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

Groups > sci.physics > #680176 > unrolled thread

A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-04-07 10:33 -0400
    Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-07 09:48 -0500
      Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-04-07 11:23 -0400
        Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-07 10:33 -0500
        " Repent, The End is Near, I personally guarantee it ! " -- K. Kensington. Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-04-07 12:05 -0700
          Re: " Repent, The End is Near, I personally guarantee it ! " -- K. Kensington. Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2018-04-07 17:51 -0700
            Re: " Repent, The End is Near, I personally guarantee it ! " -- K. Kensington. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-04-07 18:26 -0700
              " Repent, The End is Near, I personally guarantee it ! " -- K.   Kensington. Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-04-07 20:40 -0700
                Re: " Repent, The End is Near, I personally guarantee it ! " -- K. Kensington. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-04-07 20:52 -0700
                  Re: " Repent, The End is Near, I personally guarantee it ! " -- K. Kensington. Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2018-04-07 21:00 -0700
                    Re: " Repent, The End is Near, I personally guarantee it ! " -- K. Kensington. Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-04-08 04:05 +0000
                      Re: " Repent, The End is Near, I personally guarantee it ! " -- K. Kensington. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-04-07 21:07 -0700
                    Re: " Repent, The End is Near, I personally guarantee it ! " -- K. Kensington. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-04-07 21:06 -0700
                    Re: " Repent, The End is Near, I personally guarantee it ! " -- K. Kensington. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-04-08 07:24 +0200
          Re: " Repent, The End is Near, I personally guarantee it ! " -- K. Kensington. "Sir Gregory Hall,  Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-04-08 11:54 -0400
            Re: " Repent, The End is Near, I personally guarantee it ! " -- K. Kensington. kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-04-08 12:29 -0400
              Re: " Repent, The End is Near, I personally guarantee it ! " -- K. Kensington. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-08 19:33 -0500
        Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-04-09 21:06 -0400
          Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-10 08:32 -0500
      Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-07 11:43 -0400
        Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-07 12:34 -0500
          Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-07 12:52 -0500
        Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-07 11:58 -0600
          Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-04-08 16:55 +1000
            Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-04-09 21:10 -0400
              Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-04-12 06:40 +1000
                Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-11 19:24 -0400
                Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-04-12 19:59 -0400
                  Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-04-15 08:13 +1000
                    Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-04-15 08:48 +1000
                      Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-18 11:19 -0500
        Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-04-08 16:54 +1000
          Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-08 09:04 -0500
            Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-04-08 11:29 -0400
              Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-08 12:22 -0400
              Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-08 11:22 -0500
          Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-08 12:17 -0400
            Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-04-08 12:29 -0400
              Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-08 23:46 -0400
                Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-04-09 14:10 +1000
                  Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-09 11:28 -0400
                  Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-09 11:32 -0400
                  Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-09 11:05 -0500
                    Air causes cancer. Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-04-09 10:54 -0700
                      Re: Air causes cancer. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-09 17:29 -0400
                    Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-04-09 13:12 -0600
                      Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-09 14:29 -0500
                        Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-04-09 13:33 -0600
                          Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-09 16:44 -0500
                          Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-04-11 23:45 +0000
                            Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 "Sir Gregory Hall,  Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-04-12 16:46 -0400
                              Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-04-12 15:03 -0600
                              Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-04-12 20:11 -0700
                                Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 "Sir Gregory Hall,  Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-04-14 11:11 -0400
                                  Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-04-14 09:18 -0600
                                  Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-04-14 21:31 -0700
                                    Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 "Sir Gregory Hall,  Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-04-15 12:50 -0400
                    Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-04-12 10:12 +1000
                      Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-04-12 20:06 -0400
                        Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-15 00:48 -0500
                          Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-15 18:03 -0400
                            Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-04-16 08:58 +1000
                              Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-16 02:00 -0400
                                Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-04-16 19:11 +1000
                                  Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-16 09:57 -0500
                                    Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-16 13:01 -0400
                                    Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-04-17 07:17 +1000
                                      Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-16 21:44 -0500
                                        Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-04-17 14:08 +1000
                                          Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-17 11:35 -0500
                                            Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2018-04-17 17:55 +0100
                                            Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-04-18 06:00 +1000
                                            Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-04-17 22:40 +0000
                                              Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-04-18 09:15 +1000
                                              Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-17 20:03 -0400
                                              Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-17 19:32 -0500
                                                Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-04-18 01:36 +0000
                                                  Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-04-17 18:46 -0700
                                                  Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-17 22:36 -0500
                                                  Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-18 11:01 -0400
                                                    Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-04-18 11:33 -0400
                                                      Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-18 11:21 -0500
                                                Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-18 10:59 -0400
                                              Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 "Sir Gregory Hall,  Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-04-18 16:02 -0400
                                                Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-04-18 23:47 +0000
                                                  Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Your Friendly Neighbourhood Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2018-04-18 18:49 -0500
                                                  Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 "Sir Gregory Hall,  Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-04-19 18:52 -0400
                                                    Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-04-19 23:39 +0000
                                                      Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-04-19 16:45 -0700
                                                    Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-04-19 16:57 -0700
                                                      Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 "Sir Gregory Hall,  Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-04-20 12:25 -0400
                        Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-04-16 08:34 +1000
                          Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-16 09:59 -0500
                            Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-16 13:09 -0400
                              Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-04-16 13:17 -0400
                                Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-04-16 11:29 -0600
                                  Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-04-16 19:13 +0000
                                    Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-04-16 13:20 -0600
