. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You confused accepting these very well supported conclusions with a >>>>>>> religion. It was an absurd thing for you to claim... and one you cannot >>>>>>> defend. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Now we are at the insult phase of your trolling. Go! >>>>>> >>>>>> Less people, less problem. control the population. >>>>>> >>>>> what's a jimp >>>> >>>> Jump In My Pocket? >>>> >>> stop being a jimp >> >> I bet if that's his name he is really pissed at his mom. >> > >i wonder how many jimps equal a jump https://www.dictionary.com/browse/jimp
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | % <persent@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-06 15:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bsqmlt.mv7.17.4@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #722416 |
On 2019-01-06 3:52 p.m., Skeeter wrote: > In article <bsqiu7.ft3.17.1@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... >> >> On 2019-01-06 2:42 p.m., Skeeter wrote: >>> In article <bsqi6g.5tt.17.3@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... >>>> >>>> On 2019-01-06 2:36 p.m., Skeeter wrote: >>>>> In article <bsqfvh.9mj.19.3@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... >>>>>> >>>>>> On 2019-01-06 1:57 p.m., Skeeter wrote: >>>>>>> In article <g9f7c9Fqh34U2@mid.individual.net>, >>>>>>> usenet@gallopinginsanity.com says... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 1/6/19 1:27 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> <snip> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You are very confused and do not even know Republicans tend to deny climate >>>>>>>>>> science, and you confuse science and religion. Fair enough. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Puerile babble. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a >>>>>>>> formal opinion dissenting from any of these conclusions: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ? "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, >>>>>>>> many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia". >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ? "Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous >>>>>>>> oxide have increased to levels unprecedented in at least the last >>>>>>>> 800,000 years". >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ? Human influence on the climate system is clear. It is extremely likely >>>>>>>> (95-100% probability) that human influence was the dominant cause of >>>>>>>> global warming between 1951-2010. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ? "Increasing magnitudes of [global] warming increase the likelihood of >>>>>>>> severe, pervasive, and irreversible impacts" >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ? "A first step towards adaptation to future climate change is reducing >>>>>>>> vulnerability and exposure to present climate variability" >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ? "The overall risks of climate change impacts can be reduced by >>>>>>>> limiting the rate and magnitude of climate change" >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ? Without new policies to mitigate climate change, projections suggest >>>>>>>> an increase in global mean temperature in 2100 of 3.7 to 4.8 °C, >>>>>>>> relative to pre-industrial levels (median values; the range is 2.5 to >>>>>>>> 7.8 °C including climate uncertainty). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ? The current trajectory of global greenhouse gas emissions is not >>>>>>>> consistent with limiting global warming to below 1.5 or 2 °C, relative >>>>>>>> to pre-industrial levels. Pledges made as part of the Cancún Agreements >>>>>>>> are broadly consistent with cost-effective scenarios that give a >>>>>>>> "likely" chance (66-100% probability) of limiting global warming (in >>>>>>>> 2100) to below 3 °C, relative to pre-industrial levels. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You confused accepting these very well supported conclusions with a >>>>>>>> religion. It was an absurd thing for you to claim... and one you cannot >>>>>>>> defend. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Now we are at the insult phase of your trolling. Go! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Less people, less problem. control the population. >>>>>>> >>>>>> what's a jimp >>>>> >>>>> Jump In My Pocket? >>>>> >>>> stop being a jimp >>> >>> I bet if that's his name he is really pissed at his mom. >>> >> >> i wonder how many jimps equal a jump > > https://www.dictionary.com/browse/jimp > She ran hastily into the house, and in a few moments reappeared in a bewitching riding-skirt gathered round her jimp waist.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-06 16:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.369c36e747100aa489a@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #722419 |
In article <bsqmlt.mv7.17.4@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... > >On 2019-01-06 3:52 p.m., Skeeter wrote: >> In article <bsqiu7.ft3.17.1@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... >>> >>> On 2019-01-06 2:42 p.m., Skeeter wrote: >>>> In article <bsqi6g.5tt.17.3@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... >>>>> >>>>> On 2019-01-06 2:36 p.m., Skeeter wrote: >>>>>> In article <bsqfvh.9mj.19.3@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 2019-01-06 1:57 p.m., Skeeter wrote: >>>>>>>> In article <g9f7c9Fqh34U2@mid.individual.net>, >>>>>>>> usenet@gallopinginsanity.com says... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 1/6/19 1:27 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> <snip> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> You are very confused and do not even know Republicans tend to deny climate >>>>>>>>>>> science, and you confuse science and religion. Fair enough. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Puerile babble. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a >>>>>>>>> formal opinion dissenting from any of these conclusions: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ? "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, >>>>>>>>> many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia". >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ? "Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous >>>>>>>>> oxide have increased to levels unprecedented in at least the last >>>>>>>>> 800,000 years". >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ? Human influence on the climate system is clear. It is extremely likely >>>>>>>>> (95-100% probability) that human influence was the dominant cause of >>>>>>>>> global warming between 1951-2010. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ? "Increasing magnitudes of [global] warming increase the likelihood of >>>>>>>>> severe, pervasive, and irreversible impacts" >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ? "A first step towards adaptation to future climate change is reducing >>>>>>>>> vulnerability and exposure to present climate variability" >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ? "The overall risks of climate change impacts can be reduced by >>>>>>>>> limiting the rate and magnitude of climate change" >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ? Without new policies to mitigate climate change, projections suggest >>>>>>>>> an increase in global mean temperature in 2100 of 3.7 to 4.8 °C, >>>>>>>>> relative to pre-industrial levels (median values; the range is 2.5 to >>>>>>>>> 7.8 °C including climate uncertainty). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ? The current trajectory of global greenhouse gas emissions is not >>>>>>>>> consistent with limiting global warming to below 1.5 or 2 °C, relative >>>>>>>>> to pre-industrial levels. Pledges made as part of the Cancún Agreements >>>>>>>>> are broadly consistent with cost-effective scenarios that give a >>>>>>>>> "likely" chance (66-100% probability) of limiting global warming (in >>>>>>>>> 2100) to below 3 °C, relative to pre-industrial levels. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You confused accepting these very well supported conclusions with a >>>>>>>>> religion. It was an absurd thing for you to claim... and one you cannot >>>>>>>>> defend. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Now we are at the insult phase of your trolling. Go! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Less people, less problem. control the population. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> what's a jimp >>>>>> >>>>>> Jump In My Pocket? >>>>>> >>>>> stop being a jimp >>>> >>>> I bet if that's his name he is really pissed at his mom. >>>> >>> >>> i wonder how many jimps equal a jump >> >> https://www.dictionary.com/browse/jimp >> >She ran hastily into the house, and in a few moments reappeared in a >bewitching riding-skirt gathered round her jimp waist. I think in parts of North Africa they have currency and the jimp is like a 20th of a dollar.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | % <persent@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-06 16:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bsqn1t.t6d.17.6@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #722420 |
On 2019-01-06 4:02 p.m., Skeeter wrote: > In article <bsqmlt.mv7.17.4@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... >> >> On 2019-01-06 3:52 p.m., Skeeter wrote: >>> In article <bsqiu7.ft3.17.1@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... >>>> >>>> On 2019-01-06 2:42 p.m., Skeeter wrote: >>>>> In article <bsqi6g.5tt.17.3@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... >>>>>> >>>>>> On 2019-01-06 2:36 p.m., Skeeter wrote: >>>>>>> In article <bsqfvh.9mj.19.3@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 2019-01-06 1:57 p.m., Skeeter wrote: >>>>>>>>> In article <g9f7c9Fqh34U2@mid.individual.net>, >>>>>>>>> usenet@gallopinginsanity.com says... >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/19 1:27 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> <snip> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> You are very confused and do not even know Republicans tend to deny climate >>>>>>>>>>>> science, and you confuse science and religion. Fair enough. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Puerile babble. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a >>>>>>>>>> formal opinion dissenting from any of these conclusions: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ? "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, >>>>>>>>>> many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia". >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ? "Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous >>>>>>>>>> oxide have increased to levels unprecedented in at least the last >>>>>>>>>> 800,000 years". >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ? Human influence on the climate system is clear. It is extremely likely >>>>>>>>>> (95-100% probability) that human influence was the dominant cause of >>>>>>>>>> global warming between 1951-2010. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ? "Increasing magnitudes of [global] warming increase the likelihood of >>>>>>>>>> severe, pervasive, and irreversible impacts" >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ? "A first step towards adaptation to future climate change is reducing >>>>>>>>>> vulnerability and exposure to present climate variability" >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ? "The overall risks of climate change impacts can be reduced by >>>>>>>>>> limiting the rate and magnitude of climate change" >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ? Without new policies to mitigate climate change, projections suggest >>>>>>>>>> an increase in global mean temperature in 2100 of 3.7 to 4.8 °C, >>>>>>>>>> relative to pre-industrial levels (median values; the range is 2.5 to >>>>>>>>>> 7.8 °C including climate uncertainty). >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ? The current trajectory of global greenhouse gas emissions is not >>>>>>>>>> consistent with limiting global warming to below 1.5 or 2 °C, relative >>>>>>>>>> to pre-industrial levels. Pledges made as part of the Cancún Agreements >>>>>>>>>> are broadly consistent with cost-effective scenarios that give a >>>>>>>>>> "likely" chance (66-100% probability) of limiting global warming (in >>>>>>>>>> 2100) to below 3 °C, relative to pre-industrial levels. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You confused accepting these very well supported conclusions with a >>>>>>>>>> religion. It was an absurd thing for you to claim... and one you cannot >>>>>>>>>> defend. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Now we are at the insult phase of your trolling. Go! >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Less people, less problem. control the population. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> what's a jimp >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Jump In My Pocket? >>>>>>> >>>>>> stop being a jimp >>>>> >>>>> I bet if that's his name he is really pissed at his mom. >>>>> >>>> >>>> i wonder how many jimps equal a jump >>> >>> https://www.dictionary.com/browse/jimp >>> >> She ran hastily into the house, and in a few moments reappeared in a >> bewitching riding-skirt gathered round her jimp waist. > > I think in parts of North Africa they have currency and the jimp is like > a 20th of a dollar. > don't jimp it all in one hut
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-06 16:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.369c37f321c352b189d@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #722422 |
In article <bsqn1t.t6d.17.6@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... > >On 2019-01-06 4:02 p.m., Skeeter wrote: >> In article <bsqmlt.mv7.17.4@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... >>> >>> On 2019-01-06 3:52 p.m., Skeeter wrote: >>>> In article <bsqiu7.ft3.17.1@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... >>>>> >>>>> On 2019-01-06 2:42 p.m., Skeeter wrote: >>>>>> In article <bsqi6g.5tt.17.3@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 2019-01-06 2:36 p.m., Skeeter wrote: >>>>>>>> In article <bsqfvh.9mj.19.3@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 2019-01-06 1:57 p.m., Skeeter wrote: >>>>>>>>>> In article <g9f7c9Fqh34U2@mid.individual.net>, >>>>>>>>>> usenet@gallopinginsanity.com says... >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/19 1:27 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> <snip> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> You are very confused and do not even know Republicans tend to deny climate >>>>>>>>>>>>> science, and you confuse science and religion. Fair enough. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Puerile babble. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a >>>>>>>>>>> formal opinion dissenting from any of these conclusions: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> ? "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, >>>>>>>>>>> many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia". >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> ? "Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous >>>>>>>>>>> oxide have increased to levels unprecedented in at least the last >>>>>>>>>>> 800,000 years". >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> ? Human influence on the climate system is clear. It is extremely likely >>>>>>>>>>> (95-100% probability) that human influence was the dominant cause of >>>>>>>>>>> global warming between 1951-2010. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> ? "Increasing magnitudes of [global] warming increase the likelihood of >>>>>>>>>>> severe, pervasive, and irreversible impacts" >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> ? "A first step towards adaptation to future climate change is reducing >>>>>>>>>>> vulnerability and exposure to present climate variability" >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> ? "The overall risks of climate change impacts can be reduced by >>>>>>>>>>> limiting the rate and magnitude of climate change" >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> ? Without new policies to mitigate climate change, projections suggest >>>>>>>>>>> an increase in global mean temperature in 2100 of 3.7 to 4.8 °C, >>>>>>>>>>> relative to pre-industrial levels (median values; the range is 2.5 to >>>>>>>>>>> 7.8 °C including climate uncertainty). >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> ? The current trajectory of global greenhouse gas emissions is not >>>>>>>>>>> consistent with limiting global warming to below 1.5 or 2 °C, relative >>>>>>>>>>> to pre-industrial levels. Pledges made as part of the Cancún Agreements >>>>>>>>>>> are broadly consistent with cost-effective scenarios that give a >>>>>>>>>>> "likely" chance (66-100% probability) of limiting global warming (in >>>>>>>>>>> 2100) to below 3 °C, relative to pre-industrial levels. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> You confused accepting these very well supported conclusions with a >>>>>>>>>>> religion. It was an absurd thing for you to claim... and one you cannot >>>>>>>>>>> defend. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Now we are at the insult phase of your trolling. Go! >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Less people, less problem. control the population. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> what's a jimp >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Jump In My Pocket? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> stop being a jimp >>>>>> >>>>>> I bet if that's his name he is really pissed at his mom. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> i wonder how many jimps equal a jump >>>> >>>> https://www.dictionary.com/browse/jimp >>>> >>> She ran hastily into the house, and in a few moments reappeared in a >>> bewitching riding-skirt gathered round her jimp waist. >> >> I think in parts of North Africa they have currency and the jimp is like >> a 20th of a dollar. >> >don't jimp it all in one hut I'm as high as a jimp in a blimp.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | % <persent@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-06 16:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bsqo8f.ev0.17.2@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #722423 |
