Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #729181 > unrolled thread
| Started by | kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2019-02-26 05:01 +0200 |
| Last post | 2019-03-01 13:09 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 164 — 21 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2019-02-26 05:01 +0200
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2019-02-25 22:43 -0800
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2019-02-26 04:22 -0500
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-02-26 06:54 -0700
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2019-02-26 10:08 -0500
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-02-26 08:23 -0700
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-02-26 08:14 -0800
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2019-02-26 11:31 -0500
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2019-02-26 18:12 +0000
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-02-26 12:22 -0700
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-26 12:30 -0700
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-02-26 12:39 -0700
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-26 13:13 -0700
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-02-26 13:20 -0700
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-26 13:52 -0700
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-02-26 14:06 -0700
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real "Agent 007" <007@who.cares> - 2019-02-26 17:08 -0600
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2019-02-26 20:22 -0800
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-02-26 12:21 -0700
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-02-26 08:30 -0700
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-26 08:47 -0700
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-02-26 12:13 -0700
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-26 12:29 -0700
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-02-26 12:39 -0700
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-26 13:13 -0700
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-02-26 13:17 -0700
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-26 13:21 -0700
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-02-26 13:25 -0700
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-26 13:54 -0700
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-02-26 14:10 -0700
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2019-02-26 18:12 +0000
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2019-02-26 14:57 -0500
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real snipeco.2@gmail.com (Wader of Doom) - 2019-02-27 13:31 +0000
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2019-02-26 11:32 -0500
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2019-02-26 11:42 -0500
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real Serg Io <invvalid@invalid.com> - 2019-02-26 10:42 -0600
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2019-02-26 13:30 -0500
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real Serg Io <invvalid@invalid.com> - 2019-02-26 13:57 -0600
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-02-26 13:00 -0700
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2019-02-26 18:12 -0500
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2019-02-27 05:29 +0200
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-02-26 20:41 -0700
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2019-02-26 21:09 -0800
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2019-02-27 00:46 -0500
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real Sir Gaygory's Owner's Owner 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2019-02-26 23:49 -0600
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2019-02-26 22:33 -0800
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2019-02-27 08:22 -0500
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2019-02-27 20:17 -0800
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2019-02-28 00:07 -0500
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2019-02-27 23:09 -0800
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2019-02-28 10:11 -0500
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2019-02-28 08:04 -0800
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2019-03-01 06:46 +0200
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2019-03-01 01:10 -0800
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2019-03-01 11:30 -0500
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-03-01 09:41 -0700
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2019-03-01 12:12 -0500
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-03-01 10:53 -0700
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2019-03-01 12:38 -0800
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2019-03-01 16:26 -0500
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-03-01 14:32 -0700
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2019-03-01 17:45 -0500
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2019-03-02 05:48 +0200
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2019-03-02 03:55 +0000
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2019-03-01 23:53 -0800
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2019-03-01 12:37 -0500
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-03-01 10:54 -0700
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2019-03-02 05:47 +0200
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2019-03-02 00:18 -0800
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2019-02-27 11:25 -0500
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real Serg Io <invvalid@invalid.com> - 2019-02-27 11:30 -0600
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-02-27 17:50 +0000
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2019-02-27 13:05 -0500
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2019-02-27 13:31 -0500
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-02-27 11:39 -0700
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2019-02-27 13:39 -0500
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-02-27 11:37 -0700
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-02-27 11:40 -0700
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-02-27 11:49 -0700
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-02-27 11:51 -0700
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-02-27 11:53 -0700
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-02-27 11:58 -0700
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-02-27 12:02 -0700
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-02-27 12:06 -0700
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-02-27 12:20 -0700
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-02-27 12:25 -0700
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-02-27 17:49 -0700
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-02-27 17:55 -0700