                                      Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-16 14:33 -0500
                                    Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-16 17:11 -0400
                                    Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 "jew pedophile Ron Jacobson (jew pedophile Baruch 'Barry' Shein's jew aliash)" <rjac@TheWor1d.com> - 2018-04-16 14:45 -0700
                                      Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 The Jews <jews@world-doomination.org> - 2018-04-16 17:11 -0700
                                        Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-04-17 01:34 +0000
                                Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-16 13:04 -0500
                                  Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-16 17:07 -0400
                                Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-16 16:59 -0400
                                  Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-04-16 22:31 +0000
                                    Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-04-16 15:46 -0700
                                    Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-16 20:50 -0400
                                    Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-16 21:46 -0500
                                      Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-17 05:52 -0400
                                    Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-04-17 21:14 -0700
                                      Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-18 12:47 -0500
                                Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 "jew pedophile Ron Jacobson (jew pedophile Baruch 'Barry' Shein's jew aliash)" <rjac@TheWor1d.com> - 2018-04-16 14:43 -0700
                                  Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 The Jews <jews@world-doomination.org> - 2018-04-16 17:13 -0700
                                  Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Sick old pedo Andrew "Andrzej" Baron (aka "Ron Jacobson") <fsturluogh5@gmail.com> - 2018-04-18 08:27 +0000
                                Al Gore fangirl, "kensi", taps out. Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-04-16 15:25 -0700
                                  Re: Al Gore fangirl, "kensi", taps out. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-16 21:51 -0500
                                    Re: Al Gore fangirl, "kensi", taps out. Your Friendly Neighbourhood Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2018-04-16 22:24 -0500
                                Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-04-18 00:22 -0400
                                  Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-04-17 21:39 -0700
                                    Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-04-18 05:21 +0000
                                      Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-04-18 13:37 -0700
                                        Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-04-18 14:55 -0600
                                          Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-04-18 23:48 +0000
                                            Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-18 18:56 -0500
                                            Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-19 11:44 -0400
                                            Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 "Sir Gregory Hall,  Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-04-19 18:52 -0400
                                  Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-18 11:06 -0400
                                    Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-04-18 11:34 -0400
                              Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-16 12:20 -0500
                                Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-04-16 19:14 +0000
                                  Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-16 14:56 -0500
                                  Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-16 17:13 -0400
                Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-04-09 04:33 +0000
            Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-04-09 06:17 +1000
              Does smoking cause cancer? (was: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-04-09 01:43 +0200
                Re: Does smoking cause cancer? Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-04-09 09:57 +1000
                  Re: Does smoking cause cancer? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-04-09 02:02 +0200
                    Re: Does smoking cause cancer? Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-04-09 10:12 +1000
                      Re: Does smoking cause cancer? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-08 19:36 -0500
                      Re: Does smoking cause cancer? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-04-09 03:45 +0200
                      Re: Does smoking cause cancer? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-08 23:50 -0400
                  Re: Does smoking cause cancer? Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2018-04-08 20:12 -0500
                    Re: Does smoking cause cancer? Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-04-09 11:40 +1000
                      Re: Does smoking cause cancer? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-08 23:56 -0400
                        Re: Does smoking cause cancer? Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-04-09 14:05 +1000
                          Re: Does smoking cause cancer? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-09 11:27 -0400
                            Re: Does smoking cause cancer? Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-04-10 07:36 +1000
                              Re: Does smoking cause cancer? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-09 17:01 -0500
                                Re: Does smoking cause cancer? Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-04-10 08:14 +1000
                                Re: Does smoking cause cancer? Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2018-04-09 21:09 -0500
                                  Re: Does smoking cause cancer? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-10 08:34 -0500
                                Re: Does smoking cause cancer? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-10 04:51 -0400
                      Re: Does smoking cause cancer? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-09 11:52 -0500
                        Re: Does smoking cause cancer? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-09 17:22 -0400
                        Re: Does smoking cause cancer? Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-04-10 07:36 +1000
                          Re: Does smoking cause cancer? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-09 17:13 -0500
                            Re: Does smoking cause cancer? Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-04-10 08:23 +1000
                              Re: Does smoking cause cancer? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-09 19:43 -0500
                                Re: Does smoking cause cancer? Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-04-10 11:02 +1000
                              Re: Does smoking cause cancer? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-10 04:58 -0400
                          Re: Does smoking cause cancer? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-10 04:40 -0400
                      Re: Does smoking cause cancer? Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2018-04-09 21:08 -0500
                        Re: Does smoking cause cancer? Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-04-10 12:40 +1000
                        Ben Jacoby is neither funny nor informative, nothing good. Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-04-09 19:54 -0700
              Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-08 19:34 -0500
              Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-04-09 10:52 -0400
                Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 "jew pedophile Ron Jacobson (jew pedophile Baruch 'Barry' Shein's jew aliash)" <rjac@TheWor1d.com> - 2018-04-09 07:59 -0700
                  Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 "Michael Ejercito" <mejercit@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-09 11:05 -0700
                    Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2018-04-09 19:19 +0100
                      Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-09 13:36 -0500
                        Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-09 17:34 -0400
                          Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-09 16:58 -0500
                            Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 The Equalizer <coming4you@never.invalid.net> - 2018-04-09 22:58 +0000
                              Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-04-09 17:39 -0700
                      Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 @ "jew pedophile Ron Jacobson (jew pedophile Baruch 'Barry' Shein's jew aliash)" <rjac@TheWor1d.com> - 2018-04-09 13:05 -0700
                        Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 @ Sick old pedo Andrew "Andrzej" Baron (aka "Ron Jacobson") <fsturluogh5@gmail.com> - 2018-04-09 21:27 +0000
                        Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 @ "Michael Ejercito" <mejercit@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-11 10:27 -0700
                      Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Ser Gregor Clegane <sergregor@lannistermail.raven> - 2018-04-10 11:25 -0400
                        Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 onion@anon.invalid (Mr On!on) - 2018-04-10 16:48 +0100
                          Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-04-10 08:50 -0700
                            Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2018-04-10 16:58 +0100
                  Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-04-11 23:47 +0000
                    Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-04-11 17:53 -0600
                In some Turkish bazar, somewhere... Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-04-09 10:04 -0700
                Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-04-10 08:14 +1000
                  Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-10 04:53 -0400
    Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-04-07 07:57 -0700
    Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-04-07 22:41 -0700
    Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-04-11 10:46 -0700

