Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #720040 > unrolled thread

Re: 'Planetary emergency:' After 30 years, leaders are still fighting about climate change

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: 'Planetary emergency:' After 30 years, leaders are still fighting about climate change Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-21 17:49 -0700
    Re: 'Planetary emergency:' After 30 years, leaders are still fighting about climate change jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2018-12-22 01:29 +0000
      Re: 'Planetary emergency:' After 30 years, leaders are still fighting about climate change Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-22 02:29 +0000
        Re: 'Planetary emergency:' After 30 years, leaders are still fighting about climate change jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2018-12-22 05:23 +0000
          Re: 'Planetary emergency:' After 30 years, leaders are still fighting about climate change Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-21 22:45 -0700
            Re: 'Planetary emergency:' After 30 years, leaders are still fighting about climate change jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2018-12-22 18:07 +0000
              Re: 'Planetary emergency:' After 30 years, leaders are still fighting about climate change Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-12-22 12:43 -0600
                15 MINUTES TO OXY % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-12-22 11:48 -0700
              Re: 'Planetary emergency:' After 30 years, leaders are still fighting about climate change Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-22 18:28 -0700
                Re: 'Planetary emergency:' After 30 years, leaders are still fighting about climate change jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2018-12-23 02:37 +0000
                  Re: 'Planetary emergency:' After 30 years, leaders are still fighting about climate change Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-22 19:47 -0700
                    Re: 'Planetary emergency:' After 30 years, leaders are still fighting about climate change Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-12-22 23:20 -0600
                    Re: 'Planetary emergency:' After 30 years, leaders are still fighting about climate change jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2018-12-23 05:21 +0000
                  Re: 'Planetary emergency:' After 30 years, leaders are still fighting about climate change Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2018-12-23 08:55 -0700
                    Re: 'Planetary emergency:' After 30 years, leaders are still fighting about climate change jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2018-12-23 19:16 +0000
                      Re: 'Planetary emergency:' After 30 years, leaders are still fighting about climate change onion@anon.invalid (Mr On!on) - 2018-12-23 20:14 +0000
                      Re: 'Planetary emergency:' After 30 years, leaders are still fighting about climate change Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-12-23 22:30 +0000
                        Re: 'Planetary emergency:' After 30 years, leaders are still fighting about climate change % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-12-23 15:40 -0700
                      Re: 'Planetary emergency:' After 30 years, leaders are still fighting about climate change Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2018-12-23 20:29 -0700
                        Re: 'Planetary emergency:' After 30 years, leaders are still fighting about climate change jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2018-12-24 06:13 +0000
                      Re: 'Planetary emergency:' After 30 years, leaders are still fighting about climate change kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-24 11:05 -0500
                        Re: 'Planetary emergency:' After 30 years, leaders are still fighting about climate change "Sir Gregory Hall,  Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-12-24 11:28 -0500
                          Re: 'Planetary emergency:' After 30 years, leaders are still fighting about climate change % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-12-24 09:32 -0700
                          Re: 'Planetary emergency:' After 30 years, leaders are still fighting about climate change Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2018-12-24 09:37 -0700
                          Re: 'Planetary emergency:' After 30 years, leaders are still fighting about climate change mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2018-12-24 12:17 -0500
                            Re: 'Planetary emergency:' After 30 years, leaders are still fighting about climate change "Sir Gregory Hall,  Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-12-24 14:09 -0500
                              Re: 'Planetary emergency:' After 30 years, leaders are still fighting about climate change Janithor <Janithor@comcast.net> - 2018-12-24 11:23 -0800
                          Re: 'Planetary emergency:' After 30 years, leaders are still fighting about climate change Checkmate <oshay.shad@yahoo.corn> - 2018-12-24 11:10 -0800
                            Re: 'Planetary emergency:' After 30 years, leaders are still fighting about climate change "Sir Gregory Hall,  Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-12-24 14:55 -0500
                            Re: 'Planetary emergency:' After 30 years, leaders are still fighting about climate change % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-12-24 13:07 -0700
                              Re: 'Planetary emergency:' After 30 years, leaders are still fighting about climate change Checkmate <oshay.shad@yahoo.corn> - 2018-12-24 23:56 -0800
                                Re: 'Planetary emergency:' After 30 years, leaders are still fighting about climate change % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-12-25 05:26 -0700
                                  Re: 'Planetary emergency:' After 30 years, leaders are still fighting about climate change Checkmate <oshay.shad@yahoo.corn> - 2018-12-25 07:54 -0800
                                    Re: 'Planetary emergency:' After 30 years, leaders are still fighting about climate change "Sir Gregory Hall,  Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-12-25 11:18 -0500
                                      Re: 'Planetary emergency:' After 30 years, leaders are still fighting about climate change Checkmate <oshay.shad@yahoo.corn> - 2018-12-25 09:24 -0800
                                        Re: 'Planetary emergency:' After 30 years, leaders are still fighting about climate change % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-12-25 11:00 -0700
                                      Re: 'Planetary emergency:' After 30 years, leaders are still fighting about climate change % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-12-25 10:59 -0700
                                      Re: 'Planetary emergency:' After 30 years, leaders are still fighting about climate change Janithor <Janithor@comcast.net> - 2018-12-25 10:41 -0800
                                    Re: 'Planetary emergency:' After 30 years, leaders are still fighting about climate change % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-12-25 10:58 -0700
                        Re: 'Planetary emergency:' After 30 years, leaders are still fighting about climate change Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2018-12-24 09:37 -0700