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-02-27 18:05 -0700
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-02-27 18:59 -0700
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-02-27 19:25 -0700
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-02-27 19:35 -0700
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-02-27 19:41 -0700
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-02-27 19:44 -0700
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-02-27 20:04 -0700
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-02-27 20:07 -0700
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2019-02-27 19:21 +0000
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-02-27 12:26 -0700
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2019-02-27 13:44 -0500
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-02-27 11:52 -0700
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2019-02-27 14:05 -0500
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-02-27 12:13 -0700
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-02-27 12:35 -0700
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2019-02-27 14:38 -0500
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-02-27 17:25 -0700
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2019-02-27 22:12 -0800
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2019-02-27 23:10 -0800
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-02-27 12:39 -0700
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-02-27 17:27 -0700
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-02-27 17:31 -0700
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-02-27 17:43 -0700
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-02-27 17:48 -0700
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-02-27 18:03 -0700
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-02-27 18:59 -0700
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-02-27 19:24 -0700
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-02-27 19:36 -0700
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-02-27 19:41 -0700
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-02-27 19:43 -0700
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-02-27 20:04 -0700
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-02-27 20:06 -0700
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2019-02-27 16:54 -0800
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-02-27 18:09 -0700
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2019-02-27 17:16 -0800
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-02-27 18:30 -0700
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2019-02-28 06:05 -0800
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-02-28 14:22 +0000
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2019-02-28 06:43 -0800
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real onion@anon.invalid (Mr On!on) - 2019-02-28 16:21 +0000
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2019-02-27 16:32 -0800
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2019-02-28 01:46 +0000
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2019-02-28 01:50 -0500
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-02-28 14:22 +0000
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2019-02-28 06:42 -0800
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-02-28 15:09 +0000
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2019-02-28 07:32 -0800
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-02-28 15:41 +0000
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2019-02-28 07:53 -0800
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2019-02-28 05:20 +0200
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-02-27 20:27 -0700
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2019-02-27 20:51 -0800
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2019-02-28 21:13 +0000
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2019-02-28 16:16 -0500
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2019-02-28 16:47 -0500
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-02-28 14:20 -0700
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2019-02-28 16:44 -0500
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2019-02-28 14:24 -0800
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2019-02-28 23:15 +0000
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2019-03-01 00:55 -0800
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2019-02-28 01:57 -0500
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2019-02-28 09:35 +0000
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real onion@anon.invalid (Mr On!on) - 2019-02-28 10:14 +0000
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-02-28 11:11 -0700
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real onion@anon.invalid (Mr On!on) - 2019-02-28 23:04 +0000
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-02-28 16:17 -0700
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2019-02-28 05:17 +0200
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-02-27 20:26 -0700
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2019-02-28 10:13 -0500
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2019-03-01 06:48 +0200
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2019-02-26 09:46 -0500
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real Serg Io <invvalid@invalid.com> - 2019-02-26 10:21 -0600
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2019-02-26 13:28 -0500
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real Serg Io <invvalid@invalid.com> - 2019-02-26 13:53 -0600
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2019-02-26 18:09 -0500
Re: Trump border emergency is fake and climate crisis is real Avenging Angel <Not.fucking.likely@NoWay.com> - 2019-03-01 13:09 +0000
Page 4 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
| From | % <persent@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-03-01 14:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c18tut.e4f.17.3@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #729822 |
