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 9 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 Next page →
| From | % <persent@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-14 20:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c0218v.sqk.19.13@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #727461 |
On 2019-02-14 8:26 p.m., Skeeter wrote: > In article <c020ug.sqk.19.8@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... >> >> On 2019-02-14 8:20 p.m., Skeeter wrote: >>> In article <c01v7a.ekp.17.16@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... >>>> >>>> On 2019-02-14 7:35 p.m., Skeeter wrote: >>>>> In article <c01sjr.q8v.17.1@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... >>>>>> >>>>>> On 2019-02-14 7:02 p.m., Skeeter wrote: >>>>>>> In article <c01rfu.amd.17.4@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 2019-02-14 6:48 p.m., Skeeter wrote: >>>>>>>>> In article <c01r4o.6qm.17.1@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 2019-02-14 6:37 p.m., Skeeter wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> In article <c01psd.cb7.19.2@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 2019-02-14 6:19 p.m., Skeeter wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <ed3c6epf4ndlja2ngomuqunvrgjmp07pj5@4ax.com>, >>>>>>>>>>>>> greghall@yacht_maester.fake says... >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 14 Feb 2019 17:51:03 -0700, Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <lr2c6e1ib2e0vcprh29hk3f19prnfj6nh7@4ax.com>, greghall@yacht_maester.fake says... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 14 Feb 2019 16:56:29 -0700, Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <c01kl0.4mh.19.9@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <...> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one trick pony ass's don't divert much it's all they have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> i used to be called a one prick tony >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And PeeScent used to be called sane but, since he moved into >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the supportive living facility, he's really going down hill fast. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> run out original stuff? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I said it FIRST! >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> i was just trying to be cool, you know, the jimps and stuff? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> i ate a cricket >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> was it dry >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> i didn't really eat it i stole the idea so i could say it first >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> mama went to bed and im out here with the laptop and a tray of fixens. >>>>>>>>> What to do. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> wait 10 minutes and we can get into my oxy >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ok and ill twist up a fatty just for you to bogart >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ok here you can have these two and these crumbs that makes almost 3 >>>>> >>>>> yay...gonna put on some tunes. >>>>> >>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCD3Wa5RvjE >>>>> >>>> that's a good'n >>> >>> it fit the moment >>> >> >> they haven't been working well for me lately , >> i wonder if i can get my doctor to go for fentanyl > > you will set loose on usenet with fentanyl in yer system? lord help us. > anything but normal if i did normal it would really raise some shit
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-14 20:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <gcmrheFlpl4U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #727455 |
On 2/14/19 7:55 PM, % wrote: > On 2019-02-14 7:35 p.m., Skeeter wrote: >> In article <c01sjr.q8v.17.1@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... >>> >>> On 2019-02-14 7:02 p.m., Skeeter wrote: >>>> In article <c01rfu.amd.17.4@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... >>>>> >>>>> On 2019-02-14 6:48 p.m., Skeeter wrote: >>>>>> In article <c01r4o.6qm.17.1@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 2019-02-14 6:37 p.m., Skeeter wrote: >>>>>>>> In article <c01psd.cb7.19.2@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com >>>>>>>> says... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 2019-02-14 6:19 p.m., Skeeter wrote: >>>>>>>>>> In article <ed3c6epf4ndlja2ngomuqunvrgjmp07pj5@4ax.com>, >>>>>>>>>> greghall@yacht_maester.fake says... >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 14 Feb 2019 17:51:03 -0700, Skeeter >>>>>>>>>>> <chico@invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> In article <lr2c6e1ib2e0vcprh29hk3f19prnfj6nh7@4ax.com>, >>>>>>>>>>>> greghall@yacht_maester.fake says... >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 14 Feb 2019 16:56:29 -0700, Skeeter >>>>>>>>>>>>> <chico@invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <c01kl0.4mh.19.9@news.alt.net>, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> persent@gmail.com says... >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> <...> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one trick pony ass's don't divert much it's all they have >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> i used to be called a one prick tony >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> And PeeScent used to be called sane but, since he moved into >>>>>>>>>>>>> the supportive living facility, he's really going down hill >>>>>>>>>>>>> fast. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> run out original stuff? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I said it FIRST! >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> i was just trying to be cool, you know, the jimps and stuff? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> i ate a cricket >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> was it dry >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> i didn't really eat it i stole the idea so i could say it first >>>>>> >>>>>> mama went to bed and im out here with the laptop and a tray of >>>>>> fixens. >>>>>> What to do. >>>>>> >>>>> wait 10 minutes and we can get into my oxy >>>> >>>> >>>> ok and ill twist up a fatty just for you to bogart >>>> >>> >>> ok here you can have these two and these crumbs that makes almost 3 >> >> yay...gonna put on some tunes. >> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCD3Wa5RvjE >> > that's a good'n You chastised me for a YouTube link. WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH! Ok, I am over it. -- 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 | 2019-02-14 18:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c01ohe.f2j.19.20@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #727424 |
On 2019-02-14 5:51 p.m., Skeeter wrote: > In article <lr2c6e1ib2e0vcprh29hk3f19prnfj6nh7@4ax.com>, > greghall@yacht_maester.fake says... >> >> On Thu, 14 Feb 2019 16:56:29 -0700, Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> wrote: >>> In article <c01kl0.4mh.19.9@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... >> >> <...> >> >>>> one trick pony ass's don't divert much it's all they have >>> >>> i used to be called a one prick tony >> >> And PeeScent used to be called sane but, since he moved into >> the supportive living facility, he's really going down hill fast. > > run out original stuff? > near worded me word fer word
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-14 17:02 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.36cfaf6eb654a6709964dc@news.altopia.com> |
| In reply to | #727424 |
Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts by Checkmate! In article <MPG.36cfbadf60473b4c148c@news.eternal- september.org>, chico@invalid.invalid says... ¤ ¤ In article <lr2c6e1ib2e0vcprh29hk3f19prnfj6nh7@4ax.com>, ¤ greghall@yacht_maester.fake says... ¤ > ¤ >On Thu, 14 Feb 2019 16:56:29 -0700, Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> wrote: ¤ >>In article <c01kl0.4mh.19.9@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... ¤ > ¤ ><...> ¤ > ¤ >>>one trick pony ass's don't divert much it's all they have ¤ >> ¤ >>i used to be called a one prick tony ¤ > ¤ >And PeeScent used to be called sane but, since he moved into ¤ >the supportive living facility, he's really going down hill fast. ¤ ¤ run out original stuff? PEEKAYBEE! -- 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 | % <persent@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-14 18:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c01p5n.3u6.19.5@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #727429 |
On 2019-02-14 6:02 p.m., Checkmate wrote: > Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts by > Checkmate! In article <MPG.36cfbadf60473b4c148c@news.eternal- > september.org>, chico@invalid.invalid says... > > > ¤ > ¤ In article <lr2c6e1ib2e0vcprh29hk3f19prnfj6nh7@4ax.com>, > ¤ greghall@yacht_maester.fake says... > ¤ > > ¤ >On Thu, 14 Feb 2019 16:56:29 -0700, Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> wrote: > ¤ >>In article <c01kl0.4mh.19.9@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... > ¤ > > ¤ ><...> > ¤ > > ¤ >>>one trick pony ass's don't divert much it's all they have > ¤ >> > ¤ >>i used to be called a one prick tony > ¤ > > ¤ >And PeeScent used to be called sane but, since he moved into > ¤ >the supportive living facility, he's really going down hill fast. > ¤ > ¤ run out original stuff? > > PEEKAYBEE! > in your creek
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-14 17:01 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.36cfaf46e37a39629964db@news.altopia.com> |
| In reply to | #727406 |
Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts by Checkmate! In article <MPG.36cfae14ed2b669f1468@news.eternal- september.org>, chico@invalid.invalid says... ¤ ¤ In article <c01kl0.4mh.19.9@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... ¤ > ¤ >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 ¤ ¤ i used to be called a one prick tony You stole that one from me you BASTARD! -- 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 | Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-14 18:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.36cfc1e3d82e4e391490@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #727427 |
In article <MPG.36cfaf46e37a39629964db@news.altopia.com>, ricksabian1 @gmail.com says... > >Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts by >Checkmate! In article <MPG.36cfae14ed2b669f1468@news.eternal- >september.org>, chico@invalid.invalid says... > > >? >? In article <c01kl0.4mh.19.9@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... >? > >? >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 >? >? i used to be called a one prick tony > >You stole that one from me you BASTARD! yea I did, would you go away, you're stealing my 5 minutes.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-14 17:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <gcmf7nFjacdU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #727396 |
On 2/14/19 4:38 PM, 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. > You assume others are like you. Interesting. -- 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 17:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.36cfb74fd0db28ba147c@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #727412 |