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#720040 — Re: 'Planetary emergency:' After 30 years, leaders are still fighting about climate change

On 12/21/18 2:41 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> On 12/21/18 1:29 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>> In sci.physics kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>>> Hidden in the 133-page document agreed upon at the UN climate change
>>>> talks was a compromise that many consider an infuriating distraction:
>>>>
>>>> https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/16/health/sutter-cop24-climate-talks/index.html
>>>
>>> 30 years of "the sky is falling" and no massive crop failures, no flooded
>>> cities, and no piles of bodies.
>>>
>>
>> We are seeing, roughly, the predicted outcomes. Now.
>>
>> Why would you expect more, as you describe?
>   
> I wouldn't expect more than what we are actually seeing, i.e. little
> to nothing and certainly nothing catastrophic.

The fires and increased storms and loss of habitats and species is very 
significant, I think. What makes you think those things are "little to 
nothing"?

> However some people have been rending their shirts and crying the end
> is nigh as they wail about the coming tipping point for about 30 years.

Some people? But you are not talking about the common scientific view?


-- 
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] | [next] | [standalone]

#720049

In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 12/21/18 2:41 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>> On 12/21/18 1:29 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>> In sci.physics kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> Hidden in the 133-page document agreed upon at the UN climate change
>>>>> talks was a compromise that many consider an infuriating distraction:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/16/health/sutter-cop24-climate-talks/index.html
>>>>
>>>> 30 years of "the sky is falling" and no massive crop failures, no flooded
>>>> cities, and no piles of bodies.
>>>>
>>>
>>> We are seeing, roughly, the predicted outcomes. Now.
>>>
>>> Why would you expect more, as you describe?
>>   
>> I wouldn't expect more than what we are actually seeing, i.e. little
>> to nothing and certainly nothing catastrophic.
> 
> The fires and increased storms and loss of habitats and species is very 
> significant, I think. What makes you think those things are "little to 
> nothing"?

None of which is siginificantly different from what has been happening
for hundreds, if not thousands, of years.

> 
>> However some people have been rending their shirts and crying the end
>> is nigh as they wail about the coming tipping point for about 30 years.
> 
> Some people? But you are not talking about the common scientific view?

I'm talking about the people who have been rending their shirts and
crying the end is nigh as they wail about the coming tipping point as
they have been doing for about 30 years now.
 

-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#720072

<jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote:
> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> On 12/21/18 2:41 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>> On 12/21/18 1:29 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>> In sci.physics kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>> Hidden in the 133-page document agreed upon at the UN climate change
>>>>>> talks was a compromise that many consider an infuriating distraction:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/16/health/sutter-cop24-climate-talks/index.html
>>>>> 
>>>>> 30 years of "the sky is falling" and no massive crop failures, no flooded
>>>>> cities, and no piles of bodies.
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> We are seeing, roughly, the predicted outcomes. Now.
>>>> 
>>>> Why would you expect more, as you describe?
>>> 
>>> I wouldn't expect more than what we are actually seeing, i.e. little
>>> to nothing and certainly nothing catastrophic.
>> 
>> The fires and increased storms and loss of habitats and species is very 
>> significant, I think. What makes you think those things are "little to 
>> nothing"?
> 
> None of which is siginificantly different from what has been happening
> for hundreds, if not thousands, of years.

I would love to see evidence of that claim. 

> 
>> 
>>> However some people have been rending their shirts and crying the end
>>> is nigh as they wail about the coming tipping point for about 30 years.
>> 
>> Some people? But you are not talking about the common scientific view?
> 
> I'm talking about the people who have been rending their shirts and
> crying the end is nigh as they wail about the coming tipping point as
> they have been doing for about 30 years now.
>  
> 
So not the scientists researching climate. Fair enough. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#720092

In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote:
>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>> On 12/21/18 2:41 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 12/21/18 1:29 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>> In sci.physics kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>> Hidden in the 133-page document agreed upon at the UN climate change
>>>>>>> talks was a compromise that many consider an infuriating distraction:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/16/health/sutter-cop24-climate-talks/index.html
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 30 years of "the sky is falling" and no massive crop failures, no flooded
>>>>>> cities, and no piles of bodies.
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> We are seeing, roughly, the predicted outcomes. Now.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Why would you expect more, as you describe?
>>>> 
>>>> I wouldn't expect more than what we are actually seeing, i.e. little
>>>> to nothing and certainly nothing catastrophic.
>>> 
>>> The fires and increased storms and loss of habitats and species is very 
>>> significant, I think. What makes you think those things are "little to 
>>> nothing"?
>> 
>> None of which is siginificantly different from what has been happening
>> for hundreds, if not thousands, of years.
> 
> I would love to see evidence of that claim. 

