Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #726976 > unrolled thread
| Started by | kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2019-02-13 05:57 +0200 |
| Last post | 2019-02-13 08:44 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 225 — 16 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2019-02-13 05:57 +0200
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-02-12 21:05 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2019-02-13 13:48 -0800
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-02-13 16:01 +0000
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-13 09:05 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2019-02-13 11:24 -0500
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-02-13 16:33 +0000
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-13 10:58 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-02-13 12:03 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-13 12:32 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-02-13 13:21 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-13 13:25 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-02-13 14:27 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-13 14:37 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-02-13 21:58 +0000
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-02-13 13:50 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-02-13 14:11 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-02-13 14:14 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-02-13 14:17 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-02-13 14:24 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-02-13 11:52 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-02-13 13:13 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-02-13 13:13 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-02-13 13:25 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2019-02-13 13:07 -0800
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Serg Io <invvalid@invalid.com> - 2019-02-13 15:27 -0600
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2019-02-13 14:44 -0800
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-13 10:57 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2019-02-13 13:20 -0500
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-13 12:30 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2019-02-13 14:37 -0500
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-13 12:42 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-02-13 12:02 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-13 12:32 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-02-13 13:21 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-13 13:26 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-02-13 14:26 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-13 14:36 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-02-13 21:58 +0000
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-13 15:08 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-02-13 22:17 +0000
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-02-13 11:52 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-13 12:31 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-02-13 12:33 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2019-02-13 12:23 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Serg Io <invvalid@invalid.com> - 2019-02-13 14:40 -0600
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-02-13 16:33 +0000
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2019-02-13 08:07 -0800
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-02-13 16:33 +0000
Snit Once Again Publicy Worships AOC and Her Herd Of Unicorns Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2019-02-13 11:48 -0800
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? "nuny@bid.nes" <alien8752@gmail.com> - 2019-02-13 10:18 -0800
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2019-02-13 12:21 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-02-13 13:22 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-13 13:26 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-02-13 14:24 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-13 14:36 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-02-13 14:40 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-13 14:47 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-02-13 21:58 +0000
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-02-13 21:58 +0000
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-02-13 21:58 +0000
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-13 15:08 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-02-13 22:17 +0000
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-13 15:18 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-02-13 22:24 +0000
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-13 15:30 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-02-13 15:41 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-13 15:45 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-02-13 17:19 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2019-02-13 13:40 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-02-13 14:22 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Serg Io <invvalid@invalid.com> - 2019-02-13 14:37 -0600
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-02-13 14:23 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2019-02-13 12:19 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-02-13 12:23 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-02-13 13:22 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2019-02-13 05:57 +0000
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-02-13 06:11 +0000
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2019-02-13 18:07 +0000
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-02-13 13:15 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2019-02-13 20:45 +0000
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? jimp - 2019-02-13 13:50 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-13 14:10 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-02-13 14:15 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-13 14:17 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-02-13 14:25 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2019-02-13 16:14 -0500
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-02-13 14:24 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2019-02-13 15:50 -0800
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-02-13 16:52 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-02-13 14:17 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-13 14:20 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-02-13 14:29 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2019-02-14 03:54 +0000
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-02-13 21:04 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-02-14 05:05 +0000
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2019-02-14 05:05 +0000
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-02-14 05:34 +0000
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2019-02-14 08:00 +0200
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2019-02-14 00:20 -0800
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-02-14 14:08 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-14 14:15 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-02-14 14:21 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-14 14:33 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2019-02-14 14:02 -0800
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-14 15:42 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-02-14 15:43 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-14 15:59 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-02-14 16:01 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-14 16:09 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-02-14 16:17 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-14 16:37 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-02-14 16:40 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-14 16:51 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-14 15:59 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-02-14 16:16 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-02-14 14:08 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-14 14:14 -0700
Re: â Snowflake ââ Snowflake ââ Snowflake ââ Snowflake ââ Snowflake ââ Snowflake ââ Snowflake ââ Snowflake ââ Snowflake ââ Snowflake ââ Snowflake ââ Snowflake ââ Snowflake ââ Snowflake ââ Snowflake ââ Snowflake ââ Snowflake ââ Snowflake ââ Snowflake ââ Snowflake ââ Snowflake ââ Snowflake ââ Snowflake ââ Snowflake â With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? â Snowflake ââ Snowflake ââ Snowflake ââ Snowflake ââ Snowflake ââ Snowflake ââ Snowflake ââ Snowflake ââ Snowflake ââ Snowflake ââ Snowflake ââ Snowflake ââ Snowflake ââ Snowflake ââ Snowflake ââ Snowflake ââ Snowflake ââ Snowflake ââ Snowflake ââ Snowflake ââ Snowflake ââ Snowflake ââ Snowflake ââ Snowflake â Sir Gaygory's Owner's Owner ðķįŽ <root@127.0.0.1> - 2019-02-14 15:16 -0600
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-02-14 14:19 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-14 14:31 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2019-02-14 06:08 +0200
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2019-02-14 00:21 -0800
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-02-14 05:05 +0000
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Serg Io <invvalid@invalid.com> - 2019-02-13 23:16 -0600
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-02-14 05:34 +0000
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2019-02-14 02:51 -0500
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-02-14 08:28 +0000
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2019-02-14 09:51 -0500