In article <gcmf7nFjacdU1@mid.individual.net>, usenet@gallopinginsanity.com says... > >On 2/14/19 4:38 PM, 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. >> > >You assume others are like you. Interesting. Oh no, I can see clear as day you sir are far from being like me. <fit insult here>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-14 16:42 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <6n2c6e1u6r69692k11bh0kgqac6lgf03cb@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #727412 |
On Thu, 14 Feb 2019 17:25:27 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >On 2/14/19 4:38 PM, 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. >> > >You assume others are like you. Interesting. If by that you mean normal and not prove to "attacks" like you are, he assumes correctly.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-14 17:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.36cfb9f8479fab911488@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #727418 |
In article <6n2c6e1u6r69692k11bh0kgqac6lgf03cb@4ax.com>, klausschadenfreude@null.net says... > >On Thu, 14 Feb 2019 17:25:27 -0700, Snit ><usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >>On 2/14/19 4:38 PM, 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. >>> >> >>You assume others are like you. Interesting. > >If by that you mean normal and not prove to "attacks" like you are, he >assumes correctly. I already got him responding to his own posts seeking attention.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-14 18:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <gcmi9qFju1tU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #727412 |
On 2/14/19 5:25 PM, Snit wrote: > On 2/14/19 4:38 PM, 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. >> > > You assume others are like you. Interesting. > Skeeter saw this and started crying. Whatever. -- 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 | Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-14 17:23 -0800 |
| Subject | Snit Keeps crying to himself |
| Message-ID | <h25c6etf3vvq4707g2bicld0edk6jta66u@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #727433 |
On Thu, 14 Feb 2019 18:17:46 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >On 2/14/19 5:25 PM, Snit wrote: Poor Snit. He's having trouble keeping up with the Big Boys. LOL
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-14 16:16 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <m61c6e1chr0n1a3vs4hhpp9d925rdi5edb@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #727391 |
On Thu, 14 Feb 2019 16:18:04 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >On 2/14/19 4:01 PM, Skeeter wrote: >> In article <gcm9s4Fi517U4@mid.individual.net>, >> usenet@gallopinginsanity.com says... >> 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. Looks like Snit is freaking out! LOL
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-14 17:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.36cfb3abbeeda2461473@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #727409 |
In article <m61c6e1chr0n1a3vs4hhpp9d925rdi5edb@4ax.com>, klausschadenfreude@null.net says... > >On Thu, 14 Feb 2019 16:18:04 -0700, Snit ><usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >>On 2/14/19 4:01 PM, Skeeter wrote: >>> In article <gcm9s4Fi517U4@mid.individual.net>, >>> usenet@gallopinginsanity.com says... > >>> 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. > >Looks like Snit is freaking out! LOL It's not hard to get him to babble incoherently.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-14 17:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <gcmfrsFjevgU1@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: > > • "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. > Skeeter had no reply... he still does not get it. Oh well. You can lead a horse to water... -- 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 17:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.36cfb7d029d92ae7147e@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #727414 |
In article <gcmfrsFjevgU1@mid.individual.net>, usenet@gallopinginsanity.com says... >> You have NOTHING to bring to the table. >> > >Skeeter had no reply... he still does not get it. > >Oh well. You can lead a horse to water... > Snit is already responding to his own posts, it only took me a couple posts to make him lose it again.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | % <persent@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-14 17:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c01n8t.f2j.19.1@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #727414 |
On 2019-02-14 5:36 p.m., Snit wrote: > 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: >> >> • "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. >> > > Skeeter had no reply... he still does not get it. > > Oh well. You can lead a horse to water... > then the horse can kick you in the nuts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-14 17:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.36cfb8ef8c59d8151485@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #727416 |
In article <c01n8t.f2j.19.1@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... > >On 2019-02-14 5:36 p.m., Snit wrote: >> 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: >>> >>> ? "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. >>> >> >> Skeeter had no reply... he still does not get it. >> >> Oh well. You can lead a horse to water... >> >then the horse can kick you in the nuts He thinks we are horses and he's leading us somewhere? He's in the wrong group.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-14 16:43 -0800 |
| Subject | Poor Snit complains to himself. Again. |
| Message-ID | <oo2c6eti6rivauv0b78tl97nbd1q0bsvek@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #727414 |
On Thu, 14 Feb 2019 17:36:12 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >On 2/14/19 3:53 PM, Snit wrote: Snit cries on his own shoulder. Interesting.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 9 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web