A trivial look up.

> 
>> 
>>> 
>>>> However some people have been rending their shirts and crying the end
>>>> is nigh as they wail about the coming tipping point for about 30 years.
>>> 
>>> Some people? But you are not talking about the common scientific view?
>> 
>> I'm talking about the people who have been rending their shirts and
>> crying the end is nigh as they wail about the coming tipping point as
>> they have been doing for about 30 years now.
>>  
>> 
> So not the scientists researching climate. Fair enough. 
 
I never said anything about "scientists researching climate", why do
you keep bringing it up? 

I'm talking about the people who have been rending their shirts and
crying the end is nigh as they wail about the coming tipping point as
they have been doing for about 30 years now.


-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#720096

On 12/21/18 10:23 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote:
>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>> On 12/21/18 2:41 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/21/18 1:29 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>> In sci.physics kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hidden in the 133-page document agreed upon at the UN climate change
>>>>>>>> talks was a compromise that many consider an infuriating distraction:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/16/health/sutter-cop24-climate-talks/index.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 30 years of "the sky is falling" and no massive crop failures, no flooded
>>>>>>> cities, and no piles of bodies.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We are seeing, roughly, the predicted outcomes. Now.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why would you expect more, as you describe?
>>>>>
>>>>> I wouldn't expect more than what we are actually seeing, i.e. little
>>>>> to nothing and certainly nothing catastrophic.
>>>>
>>>> The fires and increased storms and loss of habitats and species is very
>>>> significant, I think. What makes you think those things are "little to
>>>> nothing"?
>>>
>>> None of which is siginificantly different from what has been happening
>>> for hundreds, if not thousands, of years.
>>
>> I would love to see evidence of that claim.
> 
> A trivial look up.

Then it should be easy for you to do. Show that the current reduction in 
species is similar to what has been happening for "hundreds, if not 
thousands, of years".

Keep in mind what you say is "trivial" to find is contrary to the evidence.

http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/1/5/e1400253.full

>>>>> However some people have been rending their shirts and crying the end
>>>>> is nigh as they wail about the coming tipping point for about 30 years.
>>>>
>>>> Some people? But you are not talking about the common scientific view?
>>>
>>> I'm talking about the people who have been rending their shirts and
>>> crying the end is nigh as they wail about the coming tipping point as
>>> they have been doing for about 30 years now.
>>>   
>>>
>> So not the scientists researching climate. Fair enough.
>   
> I never said anything about "scientists researching climate", why do
> you keep bringing it up?

You keep talking about people speaking of climate. Who do you mean? 
Seems not the scientists nor those who reference them, at least in 
general... so who?

> I'm talking about the people who have been rending their shirts and
> crying the end is nigh as they wail about the coming tipping point as
> they have been doing for about 30 years now.

But you cannot say who... other than to note you do not mean the 
scientists of every single scientific organization that has a position 
on climate change. Not them. Nor those who base their views on the 
findings of such scientists. But... someone.

What?


-- 
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]

#720202

In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 12/21/18 10:23 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote:
>>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 12/21/18 2:41 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12/21/18 1:29 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> In sci.physics kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Hidden in the 133-page document agreed upon at the UN climate change
>>>>>>>>> talks was a compromise that many consider an infuriating distraction:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/16/health/sutter-cop24-climate-talks/index.html
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 30 years of "the sky is falling" and no massive crop failures, no flooded
>>>>>>>> cities, and no piles of bodies.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We are seeing, roughly, the predicted outcomes. Now.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why would you expect more, as you describe?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I wouldn't expect more than what we are actually seeing, i.e. little
>>>>>> to nothing and certainly nothing catastrophic.
>>>>>
>>>>> The fires and increased storms and loss of habitats and species is very
>>>>> significant, I think. What makes you think those things are "little to
>>>>> nothing"?
>>>>
>>>> None of which is siginificantly different from what has been happening
>>>> for hundreds, if not thousands, of years.
>>>
>>> I would love to see evidence of that claim.
>> 
>> A trivial look up.
> 
> Then it should be easy for you to do. Show that the current reduction in 
> species is similar to what has been happening for "hundreds, if not 
> thousands, of years".
> 
> Keep in mind what you say is "trivial" to find is contrary to the evidence.

