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 5 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 Next page →
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-27 11:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <gdo4kmF21ppU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #729427 |
On 2/27/19 11:51 AM, % wrote: > 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 I request the inquest. -- 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 11:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c13c68.cqg.19.5@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #729429 |
On 2019-02-27 11:53 a.m., Snit wrote: > On 2/27/19 11:51 AM, % wrote: >> 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 > > I request the inquest. > i'm on a quest for the inquest
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-27 12:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <gdo55aF265sU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #729430 |
On 2/27/19 11:58 AM, % wrote: > On 2019-02-27 11:53 a.m., Snit wrote: >> On 2/27/19 11:51 AM, % wrote: >>> 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 >> >> I request the inquest. >> > > i'm on a quest for the inquest Might I suggest an inquest request? -- 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 12:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c13cl6.jsq.17.3@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #729432 |
On 2019-02-27 12:02 p.m., Snit wrote: > On 2/27/19 11:58 AM, % wrote: >> On 2019-02-27 11:53 a.m., Snit wrote: >>> On 2/27/19 11:51 AM, % wrote: >>>> 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 >>> >>> I request the inquest. >>> >> >> i'm on a quest for the inquest > > Might I suggest an inquest request? > my inquest request is on hold until after recess
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-27 12:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <gdo67jF2cvhU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #729434 |
On 2/27/19 12:06 PM, % wrote: > On 2019-02-27 12:02 p.m., Snit wrote: >> On 2/27/19 11:58 AM, % wrote: >>> On 2019-02-27 11:53 a.m., Snit wrote: >>>> On 2/27/19 11:51 AM, % wrote: >>>>> 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 >>>> >>>> I request the inquest. >>>> >>> >>> i'm on a quest for the inquest >> >> Might I suggest an inquest request? >> > my inquest request is on hold until after recess My your request be blessed. -- 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 12:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c13dp7.5e5.17.1@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #729437 |
On 2019-02-27 12:20 p.m., Snit wrote: > On 2/27/19 12:06 PM, % wrote: >> On 2019-02-27 12:02 p.m., Snit wrote: >>> On 2/27/19 11:58 AM, % wrote: >>>> On 2019-02-27 11:53 a.m., Snit wrote: >>>>> On 2/27/19 11:51 AM, % wrote: >>>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>>> I request the inquest. >>>>> >>>> >>>> i'm on a quest for the inquest >>> >>> Might I suggest an inquest request? >>> >> my inquest request is on hold until after recess > > My your request be blessed. > i hope so then i can finally rest with no quests
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-27 17:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <gdopgjF6breU7@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #729441 |
On 2/27/19 12:25 PM, % wrote: > On 2019-02-27 12:20 p.m., Snit wrote: >> On 2/27/19 12:06 PM, % wrote: >>> On 2019-02-27 12:02 p.m., Snit wrote: >>>> On 2/27/19 11:58 AM, % wrote: >>>>> On 2019-02-27 11:53 a.m., Snit wrote: >>>>>> On 2/27/19 11:51 AM, % wrote: >>>>>>> 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 >>>>>> >>>>>> I request the inquest. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> i'm on a quest for the inquest >>>> >>>> Might I suggest an inquest request? >>>> >>> my inquest request is on hold until after recess >> >> My your request be blessed. >> > i hope so then i can finally rest with no quests Is that a requisite? -- 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 17:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c1412p.866.19.6@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #729494 |
On 2019-02-27 5:49 p.m., Snit wrote: > On 2/27/19 12:25 PM, % wrote: >> On 2019-02-27 12:20 p.m., Snit wrote: >>> On 2/27/19 12:06 PM, % wrote: >>>> On 2019-02-27 12:02 p.m., Snit wrote: >>>>> On 2/27/19 11:58 AM, % wrote: >>>>>> On 2019-02-27 11:53 a.m., Snit wrote: >>>>>>> On 2/27/19 11:51 AM, % wrote: >>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I request the inquest. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> i'm on a quest for the inquest >>>>> >>>>> Might I suggest an inquest request? >>>>> >>>> my inquest request is on hold until after recess >>> >>> My your request be blessed. >>> >> i hope so then i can finally rest with no quests > > Is that a requisite? > i think it was a prerequisite
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-27 18:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <gdoqetF6h4iU7@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #729496 |