On 2019-03-01 2:26 p.m., mixed nuts wrote: > On 3/1/2019 3:38 PM, Checkmate wrote: >> Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts by >> Checkmate! In article <q5bp6a$13p3$1@gioia.aioe.org>, >> melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie says... >>> On 3/1/2019 11:30 AM, Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. wrote: >>>> On Fri, 1 Mar 2019 01:10:58 -0800, Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>>> Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading >>>>> posts by >>>>> Checkmate! In article <q5adf8$o9j$3@gioia.aioe.org>, >>>>> kkensington01>@gmail.nospam.invalid says... >>>>>> On 2/27/2019 11:17 PM, Checkmate wrote: >>>>>>> Did you catch this part? "some estimates say as little as 3 or 4 >>>>>>> percent >>>>>>> of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is due to humans." >>>>>> >>>>>> Nonsense. It went up from 280ppm preindustrial to north of 400 now. >>>>> >>>>> That doesn't prove it's due to the Industrial Age, and it doesn't >>>>> prove >>>>> the methodology used to come up with that conclusion is sound. >>>>> 0.04% is >>>>> doodley squat. Even if you could prove it, you couldn't dial it back >>>>> down to pre-industrial age levels anyway, and I'm pretty sure the >>>>> climate >>>>> today is nearly the same as it was back then. >>>>> >>>>> There are numerous cyclic activities involving sun spots, >>>>> volcanism, rock >>>>> erosion, orbits, and the Earth's tilt and wobble that all have the >>>>> potential to alter climate. You have far too many things that you >>>>> irrationally get all riled up over. As I've pointed out before, there >>>>> are natural mechanisms in place that keep CO2 levels relatively >>>>> stable. >>>>> >>>>>> That's almost a 50% increase, not "3 or 4 percent". It's 10/7 of >>>>>> what it >>>>>> was. 30% of what's in the air now was put there by humans. >>>>> >>>>> Bullshit. >>>> >>>> Indeed. And, the warmingtards STILL ignore the fact >>>> that ice core samples prove the FIRST the temperature >>>> rise FOLLOWED by atmospheric CO2 levels rising. >>>> >>>> These idiot warmingtards continue to claim that first >>>> the atmospheric levels of CO2 rise followed by a >>>> temperature rise. They have it just backwards yet >>>> they persist in their folly. >>>> >>>> So very stupid of them. >>> >>> Stupid oceans wouldn't let the CO2 rise up until they got warm. Rat >>> bastard oceans. F**k the oceans. Trump should sign an executive order >>> outlawing oceans because they flood golf courses, too, and reduce >>> property values which makes it difficult to get multi-billion dollar >>> loans to buy National Football teams to honor the troops, and the flag, >>> and The President, who represents America, without inflating (hugely), >>> which is illegal, and has consequences for tax liability deflating. >> >> *burp-fart* > > It's all in the molar attenuation coefficient, re-emission and collision > energy transfer, and heat capacity due to the specific eigenmodes > available to the system. > > Remember, chill the diet coke before you pop it open. > if you were shorter would you vote for trump
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-03-01 17:45 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <q5cclq$1u6c$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #729825 |
On 3/1/2019 4:32 PM, % wrote: > On 2019-03-01 2:26 p.m., mixed nuts wrote: >> On 3/1/2019 3:38 PM, Checkmate wrote: >>> Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts by >>> Checkmate! In article <q5bp6a$13p3$1@gioia.aioe.org>, >>> melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie says... >>>> On 3/1/2019 11:30 AM, Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. wrote: >>>>> On Fri, 1 Mar 2019 01:10:58 -0800, Checkmate >>>>> <ricksabian1@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading >>>>>> posts by Checkmate! In article <q5adf8$o9j$3@gioia.aioe.org>, >>>>>> kkensington01>@gmail.nospam.invalid says... >>>>>>> On 2/27/2019 11:17 PM, Checkmate wrote: >>>>>>>> Did you catch this part? "some estimates say as little as 3 or >>>>>>>> 4 percent of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is due to humans." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Nonsense. It went up from 280ppm preindustrial to north of 400 now. >>>>>> >>>>>> That doesn't prove it's due to the Industrial Age, and it doesn't >>>>>> prove the methodology used to come up with that conclusion is sound. >>>>>> 0.04% is doodley squat. Even if you could prove it, you couldn't dial it back >>>>>> down to pre-industrial age levels anyway, and I'm pretty sure the >>>>>> climate today is nearly the same as it was back then. >>>>>> >>>>>> There are numerous cyclic activities involving sun spots, >>>>>> volcanism, rock >>>>>> erosion, orbits, and the Earth's tilt and wobble that all have the >>>>>> potential to alter climate. You have far too many things that you >>>>>> irrationally get all riled up over. As I've pointed out before, >>>>>> there are natural mechanisms in place that keep CO2 levels relatively >>>>>> stable. >>>>>> >>>>>>> That's almost a 50% increase, not "3 or 4 percent". It's 10/7 of >>>>>>> what it was. 30% of what's in the air now was put there by humans. >>>>>> >>>>>> Bullshit. >>>>> >>>>> Indeed. And, the warmingtards STILL ignore the fact >>>>> that ice core samples prove the FIRST the temperature >>>>> rise FOLLOWED by atmospheric CO2 levels rising. >>>>> >>>>> These idiot warmingtards continue to claim that first >>>>> the atmospheric levels of CO2 rise followed by a >>>>> temperature rise. They have it just backwards yet >>>>> they persist in their folly. >>>>> >>>>> So very stupid of them. >>>> >>>> Stupid oceans wouldn't let the CO2 rise up until they got warm. Rat >>>> bastard oceans. F**k the oceans. Trump should sign an executive order >>>> outlawing oceans because they flood golf courses, too, and reduce >>>> property values which makes it difficult to get multi-billion dollar >>>> loans to buy National Football teams to honor the troops, and the flag, >>>> and The President, who represents America, without inflating (hugely), >>>> which is illegal, and has consequences for tax liability deflating. >>> >>> *burp-fart* >> >> It's all in the molar attenuation coefficient, re-emission and >> collision energy transfer, and heat capacity due to the specific >> eigenmodes available to the system. >> >> Remember, chill the diet coke before you pop it open. >> > if you were shorter would you vote for trump I wouldn't even hold the door open for him. -- Grizzly H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-03-02 05:48 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <q5cue7$9e6$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #729842 |
On 3/1/2019 5:45 PM, mixed nuts wrote: > On 3/1/2019 4:32 PM, % wrote: >> if you were shorter would you vote for trump > > I wouldn't even hold the door open for him. I wouldn't piss on him if he was on fire. -- "To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks "I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade in here." ~Checkmate
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-03-02 03:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <q5curq$4tf$9@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #729886 |
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt! On Sat, 02 Mar 2019 05:48:22 +0200, kensi wrote: > On 3/1/2019 5:45 PM, mixed nuts wrote: >> On 3/1/2019 4:32 PM, % wrote: >>> if you were shorter would you vote for trump >> >> I wouldn't even hold the door open for him. > > I wouldn't piss on him if he was on fire. I wouldn't set fire to him if he was freezing to death. -- FNVWe Nadegda "By all means, compare these shitheads to Nazis. Again and again. I'm with you." -- Mike Godwin, Aug 13, 2017, 8:03 PM Skeeter admits he mooches his mother's laptop: http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=154073947600