Yeah, sure.

You could just kill yourself now and avoid the apocalypse.

> http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/1/5/e1400253.full
> 
>>>>>> However some people have been rending their shirts and crying the end
>>>>>> is nigh as they wail about the coming tipping point for about 30 years.
>>>>>
>>>>> Some people? But you are not talking about the common scientific view?
>>>>
>>>> I'm talking about the people who have been rending their shirts and
>>>> crying the end is nigh as they wail about the coming tipping point as
>>>> they have been doing for about 30 years now.
>>>>   
>>>>
>>> So not the scientists researching climate. Fair enough.
>>   
>> I never said anything about "scientists researching climate", why do
>> you keep bringing it up?
> 
> You keep talking about people speaking of climate. Who do you mean? 
> Seems not the scientists nor those who reference them, at least in 
> general... so who?
> 
>> I'm talking about the people who have been rending their shirts and
>> crying the end is nigh as they wail about the coming tipping point as
>> they have been doing for about 30 years now.
> 
> But you cannot say who... other than to note you do not mean the 
> scientists of every single scientific organization that has a position 
> on climate change. Not them. Nor those who base their views on the 
> findings of such scientists. But... someone.

If you want names, for starters there is kensi and sam wormely.

You figure out the rest.

> 
> What?
> 
> 

-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#720220

On 12/22/2018 12:07 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> On 12/21/18 10:23 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote:
>>>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/21/18 2:41 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 12/21/18 1:29 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Hidden in the 133-page document agreed upon at the UN climate change
>>>>>>>>>> talks was a compromise that many consider an infuriating distraction:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/16/health/sutter-cop24-climate-talks/index.html
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 30 years of "the sky is falling" and no massive crop failures, no flooded
>>>>>>>>> cities, and no piles of bodies.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We are seeing, roughly, the predicted outcomes. Now.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why would you expect more, as you describe?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I wouldn't expect more than what we are actually seeing, i.e. little
>>>>>>> to nothing and certainly nothing catastrophic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The fires and increased storms and loss of habitats and species is very
>>>>>> significant, I think. What makes you think those things are "little to
>>>>>> nothing"?
>>>>>
>>>>> None of which is siginificantly different from what has been happening
>>>>> for hundreds, if not thousands, of years.
>>>>
>>>> I would love to see evidence of that claim.
>>>
>>> A trivial look up.
>>
>> Then it should be easy for you to do. Show that the current reduction in 
>> species is similar to what has been happening for "hundreds, if not 
>> thousands, of years".
>>
>> Keep in mind what you say is "trivial" to find is contrary to the evidence.
> 
> Yeah, sure.
> 
> You could just kill yourself now and avoid the apocalypse.
> 
>> http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/1/5/e1400253.full
>>
>>>>>>> However some people have been rending their shirts and crying the end
>>>>>>> is nigh as they wail about the coming tipping point for about 30 years.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Some people? But you are not talking about the common scientific view?
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm talking about the people who have been rending their shirts and
>>>>> crying the end is nigh as they wail about the coming tipping point as
>>>>> they have been doing for about 30 years now.
>>>>>   
>>>>>
>>>> So not the scientists researching climate. Fair enough.
>>>   
>>> I never said anything about "scientists researching climate", why do
>>> you keep bringing it up?
>>
>> You keep talking about people speaking of climate. Who do you mean? 
>> Seems not the scientists nor those who reference them, at least in 
>> general... so who?
>>
>>> I'm talking about the people who have been rending their shirts and
>>> crying the end is nigh as they wail about the coming tipping point as
>>> they have been doing for about 30 years now.
>>
>> But you cannot say who... other than to note you do not mean the 
>> scientists of every single scientific organization that has a position 
>> on climate change. Not them. Nor those who base their views on the 
>> findings of such scientists. But... someone.
> 
> If you want names, for starters there is kensi and sam wormely.
> 
> You figure out the rest.
> 
>>
>> What?
>>
>>
> 

add in the Democratic Party, it is part of their platform.  They want to
tax fuel and spend the money, like they tried to in France.

google Yellow Vest riots   (still going on)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#720222 — 15 MINUTES TO OXY

.

my next dose is in 15 minutes then i'll show you some usenettin

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#720297

On 12/22/18 11:07 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
...
>>>>> I'm talking about the people who have been rending their shirts and
>>>>> crying the end is nigh as they wail about the coming tipping point as
>>>>> they have been doing for about 30 years now.
>>>>>    
>>>>>
>>>> So not the scientists researching climate. Fair enough.
>>>    
>>> I never said anything about "scientists researching climate", why do
>>> you keep bringing it up?
>>
>> You keep talking about people speaking of climate. Who do you mean?
>> Seems not the scientists nor those who reference them, at least in
>> general... so who?
>>
>>> I'm talking about the people who have been rending their shirts and
>>> crying the end is nigh as they wail about the coming tipping point as
>>> they have been doing for about 30 years now.
>>
>> But you cannot say who... other than to note you do not mean the
>> scientists of every single scientific organization that has a position
>> on climate change. Not them. Nor those who base their views on the
>> findings of such scientists. But... someone.
> 
> If you want names, for starters there is kensi and sam wormely.