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-02-14 10:39 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-14 11:19 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-02-14 11:39 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-14 12:26 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-02-14 15:53 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-14 16:01 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-02-14 16:18 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-14 16:38 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-02-14 16:44 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-14 16:49 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-02-14 16:54 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-14 16:56 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-02-14 17:21 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2019-02-14 19:46 -0500
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-14 17:51 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2019-02-14 19:54 -0500
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-02-14 18:01 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-14 18:19 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-02-14 18:23 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-14 18:37 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-02-14 18:45 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-14 18:48 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-02-14 18:51 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-14 19:02 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-02-14 19:10 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-14 19:35 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-02-14 19:41 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-02-14 19:55 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-14 20:20 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-02-14 20:24 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-14 20:26 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-02-14 20:30 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-02-14 20:55 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-02-14 18:01 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2019-02-14 17:02 -0800
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-02-14 18:11 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2019-02-14 17:01 -0800
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-14 18:21 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-02-14 17:25 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-14 17:35 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2019-02-14 16:42 -0800
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-14 17:47 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-02-14 18:17 -0700
Snit Keeps crying to himself Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2019-02-14 17:23 -0800
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2019-02-14 16:16 -0800
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-14 17:20 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-02-14 17:36 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-14 17:37 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-02-14 17:39 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-14 17:42 -0700
Poor Snit complains to himself. Again. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2019-02-14 16:43 -0800
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-02-14 18:10 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-02-14 18:18 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2019-02-14 13:44 -0500
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-02-14 11:48 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-14 12:27 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2019-02-15 07:24 +0200
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-15 05:40 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-14 12:26 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2019-02-14 15:58 -0500
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-14 14:02 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2019-02-14 16:20 -0500
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-14 14:32 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2019-02-13 20:30 -0500
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-02-13 18:36 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-02-13 18:42 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-02-13 18:43 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-02-13 18:47 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-02-13 18:53 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-02-13 19:13 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-02-13 19:25 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-02-13 19:29 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-02-13 19:31 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-02-13 19:35 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-02-13 19:35 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-02-13 19:43 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-02-13 19:44 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-02-13 19:49 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-02-13 19:53 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-02-13 19:58 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-02-13 20:02 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-02-13 20:04 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-02-14 05:05 +0000
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Serg Io <invvalid@invalid.com> - 2019-02-13 20:29 -0600
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-02-13 19:33 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2019-02-14 09:39 -0500
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Serg Io <invvalid@invalid.com> - 2019-02-14 10:39 -0600
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-02-14 10:35 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-02-14 10:36 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2019-02-14 05:48 +0200
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-02-13 07:49 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2019-02-12 22:28 -0800
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2019-02-13 07:47 -0500
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-02-13 07:50 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-02-13 07:49 -0700
Re: With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-13 08:44 -0700
Page 10 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 12 Next page →
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-14 18:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <gcmhscFjrinU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #727381 |
On 2/14/19 3:53 PM, Snit wrote: > On 2/14/19 12:26 PM, Skeeter wrote: >> In article <gclqu7Ff0kpU1@mid.individual.net>, >> usenet@gallopinginsanity.com says... >>> >>> On 2/14/19 11:19 AM, Skeeter wrote: >>>> In article <gclne4Fe5soU8@mid.individual.net>, >>>> usenet@gallopinginsanity.com says... >>>>> >>>>> On 2/14/19 7:51 AM, Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. wrote: >>>>>> On 14 Feb 2019 08:28:06 GMT, Shit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> <courteously trimmed as per accepted Usenet protocols which Snit >>>>>> ignores> >>>>>> >>>>>>> It is conservatives who reject climate science. Their worship of the >>>>>>> wealthy overrides their ability to find solutions so they deny. >>>>>> >>>>>> If and when we Conservatives actually see some real >>>>>> climate science, instead of leftist climate propaganda, >>>>>> perhaps then we will not reject outright and immediately >>>>>> what you warmingtards falsely claim is "science". >>>>> >>>>> See: you claim science is a liberal idea... that is is liberals who >>>>> look >>>>> to science and evidence and data. >>>>> >>>>> On that I agree. At least on the topic of climate change conservatives >>>>> reject evidence. Heck, they repeatedly go to the same fewer-than-70 >>>>> scientists to push their agenda of worshiping the wealthy. >>>>> >>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_who_disagree_with_the_scientific_consensus_on_global_warming >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> As for solutions . . . there are no solutions to >>>>>> unscientific leftist propaganda "problems" other than >>>>>> to point out over and over again how ludicrously false >>>>>> and self-serving said problems all are. >>>>> >>>>> And again you prove me right that conservatives are so lost on the >>>>> topic >>>>> and so ashamed of their ignorance they would rather deny a well >>>>> documented problem than admit they do not have ANY idea how to deal >>>>> with it. >>>>> >>>>> I love how you guys are so stuck in your frustration over your >>>>> ignorance >>>>> you literally CANNOT stop yourself from showing it time and time >>>>> again. >>>> >>>> What if we just choose not to believe it and tell the warmingtards to >>>> shut the hell up? >>>> >>> >>> You can choose to be ignorant and ignore evidence... but by doing so you >>> recuse yourself from the adult's table. This is what Republicans do. >>> Once they recuse themselves why should they be invited to present their >>> ignorance? What is the value of that other than to be obstructionists? >>> >>> Republicans do not go with evidence-based policy. If we had a truly >>> liberal media this would be headline stories often. But the media is not >>> doing their job and trying to pretend that ignorance is as valid of an >>> argument as supported evidence. It is insane and it hurts our country. >> >> It's more like we just don't waste our time with matters that don't >> exist. >> > > Do you not see where you are denying well established facts? > > In case you STILL are not aware of the facts... No scientific body of > national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting > from any of these conclusions: > > âĒ "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, > many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia". > > âĒ "Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous > oxide have increased to levels unprecedented in at least the last > 800,000 years". > > âĒ 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. > > âĒ "Increasing magnitudes of [global] warming increase the likelihood of > severe, pervasive, and irreversible impacts" > > âĒ "A first step towards adaptation to future climate change is reducing > vulnerability and exposure to present climate variability" > > âĒ "The overall risks of climate change impacts can be reduced by > limiting the rate and magnitude of climate change" > > âĒ 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). > > âĒ 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. > > Your response is just to deny. > > You have NOTHING to bring to the table. > Skeeter is flipping out over this. Oh well. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-14 18:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <gcmib1Fju1tU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #727381 |