Page 9 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10  Next page →

#680547 — Re: Does smoking cause cancer?

On 10/04/2018 10:43 AM, Sergio wrote:
> On 4/9/2018 5:23 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 10/04/2018 8:13 AM, Sergio wrote:
>>> On 4/9/2018 4:36 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>> On 10/04/2018 2:52 AM, Sergio wrote:
>>>>> On 4/8/2018 8:40 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/04/2018 11:12 AM, Lofty Goat wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 9 Apr 2018 09:57:03 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 'benj' claims to have many science degrees and yet, manages to come
>>>>>>>> out with the insane statement referenced above.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ben is, as I recall, a retired engineer.  One of his favorite indoor
>>>>>>> sports is posting nonsense to the physics groups so he can watch the
>>>>>>> serious posters foam at the mouth.  Although neither crazy nor
>>>>>>> stupid,
>>>>>>> he does have a pretty weird sense of humor.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> **I can only judge a person
>>>>>
>>>>> You go around judging people on the internet by what they post on
>>>>> USENET
>>>>> ??    You a either a moron, or shallow thinker (you choose).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> by their words and deeds. Judged by his
>>>>>> words, benj is a moron.
>>>>>
>>>>> but Trevor, you already judged yourself as the supremiest person, who
>>>>> holds superior wisdom over all others.
>>>>
>>>> **Did I? Got a cite for that? I'll wait while you find it.
>>>
>>> you have a website dedicated to yourself.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> benj openly questions the validity of scientific conclusions by
>>>>> contract
>>>>> journalists who have little to no credentials. Like almost all links
>>>>> kensi posts, and most of yours.
>>>>
>>>> **Nope. benj is a moron, who wouldn't know real science from Breitbart.
>>>> Worse, benj scurries away from discussions that exceed his ability to
>>>> comprehend.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I am fining you  15 cents for using "scurries" as that word is too old.
>>> scurries ?  First recorded in 1800-10; extracted from hurry-scurry.
>>>
>>> do you read Scientific American for your Science ?  (shameful)
>>
>> **Along with Nature, Science and other sources, yes. You need to acquire
>> your scientific information from sources other than Breitbart and Newsweek.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> you kesni pupa, Nads all respond with twists and turns and change the
>>>>> subject, correct engrlish, without being able to understand the
>>>>> orgional
>>>>> data sets, the math needed, nor the specific computer models, analysis
>>>>> of error sources, and so on.
>>>>
>>>> **Says the person who cites right wing news sites and Anthony Watts
>>>> instead of real science. This would be a pot, kettle, black moment.
>>>
>>> you prefer  CNN ?
>>
>> **Nope. Don't watch/read it.
>>
>>
>>    MSNBC ?
>>
>> **Nope. Don't watch/read it.
>>
>>
>>    RT ?
>>
>> **Dunno what that is.
> 
> https://www.rt.com/   they have a different view than mainstream media,
> and very good, just skip over the obvious propaganda

**So, no science there. NO interest.

> 
>>
>>
>>     FB ?
>>
>> **Dunno what that is.
> 
> facebook -- as they were going to screen out fake news, but that is
> impossable for anybody to do. Advertizing is about 80% fake news.

**I don't use FB for anything significant. I might glance at it once 
every couple of weeks. I sure don't expect to obtain reliable 
information from it.