Now provide quotes from them.
> 
> You figure out the rest.

The rest is you are seeking to deny science but as you get called out 
you are backing off in a most unintentionally humerus way.

> 
>>
>> What?
>>
>>
> 


-- 
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]

#720308

In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 12/22/18 11:07 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> ...
>>>>>> I'm talking about the people who have been rending their shirts and
>>>>>> crying the end is nigh as they wail about the coming tipping point as
>>>>>> they have been doing for about 30 years now.
>>>>>>    
>>>>>>
>>>>> So not the scientists researching climate. Fair enough.
>>>>    
>>>> I never said anything about "scientists researching climate", why do
>>>> you keep bringing it up?
>>>
>>> You keep talking about people speaking of climate. Who do you mean?
>>> Seems not the scientists nor those who reference them, at least in
>>> general... so who?
>>>
>>>> I'm talking about the people who have been rending their shirts and
>>>> crying the end is nigh as they wail about the coming tipping point as
>>>> they have been doing for about 30 years now.
>>>
>>> But you cannot say who... other than to note you do not mean the
>>> scientists of every single scientific organization that has a position
>>> on climate change. Not them. Nor those who base their views on the
>>> findings of such scientists. But... someone.
>> 
>> If you want names, for starters there is kensi and sam wormely.
> 
> Now provide quotes from them.

Go find them yourself; you are more trouble than you are worth.

>> You figure out the rest.
> 
> The rest is you are seeking to deny science but as you get called out 
> you are backing off in a most unintentionally humerus way.

Puerile twaddle.

How much tahini do you use in your "humerus"?

-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#720311

On 12/22/18 7:37 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> On 12/22/18 11:07 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> ...
>>>>>>> I'm talking about the people who have been rending their shirts and
>>>>>>> crying the end is nigh as they wail about the coming tipping point as
>>>>>>> they have been doing for about 30 years now.
>>>>>>>     
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> So not the scientists researching climate. Fair enough.
>>>>>     
>>>>> I never said anything about "scientists researching climate", why do
>>>>> you keep bringing it up?
>>>>
>>>> You keep talking about people speaking of climate. Who do you mean?
>>>> Seems not the scientists nor those who reference them, at least in
>>>> general... so who?
>>>>
>>>>> I'm talking about the people who have been rending their shirts and
>>>>> crying the end is nigh as they wail about the coming tipping point as
>>>>> they have been doing for about 30 years now.
>>>>
>>>> But you cannot say who... other than to note you do not mean the
>>>> scientists of every single scientific organization that has a position
>>>> on climate change. Not them. Nor those who base their views on the
>>>> findings of such scientists. But... someone.
>>>
>>> If you want names, for starters there is kensi and sam wormely.
>>
>> Now provide quotes from them.
> 
> Go find them yourself; you are more trouble than you are worth.
> 
>>> You figure out the rest.
>>
>> The rest is you are seeking to deny science but as you get called out
>> you are backing off in a most unintentionally humerus way.
> 
> Puerile twaddle.
> 
> How much tahini do you use in your "humerus"?
> 

So no evidence to back your claims. Got it. And it IS funny. :)

-- 
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]

#720345

On 12/22/2018 8:47 PM, Snit wrote:
> On 12/22/18 7:37 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>> On 12/22/18 11:07 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>> ...
>>>>>>>> I'm talking about the people who have been rending their shirts and
>>>>>>>> crying the end is nigh as they wail about the coming tipping
>>>>>>>> point as
>>>>>>>> they have been doing for about 30 years now.
>>>>>>>>    
>>>>>>> So not the scientists researching climate. Fair enough.
>>>>>>     I never said anything about "scientists researching climate",
>>>>>> why do
>>>>>> you keep bringing it up?
>>>>>
>>>>> You keep talking about people speaking of climate. Who do you mean?
>>>>> Seems not the scientists nor those who reference them, at least in
>>>>> general... so who?
>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm talking about the people who have been rending their shirts and
>>>>>> crying the end is nigh as they wail about the coming tipping point as
>>>>>> they have been doing for about 30 years now.
>>>>>
>>>>> But you cannot say who... other than to note you do not mean the
>>>>> scientists of every single scientific organization that has a position
>>>>> on climate change. Not them. Nor those who base their views on the
>>>>> findings of such scientists. But... someone.
>>>>
>>>> If you want names, for starters there is kensi and sam wormely.
>>>
>>> Now provide quotes from them.
>>
>> Go find them yourself; you are more trouble than you are worth.
>>
>>>> You figure out the rest.
>>>
>>> The rest is you are seeking to deny science but as you get called out
>>> you are backing off in a most unintentionally humerus way.
>>
>> Puerile twaddle.
>>
>> How much tahini do you use in your "humerus"?
>>
> 
> So no evidence to back your claims. Got it. And it IS funny. :)
> 

