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

Groups > sci.physics > #630795 > unrolled thread

Re: Smokers are smarter, I say.

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: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-26 23:24 +0100
    Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-26 16:37 -0700
      Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-04 17:42 +0100
        Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-04 10:39 -0700
          Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-04 19:10 +0100
            Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-04 11:22 -0700
              Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-04 20:01 +0100
                Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-04 12:19 -0700
                  Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-04 20:38 +0100
                    Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-04 12:45 -0700
                      Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-04 21:48 +0100
                        Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-04 14:34 -0700
                      Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2017-05-04 17:40 -0400
                        Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-04 22:52 +0100
                          Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-04 16:10 -0700
                        Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-04 15:25 -0700

#630795 — Re: Smokers are smarter, I say.

On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 22:00:34 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:

> On 4/18/17, 1:52 PM, in article op.yywr9qa0js98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson
> Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote:
>
>>>> In the UK, we call that the "Labour government".  Every time they get in
>>>> they
>>>> spend spend spend and increase the national debt, leaving the Conservative
>>>> party to clean up the mess with cuts, which Labour then says are "mean".
>>>
>>> In the US the economy does significantly better under Democrats. You can see
>>> this correlation in the legislative and executive branches. Democrats, while
>>> still paid for and beholden to the rich, at least do a somewhat better job.
>>
>> Is that right or left wing?
>
> It is them doing their job and representing those who elected them, not
> bribed them. Of course, overall, members of both parties follow the money:
>
>     <http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746>

Can't you answer my question?

-- 
Harry Carpenter at the Oxford-Cambridge boat race 1977 - "Ah, isn't that nice. The wife of the Cambridge President is kissing the Cox of the Oxford crew."

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#630808

On 4/26/17, 3:24 PM, in article op.yzbpvjszjs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson
Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 22:00:34 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 4/18/17, 1:52 PM, in article op.yywr9qa0js98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson
>> Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote:
>> 
>>>>> In the UK, we call that the "Labour government".  Every time they get in
>>>>> they
>>>>> spend spend spend and increase the national debt, leaving the Conservative
>>>>> party to clean up the mess with cuts, which Labour then says are "mean".
>>>> 
>>>> In the US the economy does significantly better under Democrats. You can
>>>> see this correlation in the legislative and executive branches. Democrats,
>>>> while still paid for and beholden to the rich, at least do a somewhat
>>>> better job.
>>> 
>>> Is that right or left wing?
>> 
>> It is them doing their job and representing those who elected them, not
>> bribed them. Of course, overall, members of both parties follow the money:
>> 
>>     <http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746>
> 
> Can't you answer my question?

Democrats are generally more left wing... though from what I understand left
and right are not the same in the US as they are in the UK.

-- 
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]

#631946

On Thu, 27 Apr 2017 00:37:12 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:

> On 4/26/17, 3:24 PM, in article op.yzbpvjszjs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson
> Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 22:00:34 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/18/17, 1:52 PM, in article op.yywr9qa0js98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson
>>> Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> In the UK, we call that the "Labour government".  Every time they get in
>>>>>> they
>>>>>> spend spend spend and increase the national debt, leaving the Conservative
>>>>>> party to clean up the mess with cuts, which Labour then says are "mean".
>>>>>
>>>>> In the US the economy does significantly better under Democrats. You can
>>>>> see this correlation in the legislative and executive branches. Democrats,
>>>>> while still paid for and beholden to the rich, at least do a somewhat
>>>>> better job.
>>>>
>>>> Is that right or left wing?
>>>
>>> It is them doing their job and representing those who elected them, not
>>> bribed them. Of course, overall, members of both parties follow the money:
>>>
>>>     <http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746>
>>
>> Can't you answer my question?
>
> Democrats are generally more left wing... though from what I understand left
> and right are not the same in the US as they are in the UK.

I thought it was the same the world over.  Right wing is capitalist, they favour business, rich folk, etc.  Left wing is communist, they steal your money and spend it on people who don't work.

-- 
110 people once tied for second prize in the Powerball Lottery after playing the same lucky numbers from a fortune cookie.