> 
>>
>>
>>     Google Non-Fake News ?
>>
>>
>> **No need.
>>
>> Again, you need to read other sources other than Breitbart, Fox and
>> Newsweek.
>>
> no, I dont read any of those, propaganda, dont read Time mag. nor
> except for

**You sure fooled me. You've cited some seriously dodgy sites.


> 
>> Nature and Science would be excellent places to start.
> 
> they Nature and Science both have been partly politicized, so you have
> to screen out their stuff too, but they are ok.

**Both are high quality, journals of note.


> 
> Scientific American is politicized, infested with contract Journalist
> who know little of what they report on, they finish an article and sell
> it to SA.

**SCIAM is also a high quality, journal of note.

> 
> I go to the University library (they have 23 on campus) and read the
> professional journals, and new book section once a month.  most of the
> on line stuff is substandard, as someone has munched around.
> 
> Physics.org is a muncher.
> 
> 
> ANYHOW, there was a good clip on TV tonight, PBS/npr about Zuckerberg
> and Cambridge Analytics, and they had some slides from a CA presentation
> that use FB data and came out with 5 (?) voter "personality" types, and
> that is strongly reflected in this newsgroup. (they make people pay for
> that info, so it may not be public on the internet.
> 
> so many of the fights in here, fit right in with CA's analysis,
> 
> FB and CA,  What Trump used, what Obama used, and *our politicians* are
> still using it now.  try downloading your FB file on companies they
> shared your info with, and see if their any politicians...

**No interest thanks. There are far more reliable sources. Far more 
reliable than Watts Up for instance.


-- 
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

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

#680580 — Re: Does smoking cause cancer?

On 4/9/2018 6:23 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 10/04/2018 8:13 AM, Sergio wrote:
>> On 4/9/2018 4:36 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>> On 10/04/2018 2:52 AM, Sergio wrote:
>>>> On 4/8/2018 8:40 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>> On 9/04/2018 11:12 AM, Lofty Goat wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 9 Apr 2018 09:57:03 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 'benj' claims to have many science degrees and yet, manages to come
>>>>>>> out with the insane statement referenced above.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ben is, as I recall, a retired engineer.  One of his favorite indoor
>>>>>> sports is posting nonsense to the physics groups so he can watch the
>>>>>> serious posters foam at the mouth.  Although neither crazy nor 
>>>>>> stupid,
>>>>>> he does have a pretty weird sense of humor.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> **I can only judge a person
>>>>
>>>> You go around judging people on the internet by what they post on 
>>>> USENET
>>>> ??    You a either a moron, or shallow thinker (you choose).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> by their words and deeds. Judged by his
>>>>> words, benj is a moron.
>>>>
>>>> but Trevor, you already judged yourself as the supremiest person, who
>>>> holds superior wisdom over all others.
>>>
>>> **Did I? Got a cite for that? I'll wait while you find it.
>>
>> you have a website dedicated to yourself.
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> benj openly questions the validity of scientific conclusions by 
>>>> contract
>>>> journalists who have little to no credentials. Like almost all links
>>>> kensi posts, and most of yours.
>>>
>>> **Nope. benj is a moron, who wouldn't know real science from Breitbart.
>>> Worse, benj scurries away from discussions that exceed his ability to
>>> comprehend.
>>>
>>
>> I am fining you  15 cents for using "scurries" as that word is too old.
>> scurries ?  First recorded in 1800-10; extracted from hurry-scurry.
>>
>> do you read Scientific American for your Science ?  (shameful)
> 
> **Along with Nature, Science and other sources, yes. You need to acquire 
> your scientific information from sources other than Breitbart and Newsweek.

Yeah, Sergio, you need to read honest to god science journals like 
SciAm, Time, NYTimes, Post, view CNN & MSNBC and for real definitive 
proof of anything climate read the science by the failed cartoonist at 
SkepticalScience.com. Trevor does.

These "sources" give you lots of "real science" quotes from actual 
climate scientists!

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

#680576 — Re: Does smoking cause cancer?

On 4/9/2018 5:36 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 10/04/2018 2:52 AM, Sergio wrote:
>> On 4/8/2018 8:40 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>> On 9/04/2018 11:12 AM, Lofty Goat wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 9 Apr 2018 09:57:03 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 'benj' claims to have many science degrees and yet, manages to come
>>>>> out with the insane statement referenced above.
>>>>
>>>> Ben is, as I recall, a retired engineer.  One of his favorite indoor
>>>> sports is posting nonsense to the physics groups so he can watch the
>>>> serious posters foam at the mouth.  Although neither crazy nor stupid,
>>>> he does have a pretty weird sense of humor.
>>>>
>>>
>>> **I can only judge a person
>>
>> You go around judging people on the internet by what they post on USENET
>> ??    You a either a moron, or shallow thinker (you choose).
>>
>>
>>> by their words and deeds. Judged by his
>>> words, benj is a moron.
>>
>> but Trevor, you already judged yourself as the supremiest person, who
>> holds superior wisdom over all others.
> 
> **Did I? Got a cite for that? I'll wait while you find it.
> 
>>
>> benj openly questions the validity of scientific conclusions by contract
>> journalists who have little to no credentials. Like almost all links
>> kensi posts, and most of yours.
> 
> **Nope. benj is a moron, who wouldn't know real science from Breitbart. 
> Worse, benj scurries away from discussions that exceed his ability to 
> comprehend.
> 
>>
>> you kesni pupa, Nads all respond with twists and turns and change the
>> subject, correct engrlish, without being able to understand the orgional
>> data sets, the math needed, nor the specific computer models, analysis
>> of error sources, and so on.
> 
> **Says the person who cites right wing news sites and Anthony Watts 
> instead of real science. This would be a pot, kettle, black moment.