On 2/27/19 5:55 PM, % wrote: > On 2019-02-27 5:49 p.m., Snit wrote: >> On 2/27/19 12:25 PM, % wrote: >>> On 2019-02-27 12:20 p.m., Snit wrote: >>>> On 2/27/19 12:06 PM, % wrote: >>>>> On 2019-02-27 12:02 p.m., Snit wrote: >>>>>> On 2/27/19 11:58 AM, % wrote: >>>>>>> On 2019-02-27 11:53 a.m., Snit wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2/27/19 11:51 AM, % wrote: >>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I request the inquest. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> i'm on a quest for the inquest >>>>>> >>>>>> Might I suggest an inquest request? >>>>>> >>>>> my inquest request is on hold until after recess >>>> >>>> My your request be blessed. >>>> >>> i hope so then i can finally rest with no quests >> >> Is that a requisite? >> > i think it was a prerequisite Not a postrequisite. -- 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 18:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c144rs.vos.19.3@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #729502 |
On 2019-02-27 6:05 p.m., Snit wrote: > On 2/27/19 5:55 PM, % wrote: >> On 2019-02-27 5:49 p.m., Snit wrote: >>> On 2/27/19 12:25 PM, % wrote: >>>> On 2019-02-27 12:20 p.m., Snit wrote: >>>>> On 2/27/19 12:06 PM, % wrote: >>>>>> On 2019-02-27 12:02 p.m., Snit wrote: >>>>>>> On 2/27/19 11:58 AM, % wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2019-02-27 11:53 a.m., Snit wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 2/27/19 11:51 AM, % wrote: >>>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I request the inquest. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> i'm on a quest for the inquest >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Might I suggest an inquest request? >>>>>>> >>>>>> my inquest request is on hold until after recess >>>>> >>>>> My your request be blessed. >>>>> >>>> i hope so then i can finally rest with no quests >>> >>> Is that a requisite? >>> >> i think it was a prerequisite > > Not a postrequisite. > no
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-27 19:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <gdov41F7gvmU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #729515 |
On 2/27/19 6:59 PM, % wrote: > On 2019-02-27 6:05 p.m., Snit wrote: >> On 2/27/19 5:55 PM, % wrote: >>> On 2019-02-27 5:49 p.m., Snit wrote: >>>> On 2/27/19 12:25 PM, % wrote: >>>>> On 2019-02-27 12:20 p.m., Snit wrote: >>>>>> On 2/27/19 12:06 PM, % wrote: >>>>>>> On 2019-02-27 12:02 p.m., Snit wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2/27/19 11:58 AM, % wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 2019-02-27 11:53 a.m., Snit wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 2/27/19 11:51 AM, % wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I request the inquest. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> i'm on a quest for the inquest >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Might I suggest an inquest request? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> my inquest request is on hold until after recess >>>>>> >>>>>> My your request be blessed. >>>>>> >>>>> i hope so then i can finally rest with no quests >>>> >>>> Is that a requisite? >>>> >>> i think it was a prerequisite >> >> Not a postrequisite. >> > no But still you posted! -- 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 19:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c146v8.oni.19.3@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #729518 |
On 2019-02-27 7:25 p.m., Snit wrote: > On 2/27/19 6:59 PM, % wrote: >> On 2019-02-27 6:05 p.m., Snit wrote: >>> On 2/27/19 5:55 PM, % wrote: >>>> On 2019-02-27 5:49 p.m., Snit wrote: >>>>> On 2/27/19 12:25 PM, % wrote: >>>>>> On 2019-02-27 12:20 p.m., Snit wrote: >>>>>>> On 2/27/19 12:06 PM, % wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2019-02-27 12:02 p.m., Snit wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 2/27/19 11:58 AM, % wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 2019-02-27 11:53 a.m., Snit wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 2/27/19 11:51 AM, % wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I request the inquest. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> i'm on a quest for the inquest >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Might I suggest an inquest request? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> my inquest request is on hold until after recess >>>>>>> >>>>>>> My your request be blessed. >>>>>>> >>>>>> i hope so then i can finally rest with no quests >>>>> >>>>> Is that a requisite? >>>>> >>>> i think it was a prerequisite >>> >>> Not a postrequisite. >>> >> no > > But still you posted! > did i
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-27 19:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <gdp03cF7of6U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #729520 |