On 2/14/19 3:53 PM, Snit wrote: > On 2/14/19 12:26 PM, Skeeter wrote: >> In article <gclqu7Ff0kpU1@mid.individual.net>, >> usenet@gallopinginsanity.com says... >>> >>> On 2/14/19 11:19 AM, Skeeter wrote: >>>> In article <gclne4Fe5soU8@mid.individual.net>, >>>> usenet@gallopinginsanity.com says... >>>>> >>>>> On 2/14/19 7:51 AM, Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. wrote: >>>>>> On 14 Feb 2019 08:28:06 GMT, Shit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> <courteously trimmed as per accepted Usenet protocols which Snit >>>>>> ignores> >>>>>> >>>>>>> It is conservatives who reject climate science. Their worship of the >>>>>>> wealthy overrides their ability to find solutions so they deny. >>>>>> >>>>>> If and when we Conservatives actually see some real >>>>>> climate science, instead of leftist climate propaganda, >>>>>> perhaps then we will not reject outright and immediately >>>>>> what you warmingtards falsely claim is "science". >>>>> >>>>> See: you claim science is a liberal idea... that is is liberals who >>>>> look >>>>> to science and evidence and data. >>>>> >>>>> On that I agree. At least on the topic of climate change conservatives >>>>> reject evidence. Heck, they repeatedly go to the same fewer-than-70 >>>>> scientists to push their agenda of worshiping the wealthy. >>>>> >>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_who_disagree_with_the_scientific_consensus_on_global_warming >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> As for solutions . . . there are no solutions to >>>>>> unscientific leftist propaganda "problems" other than >>>>>> to point out over and over again how ludicrously false >>>>>> and self-serving said problems all are. >>>>> >>>>> And again you prove me right that conservatives are so lost on the >>>>> topic >>>>> and so ashamed of their ignorance they would rather deny a well >>>>> documented problem than admit they do not have ANY idea how to deal >>>>> with it. >>>>> >>>>> I love how you guys are so stuck in your frustration over your >>>>> ignorance >>>>> you literally CANNOT stop yourself from showing it time and time >>>>> again. >>>> >>>> What if we just choose not to believe it and tell the warmingtards to >>>> shut the hell up? >>>> >>> >>> You can choose to be ignorant and ignore evidence... but by doing so you >>> recuse yourself from the adult's table. This is what Republicans do. >>> Once they recuse themselves why should they be invited to present their >>> ignorance? What is the value of that other than to be obstructionists? >>> >>> Republicans do not go with evidence-based policy. If we had a truly >>> liberal media this would be headline stories often. But the media is not >>> doing their job and trying to pretend that ignorance is as valid of an >>> argument as supported evidence. It is insane and it hurts our country. >> >> It's more like we just don't waste our time with matters that don't >> exist. >> > > Do you not see where you are denying well established facts? > > In case you STILL are not aware of the facts... No scientific body of > national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting > from any of these conclusions: > > âĒ "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, > many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia". > > âĒ "Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous > oxide have increased to levels unprecedented in at least the last > 800,000 years". > > âĒ 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. > > âĒ "Increasing magnitudes of [global] warming increase the likelihood of > severe, pervasive, and irreversible impacts" > > âĒ "A first step towards adaptation to future climate change is reducing > vulnerability and exposure to present climate variability" > > âĒ "The overall risks of climate change impacts can be reduced by > limiting the rate and magnitude of climate change" > > âĒ 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). > > âĒ 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. > > Your response is just to deny. > > You have NOTHING to bring to the table. > Skeeter continues to freak out over this. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-14 13:44 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <q44cva$15lk$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #727324 |
On 2/14/2019 1:19 PM, Skeeter wrote: > In article <gclne4Fe5soU8@mid.individual.net>, > usenet@gallopinginsanity.com says... >> >> On 2/14/19 7:51 AM, Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. wrote: >>> On 14 Feb 2019 08:28:06 GMT, Shit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> >>> <courteously trimmed as per accepted Usenet protocols which Snit ignores> >>> >>>> It is conservatives who reject climate science. Their worship of the >>>> wealthy overrides their ability to find solutions so they deny. >>> >>> If and when we Conservatives actually see some real >>> climate science, instead of leftist climate propaganda, >>> perhaps then we will not reject outright and immediately >>> what you warmingtards falsely claim is "science". >> >> See: you claim science is a liberal idea... that is is liberals who look >> to science and evidence and data. >> >> On that I agree. At least on the topic of climate change conservatives >> reject evidence. Heck, they repeatedly go to the same fewer-than-70 >> scientists to push their agenda of worshiping the wealthy. >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_who_disagree_with_the_scientific_consensus_on_global_warming >> >>> As for solutions . . . there are no solutions to >>> unscientific leftist propaganda "problems" other than >>> to point out over and over again how ludicrously false >>> and self-serving said problems all are. >> >> And again you prove me right that conservatives are so lost on the topic >> and so ashamed of their ignorance they would rather deny a well >> documented problem than admit they do not have ANY idea how to deal with it. >> >> I love how you guys are so stuck in your frustration over your ignorance >> you literally CANNOT stop yourself from showing it time and time again. > > What if we just choose not to believe it and tell the warmingtards to > shut the hell up? You hate free speech same as The President? -- Grizzly H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-14 11:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <gclrfqFf4u2U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #727327 |
On 2/14/19 11:44 AM, mixed nuts wrote: > On 2/14/2019 1:19 PM, Skeeter wrote: >> In article <gclne4Fe5soU8@mid.individual.net>, >> usenet@gallopinginsanity.com says... >>> >>> On 2/14/19 7:51 AM, Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. wrote: >>>> On 14 Feb 2019 08:28:06 GMT, Shit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> <courteously trimmed as per accepted Usenet protocols which Snit >>>> ignores> >>>> >>>>> It is conservatives who reject climate science. Their worship of the >>>>> wealthy overrides their ability to find solutions so they deny. >>>> >>>> If and when we Conservatives actually see some real >>>> climate science, instead of leftist climate propaganda, >>>> perhaps then we will not reject outright and immediately >>>> what you warmingtards falsely claim is "science". >>> >>> See: you claim science is a liberal idea... that is is liberals who look >>> to science and evidence and data. >>> >>> On that I agree. At least on the topic of climate change conservatives >>> reject evidence. Heck, they repeatedly go to the same fewer-than-70 >>> scientists to push their agenda of worshiping the wealthy. >>> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_who_disagree_with_the_scientific_consensus_on_global_warming >>> >>> >>>> As for solutions . . . there are no solutions to >>>> unscientific leftist propaganda "problems" other than >>>> to point out over and over again how ludicrously false >>>> and self-serving said problems all are. >>> >>> And again you prove me right that conservatives are so lost on the topic >>> and so ashamed of their ignorance they would rather deny a well >>> documented problem than admit they do not have ANY idea how to deal >>> with it. >>> >>> I love how you guys are so stuck in your frustration over your ignorance >>> you literally CANNOT stop yourself from showing it time and time again. >> >> What if we just choose not to believe it and tell the warmingtards to >> shut the hell up? > > You hate free speech same as The President? > He wants to push ignorance as being of more value than information. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-14 12:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.36cf6f0f92a6ef8b1427@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #727329 |