Trevor descends into journalist blather. Calling people ignorant (the 
worst slam a Lib can think of) and when Sergio and I post actual 
scientific papers and Trevor "scurries away" he then posts paid 
journalist screed and calls it "quoting climate scientists". And of 
course he then claims that we "scurried away" by pointing out his 
dishonest drool.

Trevor like all scammers you are just a waste of time and perfectly good 
skin and we could give a shit that you don't "like" us. Your opinion is 
totally without any redeeming value.

Trevor Troll, take your agenda elsewhere.

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

#680552 — Re: Does smoking cause cancer?

On Mon, 9 Apr 2018 11:40:35 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote:

>On 9/04/2018 11:12 AM, Lofty Goat wrote:
>> On Mon, 9 Apr 2018 09:57:03 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> 
>>> 'benj' claims to have many science degrees and yet, manages to come
>>> out with the insane statement referenced above.
>> 
>> Ben is, as I recall, a retired engineer.  One of his favorite indoor
>> sports is posting nonsense to the physics groups so he can watch the
>> serious posters foam at the mouth.  Although neither crazy nor stupid,
>> he does have a pretty weird sense of humor.
>
> **I can only judge a person by their words and deeds. Judged by his 
> words, benj is a moron. I don't know how you can claim that he is 
> anything else, unless you know him, or have enjoyed a private 
> communication with him.

I've been reading science newsgroups for... what?  Twenty years maybe,
twenty-five years for the computer science groups, something like that.
This one for maybe sixteen or seventeen.

Sooner or later one sorts out the trolls from the crackpots.  However
careful they are, now and then the trolls slip up and exhibit at least a
scintilla of lucidity.  The crackpots never do.

It's a plain-text medium.  There just aren't that many tells.  Give it
time.

-- 
Goat

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

#680558 — Re: Does smoking cause cancer?

On 10/04/2018 12:08 PM, Lofty Goat wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Apr 2018 11:40:35 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> 
>> On 9/04/2018 11:12 AM, Lofty Goat wrote:
>>> On Mon, 9 Apr 2018 09:57:03 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>
>>>> 'benj' claims to have many science degrees and yet, manages to come
>>>> out with the insane statement referenced above.
>>>
>>> Ben is, as I recall, a retired engineer.  One of his favorite indoor
>>> sports is posting nonsense to the physics groups so he can watch the
>>> serious posters foam at the mouth.  Although neither crazy nor stupid,
>>> he does have a pretty weird sense of humor.
>>
>> **I can only judge a person by their words and deeds. Judged by his
>> words, benj is a moron. I don't know how you can claim that he is
>> anything else, unless you know him, or have enjoyed a private
>> communication with him.
> 
> I've been reading science newsgroups for... what?  Twenty years maybe,
> twenty-five years for the computer science groups, something like that.
> This one for maybe sixteen or seventeen.
> 
> Sooner or later one sorts out the trolls from the crackpots.  However
> careful they are, now and then the trolls slip up and exhibit at least a
> scintilla of lucidity.  The crackpots never do.
> 
> It's a plain-text medium.  There just aren't that many tells.  Give it
> time.
> 

**Will do.

-- 
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

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

#680559 — Ben Jacoby is neither funny nor informative, nothing good.

> I've been reading science newsgroups for... what?  Twenty years maybe,
> twenty-five years for the computer science groups, something like that.
> This one for maybe sixteen or seventeen.

I wrote my first newsreader in 1991, Seattle, 27 years ago.

> Sooner or later one sorts out the trolls from the crackpots.
> 
> However careful they are, now and then the trolls slip up
> and exhibit at least a scintilla of lucidity.
> The crackpots never do.

Ben Jacoby is neither funny nor informative, nothing good.