jimp wins !    snit is 0

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#720349

In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 12/22/18 7:37 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>> On 12/22/18 11:07 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>> ...
>>>>>>>> I'm talking about the people who have been rending their shirts and
>>>>>>>> crying the end is nigh as they wail about the coming tipping point as
>>>>>>>> they have been doing for about 30 years now.
>>>>>>>>     
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So not the scientists researching climate. Fair enough.
>>>>>>     
>>>>>> I never said anything about "scientists researching climate", why do
>>>>>> you keep bringing it up?
>>>>>
>>>>> You keep talking about people speaking of climate. Who do you mean?
>>>>> Seems not the scientists nor those who reference them, at least in
>>>>> general... so who?
>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm talking about the people who have been rending their shirts and
>>>>>> crying the end is nigh as they wail about the coming tipping point as
>>>>>> they have been doing for about 30 years now.
>>>>>
>>>>> But you cannot say who... other than to note you do not mean the
>>>>> scientists of every single scientific organization that has a position
>>>>> on climate change. Not them. Nor those who base their views on the
>>>>> findings of such scientists. But... someone.
>>>>
>>>> If you want names, for starters there is kensi and sam wormely.
>>>
>>> Now provide quotes from them.
>> 
>> Go find them yourself; you are more trouble than you are worth.
>> 
>>>> You figure out the rest.
>>>
>>> The rest is you are seeking to deny science but as you get called out
>>> you are backing off in a most unintentionally humerus way.
>> 
>> Puerile twaddle.
>> 
>> How much tahini do you use in your "humerus"?
>> 
> 
> So no evidence to back your claims. Got it. And it IS funny. :)

So what exactly do you see as my claims? 

-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#720395

In article <uv83ff-s5h.ln1@mail.specsol.com>, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com 
says...
>
>In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> On 12/22/18 11:07 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> ...
>>>>>>> I'm talking about the people who have been rending their shirts and
>>>>>>> crying the end is nigh as they wail about the coming tipping point as
>>>>>>> they have been doing for about 30 years now.
>>>>>>>    
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> So not the scientists researching climate. Fair enough.
>>>>>    
>>>>> I never said anything about "scientists researching climate", why do
>>>>> you keep bringing it up?
>>>>
>>>> You keep talking about people speaking of climate. Who do you mean?
>>>> Seems not the scientists nor those who reference them, at least in
>>>> general... so who?
>>>>
>>>>> I'm talking about the people who have been rending their shirts and
>>>>> crying the end is nigh as they wail about the coming tipping point as
>>>>> they have been doing for about 30 years now.
>>>>
>>>> But you cannot say who... other than to note you do not mean the
>>>> scientists of every single scientific organization that has a position
>>>> on climate change. Not them. Nor those who base their views on the
>>>> findings of such scientists. But... someone.
>>> 
>>> If you want names, for starters there is kensi and sam wormely.
>> 
>> Now provide quotes from them.
>
>Go find them yourself; you are more trouble than you are worth.
>
>>> You figure out the rest.
>> 
>> The rest is you are seeking to deny science but as you get called out 
>> you are backing off in a most unintentionally humerus way.
>
>Puerile twaddle.
>
>How much tahini do you use in your "humerus"?

What's a jimp?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#720433

In sci.physics Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> In article <uv83ff-s5h.ln1@mail.specsol.com>, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com 
> says...
>>
>>In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>> On 12/22/18 11:07 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>> ...
>>>>>>>> I'm talking about the people who have been rending their shirts and
>>>>>>>> crying the end is nigh as they wail about the coming tipping point as
>>>>>>>> they have been doing for about 30 years now.
>>>>>>>>    
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So not the scientists researching climate. Fair enough.
>>>>>>    
>>>>>> I never said anything about "scientists researching climate", why do
>>>>>> you keep bringing it up?
>>>>>
>>>>> You keep talking about people speaking of climate. Who do you mean?
>>>>> Seems not the scientists nor those who reference them, at least in
>>>>> general... so who?
>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm talking about the people who have been rending their shirts and
>>>>>> crying the end is nigh as they wail about the coming tipping point as
>>>>>> they have been doing for about 30 years now.
>>>>>
>>>>> But you cannot say who... other than to note you do not mean the
>>>>> scientists of every single scientific organization that has a position
>>>>> on climate change. Not them. Nor those who base their views on the
>>>>> findings of such scientists. But... someone.
>>>> 
>>>> If you want names, for starters there is kensi and sam wormely.
>>> 
>>> Now provide quotes from them.
>>
>>Go find them yourself; you are more trouble than you are worth.
>>
>>>> You figure out the rest.
>>> 
>>> The rest is you are seeking to deny science but as you get called out 
>>> you are backing off in a most unintentionally humerus way.
>>
>>Puerile twaddle.
>>
>>How much tahini do you use in your "humerus"?
> 
> What's a jimp?