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

#631949

On 5/4/17, 9:42 AM, in article op.yzp3dqg4js98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson
Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 27 Apr 2017 00:37:12 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 4/26/17, 3:24 PM, in article op.yzbpvjszjs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson
>> Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 22:00:34 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On 4/18/17, 1:52 PM, in article op.yywr9qa0js98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson
>>>> Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>>>> In the UK, we call that the "Labour government".  Every time they get in
>>>>>>> they spend spend spend and increase the national debt, leaving the
>>>>>>> Conservative party to clean up the mess with cuts, which Labour then
>>>>>>> says are "mean".
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> In the US the economy does significantly better under Democrats. You can
>>>>>> see this correlation in the legislative and executive branches.
>>>>>> Democrats, while still paid for and beholden to the rich, at least do a
>>>>>> somewhat better job.
>>>>>> 
>>>>> Is that right or left wing?
>>>> 
>>>> It is them doing their job and representing those who elected them, not
>>>> bribed them. Of course, overall, members of both parties follow the money:
>>>> 
>>>>     <http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746>
>>> 
>>> Can't you answer my question?
>> 
>> Democrats are generally more left wing... though from what I understand left
>> and right are not the same in the US as they are in the UK.
> 
> I thought it was the same the world over.  Right wing is capitalist, they
> favour business, rich folk, etc.  Left wing is communist, they steal your
> money and spend it on people who don't work.

In the US both parties are paid for and beholden to the wealthy. The
Democrats give more lip service and actual do work to support the people
more, but in the end both support massive wealth redistribution to very
rich. This can be shown by their voting records and the ever-growing income
inequality.

So those who can't work or whatever do get some crumbs, but most of the
money taken from us goes to the wealthiest one tenth of one percent. The
wealth redistribution is absolutely insane.

It is also why so many in the US deny basic climate science... it is just
another (and huge) way to provide socialism to the rich.

As far as Communism, while there is a US Communist party they hold NO power.
As far as I know they do not hold a single seat at ANY level of government.
Might be some exception in some small town or whatever, but even that that
means essentially no power at all.


-- 
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]

#631953

On Thu, 04 May 2017 18:39:31 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:

> On 5/4/17, 9:42 AM, in article op.yzp3dqg4js98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson
> Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 27 Apr 2017 00:37:12 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/26/17, 3:24 PM, in article op.yzbpvjszjs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson
>>> Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 22:00:34 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 4/18/17, 1:52 PM, in article op.yywr9qa0js98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson
>>>>> Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In the UK, we call that the "Labour government".  Every time they get in
>>>>>>>> they spend spend spend and increase the national debt, leaving the
>>>>>>>> Conservative party to clean up the mess with cuts, which Labour then
>>>>>>>> says are "mean".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In the US the economy does significantly better under Democrats. You can
>>>>>>> see this correlation in the legislative and executive branches.
>>>>>>> Democrats, while still paid for and beholden to the rich, at least do a
>>>>>>> somewhat better job.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is that right or left wing?
>>>>>
>>>>> It is them doing their job and representing those who elected them, not
>>>>> bribed them. Of course, overall, members of both parties follow the money:
>>>>>
>>>>>     <http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746>
>>>>
>>>> Can't you answer my question?
>>>
>>> Democrats are generally more left wing... though from what I understand left
>>> and right are not the same in the US as they are in the UK.
>>
>> I thought it was the same the world over.  Right wing is capitalist, they
>> favour business, rich folk, etc.  Left wing is communist, they steal your
>> money and spend it on people who don't work.
>
> In the US both parties are paid for and beholden to the wealthy. The
> Democrats give more lip service and actual do work to support the people
> more, but in the end both support massive wealth redistribution to very
> rich. This can be shown by their voting records and the ever-growing income
> inequality.

So you have right wing and more right wing.

> So those who can't work or whatever do get some crumbs, but most of the
> money taken from us goes to the wealthiest one tenth of one percent. The
> wealth redistribution is absolutely insane.
>
> It is also why so many in the US deny basic climate science... it is just
> another (and huge) way to provide socialism to the rich.

Or maybe they're clever enough to realise we are not affecting the climate.

> As far as Communism, while there is a US Communist party they hold NO power.
> As far as I know they do not hold a single seat at ANY level of government.
> Might be some exception in some small town or whatever, but even that that
> means essentially no power at all.

Unfortunately the proper right wing parties in the UK also get fuck all seats.

-- 
Beyond a critical point within a finite space, freedom diminishes as numbers increase...the human question is not how many can possibly survive within the system, but what kind of existence is possible for those who do survive.  -- Frank Herbert (Dune)

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

#631956

On 5/4/17, 11:10 AM, in article op.yzp7e8ozjs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson
Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote:

... 
>>> I thought it was the same the world over.  Right wing is capitalist, they
>>> favour business, rich folk, etc.  Left wing is communist, they steal your
>>> money and spend it on people who don't work.
>> 
>> In the US both parties are paid for and beholden to the wealthy. The
>> Democrats give more lip service and actual do work to support the people
>> more, but in the end both support massive wealth redistribution to very
>> rich. This can be shown by their voting records and the ever-growing income
>> inequality.
> 
> So you have right wing and more right wing.

Basically, yes.