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

#680389

On 4/8/2018 3:17 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 9/04/2018 2:17 AM, benj wrote:
>> On 4/8/2018 2:54 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>> On 8/04/2018 1:43 AM, benj wrote:
>>>> On 4/7/2018 10:48 AM, Sergio wrote:
>>>>> On 4/7/2018 9:33 AM, kensi wrote:
>>>>>> A 1988 Royal Dutch Shell report recently published online shows
>>>>>> that the
>>>>>> company knew decades ago what the impact of climate change would
>>>>>> be. ...
>>>>>> The report, titled “The Greenhouse Effect,” said the effects of
>>>>>> climate
>>>>>> change would be notable by the late 20th Century and early 21st:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://globalnews.ca/news/4127757/shell-climate-change-report-1988/
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> <yawn>   it has been in elementary school textbooks since 1960's
>>>>>
>>>> Kensi and journalists lie as always. There could be no such report
>>>> because "climate change" is a term just recently invented by
>>>> journalists and other wormballers when the global temperature
>>>> "hockey stick" stopped going up.
>>>
>>> **No, my moronic friend. The first time most of us had heard of
>>> 'climate change, was back in 1988, when the IPCC (Intergovernmental
>>> Panel on Climate Change) was formed. Prior to that, we just knew it
>>> as 'global warming'. The IPCC was formed to determine if there was
>>> climate change, which way it was headed and what, if anything, can be
>>> done, or should be done to deal with it.
>>
>> Climate has been changing since was climate,
> 
> **And again, my scientifically ignorant friend: The average temperature
> of this planet is rising at a rate which is at least 100 times more
> rapid than at any time in at least the past million years. It is the
> speed that the warming is occurring that is of most concern.
> 
> 
>  but being used by you
>> scammers as a propaganda term to cover up the sudden lack of "hockey
>> stick" is new. I'll wait here while you "prove" you "won" by showing
>> me how long the words "climate" and"change" have been in the
>> dictionary. You really are a pathetic crook.
> 
> **Your answer has already been provided, you moronic cunt. The IPCC was
> established in 1988.
> 
> 
>>
>>> What is a "wormballer"?
>>
>> I love making you lib kooks dance!
> 
> **No, you're just an idiot.
> 
> 
>  A misspelling ropes you in every time
>> doesn't it?
> 
> **What is a "wormballer"? If it has been misspelled, then supply the
> correct spelling.
> 
> 
>  It must be sad to have a life where you total useful
>> knowledge is spelling, grammar and how to tell lies.
> 
> **It has nothing to do with grammar and everything to do with attempting
> to establish what you actually believe.
> 
> 
>>
>>>>
>>>> Expect some Royal Dutch Shell Vice president to sell out and appear
>>>> all over TV and legacy media telling how oil companies "always" knew
>>>> selling oil would end all life on the planet.
>>>
>>> **Like Exxon's hushed up reports?
>>>
>> Got a VP sold out yet to parade on TV? Worked for Tobacco and can work
>> here, right?
> 
> **Huh? What the fuck are you talking about?
> 
>>
>>>
>>>   Just as they did with cigarettes
>>>> where they got sell-out VPs to swear tobacco companies always knew
>>>> their products caused cancer. Lib agenda 101.
>>>
>>> **Well, that's not how it went. The tobacco companies swore that
>>> their products did not harm humans. Some still do.
>>
>> Still no proof cigarettes CAUSE cancer anymore than there is science
>> that proves man-made CO2 causes global warming.
> 
> **WFT? https://www.livescience.com/3093-smoking-myths-examined.html
> 
> Cigarettes don't "cause" cancer. SMOKING cigarettes will expose the
> smoker to a much greater risk of contracting a bunch of smoking related
> diseases. See? Your idiotic and inaccurate comment above is exactly why
> I know that you have no knowledge of any scientific discipline. You
> write sloppily and make insane statements, which are trivially easy to
> demolish.


Bill Clinton didn't inhale.

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

#680435

On 4/8/2018 4:17 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 9/04/2018 2:17 AM, benj wrote:

[snip most of epic SPNAKage of ko0ky benj]

Keep up the good work!

> **It has nothing to do with grammar and everything to do with attempting 
> to establish what you actually believe.

There's no such thing as "what benj actually believes". High-RWA types 
like him outsource ontological queries to the likes of Fox News and 
Breitbart, rather than build their own in-house ontologies and query 
those. He quite literally does not *have* a worldview. Nor does Trump, 
nor do the lot of them. It's part of what makes them such kOoks.

Instead they have external "fonts of truth(iness)" on speed-dial, with 
maybe some internal caching. But this caching isn't a true self-managed 
ontology, because they do no gardening of it, as is apparent when (as 
always) it ends up being a mass of contradictions and 
empirically-invalidated nonsense (such as climate change denial).

See: https://theauthoritarians.org/donald-trump-and-authoritarian-followers/

"They are highly dogmatic. Because /they have mainly gotten their 
beliefs from the authorities in their lives, rather than think things 
out for themselves/, they have no real defense when facts or events 
indicate they are wrong. So they just dig in their heels and refuse to 
change."