Everyone knows what a skeeter is, an annoyingly little creature that
makes a constant buzzing noise.


-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#720439

<jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote:

> In sci.physics Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> > In article <uv83ff-s5h.ln1@mail.specsol.com>, 
> > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com says...

[...]

> >>Puerile twaddle.
> >>
> >>How much tahini do you use in your "humerus"?
> > 
> > What's a jimp?
> 
> Everyone knows what a skeeter is, an annoyingly little creature that
> makes a constant buzzing noise.

And he's bitten you, now you can't stop scratching...

-- 
  \|/ 
(((Ï)))     U+97F1 
 
Wearing an On!on on his belt, which was the style at the time.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#720456

Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
On Sun, 23 Dec 2018 19:16:58 +0000, jimp wrote:

> In sci.physics Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> In article <uv83ff-s5h.ln1@mail.specsol.com>, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com
>> says...
>>>
>>>In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>> On 12/22/18 11:07 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>> I'm talking about the people who have been rending their shirts
>>>>>>>>> and crying the end is nigh as they wail about the coming tipping
>>>>>>>>> point as they have been doing for about 30 years now.
>>>>>>>>>    
>>>>>>>>>    
>>>>>>>> So not the scientists researching climate. Fair enough.
>>>>>>>    
>>>>>>> I never said anything about "scientists researching climate", why
>>>>>>> do you keep bringing it up?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You keep talking about people speaking of climate. Who do you mean?
>>>>>> Seems not the scientists nor those who reference them, at least in
>>>>>> general... so who?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm talking about the people who have been rending their shirts
>>>>>>> and crying the end is nigh as they wail about the coming tipping
>>>>>>> point as they have been doing for about 30 years now.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But you cannot say who... other than to note you do not mean the
>>>>>> scientists of every single scientific organization that has a
>>>>>> position on climate change. Not them. Nor those who base their
>>>>>> views on the findings of such scientists. But... someone.
>>>>> 
>>>>> If you want names, for starters there is kensi and sam wormely.
>>>> 
>>>> Now provide quotes from them.
>>>
>>>Go find them yourself; you are more trouble than you are worth.
>>>
>>>>> You figure out the rest.
>>>> 
>>>> The rest is you are seeking to deny science but as you get called out
>>>> you are backing off in a most unintentionally humerus way.
>>>
>>>Puerile twaddle.
>>>
>>>How much tahini do you use in your "humerus"?
>> 
>> What's a jimp?
> 
> Everyone knows what a skeeter is, an annoyingly little creature that
> makes a constant buzzing noise.

SPANKY-SPANKY!

<snicker>

-- 
FNVWe Nadegda

"By all means, compare these shitheads to Nazis. Again and again. I'm with 
you." -- Mike Godwin, Aug 13, 2017, 8:03 PM
Skeeter admits he mooches his mother's laptop:
http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=154073947600

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#720458

On 2018-12-23 3:30 p.m., Nadegda wrote:
> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
> On Sun, 23 Dec 2018 19:16:58 +0000, jimp wrote:
> 
>> In sci.physics Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> In article <uv83ff-s5h.ln1@mail.specsol.com>, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com
>>> says...
>>>>
>>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 12/22/18 11:07 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>> I'm talking about the people who have been rending their shirts
>>>>>>>>>> and crying the end is nigh as they wail about the coming tipping
>>>>>>>>>> point as they have been doing for about 30 years now.
>>>>>>>>>>     
>>>>>>>>>>     
>>>>>>>>> So not the scientists researching climate. Fair enough.
>>>>>>>>     
>>>>>>>> I never said anything about "scientists researching climate", why
>>>>>>>> do you keep bringing it up?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You keep talking about people speaking of climate. Who do you mean?
>>>>>>> Seems not the scientists nor those who reference them, at least in
>>>>>>> general... so who?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm talking about the people who have been rending their shirts
>>>>>>>> and crying the end is nigh as they wail about the coming tipping
>>>>>>>> point as they have been doing for about 30 years now.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But you cannot say who... other than to note you do not mean the
>>>>>>> scientists of every single scientific organization that has a
>>>>>>> position on climate change. Not them. Nor those who base their
>>>>>>> views on the findings of such scientists. But... someone.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you want names, for starters there is kensi and sam wormely.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now provide quotes from them.
>>>>
>>>> Go find them yourself; you are more trouble than you are worth.
>>>>
>>>>>> You figure out the rest.
>>>>>
>>>>> The rest is you are seeking to deny science but as you get called out
>>>>> you are backing off in a most unintentionally humerus way.
>>>>
>>>> Puerile twaddle.
>>>>
>>>> How much tahini do you use in your "humerus"?
>>>
>>> What's a jimp?
>>
>> Everyone knows what a skeeter is, an annoyingly little creature that
>> makes a constant buzzing noise.
> 
> SPANKY-SPANKY!
> 
> <snicker>
> 
skeeter noun (1)
skee·​ter | \ˈskē-tər