>> So those who can't work or whatever do get some crumbs, but most of the
>> money taken from us goes to the wealthiest one tenth of one percent. The
>> wealth redistribution is absolutely insane.
>> 
>> It is also why so many in the US deny basic climate science... it is just
>> another (and huge) way to provide socialism to the rich.
> 
> Or maybe they're clever enough to realise we are not affecting the climate.

I do not see denial of evidence, data, and science as being "clever" in any
way... other than as a clever way to push even more socialism for the rich.
And in the US it works... something like half our Senators deny basic
science for the sake of helping the wealthy.

>> As far as Communism, while there is a US Communist party they hold NO power.
>> As far as I know they do not hold a single seat at ANY level of government.
>> Might be some exception in some small town or whatever, but even that that
>> means essentially no power at all.
> 
> Unfortunately the proper right wing parties in the UK also get fuck all seats.



-- 
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]

#631960

On Thu, 04 May 2017 19:22:28 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:

> On 5/4/17, 11:10 AM, in article op.yzp7e8ozjs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson
> Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote:
>
> ...
>>>> I thought it was the same the world over.  Right wing is capitalist, they
>>>> favour business, rich folk, etc.  Left wing is communist, they steal your
>>>> money and spend it on people who don't work.
>>>
>>> In the US both parties are paid for and beholden to the wealthy. The
>>> Democrats give more lip service and actual do work to support the people
>>> more, but in the end both support massive wealth redistribution to very
>>> rich. This can be shown by their voting records and the ever-growing income
>>> inequality.
>>
>> So you have right wing and more right wing.
>
> Basically, yes.

Good for you.  The UK is more like Russia.

>>> So those who can't work or whatever do get some crumbs, but most of the
>>> money taken from us goes to the wealthiest one tenth of one percent. The
>>> wealth redistribution is absolutely insane.
>>>
>>> It is also why so many in the US deny basic climate science... it is just
>>> another (and huge) way to provide socialism to the rich.
>>
>> Or maybe they're clever enough to realise we are not affecting the climate.
>
> I do not see denial of evidence, data, and science as being "clever" in any
> way... other than as a clever way to push even more socialism for the rich.
> And in the US it works... something like half our Senators deny basic
> science for the sake of helping the wealthy.

bELIVING IN SHITE LIKE CLIMATE CHANGE IS AS BAD AS BEING RELIGIOUS.

Shit, caps lock, can't be bothered rewriting.

-- 
In light of the Madrid bombing, France has raised its terror alert level from "run" to "hide."
The only two higher levels in France are "surrender" and "collaborate."

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

#631962

On 5/4/17, 12:01 PM, in article op.yzp9s7dhjs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson
Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 04 May 2017 19:22:28 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 5/4/17, 11:10 AM, in article op.yzp7e8ozjs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson
>> Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote:
>> 
>> ...
>>>>> I thought it was the same the world over.  Right wing is capitalist, they
>>>>> favour business, rich folk, etc.  Left wing is communist, they steal your
>>>>> money and spend it on people who don't work.
>>>> 
>>>> In the US both parties are paid for and beholden to the wealthy. The
>>>> Democrats give more lip service and actual do work to support the people
>>>> more, but in the end both support massive wealth redistribution to very
>>>> rich. This can be shown by their voting records and the ever-growing income
>>>> inequality.
>>> 
>>> So you have right wing and more right wing.
>> 
>> Basically, yes.
> 
> Good for you.  The UK is more like Russia.
> 
>>>> So those who can't work or whatever do get some crumbs, but most of the
>>>> money taken from us goes to the wealthiest one tenth of one percent. The
>>>> wealth redistribution is absolutely insane.
>>>> 
>>>> It is also why so many in the US deny basic climate science... it is just
>>>> another (and huge) way to provide socialism to the rich.
>>> 
>>> Or maybe they're clever enough to realise we are not affecting the climate.
>> 
>> I do not see denial of evidence, data, and science as being "clever" in any
>> way... other than as a clever way to push even more socialism for the rich.
>> And in the US it works... something like half our Senators deny basic
>> science for the sake of helping the wealthy.
> 
> bELIVING IN SHITE LIKE CLIMATE CHANGE IS AS BAD AS BEING RELIGIOUS.
> 
> Shit, caps lock, can't be bothered rewriting.

I accept science and the data / evidence that backs it and deny the
anti-science nonsense people use to promote socialism for the rich. I did
not know you were one of the ones pushing such socialism. For me it is fine
that people disagree on if we should socialize the costs of using ancient
stores of carbon, but I wish those who pushed for us to do so would be
direct and admit that is what they are pushing for. The fact they use
science denial to get to that goal shows they cannot really support the
socialism they are backing.