On 2/27/19 7:35 PM, % wrote: > On 2019-02-27 7:25 p.m., Snit wrote: >> On 2/27/19 6:59 PM, % wrote: >>> On 2019-02-27 6:05 p.m., Snit wrote: >>>> On 2/27/19 5:55 PM, % wrote: >>>>> On 2019-02-27 5:49 p.m., Snit wrote: >>>>>> On 2/27/19 12:25 PM, % wrote: >>>>>>> On 2019-02-27 12:20 p.m., Snit wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2/27/19 12:06 PM, % wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 2019-02-27 12:02 p.m., Snit wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 2/27/19 11:58 AM, % wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 2019-02-27 11:53 a.m., Snit wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/27/19 11:51 AM, % wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I request the inquest. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> i'm on a quest for the inquest >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Might I suggest an inquest request? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> my inquest request is on hold until after recess >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> My your request be blessed. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> i hope so then i can finally rest with no quests >>>>>> >>>>>> Is that a requisite? >>>>>> >>>>> i think it was a prerequisite >>>> >>>> Not a postrequisite. >>>> >>> no >> >> But still you posted! >> > did i I did. Same thing. -- 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 19:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c147el.oni.19.13@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #729523 |
On 2019-02-27 7:41 p.m., Snit wrote: > On 2/27/19 7:35 PM, % wrote: >> On 2019-02-27 7:25 p.m., Snit wrote: >>> On 2/27/19 6:59 PM, % wrote: >>>> On 2019-02-27 6:05 p.m., Snit wrote: >>>>> On 2/27/19 5:55 PM, % wrote: >>>>>> On 2019-02-27 5:49 p.m., Snit wrote: >>>>>>> On 2/27/19 12:25 PM, % wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2019-02-27 12:20 p.m., Snit wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 2/27/19 12:06 PM, % wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 2019-02-27 12:02 p.m., Snit wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 2/27/19 11:58 AM, % wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 2019-02-27 11:53 a.m., Snit wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/27/19 11:51 AM, % wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I request the inquest. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> i'm on a quest for the inquest >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Might I suggest an inquest request? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> my inquest request is on hold until after recess >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> My your request be blessed. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> i hope so then i can finally rest with no quests >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Is that a requisite? >>>>>>> >>>>>> i think it was a prerequisite >>>>> >>>>> Not a postrequisite. >>>>> >>>> no >>> >>> But still you posted! >>> >> did i > > I did. Same thing. > i didn't
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-27 20:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <gdp1ecF80liU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #729525 |
On 2/27/19 7:44 PM, % wrote: > On 2019-02-27 7:41 p.m., Snit wrote: >> On 2/27/19 7:35 PM, % wrote: >>> On 2019-02-27 7:25 p.m., Snit wrote: >>>> On 2/27/19 6:59 PM, % wrote: >>>>> On 2019-02-27 6:05 p.m., Snit wrote: >>>>>> On 2/27/19 5:55 PM, % wrote: >>>>>>> On 2019-02-27 5:49 p.m., Snit wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2/27/19 12:25 PM, % wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 2019-02-27 12:20 p.m., Snit wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 2/27/19 12:06 PM, % wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 2019-02-27 12:02 p.m., Snit wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/27/19 11:58 AM, % wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2019-02-27 11:53 a.m., Snit wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/27/19 11:51 AM, % wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I request the inquest. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> i'm on a quest for the inquest >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Might I suggest an inquest request? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> my inquest request is on hold until after recess >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> My your request be blessed. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> i hope so then i can finally rest with no quests >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Is that a requisite? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> i think it was a prerequisite >>>>>> >>>>>> Not a postrequisite. >>>>>> >>>>> no >>>> >>>> But still you posted! >>>> >>> did i >> >> I did. Same thing. >> > i didn't But you will. -- 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 20:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c148qc.kh9.19.2@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #729528 |