(emphasis added)

-- 
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade
in here."                                                     ~Checkmate

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

#680436

On Mon, 9 Apr 2018 10:52:03 -0400, circumcised pro-semitic cunt kensi
<kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> wrote:

>On 4/8/2018 4:17 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 9/04/2018 2:17 AM, benj wrote:
>
>[snip most of epic SPNAKage of ko0ky benj]
>
>Keep up the good work!
>
>> **It has nothing to do with grammar and everything to do with attempting 
>> to establish what you actually believe.
>
>There's no such thing as "what benj actually believes". High-RWA types 
>like him outsource ontological queries to the likes of Fox News and 
>Breitbart, rather than build their own in-house ontologies and query 
>those. He quite literally does not *have* a worldview. Nor does Trump, 
>nor do the lot of them. It's part of what makes them such kOoks.
>
>Instead they have external "fonts of truth(iness)" on speed-dial, with 
>maybe some internal caching. But this caching isn't a true self-managed 
>ontology, because they do no gardening of it, as is apparent when (as 
>always) it ends up being a mass of contradictions and 
>empirically-invalidated nonsense (such as climate change denial).
>
>See: https://theauthoritarians.org/donald-trump-and-authoritarian-followers/
>
>"They are highly dogmatic. Because /they have mainly gotten their 
>beliefs from the authorities in their lives, rather than think things 
>out for themselves/, they have no real defense when facts or events 
>indicate they are wrong. So they just dig in their heels and refuse to 
>change."
>
>(emphasis added)

STFU cunt.
--

"You are full of shit.  You'll never convince any of us real Jews that
there is no Jewish look.  I know my people and I can see their
Jewishness.  Susan is not a Jew.  If you want to get down her panties
just ask her she'll let you.  She's a non-Jew."
Message-ID: <bfbdb526-1042-4e8e-a39f-98d379739ef2@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>

"You can try all you want and get all the plastic surgery you want but
you'll never look like one of us because you are not a Jew.  You are
an Irish Shiksa that Isn't even a righteous non-Jew a Ger Tzadeck You
are VEEDMUS amongst us and are a gentile.  I would not be surprised if
you ever go to Eretz Israel and spout off your non-senseical lies that
a Jew doesn't kill you or a gentile murder you. You are wicked because
you antagonize and lie about the Tzadeckim. The best place for you is 
scrubbing toilets and urinals in a gymnasium that is predominate used
by Negros."
Message-ID: <ee17d097-89f7-4e72-a41a-afcf650c2062@p2g2000prn.googlegroups.com>

- drug-fucked jew wannabe Y-chi Netfish, mocking neo-jew Suzy KKKohen's
attempted 'conversion' to the jew race

"Warren is not well. He's a non-Jewish mental patient who usually declines to
take his medications. Please keep this in mind when viewing future posts."
Message-ID: <JZQTk.1726$mi4.491@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>

- neo-jew 'convert' Suzy KKKohen, mocking drug-fucked jew wannabe Y-chi Netfish's
claim to be a jew

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

#680473

"jew pedophile Ron Jacobson (jew pedophile Baruch 'Barry' Shein's jew 
aliash)"  wrote in message 
news:isvmcdp65avubp92169css9evqed94kpjr@4ax.com...

>On Mon, 9 Apr 2018 10:52:03 -0400, circumcised pro-semitic cunt kensi
><kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> wrote:

>>On 4/8/2018 4:17 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>> On 9/04/2018 2:17 AM, benj wrote:
>>
>>[snip most of epic SPNAKage of ko0ky benj]
>>
>>Keep up the good work!
>>
>>> **It has nothing to do with grammar and everything to do with attempting
>>> to establish what you actually believe.
>>
>>There's no such thing as "what benj actually believes". High-RWA types
>>like him outsource ontological queries to the likes of Fox News and
>>Breitbart, rather than build their own in-house ontologies and query
>>those. He quite literally does not *have* a worldview. Nor does Trump,
>>nor do the lot of them. It's part of what makes them such kOoks.
>>
>>Instead they have external "fonts of truth(iness)" on speed-dial, with
>>maybe some internal caching. But this caching isn't a true self-managed
>>ontology, because they do no gardening of it, as is apparent when (as
>>always) it ends up being a mass of contradictions and
>>empirically-invalidated nonsense (such as climate change denial).
>>
>>See: 
>>https://theauthoritarians.org/donald-trump-and-authoritarian-followers/
>>
>>"They are highly dogmatic. Because /they have mainly gotten their
>>beliefs from the authorities in their lives, rather than think things
>>out for themselves/, they have no real defense when facts or events
>>indicate they are wrong. So they just dig in their heels and refuse to
>>change."
>>
>>(emphasis added)

>STFU cunt.
    She has no credibility on these newsgroups.

   Jeff Jacoby has plenty of credibility.

   http://www.jeffjacoby.com/20620/the-blessings-of-climate-change

The blessings of climate change
by Jeff Jacoby
The Boston Globe
December 6, 2017

POINT HOPE, ALASKA, is tiny and ill-provisioned, an Arctic backwater so 
inaccessible that basic groceries have to be flown in and gasoline can only 
be brought in by barge during the summer. The town is remote not only 
geographically, but also digitally: Its internet connection is so slow that 
teachers must spend hours downloading course material that most of us could 
pull off the internet in minutes.


Because of climate change, the once-forbidding sea route through the Arctic 
Circle has been opening up sooner and for a longer period each summer.
But Point Hope's luck is changing. High-speed internet is coming, and with 
it the benefits of ties to the world: Improved education and health care, 
more options for consumers, new customers for local artists, and a chance to 
attract tourists.