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-03-01 23:53 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.36e3d66c52b4ec09996774@news.altopia.com> |
| In reply to | #729886 |
Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts by Checkmate! In article <q5cue7$9e6$2@gioia.aioe.org>, kkensington01 @gmail.nospam.invalid says... ¤ ¤ On 3/1/2019 5:45 PM, mixed nuts wrote: ¤ > On 3/1/2019 4:32 PM, % wrote: ¤ >> if you were shorter would you vote for trump ¤ > ¤ > I wouldn't even hold the door open for him. ¤ ¤ I wouldn't piss on him if he was on fire. That's because you'd have to squat on him and you'd get burned. If you were on fire, wouldn't you want the benefits of my hose? -- Checkmate ® Copyright © 2019 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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-03-01 12:37 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <q5bqlg$1b0d$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #729768 |
On 3/1/2019 11:30 AM, Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. wrote: > On Fri, 1 Mar 2019 01:10:58 -0800, Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> wrote: >> Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts by >> Checkmate! In article <q5adf8$o9j$3@gioia.aioe.org>, kkensington01>@gmail.nospam.invalid says... >> ¤ On 2/27/2019 11:17 PM, Checkmate wrote: >> ¤ > Did you catch this part? "some estimates say as little as 3 or 4 percent >> ¤ > of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is due to humans." >> ¤ >> ¤ Nonsense. It went up from 280ppm preindustrial to north of 400 now. >> >> That doesn't prove it's due to the Industrial Age, and it doesn't prove >> the methodology used to come up with that conclusion is sound. 0.04% is >> doodley squat. Even if you could prove it, you couldn't dial it back >> down to pre-industrial age levels anyway, and I'm pretty sure the climate >> today is nearly the same as it was back then. >> >> There are numerous cyclic activities involving sun spots, volcanism, rock >> erosion, orbits, and the Earth's tilt and wobble that all have the >> potential to alter climate. You have far too many things that you >> irrationally get all riled up over. As I've pointed out before, there >> are natural mechanisms in place that keep CO2 levels relatively stable. >> >> ¤ That's almost a 50% increase, not "3 or 4 percent". It's 10/7 of what it >> ¤ was. 30% of what's in the air now was put there by humans. >> >> Bullshit. > > Indeed. And, the warmingtards STILL ignore the fact > that ice core samples prove the FIRST the temperature > rise FOLLOWED by atmospheric CO2 levels rising. > > These idiot warmingtards continue to claim that first > the atmospheric levels of CO2 rise followed by a > temperature rise. They have it just backwards yet > they persist in their folly. > > So very stupid of them. > Worse than that. from 1940 t0 1970 CO2 kept going UP while global temperatures were coming down! Dear non-science people note that radiative forcing by CO2 is an IMMEDIATE effect this clearly shows no causality between warming temperature and CO2 increases. To say so is a journo non-science lie.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-03-01 10:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <gdt9uaF6d9rU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #729775 |
On 3/1/19 10:37 AM, benj wrote: > On 3/1/2019 11:30 AM, Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. wrote: >> On Fri, 1 Mar 2019 01:10:58 -0800, Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts by >>> Checkmate! In article <q5adf8$o9j$3@gioia.aioe.org>, >>> kkensington01>@gmail.nospam.invalid says... >>> ¤ On 2/27/2019 11:17 PM, Checkmate wrote: >>> ¤ > Did you catch this part? "some estimates say as little as 3 or 4 >>> percent >>> ¤ > of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is due to humans." >>> ¤ >>> ¤ Nonsense. It went up from 280ppm preindustrial to north of 400 now. >>> >>> That doesn't prove it's due to the Industrial Age, and it doesn't prove >>> the methodology used to come up with that conclusion is sound. 0.04% is >>> doodley squat. Even if you could prove it, you couldn't dial it back >>> down to pre-industrial age levels anyway, and I'm pretty sure the >>> climate >>> today is nearly the same as it was back then. >>> >>> There are numerous cyclic activities involving sun spots, volcanism, >>> rock >>> erosion, orbits, and the Earth's tilt and wobble that all have the >>> potential to alter climate. You have far too many things that you >>> irrationally get all riled up over. As I've pointed out before, there >>> are natural mechanisms in place that keep CO2 levels relatively stable. >>> >>> ¤ That's almost a 50% increase, not "3 or 4 percent". It's 10/7 of >>> what it >>> ¤ was. 30% of what's in the air now was put there by humans. >>> >>> Bullshit. >> >> Indeed. And, the warmingtards STILL ignore the fact >> that ice core samples prove the FIRST the temperature >> rise FOLLOWED by atmospheric CO2 levels rising. >> >> These idiot warmingtards continue to claim that first >> the atmospheric levels of CO2 rise followed by a >> temperature rise. They have it just backwards yet >> they persist in their folly. >> >> So very stupid of them. >> > Worse than that. from 1940 t0 1970 CO2 kept going UP while global > temperatures were coming down! Cite. > Dear non-science people note that > radiative forcing by CO2 is an IMMEDIATE effect this clearly shows no > causality between warming temperature and CO2 increases. To say so is a > journo non-science lie. Amazing how you know more than the scientific community. Please publish! -- 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 | kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-03-02 05:47 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <q5cucd$9e6$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #729744 |
On 3/1/2019 4:10 AM, Checkmate wrote: > In article <q5adf8$o9j$3@gioia.aioe.org>, kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid says... > ¤ On 2/27/2019 11:17 PM, Checkmate wrote: > ¤ > Did you catch this part? "some estimates say as little as 3 or 4 percent > ¤ > of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is due to humans." > ¤ > ¤ Nonsense. It went up from 280ppm preindustrial to north of 400 now. > > That doesn't prove it's due to the Industrial Age, and it doesn't prove > the methodology used to come up with that conclusion is sound. 0.04% is > doodley squat. It's 30%. 30% of the CO2 in this planet's atmosphere was emitted by our burning of fossil fuels. 30%. -- "To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks "I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade in here." ~Checkmate
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-03-02 00:18 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.36e3dc3ecbec0700996780@news.altopia.com> |
| In reply to | #729885 |
Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts by Checkmate! In article <q5cucd$9e6$1@gioia.aioe.org>, kkensington01 @gmail.nospam.invalid says... ¤ ¤ On 3/1/2019 4:10 AM, Checkmate wrote: ¤ > In article <q5adf8$o9j$3@gioia.aioe.org>, kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid says... ¤ > ¤ On 2/27/2019 11:17 PM, Checkmate wrote: ¤ > ¤ > Did you catch this part? "some estimates say as little as 3 or 4 percent ¤ > ¤ > of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is due to humans." ¤ > ¤ ¤ > ¤ Nonsense. It went up from 280ppm preindustrial to north of 400 now. ¤ > ¤ > That doesn't prove it's due to the Industrial Age, and it doesn't prove ¤ > the methodology used to come up with that conclusion is sound. 0.04% is ¤ > doodley squat. ¤ ¤ It's 30%. ¤ ¤ 30% of the CO2 in this planet's atmosphere was emitted by our burning of ¤ fossil fuels. ¤ ¤ 30%. Maybe, maybe not... who really knows? You're talking about 30% of 0.04%, or 0.012%. IOW, doodley fucking squat. -- Checkmate ® Copyright © 2019 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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-27 11:25 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <s9ed7ehvhvg3735mcj5g58o4lt64rfnoi1@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #729349 |
On Wed, 27 Feb 2019 05:29:24 +0200, kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> wrote: >On 2/26/2019 11:32 AM, stinky puddles piddled: >> There is no scientific proof that the climate change that is >> occurring has anything to do with human activity.<SPANK> > >https://www.skepticalscience.com/its-not-us.htm > >When presented with the overwhelming evidence that the planet is >warming, many people react by asking "but how can we be sure that we’re >causing the warming?" It turns out that the observed global warming has >a distinct human fingerprint on it. The only distinct human fingerprints are from a bunch of stupid leftist alarmists who programmed the computer climate models which have been proven to use bogus data and which, to date, have been WAY WAY WAY too unreliable because of GIGO. And, still there is no proof forthcoming from teh kensitard. -- Everybødy here likes Yøurs Truly, Gregøry Hall - Bømbastic Løudmøuth øf the Søuth
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Serg Io <invvalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-27 11:30 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <q56hha$1etp$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #729406 |
On 2/27/2019 10:25 AM, Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. wrote: > On Wed, 27 Feb 2019 05:29:24 +0200, kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> wrote: >> On 2/26/2019 11:32 AM, stinky puddles piddled: >>> There is no scientific proof that the climate change that is >>> occurring has anything to do with human activity.<SPANK> >> >> https://www.skepticalscience.com/its-not-us.htm >> >> When presented with the overwhelming evidence that the planet is >> warming, many people react by asking "but how can we be sure that we’re >> causing the warming?" It turns out that the observed global warming has >> a distinct human fingerprint on it. > > The only distinct human fingerprints are from > a bunch of stupid leftist alarmists who programmed > the computer climate models which have been proven > to use bogus data and which, to date, have been > WAY WAY WAY too unreliable because of GIGO. > > And, still there is no proof forthcoming from teh > kensitard. > article is full of conjecture, bad references, and climate frothing. there *may be* evidence that kensi pupa is *further mentally retarding* as 'her' head warms with climate change, and *too many doughnuts*.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-27 17:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <gdo0vmF1a77U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #729406 |
Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> wrote: > On Wed, 27 Feb 2019 05:29:24 +0200, kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> wrote: >> On 2/26/2019 11:32 AM, stinky puddles piddled: >>> There is no scientific proof that the climate change that is >>> occurring has anything to do with human activity.<SPANK> >> >> https://www.skepticalscience.com/its-not-us.htm >> >> When presented with the overwhelming evidence that the planet is >> warming, many people react by asking "but how can we be sure that we’re >> causing the warming?" It turns out that the observed global warming has >> a distinct human fingerprint on it. > > The only distinct human fingerprints are from > a bunch of stupid leftist alarmists who programmed > the computer climate models which have been proven > to use bogus data and which, to date, have been > WAY WAY WAY too unreliable because of GIGO. > > And, still there is no proof forthcoming from teh > kensitard. > You are a science denier. Got it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-27 13:05 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <6ijd7e99in95ujludl0ccbvs93gk6b6huq@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #729415 |
On 27 Feb 2019 17:50:47 GMT, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: <...> >You are a science denier. Got it. The only thing you get, Snit, is a big raspberry from all of us who read your puerile illogic supported by your ad hominem attacks. It just happens that Yours Truly is a student of science and, as such, I know what the scientific method is and how it works. YOU DON'T or you wouldn't believe AGW. FYI, you warmingtards have it exactly backwards. **Here's how the scientific method actually works: 1) create a hypothesis, 2) do your best to find examples that DISPROVE that hypothesis. If no examples can be found then there is a chance the hypothesis may be a valid one. **Here's how you warmingtards do it and you claim it is science: 1) create a dire prediction or a set of dire predictions that can further your socialist/communist agenda, 2) do NOTHING to rebut the dire predictions but only look for things, no matter how far-fetched, that seem to support your prediction. When a few things are found that support the prediction then run around yelling, "That's proof, that's settled science and anybody who claims otherwise is a conservative asshole!" HOW FUCKING DROLL !!!!!!!! -- Everybødy here likes Yøurs Truly, Gregøry Hall - Bømbastic Løudmøuth øf the Søuth
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-27 13:31 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <q56l1h$1vng$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #729416 |