1
: an iceboat 16 feet (5 meters) or more in length having a single sail

skeeter noun (2)
skeet·​er | \ˈskē-tər

Definition of skeeter (Entry 2 of 2)
: a skeet shooter

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#720497

In article <ai35ff-5qm.ln1@mail.specsol.com>, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com 
says...
>
>In sci.physics Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> In article <uv83ff-s5h.ln1@mail.specsol.com>, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com 
>> says...
>>>
>>>In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>> On 12/22/18 11:07 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>> I'm talking about the people who have been rending their shirts and
>>>>>>>>> crying the end is nigh as they wail about the coming tipping point as
>>>>>>>>> they have been doing for about 30 years now.
>>>>>>>>>    
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So not the scientists researching climate. Fair enough.
>>>>>>>    
>>>>>>> I never said anything about "scientists researching climate", why do
>>>>>>> you keep bringing it up?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You keep talking about people speaking of climate. Who do you mean?
>>>>>> Seems not the scientists nor those who reference them, at least in
>>>>>> general... so who?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm talking about the people who have been rending their shirts and
>>>>>>> crying the end is nigh as they wail about the coming tipping point as
>>>>>>> they have been doing for about 30 years now.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But you cannot say who... other than to note you do not mean the
>>>>>> scientists of every single scientific organization that has a position
>>>>>> on climate change. Not them. Nor those who base their views on the
>>>>>> findings of such scientists. But... someone.
>>>>> 
>>>>> If you want names, for starters there is kensi and sam wormely.
>>>> 
>>>> Now provide quotes from them.
>>>
>>>Go find them yourself; you are more trouble than you are worth.
>>>
>>>>> You figure out the rest.
>>>> 
>>>> The rest is you are seeking to deny science but as you get called out 
>>>> you are backing off in a most unintentionally humerus way.
>>>
>>>Puerile twaddle.
>>>
>>>How much tahini do you use in your "humerus"?
>> 
>> What's a jimp?
>
>Everyone knows what a skeeter is, an annoyingly little creature that
>makes a constant buzzing noise.

That's nice, but what's a jimp?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#720524

In sci.physics Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> In article <ai35ff-5qm.ln1@mail.specsol.com>, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com 
> says...
>>
>>In sci.physics Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> In article <uv83ff-s5h.ln1@mail.specsol.com>, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com 
>>> says...
>>>>
>>>>In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 12/22/18 11:07 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>> I'm talking about the people who have been rending their shirts and
>>>>>>>>>> crying the end is nigh as they wail about the coming tipping point as
>>>>>>>>>> they have been doing for about 30 years now.
>>>>>>>>>>    
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So not the scientists researching climate. Fair enough.
>>>>>>>>    
>>>>>>>> I never said anything about "scientists researching climate", why do
>>>>>>>> you keep bringing it up?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You keep talking about people speaking of climate. Who do you mean?
>>>>>>> Seems not the scientists nor those who reference them, at least in
>>>>>>> general... so who?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm talking about the people who have been rending their shirts and
>>>>>>>> crying the end is nigh as they wail about the coming tipping point as
>>>>>>>> they have been doing for about 30 years now.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But you cannot say who... other than to note you do not mean the
>>>>>>> scientists of every single scientific organization that has a position
>>>>>>> on climate change. Not them. Nor those who base their views on the
>>>>>>> findings of such scientists. But... someone.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> If you want names, for starters there is kensi and sam wormely.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Now provide quotes from them.
>>>>
>>>>Go find them yourself; you are more trouble than you are worth.
>>>>
>>>>>> You figure out the rest.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The rest is you are seeking to deny science but as you get called out 
>>>>> you are backing off in a most unintentionally humerus way.
>>>>
>>>>Puerile twaddle.
>>>>
>>>>How much tahini do you use in your "humerus"?
>>> 
>>> What's a jimp?
>>
>>Everyone knows what a skeeter is, an annoyingly little creature that
>>makes a constant buzzing noise.
> 
> That's nice, but what's a jimp?

Evidently something with which you have become totally obsessed.


-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web