In article <gclrfqFf4u2U1@mid.individual.net>, usenet@gallopinginsanity.com says... > >On 2/14/19 11:44 AM, mixed nuts wrote: >> On 2/14/2019 1:19 PM, Skeeter wrote: >>> In article <gclne4Fe5soU8@mid.individual.net>, >>> usenet@gallopinginsanity.com says... >>>> >>>> On 2/14/19 7:51 AM, Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. wrote: >>>>> On 14 Feb 2019 08:28:06 GMT, Shit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> <courteously trimmed as per accepted Usenet protocols which Snit >>>>> ignores> >>>>> >>>>>> It is conservatives who reject climate science. Their worship of the >>>>>> wealthy overrides their ability to find solutions so they deny. >>>>> >>>>> If and when we Conservatives actually see some real >>>>> climate science, instead of leftist climate propaganda, >>>>> perhaps then we will not reject outright and immediately >>>>> what you warmingtards falsely claim is "science". >>>> >>>> See: you claim science is a liberal idea... that is is liberals who look >>>> to science and evidence and data. >>>> >>>> On that I agree. At least on the topic of climate change conservatives >>>> reject evidence. Heck, they repeatedly go to the same fewer-than-70 >>>> scientists to push their agenda of worshiping the wealthy. >>>> >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_who_disagree_with_the_scientific_consensus_on_global_warming >>>> >>>> >>>>> As for solutions . . . there are no solutions to >>>>> unscientific leftist propaganda "problems" other than >>>>> to point out over and over again how ludicrously false >>>>> and self-serving said problems all are. >>>> >>>> And again you prove me right that conservatives are so lost on the topic >>>> and so ashamed of their ignorance they would rather deny a well >>>> documented problem than admit they do not have ANY idea how to deal >>>> with it. >>>> >>>> I love how you guys are so stuck in your frustration over your ignorance >>>> you literally CANNOT stop yourself from showing it time and time again. >>> >>> What if we just choose not to believe it and tell the warmingtards to >>> shut the hell up? >> >> You hate free speech same as The President? >> > >He wants to push ignorance as being of more value than information. Will you be melting down again today and responding to your own posts again?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-15 07:24 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <q45ifg$716$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #727339 |
On 2/14/2019 2:27 PM, Skeeter wrote: > Will you be melting down again today *sigh* *sweeps dust off table that used to be an irony meter* -- "To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks "I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade in here." ~Checkmate
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-15 05:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.36d0611e70978fc214c3@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #727471 |
In article <q45ifg$716$2@gioia.aioe.org>, kkensington01 @gmail.nospam.invalid says... > >On 2/14/2019 2:27 PM, Skeeter wrote: >> Will you be melting down again today > >*sigh* > >*sweeps dust off table that used to be an irony meter* a simple yes would have sufficed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-14 12:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.36cf6ee5e7de54211426@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #727327 |
In article <q44cva$15lk$1@gioia.aioe.org>, melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie says... > >On 2/14/2019 1:19 PM, Skeeter wrote: >> In article <gclne4Fe5soU8@mid.individual.net>, >> usenet@gallopinginsanity.com says... >>> >>> On 2/14/19 7:51 AM, Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. wrote: >>>> On 14 Feb 2019 08:28:06 GMT, Shit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> <courteously trimmed as per accepted Usenet protocols which Snit ignores> >>>> >>>>> It is conservatives who reject climate science. Their worship of the >>>>> wealthy overrides their ability to find solutions so they deny. >>>> >>>> If and when we Conservatives actually see some real >>>> climate science, instead of leftist climate propaganda, >>>> perhaps then we will not reject outright and immediately >>>> what you warmingtards falsely claim is "science". >>> >>> See: you claim science is a liberal idea... that is is liberals who look >>> to science and evidence and data. >>> >>> On that I agree. At least on the topic of climate change conservatives >>> reject evidence. Heck, they repeatedly go to the same fewer-than-70 >>> scientists to push their agenda of worshiping the wealthy. >>> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_who_disagree_with_the_scientific_consensus_on_global_warming >>> >>>> As for solutions . . . there are no solutions to >>>> unscientific leftist propaganda "problems" other than >>>> to point out over and over again how ludicrously false >>>> and self-serving said problems all are. >>> >>> And again you prove me right that conservatives are so lost on the topic >>> and so ashamed of their ignorance they would rather deny a well >>> documented problem than admit they do not have ANY idea how to deal with it. >>> >>> I love how you guys are so stuck in your frustration over your ignorance >>> you literally CANNOT stop yourself from showing it time and time again. >> >> What if we just choose not to believe it and tell the warmingtards to >> shut the hell up? > >You hate free speech same as The President? They can't rant all they want, to someone else.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-14 15:58 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <q44kql$ddv$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #727338 |
On 2/14/2019 2:26 PM, Skeeter wrote: > In article <q44cva$15lk$1@gioia.aioe.org>, > melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie says... >> >> On 2/14/2019 1:19 PM, Skeeter wrote: >>> In article <gclne4Fe5soU8@mid.individual.net>, >>> usenet@gallopinginsanity.com says... >>>> >>>> On 2/14/19 7:51 AM, Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. wrote: >>>>> On 14 Feb 2019 08:28:06 GMT, Shit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> <courteously trimmed as per accepted Usenet protocols which Snit ignores> >>>>> >>>>>> It is conservatives who reject climate science. Their worship of the >>>>>> wealthy overrides their ability to find solutions so they deny. >>>>> >>>>> If and when we Conservatives actually see some real >>>>> climate science, instead of leftist climate propaganda, >>>>> perhaps then we will not reject outright and immediately >>>>> what you warmingtards falsely claim is "science". >>>> >>>> See: you claim science is a liberal idea... that is is liberals who look >>>> to science and evidence and data. >>>> >>>> On that I agree. At least on the topic of climate change conservatives >>>> reject evidence. Heck, they repeatedly go to the same fewer-than-70 >>>> scientists to push their agenda of worshiping the wealthy. >>>> >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_who_disagree_with_the_scientific_consensus_on_global_warming >>>> >>>>> As for solutions . . . there are no solutions to >>>>> unscientific leftist propaganda "problems" other than >>>>> to point out over and over again how ludicrously false >>>>> and self-serving said problems all are. >>>> >>>> And again you prove me right that conservatives are so lost on the topic >>>> and so ashamed of their ignorance they would rather deny a well >>>> documented problem than admit they do not have ANY idea how to deal with it. >>>> >>>> I love how you guys are so stuck in your frustration over your ignorance >>>> you literally CANNOT stop yourself from showing it time and time again. >>> >>> What if we just choose not to believe it and tell the warmingtards to >>> shut the hell up? >> >> You hate free speech same as The President? > > They can't rant all they want, to someone else. Did you hear that Faux cancelled several Sean Hannity rants because they hate free speech? It's true. He should take it to the Supreme Count so Faux has to broadcast all his stuff because he's a very smart genius who tells the President what to do, don't you think? Genius people have rights. -- Grizzly H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-14 14:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.36cf8547b2503f7d142b@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #727350 |
In article <q44kql$ddv$1@gioia.aioe.org>, melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie says... > >On 2/14/2019 2:26 PM, Skeeter wrote: >> In article <q44cva$15lk$1@gioia.aioe.org>, >> melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie says... >>> >>> On 2/14/2019 1:19 PM, Skeeter wrote: >>>> In article <gclne4Fe5soU8@mid.individual.net>, >>>> usenet@gallopinginsanity.com says... >>>>> >>>>> On 2/14/19 7:51 AM, Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. wrote: >>>>>> On 14 Feb 2019 08:28:06 GMT, Shit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> <courteously trimmed as per accepted Usenet protocols which Snit ignores> >>>>>> >>>>>>> It is conservatives who reject climate science. Their worship of the >>>>>>> wealthy overrides their ability to find solutions so they deny. >>>>>> >>>>>> If and when we Conservatives actually see some real >>>>>> climate science, instead of leftist climate propaganda, >>>>>> perhaps then we will not reject outright and immediately >>>>>> what you warmingtards falsely claim is "science". >>>>> >>>>> See: you claim science is a liberal idea... that is is liberals who look >>>>> to science and evidence and data. >>>>> >>>>> On that I agree. At least on the topic of climate change conservatives >>>>> reject evidence. Heck, they repeatedly go to the same fewer-than-70 >>>>> scientists to push their agenda of worshiping the wealthy. >>>>> >>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_who_disagree_with_the_scientific_consensus_on_global_warming >>>>> >>>>>> As for solutions . . . there are no solutions to >>>>>> unscientific leftist propaganda "problems" other than >>>>>> to point out over and over again how ludicrously false >>>>>> and self-serving said problems all are. >>>>> >>>>> And again you prove me right that conservatives are so lost on the topic >>>>> and so ashamed of their ignorance they would rather deny a well >>>>> documented problem than admit they do not have ANY idea how to deal with it. >>>>> >>>>> I love how you guys are so stuck in your frustration over your ignorance >>>>> you literally CANNOT stop yourself from showing it time and time again. >>>> >>>> What if we just choose not to believe it and tell the warmingtards to >>>> shut the hell up? >>> >>> You hate free speech same as The President? >> >> They can't rant all they want, to someone else. > >Did you hear that Faux cancelled several Sean Hannity rants because they >hate free speech? It's true. He should take it to the Supreme Count so >Faux has to broadcast all his stuff because he's a very smart genius who >tells the President what to do, don't you think? Genius people have >rights. I don't watch it so I don't know.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-14 16:20 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <q44m2s$j8c$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #727351 |
