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: ❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄ With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? ❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄ Sir Gaygory's Owner's Owner 🐶笛 <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 7 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 12 Next page →
| From | Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-14 14:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.36cf8c106e24da231430@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #727358 |
In article <c01bhq.d6a.19.8@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... > >On 2019-02-14 2:14 p.m., Skeeter wrote: >> In article <c01ast.d6a.19.1@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... >>> >>> On 2019-02-13 10:05 p.m., jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>> In sci.physics % <persent@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On 2019-02-13 8:54 p.m., jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On 2/13/19 1:45 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". >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Wow. You do not think there is ANY evidence of what time the sun will >>>>>>> rise tomorrow or even that it will at all. >>>>>> >>>>>> Learn to read, child. >>>>>> >>>>>> There is a high probablility that the sun will rise tomorrow but zero >>>>>> evidence that it will in fact rise. >>>>>> >>>>>> There is zero evidence for the time of sunrise tomorrow but there is >>>>>> a lot of data that can predict that time to a high degree of accuracy >>>>>> if in fact the sun does rise tomorrow. >>>>>> >>>>>>> Given that it is good you have recused yourself from the discussion on >>>>>>> solutions to complex problems! >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> There is a very high probability, but no evidence. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> How can evidence show a very high probability without being evidence? >>>>>>> Sounds like word salad. >>>>>> >>>>>> That is all you seem capable of posting. >>>>>> >>>>>> If one is going to post to sci.physics, one should learn a little basic >>>>>> science such as what is evidence, what is data and what is probability. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> you posted to 3 different groups >>>> >>>> Not me, fool, it is you and your puerile little clique that is doing >>>> all the idiotic crossposting as you damn well know. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> here's what you said in 3 different groups and , >>> i'll post anywhere i god damn like and , >>> you'll sit there and put up with it so shut your face , greaser >>> >>> If one is going to post to sci.physics, one should learn a little basic >>>>>> science such as what is evidence, what is data and what is probability. >>>>>> >> >> and this is said by a person who cross posts glowball worming crap to a >> gun group. If irony meters actually existed hers would be on the moon. >> > >he's a fk'in jimp , a coward just like his war ancestors were Oh, I thought you were responding to Kensi, well anyway WHAT HE SAID!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-14 06:08 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <q42pk1$1ont$6@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #727250 |
On 2/13/2019 10:54 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > If one is going to post to sci.physics, one should learn a little basic > science such as what is evidence, what is data and what is probability. And the above is how I found out that Finnish irony meters are of no sturdier construction than American ones. Time to find me a Swiss supplier. If anyone makes ones that will survive in this extreme environment it'll be the Swiss. Failing that, maybe I can get the company that made the shielding on the Parker solar probe to harden one in some way ... -- "To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks "I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade in here." ~Checkmate
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-14 00:21 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.36cec4eb6268652a9964b9@news.altopia.com> |
| In reply to | #727255 |
Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts by Checkmate! In article <q42pk1$1ont$6@gioia.aioe.org>, kkensington01 @gmail.nospam.invalid says... ¤ ¤ On 2/13/2019 10:54 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: ¤ > If one is going to post to sci.physics, one should learn a little basic ¤ > science such as what is evidence, what is data and what is probability. ¤ ¤ And the above is how I found out that Finnish irony meters are of no ¤ sturdier construction than American ones. ¤ ¤ Time to find me a Swiss supplier. If anyone makes ones that will survive ¤ in this extreme environment it'll be the Swiss. Failing that, maybe I ¤ can get the company that made the shielding on the Parker solar probe to ¤ harden one in some way ... I'll harden on in for you... -- Checkmate ® Copyright © 2018 all rights reserved AUK Hammer of Thor award, Feb. 2012 (Pre-Burnore) Destroyer of the AUK Ko0k Awards (Post-Burnore) Co-winner Pierre Salinger Hook, Line & Sinker award May 2001, (Brethern of Beelzebub troll) Pierre Salinger Hook, Line & Sinker award, Feb 2012 Author, Humorist, Cynic Philosopher, Humanitarian Poet, Elektrishun to the Stars Usenet Shot-Caller In loving memory of The Battle Kitten May 2010-February 12, 2017 "There are many here among us, who feel that life is but a joke." "I am the author of nearly as much kook butthurt as kensi." -Nadegda Message-ID: <pbg8ne$p9k$21@dont-email.me> "People just submitted it ... I don't know why ... They 'trust me' ... dumb fucks." -Mark Zuckerberg "You can be unethical and still be legal that's the way I live my life." -Mark Zuckerberg