-- 
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]

#631964

On Thu, 04 May 2017 20:19:26 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:

> On 5/4/17, 12:01 PM, in article op.yzp9s7dhjs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson
> Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 04 May 2017 19:22:28 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/4/17, 11:10 AM, in article op.yzp7e8ozjs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson
>>> Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> ...
>>>>>> I thought it was the same the world over.  Right wing is capitalist, they
>>>>>> favour business, rich folk, etc.  Left wing is communist, they steal your
>>>>>> money and spend it on people who don't work.
>>>>>
>>>>> In the US both parties are paid for and beholden to the wealthy. The
>>>>> Democrats give more lip service and actual do work to support the people
>>>>> more, but in the end both support massive wealth redistribution to very
>>>>> rich. This can be shown by their voting records and the ever-growing income
>>>>> inequality.
>>>>
>>>> So you have right wing and more right wing.
>>>
>>> Basically, yes.
>>
>> Good for you.  The UK is more like Russia.
>>
>>>>> So those who can't work or whatever do get some crumbs, but most of the
>>>>> money taken from us goes to the wealthiest one tenth of one percent. The
>>>>> wealth redistribution is absolutely insane.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is also why so many in the US deny basic climate science... it is just
>>>>> another (and huge) way to provide socialism to the rich.
>>>>
>>>> Or maybe they're clever enough to realise we are not affecting the climate.
>>>
>>> I do not see denial of evidence, data, and science as being "clever" in any
>>> way... other than as a clever way to push even more socialism for the rich.
>>> And in the US it works... something like half our Senators deny basic
>>> science for the sake of helping the wealthy.
>>
>> bELIVING IN SHITE LIKE CLIMATE CHANGE IS AS BAD AS BEING RELIGIOUS.
>>
>> Shit, caps lock, can't be bothered rewriting.
>
> I accept science and the data / evidence that backs it and deny the
> anti-science nonsense people use to promote socialism for the rich. I did
> not know you were one of the ones pushing such socialism. For me it is fine
> that people disagree on if we should socialize the costs of using ancient
> stores of carbon, but I wish those who pushed for us to do so would be
> direct and admit that is what they are pushing for. The fact they use
> science denial to get to that goal shows they cannot really support the
> socialism they are backing.

It's nothing to do with socialism.  In fact it's the capitalists who "deny" climate change.  It's the left wing greenie treehuggers who think we have the power to change the climate more than that huge nuclear reaction in the sky.

-- 
Beyond a critical point within a finite space, freedom diminishes as numbers increase...the human question is not how many can possibly survive within the system, but what kind of existence is possible for those who do survive.  -- Frank Herbert (Dune)

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

#631965

On 5/4/17, 12:38 PM, in article op.yzqbii15js98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson
Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 04 May 2017 20:19:26 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 5/4/17, 12:01 PM, in article op.yzp9s7dhjs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson
>> Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Thu, 04 May 2017 19:22:28 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On 5/4/17, 11:10 AM, in article op.yzp7e8ozjs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson
>>>> Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> ...
>>>>>>> I thought it was the same the world over.  Right wing is capitalist,
>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>> favour business, rich folk, etc.  Left wing is communist, they steal
>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>> money and spend it on people who don't work.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> In the US both parties are paid for and beholden to the wealthy. The
>>>>>> Democrats give more lip service and actual do work to support the people
>>>>>> more, but in the end both support massive wealth redistribution to very
>>>>>> rich. This can be shown by their voting records and the ever-growing
>>>>>> income
>>>>>> inequality.
>>>>> 
>>>>> So you have right wing and more right wing.
>>>> 
>>>> Basically, yes.
>>> 
>>> Good for you.  The UK is more like Russia.
>>> 
>>>>>> So those who can't work or whatever do get some crumbs, but most of the
>>>>>> money taken from us goes to the wealthiest one tenth of one percent. The
>>>>>> wealth redistribution is absolutely insane.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> It is also why so many in the US deny basic climate science... it is just
>>>>>> another (and huge) way to provide socialism to the rich.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Or maybe they're clever enough to realise we are not affecting the
>>>>> climate.
>>>> 
>>>> I do not see denial of evidence, data, and science as being "clever" in any
>>>> way... other than as a clever way to push even more socialism for the rich.
>>>> And in the US it works... something like half our Senators deny basic
>>>> science for the sake of helping the wealthy.
>>> 
>>> bELIVING IN SHITE LIKE CLIMATE CHANGE IS AS BAD AS BEING RELIGIOUS.
>>> 
>>> Shit, caps lock, can't be bothered rewriting.
>> 
>> I accept science and the data / evidence that backs it and deny the
>> anti-science nonsense people use to promote socialism for the rich. I did
>> not know you were one of the ones pushing such socialism. For me it is fine
>> that people disagree on if we should socialize the costs of using ancient
>> stores of carbon, but I wish those who pushed for us to do so would be
>> direct and admit that is what they are pushing for. The fact they use
>> science denial to get to that goal shows they cannot really support the
>> socialism they are backing.
> 
> It's nothing to do with socialism.