On 2/14/2019 4:02 PM, Skeeter wrote: > In article <q44kql$ddv$1@gioia.aioe.org>, melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie > says... >> >> On 2/14/2019 2:26 PM, Skeeter wrote: >>> In article <q44cva$15lk$1@gioia.aioe.org>, >>> melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie says... >>>> >>>> On 2/14/2019 1:19 PM, Skeeter wrote: >>>>> In article <gclne4Fe5soU8@mid.individual.net>, >>>>> usenet@gallopinginsanity.com says... >>>>>> >>>>>> On 2/14/19 7:51 AM, Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. wrote: >>>>>>> On 14 Feb 2019 08:28:06 GMT, Shit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <courteously trimmed as per accepted Usenet protocols which Snit ignores> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It is conservatives who reject climate science. Their worship of the >>>>>>>> wealthy overrides their ability to find solutions so they deny. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If and when we Conservatives actually see some real >>>>>>> climate science, instead of leftist climate propaganda, >>>>>>> perhaps then we will not reject outright and immediately >>>>>>> what you warmingtards falsely claim is "science". >>>>>> >>>>>> See: you claim science is a liberal idea... that is is liberals who look >>>>>> to science and evidence and data. >>>>>> >>>>>> On that I agree. At least on the topic of climate change conservatives >>>>>> reject evidence. Heck, they repeatedly go to the same fewer-than-70 >>>>>> scientists to push their agenda of worshiping the wealthy. >>>>>> >>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_who_disagree_with_the_scientific_consensus_on_global_warming >>>>>> >>>>>>> As for solutions . . . there are no solutions to >>>>>>> unscientific leftist propaganda "problems" other than >>>>>>> to point out over and over again how ludicrously false >>>>>>> and self-serving said problems all are. >>>>>> >>>>>> And again you prove me right that conservatives are so lost on the topic >>>>>> and so ashamed of their ignorance they would rather deny a well >>>>>> documented problem than admit they do not have ANY idea how to deal with it. >>>>>> >>>>>> I love how you guys are so stuck in your frustration over your ignorance >>>>>> you literally CANNOT stop yourself from showing it time and time again. >>>>> >>>>> What if we just choose not to believe it and tell the warmingtards to >>>>> shut the hell up? >>>> >>>> You hate free speech same as The President? >>> >>> They can't rant all they want, to someone else. >> >> Did you hear that Faux cancelled several Sean Hannity rants because they >> hate free speech? It's true. He should take it to the Supreme Count so >> Faux has to broadcast all his stuff because he's a very smart genius who >> tells the President what to do, don't you think? Genius people have >> rights. > > I don't watch it so I don't know. I don't either because he bitches and whines a lot, and that gets old fast, but you see stuff about his whining all over the internet because people hate PC shit about free speech for everybody. You just have to make some people shut up. -- Grizzly H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-14 14:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.36cf8c632d1796031431@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #727359 |
In article <q44m2s$j8c$1@gioia.aioe.org>, melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie says... > >On 2/14/2019 4:02 PM, Skeeter wrote: >> In article <q44kql$ddv$1@gioia.aioe.org>, melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie >> says... >>> >>> On 2/14/2019 2:26 PM, Skeeter wrote: >>>> In article <q44cva$15lk$1@gioia.aioe.org>, >>>> melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie says... >>>>> >>>>> On 2/14/2019 1:19 PM, Skeeter wrote: >>>>>> In article <gclne4Fe5soU8@mid.individual.net>, >>>>>> usenet@gallopinginsanity.com says... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 2/14/19 7:51 AM, Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. wrote: >>>>>>>> On 14 Feb 2019 08:28:06 GMT, Shit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> <courteously trimmed as per accepted Usenet protocols which Snit ignores> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It is conservatives who reject climate science. Their worship of the >>>>>>>>> wealthy overrides their ability to find solutions so they deny. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If and when we Conservatives actually see some real >>>>>>>> climate science, instead of leftist climate propaganda, >>>>>>>> perhaps then we will not reject outright and immediately >>>>>>>> what you warmingtards falsely claim is "science". >>>>>>> >>>>>>> See: you claim science is a liberal idea... that is is liberals who look >>>>>>> to science and evidence and data. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On that I agree. At least on the topic of climate change conservatives >>>>>>> reject evidence. Heck, they repeatedly go to the same fewer-than-70 >>>>>>> scientists to push their agenda of worshiping the wealthy. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_who_disagree_with_the_scientific_consensus_on_global_warming >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> As for solutions . . . there are no solutions to >>>>>>>> unscientific leftist propaganda "problems" other than >>>>>>>> to point out over and over again how ludicrously false >>>>>>>> and self-serving said problems all are. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And again you prove me right that conservatives are so lost on the topic >>>>>>> and so ashamed of their ignorance they would rather deny a well >>>>>>> documented problem than admit they do not have ANY idea how to deal with it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I love how you guys are so stuck in your frustration over your ignorance >>>>>>> you literally CANNOT stop yourself from showing it time and time again. >>>>>> >>>>>> What if we just choose not to believe it and tell the warmingtards to >>>>>> shut the hell up? >>>>> >>>>> You hate free speech same as The President? >>>> >>>> They can't rant all they want, to someone else. >>> >>> Did you hear that Faux cancelled several Sean Hannity rants because they >>> hate free speech? It's true. He should take it to the Supreme Count so >>> Faux has to broadcast all his stuff because he's a very smart genius who >>> tells the President what to do, don't you think? Genius people have >>> rights. >> >> I don't watch it so I don't know. > >I don't either because he bitches and whines a lot, and that gets old >fast, but you see stuff about his whining all over the internet because >people hate PC shit about free speech for everybody. You just have to >make some people shut up. OK, like I said I get my research from reliable sources, usenet and the comment section on Facebook.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-13 20:30 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <q42gb7$l4i$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #727110 |
On 2/13/2019 3:45 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> On 2/13/19 11:07 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote: >>>>> In sci.physics kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> wrote: >>>>>> Within your child or grandchild's lifetime, the weather may be >>>>>> dramatically different because of climate change. >>>>> >>>>> Or it MAY be not much different than it is now. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I hat does our best evidence say? >>>> >>>> Do you even know? >>> >>> There is no evidence for the future as the future isn't here yet. >> >> So no evidence the sun will rise tomorrow, nor the time that it will for >> you. > > No, there is not. Perhaps you should look up the definition of the word > "evidence". > > There is a very high probability, but no evidence. > >> I disagree. I bet if you look up what time the sun will rise in your >> area, and then find the time when it happens, it will be VERY close. > > The time of sunrise and the act of sunrise are two different things. > >> Do this and we can test you idea and mine. I say it IS possible to have >> some ideas about the future and have some level of confidence in them, >> and to do this based on scientific measurements and calculations. > > Do you understand what the word "probability" means? > > It is known that the Sun and the Earth will someday die, in which case > there will be no more sun rises. > > The probablilty that it will happen tomorrow is very, very, low. > > >>> Everything about the future is speculation and it is irrelevant that some >>> speculation is "better" than some other speculation as it is all still >>> speculation. >>> >>> Here's some speculation from James Hansen from 13 years ago that we would >>> be in a catastrophe by 3 years ago. >>> >>> Hansen is supposed to be among the best of the speculators yet he was >>> wrong. >>> >>> http://www.nbcnews.com/id/14834318/ns/us_news-environment/t/warming-expert-only-decade-left-act-time/#.XEeySlxKiPo >>> >>> Why does it bother you that I am not going into a hysterical panic over >>> every speculative "tipping point"? >> >> As noted: you and Republicans have nothing to bring to the table in >> terms of planning for the future. AOC does. Until you do her ideas are >> the best on the table. > > Childish nonsense from someone that doesn't understand the difference > between probability and evidence. > > Yeah,, AOC has lots to bring to the table. I mean the destruction of all human civilization isn't going nearly fast enough so AOC has some great Socialist ideas to end it all much sooner. Remember how great collectivism utopia is? Sure killing off hundreds of million isn the billions neede to empty the planet, but hey you have to start somewhere. I'm sure AOC has a plan.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-13 18:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <gcjv1bF2c0fU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #727198 |