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-14 05:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <gckb8rF4rd1U3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #727250 |
<jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote: > In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> On 2/13/19 1:45 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". >> >> Wow. You do not think there is ANY evidence of what time the sun will >> rise tomorrow or even that it will at all. > > Learn to read, child. > > There is a high probablility that the sun will rise tomorrow Sure. Plenty of evidence to back that. > but zero > evidence that it will in fact rise. Just plenty of evidence it will. But there is a logical possibility it will not, even if infinitesimally small. > > There is zero evidence for the time of sunrise tomorrow Bullshit. Heck, you can find that info in many areas. Pick a spot on the globe and I can find it for you. > but there is > a lot of data that can predict that time to a high degree of accuracy > if in fact the sun does rise tomorrow. > >> Given that it is good you have recused yourself from the discussion on >> solutions to complex problems! >> >>> There is a very high probability, but no evidence. >> >> How can evidence show a very high probability without being evidence? >> Sounds like word salad. > > That is all you seem capable of posting. You have no evidence of that. > > If one is going to post to sci.physics, one should learn a little basic > science such as what is evidence, what is data and what is probability. Your first step is understanding the need. What is your next?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Serg Io <invvalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-13 23:16 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <q42tkd$doj$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #727250 |
On 2/13/2019 9:54 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> On 2/13/19 1:45 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". >> >> Wow. You do not think there is ANY evidence of what time the sun will >> rise tomorrow or even that it will at all. > > Learn to read, child. > > There is a high probablility that the sun will rise tomorrow but zero > evidence that it will in fact rise. > > There is zero evidence for the time of sunrise tomorrow but there is > a lot of data that can predict that time to a high degree of accuracy > if in fact the sun does rise tomorrow. > >> Given that it is good you have recused yourself from the discussion on >> solutions to complex problems! >> >>> There is a very high probability, but no evidence. >> >> How can evidence show a very high probability without being evidence? >> Sounds like word salad. > > That is all you seem capable of posting. > > If one is going to post to sci.physics, one should learn a little basic > science such as what is evidence, what is data and what is probability. > suggest previous poster learn difference between "probability" and "evidence", they are not equivalent, nor even in the same fields of science.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-14 05:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <gckcurF56rdU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #727263 |
Serg Io <invvalid@invalid.com> wrote: > On 2/13/2019 9:54 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> On 2/13/19 1:45 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". >>> >>> Wow. You do not think there is ANY evidence of what time the sun will >>> rise tomorrow or even that it will at all. >> >> Learn to read, child. >> >> There is a high probablility that the sun will rise tomorrow but zero >> evidence that it will in fact rise. >> >> There is zero evidence for the time of sunrise tomorrow but there is >> a lot of data that can predict that time to a high degree of accuracy >> if in fact the sun does rise tomorrow. >> >>> Given that it is good you have recused yourself from the discussion on >>> solutions to complex problems! >>> >>>> There is a very high probability, but no evidence. >>> >>> How can evidence show a very high probability without being evidence? >>> Sounds like word salad. >> >> That is all you seem capable of posting. >> >> If one is going to post to sci.physics, one should learn a little basic >> science such as what is evidence, what is data and what is probability. >> > > suggest previous poster learn difference between "probability" and > "evidence", they are not equivalent, nor even in the same fields of science. > He is... interesting. :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-14 02:51 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <q436lm$1k6p$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #727263 |