On 2019-01-06 4:06 p.m., Skeeter wrote: > In article <bsqn1t.t6d.17.6@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... >> >> On 2019-01-06 4:02 p.m., Skeeter wrote: >>> In article <bsqmlt.mv7.17.4@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... >>>> >>>> On 2019-01-06 3:52 p.m., Skeeter wrote: >>>>> In article <bsqiu7.ft3.17.1@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... >>>>>> >>>>>> On 2019-01-06 2:42 p.m., Skeeter wrote: >>>>>>> In article <bsqi6g.5tt.17.3@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 2019-01-06 2:36 p.m., Skeeter wrote: >>>>>>>>> In article <bsqfvh.9mj.19.3@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 2019-01-06 1:57 p.m., Skeeter wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> In article <g9f7c9Fqh34U2@mid.individual.net>, >>>>>>>>>>> usenet@gallopinginsanity.com says... >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/19 1:27 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> <snip> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are very confused and do not even know Republicans tend to deny climate >>>>>>>>>>>>>> science, and you confuse science and religion. Fair enough. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Puerile babble. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a >>>>>>>>>>>> formal opinion dissenting from any of these conclusions: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> ? "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, >>>>>>>>>>>> many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia". >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> ? "Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous >>>>>>>>>>>> oxide have increased to levels unprecedented in at least the last >>>>>>>>>>>> 800,000 years". >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> ? Human influence on the climate system is clear. It is extremely likely >>>>>>>>>>>> (95-100% probability) that human influence was the dominant cause of >>>>>>>>>>>> global warming between 1951-2010. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> ? "Increasing magnitudes of [global] warming increase the likelihood of >>>>>>>>>>>> severe, pervasive, and irreversible impacts" >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> ? "A first step towards adaptation to future climate change is reducing >>>>>>>>>>>> vulnerability and exposure to present climate variability" >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> ? "The overall risks of climate change impacts can be reduced by >>>>>>>>>>>> limiting the rate and magnitude of climate change" >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> ? Without new policies to mitigate climate change, projections suggest >>>>>>>>>>>> an increase in global mean temperature in 2100 of 3.7 to 4.8 °C, >>>>>>>>>>>> relative to pre-industrial levels (median values; the range is 2.5 to >>>>>>>>>>>> 7.8 °C including climate uncertainty). >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> ? The current trajectory of global greenhouse gas emissions is not >>>>>>>>>>>> consistent with limiting global warming to below 1.5 or 2 °C, relative >>>>>>>>>>>> to pre-industrial levels. Pledges made as part of the Cancún Agreements >>>>>>>>>>>> are broadly consistent with cost-effective scenarios that give a >>>>>>>>>>>> "likely" chance (66-100% probability) of limiting global warming (in >>>>>>>>>>>> 2100) to below 3 °C, relative to pre-industrial levels. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> You confused accepting these very well supported conclusions with a >>>>>>>>>>>> religion. It was an absurd thing for you to claim... and one you cannot >>>>>>>>>>>> defend. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Now we are at the insult phase of your trolling. Go! >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Less people, less problem. control the population. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> what's a jimp >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Jump In My Pocket? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> stop being a jimp >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I bet if that's his name he is really pissed at his mom. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> i wonder how many jimps equal a jump >>>>> >>>>> https://www.dictionary.com/browse/jimp >>>>> >>>> She ran hastily into the house, and in a few moments reappeared in a >>>> bewitching riding-skirt gathered round her jimp waist. >>> >>> I think in parts of North Africa they have currency and the jimp is like >>> a 20th of a dollar. >>> >> don't jimp it all in one hut > > I'm as high as a jimp in a blimp. > can a jimp get a gymp
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-06 17:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.369c4af8bc2c35fa89f@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #722431 |
In article <bsqo8f.ev0.17.2@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... > >On 2019-01-06 4:06 p.m., Skeeter wrote: >> In article <bsqn1t.t6d.17.6@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... >>> >>> On 2019-01-06 4:02 p.m., Skeeter wrote: >>>> In article <bsqmlt.mv7.17.4@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... >>>>> >>>>> On 2019-01-06 3:52 p.m., Skeeter wrote: >>>>>> In article <bsqiu7.ft3.17.1@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 2019-01-06 2:42 p.m., Skeeter wrote: >>>>>>>> In article <bsqi6g.5tt.17.3@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 2019-01-06 2:36 p.m., Skeeter wrote: >>>>>>>>>> In article <bsqfvh.9mj.19.3@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 2019-01-06 1:57 p.m., Skeeter wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> In article <g9f7c9Fqh34U2@mid.individual.net>, >>>>>>>>>>>> usenet@gallopinginsanity.com says... >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/19 1:27 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <snip> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are very confused and do not even know Republicans tend to deny climate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> science, and you confuse science and religion. Fair enough. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Puerile babble. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a >>>>>>>>>>>>> formal opinion dissenting from any of these conclusions: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> ? "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, >>>>>>>>>>>>> many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia". >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> ? "Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous >>>>>>>>>>>>> oxide have increased to levels unprecedented in at least the last >>>>>>>>>>>>> 800,000 years". >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> ? Human influence on the climate system is clear. It is extremely likely >>>>>>>>>>>>> (95-100% probability) that human influence was the dominant cause of >>>>>>>>>>>>> global warming between 1951-2010. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> ? "Increasing magnitudes of [global] warming increase the likelihood of >>>>>>>>>>>>> severe, pervasive, and irreversible impacts" >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> ? "A first step towards adaptation to future climate change is reducing >>>>>>>>>>>>> vulnerability and exposure to present climate variability" >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> ? "The overall risks of climate change impacts can be reduced by >>>>>>>>>>>>> limiting the rate and magnitude of climate change" >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> ? Without new policies to mitigate climate change, projections suggest >>>>>>>>>>>>> an increase in global mean temperature in 2100 of 3.7 to 4.8 °C, >>>>>>>>>>>>> relative to pre-industrial levels (median values; the range is 2.5 to >>>>>>>>>>>>> 7.8 °C including climate uncertainty). >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> ? The current trajectory of global greenhouse gas emissions is not >>>>>>>>>>>>> consistent with limiting global warming to below 1.5 or 2 °C, relative >>>>>>>>>>>>> to pre-industrial levels. Pledges made as part of the Cancún Agreements >>>>>>>>>>>>> are broadly consistent with cost-effective scenarios that give a >>>>>>>>>>>>> "likely" chance (66-100% probability) of limiting global warming (in >>>>>>>>>>>>> 2100) to below 3 °C, relative to pre-industrial levels. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> You confused accepting these very well supported conclusions with a >>>>>>>>>>>>> religion. It was an absurd thing for you to claim... and one you cannot >>>>>>>>>>>>> defend. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Now we are at the insult phase of your trolling. Go! >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Less people, less problem. control the population. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> what's a jimp >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Jump In My Pocket? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> stop being a jimp >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I bet if that's his name he is really pissed at his mom. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> i wonder how many jimps equal a jump >>>>>> >>>>>> https://www.dictionary.com/browse/jimp >>>>>> >>>>> She ran hastily into the house, and in a few moments reappeared in a >>>>> bewitching riding-skirt gathered round her jimp waist. >>>> >>>> I think in parts of North Africa they have currency and the jimp is like >>>> a 20th of a dollar. >>>> >>> don't jimp it all in one hut >> >> I'm as high as a jimp in a blimp. >> >can a jimp get a gymp wouldnt it be funny if his name was really jim
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | % <persent@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-06 17:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bsqs71.v7.17.1@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #722451 |
On 2019-01-06 5:28 p.m., Skeeter wrote: > In article <bsqo8f.ev0.17.2@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... >> >> On 2019-01-06 4:06 p.m., Skeeter wrote: >>> In article <bsqn1t.t6d.17.6@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... >>>> >>>> On 2019-01-06 4:02 p.m., Skeeter wrote: >>>>> In article <bsqmlt.mv7.17.4@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... >>>>>> >>>>>> On 2019-01-06 3:52 p.m., Skeeter wrote: >>>>>>> In article <bsqiu7.ft3.17.1@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 2019-01-06 2:42 p.m., Skeeter wrote: >>>>>>>>> In article <bsqi6g.5tt.17.3@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 2019-01-06 2:36 p.m., Skeeter wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> In article <bsqfvh.9mj.19.3@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 2019-01-06 1:57 p.m., Skeeter wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <g9f7c9Fqh34U2@mid.individual.net>, >>>>>>>>>>>>> usenet@gallopinginsanity.com says... >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/19 1:27 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <snip> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are very confused and do not even know Republicans tend to deny climate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> science, and you confuse science and religion. Fair enough. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Puerile babble. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> formal opinion dissenting from any of these conclusions: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ? "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia". >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ? "Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous >>>>>>>>>>>>>> oxide have increased to levels unprecedented in at least the last >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 800,000 years". >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ? Human influence on the climate system is clear. It is extremely likely >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (95-100% probability) that human influence was the dominant cause of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> global warming between 1951-2010. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ? "Increasing magnitudes of [global] warming increase the likelihood of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> severe, pervasive, and irreversible impacts" >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ? "A first step towards adaptation to future climate change is reducing >>>>>>>>>>>>>> vulnerability and exposure to present climate variability" >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ? "The overall risks of climate change impacts can be reduced by >>>>>>>>>>>>>> limiting the rate and magnitude of climate change" >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ? Without new policies to mitigate climate change, projections suggest >>>>>>>>>>>>>> an increase in global mean temperature in 2100 of 3.7 to 4.8 °C, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> relative to pre-industrial levels (median values; the range is 2.5 to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 7.8 °C including climate uncertainty). >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ? The current trajectory of global greenhouse gas emissions is not >>>>>>>>>>>>>> consistent with limiting global warming to below 1.5 or 2 °C, relative >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to pre-industrial levels. Pledges made as part of the Cancún Agreements >>>>>>>>>>>>>> are broadly consistent with cost-effective scenarios that give a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "likely" chance (66-100% probability) of limiting global warming (in >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2100) to below 3 °C, relative to pre-industrial levels. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You confused accepting these very well supported conclusions with a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> religion. It was an absurd thing for you to claim... and one you cannot >>>>>>>>>>>>>> defend. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now we are at the insult phase of your trolling. Go! >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Less people, less problem. control the population. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> what's a jimp >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Jump In My Pocket? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> stop being a jimp >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I bet if that's his name he is really pissed at his mom. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> i wonder how many jimps equal a jump >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://www.dictionary.com/browse/jimp >>>>>>> >>>>>> She ran hastily into the house, and in a few moments reappeared in a >>>>>> bewitching riding-skirt gathered round her jimp waist. >>>>> >>>>> I think in parts of North Africa they have currency and the jimp is like >>>>> a 20th of a dollar. >>>>> >>>> don't jimp it all in one hut >>> >>> I'm as high as a jimp in a blimp. >>> >> can a jimp get a gymp > > wouldnt it be funny if his name was really jim > it is and his last name means nub or small point i forget what it is though , he puts it in his sig file
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-06 17:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.369c4d259fc8e5e48a3@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #722454 |
In article <bsqs71.v7.17.1@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... > >On 2019-01-06 5:28 p.m., Skeeter wrote: >> In article <bsqo8f.ev0.17.2@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... >>> >>> On 2019-01-06 4:06 p.m., Skeeter wrote: >>>> In article <bsqn1t.t6d.17.6@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... >>>>> >>>>> On 2019-01-06 4:02 p.m., Skeeter wrote: >>>>>> In article <bsqmlt.mv7.17.4@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 2019-01-06 3:52 p.m., Skeeter wrote: >>>>>>>> In article <bsqiu7.ft3.17.1@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 2019-01-06 2:42 p.m., Skeeter wrote: >>>>>>>>>> In article <bsqi6g.5tt.17.3@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 2019-01-06 2:36 p.m., Skeeter wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> In article <bsqfvh.9mj.19.3@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2019-01-06 1:57 p.m., Skeeter wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <g9f7c9Fqh34U2@mid.individual.net>, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> usenet@gallopinginsanity.com says... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/19 1:27 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <snip> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are very confused and do not even know Republicans tend to deny climate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> science, and you confuse science and religion. Fair enough. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Puerile babble. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> formal opinion dissenting from any of these conclusions: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ? "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ? "Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> oxide have increased to levels unprecedented in at least the last >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 800,000 years". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ? Human influence on the climate system is clear. It is extremely likely >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (95-100% probability) that human influence was the dominant cause of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> global warming between 1951-2010. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ? "Increasing magnitudes of [global] warming increase the likelihood of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> severe, pervasive, and irreversible impacts" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ? "A first step towards adaptation to future climate change is reducing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vulnerability and exposure to present climate variability" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ? "The overall risks of climate change impacts can be reduced by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> limiting the rate and magnitude of climate change" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ? Without new policies to mitigate climate change, projections suggest >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an increase in global mean temperature in 2100 of 3.7 to 4.8 °C, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relative to pre-industrial levels (median values; the range is 2.5 to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 7.8 °C including climate uncertainty). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ? The current trajectory of global greenhouse gas emissions is not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consistent with limiting global warming to below 1.5 or 2 °C, relative >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to pre-industrial levels. Pledges made as part of the Cancún Agreements >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are broadly consistent with cost-effective scenarios that give a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "likely" chance (66-100% probability) of limiting global warming (in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2100) to below 3 °C, relative to pre-industrial levels. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You confused accepting these very well supported conclusions with a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> religion. It was an absurd thing for you to claim... and one you cannot >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defend. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now we are at the insult phase of your trolling. Go! >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Less people, less problem. control the population. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> what's a jimp >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Jump In My Pocket? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> stop being a jimp >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I bet if that's his name he is really pissed at his mom. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> i wonder how many jimps equal a jump >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://www.dictionary.com/browse/jimp >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> She ran hastily into the house, and in a few moments reappeared in a >>>>>>> bewitching riding-skirt gathered round her jimp waist. >>>>>> >>>>>> I think in parts of North Africa they have currency and the jimp is like >>>>>> a 20th of a dollar. >>>>>> >>>>> don't jimp it all in one hut >>>> >>>> I'm as high as a jimp in a blimp. >>>> >>> can a jimp get a gymp >> >> wouldnt it be funny if his name was really jim >> >it is and his last name means nub or small point i forget what it is >though , he puts it in his sig file aint that a ko inky dinky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-07 00:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <f8kagf-kml.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #722451 |
In sci.physics Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> wrote: > wouldnt it be funny if his name was really jim You mean like it says in the signature line, genius? -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-06 21:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <rs8agf-qjk.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #722373 |
In sci.physics Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> wrote: <snip> > Less people, less problem. control the population. Less people, less genetic diversity, more inbreading issues. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-09 06:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <q145fo$jer$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #722398 |
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt! On Sun, 06 Jan 2019 21:34:51 +0000, jimp wrote: > In sci.physics Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> wrote: > > <snip> > >> Less people, less problem. control the population. > > Less people, less genetic diversity, more inbreading issues. That what happened to your ancestors? <snicker> -- FNVWe Nadegda "By all means, compare these shitheads to Nazis. Again and again. I'm with you." -- Mike Godwin, Aug 13, 2017, 8:03 PM Skeeter admits he mooches his mother's laptop: http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=154073947600
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-09 18:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tlphgf-pke.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #722762 |
In sci.physics Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote: > Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt! > On Sun, 06 Jan 2019 21:34:51 +0000, jimp wrote: > >> In sci.physics Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> wrote: >> >> <snip> >> >>> Less people, less problem. control the population. >> >> Less people, less genetic diversity, more inbreading issues. > > That what happened to your ancestors? > > <snicker> Childish. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-09 06:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <q144t0$jer$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #722373 |
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt! On Sun, 06 Jan 2019 13:57:40 -0700, Skeeter wrote: > In article <g9f7c9Fqh34U2@mid.individual.net>, > usenet@gallopinginsanity.com says... >> >>On 1/6/19 1:27 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> >>> <snip> >>> >>>> You are very confused and do not even know Republicans tend to deny >>>> climate science, and you confuse science and religion. Fair enough. >>> >>> Puerile babble. >> >>No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a >>formal opinion dissenting from any of these conclusions: >> >>? "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, >>many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to >>millennia". >> >>? "Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous >>oxide have increased to levels unprecedented in at least the last >>800,000 years". >> >>? Human influence on the climate system is clear. It is extremely likely >>(95-100% probability) that human influence was the dominant cause of >>global warming between 1951-2010. >> >>? "Increasing magnitudes of [global] warming increase the likelihood of >>severe, pervasive, and irreversible impacts" >> >>? "A first step towards adaptation to future climate change is reducing >>vulnerability and exposure to present climate variability" >> >>? "The overall risks of climate change impacts can be reduced by >>limiting the rate and magnitude of climate change" >> >>? Without new policies to mitigate climate change, projections suggest >>an increase in global mean temperature in 2100 of 3.7 to 4.8 °C, >>relative to pre-industrial levels (median values; the range is 2.5 to >>7.8 °C including climate uncertainty). >> >>? The current trajectory of global greenhouse gas emissions is not >>consistent with limiting global warming to below 1.5 or 2 °C, relative >>to pre-industrial levels. Pledges made as part of the Cancún Agreements >>are broadly consistent with cost-effective scenarios that give a >>"likely" chance (66-100% probability) of limiting global warming (in >>2100) to below 3 °C, relative to pre-industrial levels. >> >>You confused accepting these very well supported conclusions with a >>religion. It was an absurd thing for you to claim... and one you cannot >>defend. >> >>Now we are at the insult phase of your trolling. Go! > > Less people, less problem. control the population. So, you're now coming out in favor of a woman's right to choose? -- 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 | Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-09 09:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.369fd3d5145549848d8@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #722760 |
In article <q144t0$jer$2@dont-email.me>, nad318b404@gmail.invalid says... > >Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt! >On Sun, 06 Jan 2019 13:57:40 -0700, Skeeter wrote: > >> In article <g9f7c9Fqh34U2@mid.individual.net>, >> usenet@gallopinginsanity.com says... >>> >>>On 1/6/19 1:27 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> <snip> >>>> >>>>> You are very confused and do not even know Republicans tend to deny >>>>> climate science, and you confuse science and religion. Fair enough. >>>> >>>> Puerile babble. >>> >>>No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a >>>formal opinion dissenting from any of these conclusions: >>> >>>? "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, >>>many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to >>>millennia". >>> >>>? "Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous >>>oxide have increased to levels unprecedented in at least the last >>>800,000 years". >>> >>>? Human influence on the climate system is clear. It is extremely likely >>>(95-100% probability) that human influence was the dominant cause of >>>global warming between 1951-2010. >>> >>>? "Increasing magnitudes of [global] warming increase the likelihood of >>>severe, pervasive, and irreversible impacts" >>> >>>? "A first step towards adaptation to future climate change is reducing >>>vulnerability and exposure to present climate variability" >>> >>>? "The overall risks of climate change impacts can be reduced by >>>limiting the rate and magnitude of climate change" >>> >>>? Without new policies to mitigate climate change, projections suggest >>>an increase in global mean temperature in 2100 of 3.7 to 4.8 °C, >>>relative to pre-industrial levels (median values; the range is 2.5 to >>>7.8 °C including climate uncertainty). >>> >>>? The current trajectory of global greenhouse gas emissions is not >>>consistent with limiting global warming to below 1.5 or 2 °C, relative >>>to pre-industrial levels. Pledges made as part of the Cancún Agreements >>>are broadly consistent with cost-effective scenarios that give a >>>"likely" chance (66-100% probability) of limiting global warming (in >>>2100) to below 3 °C, relative to pre-industrial levels. >>> >>>You confused accepting these very well supported conclusions with a >>>religion. It was an absurd thing for you to claim... and one you cannot >>>defend. >>> >>>Now we are at the insult phase of your trolling. Go! >> >> Less people, less problem. control the population. > >So, you're now coming out in favor of a woman's right to choose? No choice, no kids.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-06 20:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <5d6agf-rck.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #722370 |
In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 1/6/19 1:27 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> >> <snip> >> >>> You are very confused and do not even know Republicans tend to deny climate >>> science, and you confuse science and religion. Fair enough. >> >> Puerile babble. > > No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a > formal opinion dissenting from any of these conclusions: <snip babbling list> So fucking what? > You confused accepting these very well supported conclusions with a > religion. Nope, you confuse "you MUST believe" with science. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-06 14:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <g9f91lFqqmiU6@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #722374 |
On 1/6/19 1:52 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> On 1/6/19 1:27 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> >>> <snip> >>> >>>> You are very confused and do not even know Republicans tend to deny climate >>>> science, and you confuse science and religion. Fair enough. >>> >>> Puerile babble. >> >> No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a >> formal opinion dissenting from any of these conclusions: > > <snip babbling list> > > So fucking what? > >> You confused accepting these very well supported conclusions with a >> religion. > > Nope, you confuse "you MUST believe" with science. > > What do you think "you MUST believe" in science? What I am noting is it is irrational to reject the evidence. But since you move goal posts, there are certain axioms of science which you pretty much must believe... things like reproducability, logic, that there is an external universe, etc. But this is getting into the philosophy of science... FAR off the topic. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web