Socializing the costs of using ancient stores of carbon clearly has a LOT to
do with socialism... though it is for the rich.

> In fact it's the capitalists who "deny" climate change.  It's the left wing
> greenie treehuggers who think we have the power to change the climate more
> than that huge nuclear reaction in the sky.

Who do you think said man-made global climate change has a bigger impact
than the sun? 

Comes down to you will go to science denial to back socialism for the rich.
That is pretty much 100% predictable in such conversations. Could be you do
not even know you are doing this... some are actually naïve enough to
believe the oil industry and the like who push such nonsense.

-- 
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]

#631967

On Thu, 04 May 2017 20:45:39 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:

> On 5/4/17, 12:38 PM, in article op.yzqbii15js98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson
> Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 04 May 2017 20:19:26 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/4/17, 12:01 PM, in article op.yzp9s7dhjs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson
>>> Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 04 May 2017 19:22:28 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 5/4/17, 11:10 AM, in article op.yzp7e8ozjs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson
>>>>> Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>> I thought it was the same the world over.  Right wing is capitalist,
>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>> favour business, rich folk, etc.  Left wing is communist, they steal
>>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>>> money and spend it on people who don't work.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In the US both parties are paid for and beholden to the wealthy. The
>>>>>>> Democrats give more lip service and actual do work to support the people
>>>>>>> more, but in the end both support massive wealth redistribution to very
>>>>>>> rich. This can be shown by their voting records and the ever-growing
>>>>>>> income
>>>>>>> inequality.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So you have right wing and more right wing.
>>>>>
>>>>> Basically, yes.
>>>>
>>>> Good for you.  The UK is more like Russia.
>>>>
>>>>>>> So those who can't work or whatever do get some crumbs, but most of the
>>>>>>> money taken from us goes to the wealthiest one tenth of one percent. The
>>>>>>> wealth redistribution is absolutely insane.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is also why so many in the US deny basic climate science... it is just
>>>>>>> another (and huge) way to provide socialism to the rich.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Or maybe they're clever enough to realise we are not affecting the
>>>>>> climate.
>>>>>
>>>>> I do not see denial of evidence, data, and science as being "clever" in any
>>>>> way... other than as a clever way to push even more socialism for the rich.
>>>>> And in the US it works... something like half our Senators deny basic
>>>>> science for the sake of helping the wealthy.
>>>>
>>>> bELIVING IN SHITE LIKE CLIMATE CHANGE IS AS BAD AS BEING RELIGIOUS.
>>>>
>>>> Shit, caps lock, can't be bothered rewriting.
>>>
>>> I accept science and the data / evidence that backs it and deny the
>>> anti-science nonsense people use to promote socialism for the rich. I did
>>> not know you were one of the ones pushing such socialism. For me it is fine
>>> that people disagree on if we should socialize the costs of using ancient
>>> stores of carbon, but I wish those who pushed for us to do so would be
>>> direct and admit that is what they are pushing for. The fact they use
>>> science denial to get to that goal shows they cannot really support the
>>> socialism they are backing.
>>
>> It's nothing to do with socialism.
>
> Socializing the costs of using ancient stores of carbon clearly has a LOT to
> do with socialism... though it is for the rich.

Who said they were socialized?  Carbon credits hit COMPANIES.

>> In fact it's the capitalists who "deny" climate change.  It's the left wing
>> greenie treehuggers who think we have the power to change the climate more
>> than that huge nuclear reaction in the sky.
>
> Who do you think said man-made global climate change has a bigger impact
> than the sun?

The greenie morons, like I just said.  Please learn to read basic English.

> Comes down to you will go to science denial to back socialism for the rich.

I prefer common sense over what anyone says.  The FACT is that the climate has ALWAYS changed NATURALLY in the past.  I see no evidence mankind has altered that.

> That is pretty much 100% predictable in such conversations. Could be you do
> not even know you are doing this... some are actually naïve enough to
> believe the oil industry and the like who push such nonsense.

I believe what makes sense.

-- 
What's black and white and rolls down the Boardwalk?
A nigger and a seagull fighting over a French Fry.