On 2/14/2019 12:16 AM, Serg Io wrote: > On 2/13/2019 9:54 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> On 2/13/19 1:45 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". >>> >>> Wow. You do not think there is ANY evidence of what time the sun will >>> rise tomorrow or even that it will at all. >> >> Learn to read, child. >> >> There is a high probablility that the sun will rise tomorrow but zero >> evidence that it will in fact rise. >> >> There is zero evidence for the time of sunrise tomorrow but there is >> a lot of data that can predict that time to a high degree of accuracy >> if in fact the sun does rise tomorrow. >> >>> Given that it is good you have recused yourself from the discussion on >>> solutions to complex problems! >>> >>>> There is a very high probability, but no evidence. >>> >>> How can evidence show a very high probability without being evidence? >>> Sounds like word salad. >> >> That is all you seem capable of posting. >> >> If one is going to post to sci.physics, one should learn a little basic >> science such as what is evidence, what is data and what is probability. >> > > suggest previous poster learn difference between "probability" and > "evidence", they are not equivalent, nor even in the same fields of science. > To unscience Libs, wishful thinking fantasy passes for "evidence" in their world.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-14 08:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <gckn4mF7ae1U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #727283 |
benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: > On 2/14/2019 12:16 AM, Serg Io wrote: >> On 2/13/2019 9:54 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>> On 2/13/19 1:45 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". >>>> >>>> Wow. You do not think there is ANY evidence of what time the sun will >>>> rise tomorrow or even that it will at all. >>> >>> Learn to read, child. >>> >>> There is a high probablility that the sun will rise tomorrow but zero >>> evidence that it will in fact rise. >>> >>> There is zero evidence for the time of sunrise tomorrow but there is >>> a lot of data that can predict that time to a high degree of accuracy >>> if in fact the sun does rise tomorrow. >>> >>>> Given that it is good you have recused yourself from the discussion on >>>> solutions to complex problems! >>>> >>>>> There is a very high probability, but no evidence. >>>> >>>> How can evidence show a very high probability without being evidence? >>>> Sounds like word salad. >>> >>> That is all you seem capable of posting. >>> >>> If one is going to post to sci.physics, one should learn a little basic >>> science such as what is evidence, what is data and what is probability. >>> >> >> suggest previous poster learn difference between "probability" and >> "evidence", they are not equivalent, nor even in the same fields of science. >> > To unscience Libs, wishful thinking fantasy passes for "evidence" in > their world. > It is conservatives who reject climate science. Their worship of the wealthy overrides their ability to find solutions so they deny.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-14 09:51 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <okva6elm0s3mqi1j22dqcmkodka2imeb39@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #727292 |
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". 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. -- Everybødy here likes Yøurs Truly, Gregøry Hall - Bømbastic Løudmøuth øf the Søuth
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-14 10:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <gclne4Fe5soU8@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #727307 |
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. -- 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 11:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.36cf5f36964dc1241421@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #727322 |
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?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-14 11:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <gclqu7Ff0kpU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #727324 |
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. -- 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 12:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.36cf6ebcf8ae81451425@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #727326 |
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-14 15:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <gcm9s4Fi517U4@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #727337 |
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: • "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia". • "Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide have increased to levels unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years". • Human influence on the climate system is clear. It is extremely likely (95-100% probability) that human influence was the dominant cause of global warming between 1951-2010. • "Increasing magnitudes of [global] warming increase the likelihood of severe, pervasive, and irreversible impacts" • "A first step towards adaptation to future climate change is reducing vulnerability and exposure to present climate variability" • "The overall risks of climate change impacts can be reduced by limiting the rate and magnitude of climate change" • Without new policies to mitigate climate change, projections suggest an increase in global mean temperature in 2100 of 3.7 to 4.8 °C, relative to pre-industrial levels (median values; the range is 2.5 to 7.8 °C including climate uncertainty). • The current trajectory of global greenhouse gas emissions is not consistent with limiting global warming to below 1.5 or 2 °C, relative to pre-industrial levels. Pledges made as part of the Cancún Agreements are broadly consistent with cost-effective scenarios that give a "likely" chance (66-100% probability) of limiting global warming (in 2100) to below 3 °C, relative to pre-industrial levels. Your response is just to deny. You have NOTHING to bring to the table. -- 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 16:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.36cfa1327d816997144f@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #727381 |