On 2/13/19 6:30 PM, benj wrote: > On 2/13/2019 3:45 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> On 2/13/19 11:07 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote: >>>>>> In sci.physics kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>> Within your child or grandchild's lifetime, the weather may be >>>>>>> dramatically different because of climate change. >>>>>> >>>>>> Or it MAY be not much different than it is now. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I hat does our best evidence say? >>>>> >>>>> Do you even know? >>>> >>>> There is no evidence for the future as the future isn't here yet. >>> >>> So no evidence the sun will rise tomorrow, nor the time that it will for >>> you. >> >> No, there is not. Perhaps you should look up the definition of the word >> "evidence". >> >> There is a very high probability, but no evidence. >> >>> I disagree. I bet if you look up what time the sun will rise in your >>> area, and then find the time when it happens, it will be VERY close. >> >> The time of sunrise and the act of sunrise are two different things. >> >>> Do this and we can test you idea and mine. I say it IS possible to have >>> some ideas about the future and have some level of confidence in them, >>> and to do this based on scientific measurements and calculations. >> >> Do you understand what the word "probability" means? >> >> It is known that the Sun and the Earth will someday die, in which case >> there will be no more sun rises. >> >> The probablilty that it will happen tomorrow is very, very, low. >> >> >>>> Everything about the future is speculation and it is irrelevant that >>>> some >>>> speculation is "better" than some other speculation as it is all still >>>> speculation. >>>> >>>> Here's some speculation from James Hansen from 13 years ago that we >>>> would >>>> be in a catastrophe by 3 years ago. >>>> >>>> Hansen is supposed to be among the best of the speculators yet he was >>>> wrong. >>>> >>>> http://www.nbcnews.com/id/14834318/ns/us_news-environment/t/warming-expert-only-decade-left-act-time/#.XEeySlxKiPo >>>> >>>> >>>> Why does it bother you that I am not going into a hysterical panic over >>>> every speculative "tipping point"? >>> >>> As noted: you and Republicans have nothing to bring to the table in >>> terms of planning for the future. AOC does. Until you do her ideas are >>> the best on the table. >> Childish nonsense from someone that doesn't understand the difference >> between probability and evidence. >> > Yeah,, AOC has lots to bring to the table. I agree. Good to see you have figured this out, too. > I mean the destruction of all > human civilization isn't going nearly fast enough so AOC has some great > Socialist ideas to end it all much sooner. What an odd thing to say... something you know you cannot back but just want to get attention. Odd that you would do that... or, really, just pathetic. What makes you desire attention so badly you would spew such unsupportable nonsense? > Remember how great > collectivism utopia is? Sure killing off hundreds of million isn the > billions neede to empty the planet, but hey you have to start somewhere. > I'm sure AOC has a plan. Once again you prove how you know you and the Republicans have nothing to offer so you just lash out with lies. Amazing how often you do that. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | % <persent@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-13 18:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bvv6iu.1pg.17.4@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #727200 |
On 2019-02-13 6:36 p.m., Snit wrote: > On 2/13/19 6:30 PM, benj wrote: >> On 2/13/2019 3:45 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>> On 2/13/19 11:07 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote: >>>>>>> In sci.physics kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>> Within your child or grandchild's lifetime, the weather may be >>>>>>>> dramatically different because of climate change. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Or it MAY be not much different than it is now. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I hat does our best evidence say? >>>>>> >>>>>> Do you even know? >>>>> >>>>> There is no evidence for the future as the future isn't here yet. >>>> >>>> So no evidence the sun will rise tomorrow, nor the time that it will >>>> for >>>> you. >>> >>> No, there is not. Perhaps you should look up the definition of the word >>> "evidence". >>> >>> There is a very high probability, but no evidence. >>> >>>> I disagree. I bet if you look up what time the sun will rise in your >>>> area, and then find the time when it happens, it will be VERY close. >>> >>> The time of sunrise and the act of sunrise are two different things. >>> >>>> Do this and we can test you idea and mine. I say it IS possible to have >>>> some ideas about the future and have some level of confidence in them, >>>> and to do this based on scientific measurements and calculations. >>> >>> Do you understand what the word "probability" means? >>> >>> It is known that the Sun and the Earth will someday die, in which case >>> there will be no more sun rises. >>> >>> The probablilty that it will happen tomorrow is very, very, low. >>> >>> >>>>> Everything about the future is speculation and it is irrelevant >>>>> that some >>>>> speculation is "better" than some other speculation as it is all still >>>>> speculation. >>>>> >>>>> Here's some speculation from James Hansen from 13 years ago that we >>>>> would >>>>> be in a catastrophe by 3 years ago. >>>>> >>>>> Hansen is supposed to be among the best of the speculators yet he was >>>>> wrong. >>>>> >>>>> http://www.nbcnews.com/id/14834318/ns/us_news-environment/t/warming-expert-only-decade-left-act-time/#.XEeySlxKiPo >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Why does it bother you that I am not going into a hysterical panic >>>>> over >>>>> every speculative "tipping point"? >>>> >>>> As noted: you and Republicans have nothing to bring to the table in >>>> terms of planning for the future. AOC does. Until you do her ideas are >>>> the best on the table. >>> Childish nonsense from someone that doesn't understand the difference >>> between probability and evidence. >>> >> Yeah,, AOC has lots to bring to the table. > > I agree. Good to see you have figured this out, too. > >> I mean the destruction of all human civilization isn't going nearly >> fast enough so AOC has some great Socialist ideas to end it all much >> sooner. > > What an odd thing to say... something you know you cannot back but just > want to get attention. Odd that you would do that... or, really, just > pathetic. What makes you desire attention so badly you would spew such > unsupportable nonsense? > >> Remember how great collectivism utopia is? Sure killing off hundreds >> of million isn the billions neede to empty the planet, but hey you >> have to start somewhere. I'm sure AOC has a plan. > > Once again you prove how you know you and the Republicans have nothing > to offer so you just lash out with lies. > > Amazing how often you do that. > i just read the subject line , i don't live in a city , so i guess i don't get the change
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-13 18:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <gcjve5F2gnrU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #727203 |
On 2/13/19 6:42 PM, % wrote: > On 2019-02-13 6:36 p.m., Snit wrote: >> On 2/13/19 6:30 PM, benj wrote: >>> On 2/13/2019 3:45 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>> On 2/13/19 11:07 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> In sci.physics kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>> Within your child or grandchild's lifetime, the weather may be >>>>>>>>> dramatically different because of climate change. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Or it MAY be not much different than it is now. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I hat does our best evidence say? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Do you even know? >>>>>> >>>>>> There is no evidence for the future as the future isn't here yet. >>>>> >>>>> So no evidence the sun will rise tomorrow, nor the time that it >>>>> will for >>>>> you. >>>> >>>> No, there is not. Perhaps you should look up the definition of the word >>>> "evidence". >>>> >>>> There is a very high probability, but no evidence. >>>> >>>>> I disagree. I bet if you look up what time the sun will rise in your >>>>> area, and then find the time when it happens, it will be VERY close. >>>> >>>> The time of sunrise and the act of sunrise are two different things. >>>> >>>>> Do this and we can test you idea and mine. I say it IS possible to >>>>> have >>>>> some ideas about the future and have some level of confidence in them, >>>>> and to do this based on scientific measurements and calculations. >>>> >>>> Do you understand what the word "probability" means? >>>> >>>> It is known that the Sun and the Earth will someday die, in which case >>>> there will be no more sun rises. >>>> >>>> The probablilty that it will happen tomorrow is very, very, low. >>>> >>>> >>>>>> Everything about the future is speculation and it is irrelevant >>>>>> that some >>>>>> speculation is "better" than some other speculation as it is all >>>>>> still >>>>>> speculation. >>>>>> >>>>>> Here's some speculation from James Hansen from 13 years ago that >>>>>> we would >>>>>> be in a catastrophe by 3 years ago. >>>>>> >>>>>> Hansen is supposed to be among the best of the speculators yet he was >>>>>> wrong. >>>>>> >>>>>> http://www.nbcnews.com/id/14834318/ns/us_news-environment/t/warming-expert-only-decade-left-act-time/#.XEeySlxKiPo >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Why does it bother you that I am not going into a hysterical panic >>>>>> over >>>>>> every speculative "tipping point"? >>>>> >>>>> As noted: you and Republicans have nothing to bring to the table in >>>>> terms of planning for the future. AOC does. Until you do her ideas are >>>>> the best on the table. >>>> Childish nonsense from someone that doesn't understand the difference >>>> between probability and evidence. >>>> >>> Yeah,, AOC has lots to bring to the table. >> >> I agree. Good to see you have figured this out, too. >> >>> I mean the destruction of all human civilization isn't going nearly >>> fast enough so AOC has some great Socialist ideas to end it all much >>> sooner. >> >> What an odd thing to say... something you know you cannot back but >> just want to get attention. Odd that you would do that... or, really, >> just pathetic. What makes you desire attention so badly you would spew >> such unsupportable nonsense? >> >>> Remember how great collectivism utopia is? Sure killing off hundreds >>> of million isn the billions neede to empty the planet, but hey you >>> have to start somewhere. I'm sure AOC has a plan. >> >> Once again you prove how you know you and the Republicans have nothing >> to offer so you just lash out with lies. >> >> Amazing how often you do that. >> > > i just read the subject line , > i don't live in a city , > so i guess i don't get the change Keep your bills. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | % <persent@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-13 18:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bvv6sn.1pg.17.6@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #727204 |