On 2/27/2019 1:05 PM, Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. wrote: > On 27 Feb 2019 17:50:47 GMT, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > <...> > >> You are a science denier. Got it. > > The only thing you get, Snit, is a big > raspberry from all of us who read your > puerile illogic supported by your ad hominem > attacks. > > It just happens that Yours Truly is a > student of science and, as such, I know > what the scientific method is and how it > works. > > YOU DON'T or you wouldn't believe AGW. > > FYI, you warmingtards have it exactly backwards. > > **Here's how the scientific method actually works: > > 1) create a hypothesis, > > 2) do your best to find examples that DISPROVE > that hypothesis. If no examples can be found then > there is a chance the hypothesis may be a valid one. > > **Here's how you warmingtards do it and you claim it > is science: > > 1) create a dire prediction or a set of dire predictions > that can further your socialist/communist agenda, > > 2) do NOTHING to rebut the dire predictions but only > look for things, no matter how far-fetched, that > seem to support your prediction. When a few things > are found that support the prediction then run around > yelling, "That's proof, that's settled science and anybody > who claims otherwise is a conservative asshole!" > > HOW FUCKING DROLL !!!!!!!! What do the squirrels think? Have you spoken with the squirrels? As you know, squirrels are not beholden to gummint largess and their opinions are uncolored by socialist/communist agendae. -- Grizzly H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-27 11:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <gdo3qmF1rtnU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #729419 |
On 2/27/19 11:31 AM, mixed nuts wrote: > On 2/27/2019 1:05 PM, Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. wrote: >> On 27 Feb 2019 17:50:47 GMT, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> <...> >> >>> You are a science denier. Got it. >> >> The only thing you get, Snit, is a big >> raspberry from all of us who read your >> puerile illogic supported by your ad hominem >> attacks. >> >> It just happens that Yours Truly is a >> student of science and, as such, I know >> what the scientific method is and how it >> works. >> >> YOU DON'T or you wouldn't believe AGW. >> >> FYI, you warmingtards have it exactly backwards. >> >> **Here's how the scientific method actually works: >> >> 1) create a hypothesis, >> >> 2) do your best to find examples that DISPROVE >> that hypothesis. If no examples can be found then >> there is a chance the hypothesis may be a valid one. >> >> **Here's how you warmingtards do it and you claim it >> is science: >> >> 1) create a dire prediction or a set of dire predictions >> that can further your socialist/communist agenda, >> >> 2) do NOTHING to rebut the dire predictions but only >> look for things, no matter how far-fetched, that >> seem to support your prediction. When a few things >> are found that support the prediction then run around >> yelling, "That's proof, that's settled science and anybody >> who claims otherwise is a conservative asshole!" >> >> HOW FUCKING DROLL !!!!!!!! > > What do the squirrels think? Have you spoken with the squirrels? As > you know, squirrels are not beholden to gummint largess and their > opinions are uncolored by socialist/communist agendae. > Gregory Hall denies science and cries when called out on it. Meanwhile we have better and better evidence all the time: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-climatechange-temperatures/evidence-for-man-made-global-warming-hits-gold-standard-scientists-idUSKCN1QE1ZU ----- Evidence for man-made global warming has reached a “gold standard” level of certainty, adding pressure for cuts in greenhouse gases to limit rising temperatures, scientists said on Monday. “Humanity cannot afford to ignore such clear signals,” the U.S.-led team wrote in the journal Nature Climate Change of satellite measurements of rising temperatures over the past 40 years. They said confidence that human activities were raising the heat at the Earth’s surface had reached a “five-sigma” level, a statistical gauge meaning there is only a one-in-a-million chance that the signal would appear if there was no warming. Such a “gold standard” was applied in 2012, for instance, to confirm the discovery of the Higgs boson subatomic particle, a basic building block of the universe. Benjamin Santer, lead author of Monday’s study at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, said he hoped the findings would win over skeptics and spur action. ----- -- 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 | "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-27 13:39 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <v8md7ed57truredepcckgh3t848aff345t@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #729419 |
On Wed, 27 Feb 2019, mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> wrote: >On 2/27/2019, Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. wrote: >> On 27 Feb 2019, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> <...> >> >>> You are a science denier. Got it. >> >> The only thing you get, Snit, is a big >> raspberry from all of us who read your >> puerile illogic supported by your ad hominem >> attacks. >> >> It just happens that Yours Truly is a >> student of science and, as such, I know >> what the scientific method is and how it >> works. >> >> YOU DON'T or you wouldn't believe AGW. >> >> FYI, you warmingtards have it exactly backwards. >> >> **Here's how the scientific method actually works: >> >> 1) create a hypothesis, >> >> 2) do your best to find examples that DISPROVE >> that hypothesis. If no examples can be found then >> there is a chance the hypothesis may be a valid one. >> >> **Here's how you warmingtards do it and you claim it >> is science: >> >> 1) create a dire prediction or a set of dire predictions >> that can further your socialist/communist agenda, >> >> 2) do NOTHING to rebut the dire predictions but only >> look for things, no matter how far-fetched, that >> seem to support your prediction. When a few things >> are found that support the prediction then run around >> yelling, "That's proof, that's settled science and anybody >> who claims otherwise is a conservative asshole!" >> >> HOW FUCKING DROLL !!!!!!!! > >What do the squirrels think? Have you spoken with the squirrels? As >you know, squirrels are not beholden to gummint largess and their >opinions are uncolored by socialist/communist agendae. My squirrels don't say anything. They are too busy gathering and burying in-the-shell, raw peanuts to sit on their little haunches and talk to me. -- Everybødy here likes Yøurs Truly, Gregøry Hall - Bømbastic Løudmøuth øf the Søuth
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-27 11:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <gdo3mgF1rtnU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #729416 |