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

#631977

On 5/4/17, 1:48 PM, in article op.yzqeqluwjs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson
Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote:

...
>>>> I accept science and the data / evidence that backs it and deny the
>>>> anti-science nonsense people use to promote socialism for the rich. I did
>>>> not know you were one of the ones pushing such socialism. For me it is fine
>>>> that people disagree on if we should socialize the costs of using ancient
>>>> stores of carbon, but I wish those who pushed for us to do so would be
>>>> direct and admit that is what they are pushing for. The fact they use
>>>> science denial to get to that goal shows they cannot really support the
>>>> socialism they are backing.
>>> 
>>> It's nothing to do with socialism.
>> 
>> Socializing the costs of using ancient stores of carbon clearly has a LOT to
>> do with socialism... though it is for the rich.
> 
> Who said they were socialized?  Carbon credits hit COMPANIES.

Right now the cost of using these ancient stores of carbon are not paid for
by those who use the carbon. Society as a whole ends up paying... the denial
of climate science is just another way of pushing benefits for the wealthy
(the ones who get the most from this denial).

>>> In fact it's the capitalists who "deny" climate change.  It's the left wing
>>> greenie treehuggers who think we have the power to change the climate more
>>> than that huge nuclear reaction in the sky.
>> 
>> Who do you think said man-made global climate change has a bigger impact
>> than the sun?
> 
> The greenie morons, like I just said.  Please learn to read basic English.

So far you are the only person I know who has even suggested such a thing.
Do you have any quote to back it. I think we can safely say you do not.

>> Comes down to you will go to science denial to back socialism for the rich.
> 
> I prefer common sense over what anyone says.  The FACT is that the climate has
> ALWAYS changed NATURALLY in the past.  I see no evidence mankind has altered
> that.

The implication of noting climate has changed in the past is that current
models do not account for that -- and that is completely and utterly
incorrect. If you had another reason for mentioning it I would love to hear
it.

As far as what you see, that is not relevant. I am speaking of the evidence
and data and support shown by the science. Your ignorance of science does
not reduce the science in the slightest.

>> That is pretty much 100% predictable in such conversations. Could be you do
>> not even know you are doing this... some are actually naïve enough to
>> believe the oil industry and the like who push such nonsense.
> 
> I believe what makes sense.

I look to science (evidence, data, reason, peer review, etc.) and you accept
what is basically a religious viewpoint, based on nothing but faith. Fair
enough. Neither of us is going to change the other's mind and I think you
have a right to your religion.

-- 
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]

#631978

On 2017-05-04 15:45, Snit wrote:
> On 5/4/17, 12:38 PM, in article op.yzqbii15js98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson
> Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 04 May 2017 20:19:26 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/4/17, 12:01 PM, in article op.yzp9s7dhjs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson
>>> Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote:
[...]
>>>> bELIVING IN SHITE LIKE CLIMATE CHANGE IS AS BAD AS BEING RELIGIOUS.
>>>>
>>>> Shit, caps lock, can't be bothered rewriting.
>>>
>>> I accept science and the data / evidence that backs it and deny the
>>> anti-science nonsense people use to promote socialism for the rich. I did
>>> not know you were one of the ones pushing such socialism. For me it is fine
>>> that people disagree on if we should socialize the costs of using ancient
>>> stores of carbon, but I wish those who pushed for us to do so would be
>>> direct and admit that is what they are pushing for. The fact they use
>>> science denial to get to that goal shows they cannot really support the
>>> socialism they are backing.
>>
>> It's nothing to do with socialism.
>
> Socializing the costs of using ancient stores of carbon clearly has a LOT to
> do with socialism... though it is for the rich.

JWS doesn't understand that "socialise costs" is an economics term, not 
a political one. Hey, James, it means "not paying for any damage you do 
to the air, water, soil, etc and so on and so forth". AKA shifting the 
cost of "externals" onto the general economy. It's the main reason the 
"free market" has never been free, and has repeatedly failed. Adam 
Smith's ideal free market works if and only if all prices measure the 
actual cost of providing the goods and services on offer. Since prices 
don't and never will do this, there is no such thing as a free market.

>> In fact it's the capitalists who "deny" climate change.  It's the left wing
>> greenie treehuggers who think we have the power to change the climate more
>> than that huge nuclear reaction in the sky.

Climate is a chaotic system, in which the effects of small changes in 
some variable increase rapidly once it reaches a certain value, because 
of inter-dependent feedback loops. If JWS has had as much technical 
experience as he claims, he knows what feedback is, so he should have no 
trouble understanding why doubling the CO2 content of the atmosphere 
will trigger climate changes. But I don't think he's had one-tenth of 
the technical experience or expertise that he claims. He's a yob, 
ignorant as a boot.

The only unknown about global warming is how fast it will proceed. It 
has already begun. It will probably accelerate.