On 2019-02-13 6:43 p.m., Snit wrote: > On 2/13/19 6:42 PM, % wrote: >> On 2019-02-13 6:36 p.m., Snit wrote: >>> On 2/13/19 6:30 PM, benj wrote: >>>> On 2/13/2019 3:45 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 2/13/19 11:07 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> In sci.physics kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Within your child or grandchild's lifetime, the weather may be >>>>>>>>>> dramatically different because of climate change. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Or it MAY be not much different than it is now. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I hat does our best evidence say? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Do you even know? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There is no evidence for the future as the future isn't here yet. >>>>>> >>>>>> So no evidence the sun will rise tomorrow, nor the time that it >>>>>> will for >>>>>> you. >>>>> >>>>> No, there is not. Perhaps you should look up the definition of the >>>>> word >>>>> "evidence". >>>>> >>>>> There is a very high probability, but no evidence. >>>>> >>>>>> I disagree. I bet if you look up what time the sun will rise in your >>>>>> area, and then find the time when it happens, it will be VERY close. >>>>> >>>>> The time of sunrise and the act of sunrise are two different things. >>>>> >>>>>> Do this and we can test you idea and mine. I say it IS possible to >>>>>> have >>>>>> some ideas about the future and have some level of confidence in >>>>>> them, >>>>>> and to do this based on scientific measurements and calculations. >>>>> >>>>> Do you understand what the word "probability" means? >>>>> >>>>> It is known that the Sun and the Earth will someday die, in which case >>>>> there will be no more sun rises. >>>>> >>>>> The probablilty that it will happen tomorrow is very, very, low. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> Everything about the future is speculation and it is irrelevant >>>>>>> that some >>>>>>> speculation is "better" than some other speculation as it is all >>>>>>> still >>>>>>> speculation. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Here's some speculation from James Hansen from 13 years ago that >>>>>>> we would >>>>>>> be in a catastrophe by 3 years ago. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hansen is supposed to be among the best of the speculators yet he >>>>>>> was >>>>>>> wrong. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://www.nbcnews.com/id/14834318/ns/us_news-environment/t/warming-expert-only-decade-left-act-time/#.XEeySlxKiPo >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Why does it bother you that I am not going into a hysterical >>>>>>> panic over >>>>>>> every speculative "tipping point"? >>>>>> >>>>>> As noted: you and Republicans have nothing to bring to the table in >>>>>> terms of planning for the future. AOC does. Until you do her ideas >>>>>> are >>>>>> the best on the table. >>>>> Childish nonsense from someone that doesn't understand the difference >>>>> between probability and evidence. >>>>> >>>> Yeah,, AOC has lots to bring to the table. >>> >>> I agree. Good to see you have figured this out, too. >>> >>>> I mean the destruction of all human civilization isn't going nearly >>>> fast enough so AOC has some great Socialist ideas to end it all much >>>> sooner. >>> >>> What an odd thing to say... something you know you cannot back but >>> just want to get attention. Odd that you would do that... or, really, >>> just pathetic. What makes you desire attention so badly you would >>> spew such unsupportable nonsense? >>> >>>> Remember how great collectivism utopia is? Sure killing off hundreds >>>> of million isn the billions neede to empty the planet, but hey you >>>> have to start somewhere. I'm sure AOC has a plan. >>> >>> Once again you prove how you know you and the Republicans have >>> nothing to offer so you just lash out with lies. >>> >>> Amazing how often you do that. >>> >> >> i just read the subject line , >> i don't live in a city , >> so i guess i don't get the change > > Keep your bills. > who's bill
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-13 18:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <gck00hF2k0aU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #727206 |
On 2/13/19 6:47 PM, % wrote: > On 2019-02-13 6:43 p.m., Snit wrote: >> On 2/13/19 6:42 PM, % wrote: >>> On 2019-02-13 6:36 p.m., Snit wrote: >>>> On 2/13/19 6:30 PM, benj wrote: >>>>> On 2/13/2019 3:45 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On 2/13/19 11:07 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Within your child or grandchild's lifetime, the weather may be >>>>>>>>>>> dramatically different because of climate change. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Or it MAY be not much different than it is now. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I hat does our best evidence say? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Do you even know? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> There is no evidence for the future as the future isn't here yet. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So no evidence the sun will rise tomorrow, nor the time that it >>>>>>> will for >>>>>>> you. >>>>>> >>>>>> No, there is not. Perhaps you should look up the definition of the >>>>>> word >>>>>> "evidence". >>>>>> >>>>>> There is a very high probability, but no evidence. >>>>>> >>>>>>> I disagree. I bet if you look up what time the sun will rise in your >>>>>>> area, and then find the time when it happens, it will be VERY close. >>>>>> >>>>>> The time of sunrise and the act of sunrise are two different things. >>>>>> >>>>>>> Do this and we can test you idea and mine. I say it IS possible >>>>>>> to have >>>>>>> some ideas about the future and have some level of confidence in >>>>>>> them, >>>>>>> and to do this based on scientific measurements and calculations. >>>>>> >>>>>> Do you understand what the word "probability" means? >>>>>> >>>>>> It is known that the Sun and the Earth will someday die, in which >>>>>> case >>>>>> there will be no more sun rises. >>>>>> >>>>>> The probablilty that it will happen tomorrow is very, very, low. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> Everything about the future is speculation and it is irrelevant >>>>>>>> that some >>>>>>>> speculation is "better" than some other speculation as it is all >>>>>>>> still >>>>>>>> speculation. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Here's some speculation from James Hansen from 13 years ago that >>>>>>>> we would >>>>>>>> be in a catastrophe by 3 years ago. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hansen is supposed to be among the best of the speculators yet >>>>>>>> he was >>>>>>>> wrong. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> http://www.nbcnews.com/id/14834318/ns/us_news-environment/t/warming-expert-only-decade-left-act-time/#.XEeySlxKiPo >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Why does it bother you that I am not going into a hysterical >>>>>>>> panic over >>>>>>>> every speculative "tipping point"? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As noted: you and Republicans have nothing to bring to the table in >>>>>>> terms of planning for the future. AOC does. Until you do her >>>>>>> ideas are >>>>>>> the best on the table. >>>>>> Childish nonsense from someone that doesn't understand the difference >>>>>> between probability and evidence. >>>>>> >>>>> Yeah,, AOC has lots to bring to the table. >>>> >>>> I agree. Good to see you have figured this out, too. >>>> >>>>> I mean the destruction of all human civilization isn't going nearly >>>>> fast enough so AOC has some great Socialist ideas to end it all >>>>> much sooner. >>>> >>>> What an odd thing to say... something you know you cannot back but >>>> just want to get attention. Odd that you would do that... or, >>>> really, just pathetic. What makes you desire attention so badly you >>>> would spew such unsupportable nonsense? >>>> >>>>> Remember how great collectivism utopia is? Sure killing off >>>>> hundreds of million isn the billions neede to empty the planet, but >>>>> hey you have to start somewhere. I'm sure AOC has a plan. >>>> >>>> Once again you prove how you know you and the Republicans have >>>> nothing to offer so you just lash out with lies. >>>> >>>> Amazing how often you do that. >>>> >>> >>> i just read the subject line , >>> i don't live in a city , >>> so i guess i don't get the change >> >> Keep your bills. >> > who's bill The person Hillary used to get to power. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | % <persent@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-13 19:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bvv8d7.840.19.5@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #727207 |