On 2/27/19 11:05 AM, Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. wrote: > On 27 Feb 2019 17:50:47 GMT, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > > <...> > >> You are a science denier. Got it. > > The only thing you get, Snit, is a big > raspberry from all of us who read your > puerile illogic supported by your ad hominem > attacks. This has nothing to do with me. This is about the science -- and you claim to deny it. It DOES give Just Wondering a chance to jump in and say he against you bringing up your anti-science stance. I suspect he will not... but we shall see. > It just happens that Yours Truly is a > student of science and, as such, I know > what the scientific method is and how it > works. This is irrelevant to the fact you are denying climate science. > YOU DON'T or you wouldn't believe AGW. This is you pushing an unsupported claim tied to your denial of science. > FYI, you warmingtards have it exactly backwards. > > **Here's how the scientific method actually works: > > 1) create a hypothesis, > > 2) do your best to find examples that DISPROVE > that hypothesis. If no examples can be found then > there is a chance the hypothesis may be a valid one. > > **Here's how you warmingtards do it and you claim it > is science: > > 1) create a dire prediction or a set of dire predictions > that can further your socialist/communist agenda, > > 2) do NOTHING to rebut the dire predictions but only > look for things, no matter how far-fetched, that > seem to support your prediction. When a few things > are found that support the prediction then run around > yelling, "That's proof, that's settled science and anybody > who claims otherwise is a conservative asshole!" > > HOW FUCKING DROLL !!!!!!!! > Keep in mind that using the scientific method there is only a very, very small chance that the climate science we see is NOT tied to man's action: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-climatechange-temperatures/evidence-for-man-made-global-warming-hits-gold-standard-scientists-idUSKCN1QE1ZU ----- Evidence for man-made global warming has reached a “gold standard” level of certainty, adding pressure for cuts in greenhouse gases to limit rising temperatures, scientists said on Monday. “Humanity cannot afford to ignore such clear signals,” the U.S.-led team wrote in the journal Nature Climate Change of satellite measurements of rising temperatures over the past 40 years. They said confidence that human activities were raising the heat at the Earth’s surface had reached a “five-sigma” level, a statistical gauge meaning there is only a one-in-a-million chance that the signal would appear if there was no warming. Such a “gold standard” was applied in 2012, for instance, to confirm the discovery of the Higgs boson subatomic particle, a basic building block of the universe. Benjamin Santer, lead author of Monday’s study at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, said he hoped the findings would win over skeptics and spur action. ----- But you will deny it. Science is denied by many on the right for political reasons, and they they try to insist that those who accept the science do so for political reasons as well, which is a lie. -- 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 | 2019-02-27 11:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c13b4a.34b.19.4@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #729420 |
On 2019-02-27 11:37 a.m., Snit wrote: > On 2/27/19 11:05 AM, Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. wrote: >> On 27 Feb 2019 17:50:47 GMT, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> >> <...> >> >>> You are a science denier. Got it. >> >> The only thing you get, Snit, is a big >> raspberry from all of us who read your >> puerile illogic supported by your ad hominem >> attacks. > > This has nothing to do with me. This is about the science -- and you > claim to deny it. > > It DOES give Just Wondering a chance to jump in and say he against you > bringing up your anti-science stance. I suspect he will not... but we > shall see. > >> It just happens that Yours Truly is a >> student of science and, as such, I know >> what the scientific method is and how it >> works. > > This is irrelevant to the fact you are denying climate science. > >> YOU DON'T or you wouldn't believe AGW. > > This is you pushing an unsupported claim tied to your denial of science. > >> FYI, you warmingtards have it exactly backwards. >> >> **Here's how the scientific method actually works: >> >> 1) create a hypothesis, >> >> 2) do your best to find examples that DISPROVE >> that hypothesis. If no examples can be found then >> there is a chance the hypothesis may be a valid one. >> >> **Here's how you warmingtards do it and you claim it >> is science: >> >> 1) create a dire prediction or a set of dire predictions >> that can further your socialist/communist agenda, >> >> 2) do NOTHING to rebut the dire predictions but only >> look for things, no matter how far-fetched, that >> seem to support your prediction. When a few things >> are found that support the prediction then run around >> yelling, "That's proof, that's settled science and anybody >> who claims otherwise is a conservative asshole!" >> >> HOW FUCKING DROLL !!!!!!!! >> > > Keep in mind that using the scientific method there is only a very, very > small chance that the climate science we see is NOT tied to man's action: > > > https://www.reuters.com/article/us-climatechange-temperatures/evidence-for-man-made-global-warming-hits-gold-standard-scientists-idUSKCN1QE1ZU > > ----- > Evidence for man-made global warming has reached a “gold standard” level > of certainty, adding pressure for cuts in greenhouse gases to limit > rising temperatures, scientists said on Monday. > > “Humanity cannot afford to ignore such clear signals,” the U.S.-led team > wrote in the journal Nature Climate Change of satellite measurements of > rising temperatures over the past 40 years. > > They said confidence that human activities were raising the heat at the > Earth’s surface had reached a “five-sigma” level, a statistical gauge > meaning there is only a one-in-a-million chance that the signal would > appear if there was no warming. > > Such a “gold standard” was applied in 2012, for instance, to confirm the > discovery of the Higgs boson subatomic particle, a basic building block > of the universe. > > Benjamin Santer, lead author of Monday’s study at the Lawrence Livermore > National Laboratory in California, said he hoped the findings would win > over skeptics and spur action. > ----- > > But you will deny it. Science is denied by many on the right for > political reasons, and they they try to insist that those who accept the > science do so for political reasons as well, which is a lie. > > no some do i saw them doing it
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-27 11:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <gdo4diF21ppU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #729423 |