-- 
Best,
Wolf K
https://kirkwood40.blogspot.com
"What good is it having lower taxes when you can’t drink the water?”

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

#631979

On Thu, 04 May 2017 22:40:52 +0100, Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> wrote:

> On 2017-05-04 15:45, Snit wrote:
>> On 5/4/17, 12:38 PM, in article op.yzqbii15js98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson
>> Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 04 May 2017 20:19:26 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 5/4/17, 12:01 PM, in article op.yzp9s7dhjs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson
>>>> Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote:
> [...]
>>>>> bELIVING IN SHITE LIKE CLIMATE CHANGE IS AS BAD AS BEING RELIGIOUS.
>>>>>
>>>>> Shit, caps lock, can't be bothered rewriting.
>>>>
>>>> I accept science and the data / evidence that backs it and deny the
>>>> anti-science nonsense people use to promote socialism for the rich. I did
>>>> not know you were one of the ones pushing such socialism. For me it is fine
>>>> that people disagree on if we should socialize the costs of using ancient
>>>> stores of carbon, but I wish those who pushed for us to do so would be
>>>> direct and admit that is what they are pushing for. The fact they use
>>>> science denial to get to that goal shows they cannot really support the
>>>> socialism they are backing.
>>>
>>> It's nothing to do with socialism.
>>
>> Socializing the costs of using ancient stores of carbon clearly has a LOT to
>> do with socialism... though it is for the rich.
>
> JWS doesn't understand that "socialise costs" is an economics term, not
> a political one. Hey, James, it means "not paying for any damage you do
> to the air, water, soil, etc and so on and so forth". AKA shifting the
> cost of "externals" onto the general economy. It's the main reason the
> "free market" has never been free, and has repeatedly failed. Adam
> Smith's ideal free market works if and only if all prices measure the
> actual cost of providing the goods and services on offer. Since prices
> don't and never will do this, there is no such thing as a free market.
>
>>> In fact it's the capitalists who "deny" climate change.  It's the left wing
>>> greenie treehuggers who think we have the power to change the climate more
>>> than that huge nuclear reaction in the sky.
>
> Climate is a chaotic system, in which the effects of small changes in
> some variable increase rapidly once it reaches a certain value, because
> of inter-dependent feedback loops. If JWS has had as much technical
> experience as he claims, he knows what feedback is, so he should have no
> trouble understanding why doubling the CO2 content of the atmosphere
> will trigger climate changes. But I don't think he's had one-tenth of
> the technical experience or expertise that he claims. He's a yob,
> ignorant as a boot.
>
> The only unknown about global warming is how fast it will proceed. It
> has already begun. It will probably accelerate.

Way bigger inputs occur naturally and always have.  Why do you think we've had hot and cold periods in the past before industrialisation?

Anyone who believes the government hype about global warming is as stupid as those who believe in god.

-- 
An old Irish farmer's dog goes missing and he's inconsolable.
His wife says "Why don't you put an advert in the paper?"
He does, but two weeks later the dog is still missing.
"What did you put in the paper?" his wife asks.
"Here boy" he replies.

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

#631983

On 5/4/17, 2:52 PM, in article op.yzqhpenpjs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson
Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 04 May 2017 22:40:52 +0100, Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> 
>> On 2017-05-04 15:45, Snit wrote:
>>> On 5/4/17, 12:38 PM, in article op.yzqbii15js98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson
>>> Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On Thu, 04 May 2017 20:19:26 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> On 5/4/17, 12:01 PM, in article op.yzp9s7dhjs98qf@red.lan, "James
>>>>> Wilkinson
>>>>> Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote:
>> [...]
>>>>>> bELIVING IN SHITE LIKE CLIMATE CHANGE IS AS BAD AS BEING RELIGIOUS.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Shit, caps lock, can't be bothered rewriting.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I accept science and the data / evidence that backs it and deny the
>>>>> anti-science nonsense people use to promote socialism for the rich. I did
>>>>> not know you were one of the ones pushing such socialism. For me it is
>>>>> fine
>>>>> that people disagree on if we should socialize the costs of using ancient
>>>>> stores of carbon, but I wish those who pushed for us to do so would be
>>>>> direct and admit that is what they are pushing for. The fact they use
>>>>> science denial to get to that goal shows they cannot really support the
>>>>> socialism they are backing.
>>>> 
>>>> It's nothing to do with socialism.
>>> 
>>> Socializing the costs of using ancient stores of carbon clearly has a LOT to
>>> do with socialism... though it is for the rich.
>> 
>> JWS doesn't understand that "socialise costs" is an economics term, not
>> a political one. Hey, James, it means "not paying for any damage you do
>> to the air, water, soil, etc and so on and so forth". AKA shifting the
>> cost of "externals" onto the general economy. It's the main reason the
>> "free market" has never been free, and has repeatedly failed. Adam
>> Smith's ideal free market works if and only if all prices measure the
>> actual cost of providing the goods and services on offer. Since prices
>> don't and never will do this, there is no such thing as a free market.
>> 
>>>> In fact it's the capitalists who "deny" climate change.  It's the left wing
>>>> greenie treehuggers who think we have the power to change the climate more
>>>> than that huge nuclear reaction in the sky.
>> 
>> Climate is a chaotic system, in which the effects of small changes in
>> some variable increase rapidly once it reaches a certain value, because
>> of inter-dependent feedback loops. If JWS has had as much technical
>> experience as he claims, he knows what feedback is, so he should have no
>> trouble understanding why doubling the CO2 content of the atmosphere
>> will trigger climate changes. But I don't think he's had one-tenth of
>> the technical experience or expertise that he claims. He's a yob,
>> ignorant as a boot.
>> 
>> The only unknown about global warming is how fast it will proceed. It
>> has already begun. It will probably accelerate.
> 
> Way bigger inputs occur naturally and always have.