On 2019-02-13 6:53 p.m., Snit wrote: > On 2/13/19 6:47 PM, % wrote: >> On 2019-02-13 6:43 p.m., Snit wrote: >>> On 2/13/19 6:42 PM, % wrote: >>>> On 2019-02-13 6:36 p.m., Snit wrote: >>>>> On 2/13/19 6:30 PM, benj wrote: >>>>>> On 2/13/2019 3:45 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2/13/19 11:07 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Within your child or grandchild's lifetime, the weather may be >>>>>>>>>>>> dramatically different because of climate change. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Or it MAY be not much different than it is now. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I hat does our best evidence say? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Do you even know? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> There is no evidence for the future as the future isn't here yet. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So no evidence the sun will rise tomorrow, nor the time that it >>>>>>>> will for >>>>>>>> you. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No, there is not. Perhaps you should look up the definition of >>>>>>> the word >>>>>>> "evidence". >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There is a very high probability, but no evidence. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I disagree. I bet if you look up what time the sun will rise in >>>>>>>> your >>>>>>>> area, and then find the time when it happens, it will be VERY >>>>>>>> close. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The time of sunrise and the act of sunrise are two different things. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Do this and we can test you idea and mine. I say it IS possible >>>>>>>> to have >>>>>>>> some ideas about the future and have some level of confidence in >>>>>>>> them, >>>>>>>> and to do this based on scientific measurements and calculations. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Do you understand what the word "probability" means? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It is known that the Sun and the Earth will someday die, in which >>>>>>> case >>>>>>> there will be no more sun rises. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The probablilty that it will happen tomorrow is very, very, low. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Everything about the future is speculation and it is irrelevant >>>>>>>>> that some >>>>>>>>> speculation is "better" than some other speculation as it is >>>>>>>>> all still >>>>>>>>> speculation. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Here's some speculation from James Hansen from 13 years ago >>>>>>>>> that we would >>>>>>>>> be in a catastrophe by 3 years ago. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hansen is supposed to be among the best of the speculators yet >>>>>>>>> he was >>>>>>>>> wrong. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> http://www.nbcnews.com/id/14834318/ns/us_news-environment/t/warming-expert-only-decade-left-act-time/#.XEeySlxKiPo >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Why does it bother you that I am not going into a hysterical >>>>>>>>> panic over >>>>>>>>> every speculative "tipping point"? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> As noted: you and Republicans have nothing to bring to the table in >>>>>>>> terms of planning for the future. AOC does. Until you do her >>>>>>>> ideas are >>>>>>>> the best on the table. >>>>>>> Childish nonsense from someone that doesn't understand the >>>>>>> difference >>>>>>> between probability and evidence. >>>>>>> >>>>>> Yeah,, AOC has lots to bring to the table. >>>>> >>>>> I agree. Good to see you have figured this out, too. >>>>> >>>>>> I mean the destruction of all human civilization isn't going >>>>>> nearly fast enough so AOC has some great Socialist ideas to end it >>>>>> all much sooner. >>>>> >>>>> What an odd thing to say... something you know you cannot back but >>>>> just want to get attention. Odd that you would do that... or, >>>>> really, just pathetic. What makes you desire attention so badly you >>>>> would spew such unsupportable nonsense? >>>>> >>>>>> Remember how great collectivism utopia is? Sure killing off >>>>>> hundreds of million isn the billions neede to empty the planet, >>>>>> but hey you have to start somewhere. I'm sure AOC has a plan. >>>>> >>>>> Once again you prove how you know you and the Republicans have >>>>> nothing to offer so you just lash out with lies. >>>>> >>>>> Amazing how often you do that. >>>>> >>>> >>>> i just read the subject line , >>>> i don't live in a city , >>>> so i guess i don't get the change >>> >>> Keep your bills. >>> >> who's bill > > The person Hillary used to get to power. > i liked him
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-13 19:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <gck1t0F2vj2U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #727208 |
On 2/13/19 7:13 PM, % wrote: > On 2019-02-13 6:53 p.m., Snit wrote: >> On 2/13/19 6:47 PM, % wrote: >>> On 2019-02-13 6:43 p.m., Snit wrote: >>>> On 2/13/19 6:42 PM, % wrote: >>>>> On 2019-02-13 6:36 p.m., Snit wrote: >>>>>> On 2/13/19 6:30 PM, benj wrote: >>>>>>> On 2/13/2019 3:45 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 2/13/19 11:07 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> Within your child or grandchild's lifetime, the weather may be >>>>>>>>>>>>> dramatically different because of climate change. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Or it MAY be not much different than it is now. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I hat does our best evidence say? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Do you even know? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> There is no evidence for the future as the future isn't here yet. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So no evidence the sun will rise tomorrow, nor the time that it >>>>>>>>> will for >>>>>>>>> you. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No, there is not. Perhaps you should look up the definition of >>>>>>>> the word >>>>>>>> "evidence". >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> There is a very high probability, but no evidence. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I disagree. I bet if you look up what time the sun will rise in >>>>>>>>> your >>>>>>>>> area, and then find the time when it happens, it will be VERY >>>>>>>>> close. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The time of sunrise and the act of sunrise are two different >>>>>>>> things. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Do this and we can test you idea and mine. I say it IS possible >>>>>>>>> to have >>>>>>>>> some ideas about the future and have some level of confidence >>>>>>>>> in them, >>>>>>>>> and to do this based on scientific measurements and calculations. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Do you understand what the word "probability" means? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It is known that the Sun and the Earth will someday die, in >>>>>>>> which case >>>>>>>> there will be no more sun rises. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The probablilty that it will happen tomorrow is very, very, low. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Everything about the future is speculation and it is >>>>>>>>>> irrelevant that some >>>>>>>>>> speculation is "better" than some other speculation as it is >>>>>>>>>> all still >>>>>>>>>> speculation. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Here's some speculation from James Hansen from 13 years ago >>>>>>>>>> that we would >>>>>>>>>> be in a catastrophe by 3 years ago. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Hansen is supposed to be among the best of the speculators yet >>>>>>>>>> he was >>>>>>>>>> wrong. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> http://www.nbcnews.com/id/14834318/ns/us_news-environment/t/warming-expert-only-decade-left-act-time/#.XEeySlxKiPo >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Why does it bother you that I am not going into a hysterical >>>>>>>>>> panic over >>>>>>>>>> every speculative "tipping point"? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> As noted: you and Republicans have nothing to bring to the >>>>>>>>> table in >>>>>>>>> terms of planning for the future. AOC does. Until you do her >>>>>>>>> ideas are >>>>>>>>> the best on the table. >>>>>>>> Childish nonsense from someone that doesn't understand the >>>>>>>> difference >>>>>>>> between probability and evidence. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yeah,, AOC has lots to bring to the table. >>>>>> >>>>>> I agree. Good to see you have figured this out, too. >>>>>> >>>>>>> I mean the destruction of all human civilization isn't going >>>>>>> nearly fast enough so AOC has some great Socialist ideas to end >>>>>>> it all much sooner. >>>>>> >>>>>> What an odd thing to say... something you know you cannot back but >>>>>> just want to get attention. Odd that you would do that... or, >>>>>> really, just pathetic. What makes you desire attention so badly >>>>>> you would spew such unsupportable nonsense? >>>>>> >>>>>>> Remember how great collectivism utopia is? Sure killing off >>>>>>> hundreds of million isn the billions neede to empty the planet, >>>>>>> but hey you have to start somewhere. I'm sure AOC has a plan. >>>>>> >>>>>> Once again you prove how you know you and the Republicans have >>>>>> nothing to offer so you just lash out with lies. >>>>>> >>>>>> Amazing how often you do that. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> i just read the subject line , >>>>> i don't live in a city , >>>>> so i guess i don't get the change >>>> >>>> Keep your bills. >>>> >>> who's bill >> >> The person Hillary used to get to power. >> > > i liked him I never met him. -- 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 10 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 12 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web