In article <gcm9s4Fi517U4@mid.individual.net>, usenet@gallopinginsanity.com says... > >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? > I was enjoying a conversation with my pal % and you just had to chime in...here's a penny, go away kid.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-14 16:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <gcmb9dFih1pU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #727386 |
On 2/14/19 4:01 PM, Skeeter wrote: > In article <gcm9s4Fi517U4@mid.individual.net>, > usenet@gallopinginsanity.com says... >> >> 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? >> > I was enjoying a conversation with my pal % and you just had to chime > in...here's a penny, go away kid. > You can get a box of tissues. That might help you. -- 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 16:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.36cfa9d5551395a31458@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #727391 |
In article <gcmb9dFih1pU1@mid.individual.net>, usenet@gallopinginsanity.com says... > >On 2/14/19 4:01 PM, Skeeter wrote: >> In article <gcm9s4Fi517U4@mid.individual.net>, >> usenet@gallopinginsanity.com says... >>> >>> 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? >>> >> I was enjoying a conversation with my pal % and you just had to chime >> in...here's a penny, go away kid. >> > >You can get a box of tissues. That might help you. Clean up your own tears.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | % <persent@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-14 16:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c01k1h.4mh.19.1@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #727396 |
On 2019-02-14 4:38 p.m., Skeeter wrote: > In article <gcmb9dFih1pU1@mid.individual.net>, > usenet@gallopinginsanity.com says... >> >> On 2/14/19 4:01 PM, Skeeter wrote: >>> In article <gcm9s4Fi517U4@mid.individual.net>, >>> usenet@gallopinginsanity.com says... >>>> >>>> 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? >>>> >>> I was enjoying a conversation with my pal % and you just had to chime >>> in...here's a penny, go away kid. >>> >> >> You can get a box of tissues. That might help you. > > Clean up your own tears. > i heard all about global nonsense the first time they , ever said anything about it , unlike some people i got the idea on that very first time , its too bad some people have to repeat themselves so much that , the power of their purpose goes out the window
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-14 16:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.36cfac6de26d59611462@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #727399 |
In article <c01k1h.4mh.19.1@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... > >On 2019-02-14 4:38 p.m., Skeeter wrote: >> In article <gcmb9dFih1pU1@mid.individual.net>, >> usenet@gallopinginsanity.com says... >>> >>> On 2/14/19 4:01 PM, Skeeter wrote: >>>> In article <gcm9s4Fi517U4@mid.individual.net>, >>>> usenet@gallopinginsanity.com says... >>>>> >>>>> 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? >>>>> >>>> I was enjoying a conversation with my pal % and you just had to chime >>>> in...here's a penny, go away kid. >>>> >>> >>> You can get a box of tissues. That might help you. >> >> Clean up your own tears. >> > >i heard all about global nonsense the first time they , >ever said anything about it , >unlike some people i got the idea on that very first time , >its too bad some people have to repeat themselves so much that , >the power of their purpose goes out the window they cried about cow farts 30 years ago, and like a fart in the wind so went that concept, now she brings it back because it "sounded good".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | % <persent@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-14 16:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c01kl0.4mh.19.9@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #727401 |
On 2019-02-14 4:49 p.m., Skeeter wrote: > In article <c01k1h.4mh.19.1@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... >> >> On 2019-02-14 4:38 p.m., Skeeter wrote: >>> In article <gcmb9dFih1pU1@mid.individual.net>, >>> usenet@gallopinginsanity.com says... >>>> >>>> On 2/14/19 4:01 PM, Skeeter wrote: >>>>> In article <gcm9s4Fi517U4@mid.individual.net>, >>>>> usenet@gallopinginsanity.com says... >>>>>> >>>>>> 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? >>>>>> >>>>> I was enjoying a conversation with my pal % and you just had to chime >>>>> in...here's a penny, go away kid. >>>>> >>>> >>>> You can get a box of tissues. That might help you. >>> >>> Clean up your own tears. >>> >> >> i heard all about global nonsense the first time they , >> ever said anything about it , >> unlike some people i got the idea on that very first time , >> its too bad some people have to repeat themselves so much that , >> the power of their purpose goes out the window > > they cried about cow farts 30 years ago, and like a fart in the wind so > went that concept, now she brings it back because it "sounded good". > one trick pony ass's don't divert much it's all they have
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 12 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web