On 2/27/19 11:40 AM, % wrote: > On 2019-02-27 11:37 a.m., Snit wrote: >> On 2/27/19 11:05 AM, Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. wrote: >>> On 27 Feb 2019 17:50:47 GMT, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> >>> <...> >>> >>>> You are a science denier. Got it. >>> >>> The only thing you get, Snit, is a big >>> raspberry from all of us who read your >>> puerile illogic supported by your ad hominem >>> attacks. >> >> This has nothing to do with me. This is about the science -- and you >> claim to deny it. >> >> It DOES give Just Wondering a chance to jump in and say he against you >> bringing up your anti-science stance. I suspect he will not... but we >> shall see. >> >>> It just happens that Yours Truly is a >>> student of science and, as such, I know >>> what the scientific method is and how it >>> works. >> >> This is irrelevant to the fact you are denying climate science. >> >>> YOU DON'T or you wouldn't believe AGW. >> >> This is you pushing an unsupported claim tied to your denial of science. >> >>> FYI, you warmingtards have it exactly backwards. >>> >>> **Here's how the scientific method actually works: >>> >>> 1) create a hypothesis, >>> >>> 2) do your best to find examples that DISPROVE >>> that hypothesis. If no examples can be found then >>> there is a chance the hypothesis may be a valid one. >>> >>> **Here's how you warmingtards do it and you claim it >>> is science: >>> >>> 1) create a dire prediction or a set of dire predictions >>> that can further your socialist/communist agenda, >>> >>> 2) do NOTHING to rebut the dire predictions but only >>> look for things, no matter how far-fetched, that >>> seem to support your prediction. When a few things >>> are found that support the prediction then run around >>> yelling, "That's proof, that's settled science and anybody >>> who claims otherwise is a conservative asshole!" >>> >>> HOW FUCKING DROLL !!!!!!!! >>> >> >> Keep in mind that using the scientific method there is only a very, >> very small chance that the climate science we see is NOT tied to man's >> action: >> >> >> https://www.reuters.com/article/us-climatechange-temperatures/evidence-for-man-made-global-warming-hits-gold-standard-scientists-idUSKCN1QE1ZU >> >> ----- >> Evidence for man-made global warming has reached a “gold standard” >> level of certainty, adding pressure for cuts in greenhouse gases to >> limit rising temperatures, scientists said on Monday. >> >> “Humanity cannot afford to ignore such clear signals,” the U.S.-led >> team wrote in the journal Nature Climate Change of satellite >> measurements of rising temperatures over the past 40 years. >> >> They said confidence that human activities were raising the heat at >> the Earth’s surface had reached a “five-sigma” level, a statistical >> gauge meaning there is only a one-in-a-million chance that the signal >> would appear if there was no warming. >> >> Such a “gold standard” was applied in 2012, for instance, to confirm >> the discovery of the Higgs boson subatomic particle, a basic building >> block of the universe. >> >> Benjamin Santer, lead author of Monday’s study at the Lawrence >> Livermore National Laboratory in California, said he hoped the >> findings would win over skeptics and spur action. >> ----- >> >> But you will deny it. Science is denied by many on the right for >> political reasons, and they they try to insist that those who accept >> the science do so for political reasons as well, which is a lie. >> >> > no some do i saw them doing it One. But he recanted later. -- 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 | 2019-02-27 11:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c13bo1.cqg.19.2@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #729426 |
On 2019-02-27 11:49 a.m., Snit wrote: > On 2/27/19 11:40 AM, % wrote: >> On 2019-02-27 11:37 a.m., Snit wrote: >>> On 2/27/19 11:05 AM, Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. wrote: >>>> On 27 Feb 2019 17:50:47 GMT, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> <...> >>>> >>>>> You are a science denier. Got it. >>>> >>>> The only thing you get, Snit, is a big >>>> raspberry from all of us who read your >>>> puerile illogic supported by your ad hominem >>>> attacks. >>> >>> This has nothing to do with me. This is about the science -- and you >>> claim to deny it. >>> >>> It DOES give Just Wondering a chance to jump in and say he against >>> you bringing up your anti-science stance. I suspect he will not... >>> but we shall see. >>> >>>> It just happens that Yours Truly is a >>>> student of science and, as such, I know >>>> what the scientific method is and how it >>>> works. >>> >>> This is irrelevant to the fact you are denying climate science. >>> >>>> YOU DON'T or you wouldn't believe AGW. >>> >>> This is you pushing an unsupported claim tied to your denial of science. >>> >>>> FYI, you warmingtards have it exactly backwards. >>>> >>>> **Here's how the scientific method actually works: >>>> >>>> 1) create a hypothesis, >>>> >>>> 2) do your best to find examples that DISPROVE >>>> that hypothesis. If no examples can be found then >>>> there is a chance the hypothesis may be a valid one. >>>> >>>> **Here's how you warmingtards do it and you claim it >>>> is science: >>>> >>>> 1) create a dire prediction or a set of dire predictions >>>> that can further your socialist/communist agenda, >>>> >>>> 2) do NOTHING to rebut the dire predictions but only >>>> look for things, no matter how far-fetched, that >>>> seem to support your prediction. When a few things >>>> are found that support the prediction then run around >>>> yelling, "That's proof, that's settled science and anybody >>>> who claims otherwise is a conservative asshole!" >>>> >>>> HOW FUCKING DROLL !!!!!!!! >>>> >>> >>> Keep in mind that using the scientific method there is only a very, >>> very small chance that the climate science we see is NOT tied to >>> man's action: >>> >>> >>> https://www.reuters.com/article/us-climatechange-temperatures/evidence-for-man-made-global-warming-hits-gold-standard-scientists-idUSKCN1QE1ZU >>> >>> ----- >>> Evidence for man-made global warming has reached a “gold standard” >>> level of certainty, adding pressure for cuts in greenhouse gases to >>> limit rising temperatures, scientists said on Monday. >>> >>> “Humanity cannot afford to ignore such clear signals,” the U.S.-led >>> team wrote in the journal Nature Climate Change of satellite >>> measurements of rising temperatures over the past 40 years. >>> >>> They said confidence that human activities were raising the heat at >>> the Earth’s surface had reached a “five-sigma” level, a statistical >>> gauge meaning there is only a one-in-a-million chance that the signal >>> would appear if there was no warming. >>> >>> Such a “gold standard” was applied in 2012, for instance, to confirm >>> the discovery of the Higgs boson subatomic particle, a basic building >>> block of the universe. >>> >>> Benjamin Santer, lead author of Monday’s study at the Lawrence >>> Livermore National Laboratory in California, said he hoped the >>> findings would win over skeptics and spur action. >>> ----- >>> >>> But you will deny it. Science is denied by many on the right for >>> political reasons, and they they try to insist that those who accept >>> the science do so for political reasons as well, which is a lie. >>> >>> >> no some do i saw them doing it > > One. But he recanted later. > wait until you see the recanters after the inquest
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web