On 2019-02-27 8:04 p.m., Snit wrote: > On 2/27/19 7:44 PM, % wrote: >> On 2019-02-27 7:41 p.m., Snit wrote: >>> On 2/27/19 7:35 PM, % wrote: >>>> On 2019-02-27 7:25 p.m., Snit wrote: >>>>> On 2/27/19 6:59 PM, % wrote: >>>>>> On 2019-02-27 6:05 p.m., Snit wrote: >>>>>>> On 2/27/19 5:55 PM, % wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2019-02-27 5:49 p.m., Snit wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 2/27/19 12:25 PM, % wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 2019-02-27 12:20 p.m., Snit wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 2/27/19 12:06 PM, % wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 2019-02-27 12:02 p.m., Snit wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/27/19 11:58 AM, % wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2019-02-27 11:53 a.m., Snit wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/27/19 11:51 AM, % wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I request the inquest. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> i'm on a quest for the inquest >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Might I suggest an inquest request? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> my inquest request is on hold until after recess >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> My your request be blessed. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> i hope so then i can finally rest with no quests >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Is that a requisite? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> i think it was a prerequisite >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Not a postrequisite. >>>>>>> >>>>>> no >>>>> >>>>> But still you posted! >>>>> >>>> did i >>> >>> I did. Same thing. >>> >> i didn't > > But you will. > i can't
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-27 19:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <1o3o8es.mbp5lo1gmivxhN%snipeco.2@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #729434 |
% <persent@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>> no some do i saw them doing it > >>>>> > >>>>> One. But he recanted later. > >>>>> > >>>> wait until you see the recanters after the inquest > >>> > >>> I request the inquest. > >> > >> i'm on a quest for the inquest > > > > Might I suggest an inquest request? > > > my inquest request is on hold until after recess Your inquest request just went west. -- ^Ï^ My pet rock Gordon just is.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | % <persent@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-27 12:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c13dqs.5e5.17.2@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #729439 |
On 2019-02-27 12:21 p.m., Sn!pe wrote: > % <persent@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>> no some do i saw them doing it >>>>>>> >>>>>>> One. But he recanted later. >>>>>>> >>>>>> wait until you see the recanters after the inquest >>>>> >>>>> I request the inquest. >>>> >>>> i'm on a quest for the inquest >>> >>> Might I suggest an inquest request? >>> >> my inquest request is on hold until after recess > > Your inquest request just went west. > that's a request to inquest the west
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-27 13:44 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <lgmd7etjlm8hf5b1jp73o0ubvifcuundcr@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #729420 |
On Wed, 27 Feb 2019 11:37:04 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> 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. Sorry, Snit, but URLs with no scientific studies or peer reviewed papers are not science. FYI, *findings* are not scientific proof as those who publish findings are looking for nothing else that would disprove their biased findings. Smackdown! -- 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 11:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <gdo4jeF21ppU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #729424 |
On 2/27/19 11:44 AM, Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. wrote: > On Wed, 27 Feb 2019 11:37:04 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> 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. > > Sorry, Snit, but URLs with no scientific studies or peer reviewed > papers are not science. What is scientific is this -- 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. And it is also a simple fact that you reject the science. You are a climate science denier. It is not as if you have a better theory to match the data, or even show any understanding of the science or the major models -- you merely reject it. And why? Because you know you and your right wing buddies have NO clue how to deal with the best evidence we have. And it irks you that liberals do. You bring nothing to the table to deal with the issue so to try to distract from that you deny the issue. But, hey, if you are going to deny it please try to do so in a more amusing way. Bigdog has you beaten there by a MILE. > FYI, *findings* are not scientific proof > as those who publish findings are looking for nothing else that would > disprove their biased findings. > > Smackdown! > Ah, you think your empty denial in the fact of overwhelming evidence should hold weight. All because you know you and the Republicans have no clue how to handle the facts. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web