The implication here is that the climate models do not take into account
these larger inputs (say the effect of the sun). This is an ignorant or
dishonest implication. At the very best it is a dodge from the topic of
man-made global climate change.

> Why do you think we've had hot and cold periods in the past before
> industrialisation?

Nobody has denounced the idea there have been natural changes. But once
again the assumption is scientists have not taken these into account. It is
a false assumption.

> Anyone who believes the government hype about global warming is as stupid as
> those who believe in god.

I spoke of science and evidence and data... I said NOTHING of any
government.

You have a belief held in a religious-like way that the evidence is wrong.
Fine. I do not like it but I cannot change it. But not expect me to adopt
your religion.


-- 
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]

#631981

On 5/4/17, 2:40 PM, in article GdNOA.622$bl5.250@fx25.iad, "Wolf K"
<wolfmac@sympatico.ca> wrote:

> On 2017-05-04 15:45, Snit wrote:
>> On 5/4/17, 12:38 PM, in article op.yzqbii15js98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson
>> Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Thu, 04 May 2017 20:19:26 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On 5/4/17, 12:01 PM, in article op.yzp9s7dhjs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson
>>>> Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote:
> [...]
>>>>> bELIVING IN SHITE LIKE CLIMATE CHANGE IS AS BAD AS BEING RELIGIOUS.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Shit, caps lock, can't be bothered rewriting.
>>>> 
>>>> I accept science and the data / evidence that backs it and deny the
>>>> anti-science nonsense people use to promote socialism for the rich. I did
>>>> not know you were one of the ones pushing such socialism. For me it is fine
>>>> that people disagree on if we should socialize the costs of using ancient
>>>> stores of carbon, but I wish those who pushed for us to do so would be
>>>> direct and admit that is what they are pushing for. The fact they use
>>>> science denial to get to that goal shows they cannot really support the
>>>> socialism they are backing.
>>> 
>>> It's nothing to do with socialism.
>> 
>> Socializing the costs of using ancient stores of carbon clearly has a LOT to
>> do with socialism... though it is for the rich.
> 
> JWS doesn't understand that "socialise costs" is an economics term, not
> a political one. Hey, James, it means "not paying for any damage you do
> to the air, water, soil, etc and so on and so forth". AKA shifting the
> cost of "externals" onto the general economy. It's the main reason the
> "free market" has never been free, and has repeatedly failed. Adam
> Smith's ideal free market works if and only if all prices measure the
> actual cost of providing the goods and services on offer. Since prices
> don't and never will do this, there is no such thing as a free market.

Absolutely agreed. I am not against capitalism as a PART of an economic
system but it, alone, is no better than socialism alone.

>>> In fact it's the capitalists who "deny" climate change.  It's the left wing
>>> greenie treehuggers who think we have the power to change the climate more
>>> than that huge nuclear reaction in the sky.
> 
> Climate is a chaotic system, in which the effects of small changes in
> some variable increase rapidly once it reaches a certain value, because
> of inter-dependent feedback loops. If JWS has had as much technical
> experience as he claims, he knows what feedback is, so he should have no
> trouble understanding why doubling the CO2 content of the atmosphere
> will trigger climate changes. But I don't think he's had one-tenth of
> the technical experience or expertise that he claims. He's a yob,
> ignorant as a boot.
> 
> The only unknown about global warming is how fast it will proceed. It
> has already begun. It will probably accelerate.

Again, absolutely agreed. And going to ANY website of any scientific group
even somewhat tied to the issue will support that.

-- 
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] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web