All thanks to global warming.

The New York Times reported Sunday that Quintillion, a global communications 
company, is taking advantage of melting sea ice to build a faster digital 
link between Europe and Asia by positioning high-speed internet cables 
beneath the Arctic Ocean. Until recently, cable-laying ships couldn't get 
too far north, but climate change has meant less ice north of the Bering 
Strait. Consequently, Point Hope is now a stop on Quintillion's shipping 
route, and the company is supplying the town with broadband service. That 
means a better life for residents of one of the nation's most isolated 
communities.

In the church of climate alarmism, there may be no heresy more dangerous 
than the idea that the world will benefit from warming. Zealous preachers 
seek to scare their flock with forecasts of catastrophe, horror, and threats 
to civilization. Anyone who demurs is denounced as an apostate: an 
anti-science "denier."

But the truth — the inconvenient truth, to coin a phrase — is that while 
climate change brings negatives, it brings positives too. Polar melting may 
cause dislocation for those who live in low-lying coastal areas, but it will 
also lead to safe commercial shipping in formerly inhospitable northern 
seas, and to economic opportunity for high-latitude residents in places like 
Point Hope.

Shifts in climate are like shifts in the economy: They invariably spell good 
news for some and bad news for others. Falling interest rates are a blessing 
to homebuyers but a curse to savers; a strong dollar helps consumers buying 
imports but hinders exporters selling abroad. In the same way, changes in 
climate generate winners and losers. Some of global warming's effects will 
be disagreeable; others will be very welcome.

Worldwide, cold kills 20 times as many people as heat, so a warming planet 
will save lives. A plethora of data confirms the greater deadliness of cold 
weather, even in countries with very different climate patterns. One study 
of mortality rates, for example, found that deaths from cold outnumbered 
those from heat by a ratio of 33-to-2 in Australia, and 61-to-3 in Britain. 
Of 2,000 weather-related deaths in America tallied by the Centers for 
Disease Control, 63 percent were caused by excessive cold vs. 31 percent 
caused by excessive heat.

A warming planet will also be a greener planet. Is a greener planet. Rising 
levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have already led to "persistent 
and widespread increase" in leaf cover — i.e., greening — across as much as 
half of the world's vegetated regions, according to a study published in 
Nature last year.


Over the past 35 years, there has been an increase in world greenery equal 
in area to twice the continental United States. Some of Africa's most 
inhospitable deserts have begun to bloom again.
Alarmists mindlessly condemn atmospheric CO2 as "carbon pollution," but 
carbon dioxide is essential to the health and grown of plant life.

NASA satellites show that over the past 35 years, there has been an increase 
in world greenery equal in area to twice the continental United States. 
Climate change has been a particular blessing in Africa, where the "Sahel 
greening" has significantly reduced famine.

The effects of climate change range from the obvious (lower heating bills) 
to the subtle (more habitat for moose and endangered sharks). Territory 
formerly deemed too forbiddingly cold will grow more temperate — and 
valuable. Delicacies from lobster to blueberries may become more plentiful.

Bottom line? Global warming will bring gains as well as losses, upsides no 
less than downsides. Climate science isn't a black-and-white morality tale. 
Our climate discourse shouldn't be either.

(Jeff Jacoby is a columnist for The Boston Globe). 


---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

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

#680475

Michael Ejercito <mejercit@hotmail.com> wrote:

["kensi"]

>     She has no credibility on these newsgroups.
> 
>    Jeff Jacoby has plenty of credibility.
> 
>    <http://www.jeffjacoby.com/20620/the-blessings-of-climate-change>
>

That's an interesting, well-balanced article, thanks for the link.

-- 
^Ï^.           Sn!pe           <snipeco.1@gmail.com>

My pet rock Gordon just is.
 

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

#680481

On 4/9/2018 1:19 PM, Sn!pe wrote:
> Michael Ejercito <mejercit@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
> ["kensi"]
> 
>>     She has no credibility on these newsgroups.
>>
>>    Jeff Jacoby has plenty of credibility.
>>
>>    <http://www.jeffjacoby.com/20620/the-blessings-of-climate-change>
>>
> 
> That's an interesting, well-balanced article, thanks for the link.
> 

from the article;


"Alarmists mindlessly condemn atmospheric CO2 as "carbon pollution," but
carbon dioxide is essential to the health and grown of plant life.

NASA satellites show that over the past 35 years, there has been an
increase in world greenery equal in area to twice the continental United
States. Climate change has been a particular blessing in Africa, where
the "Sahel greening" has significantly reduced famine.

The effects of climate change range from the obvious (lower heating
bills) to the subtle (more habitat for moose and endangered sharks).
Territory formerly deemed too forbiddingly cold will grow more temperate
— and valuable. Delicacies from lobster to blueberries may become more
plentiful.

Bottom line? Global warming will bring gains as well as losses, upsides
no less than downsides. Climate science isn't a black-and-white morality
tale. Our climate discourse shouldn't be either."

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

#680512

On 4/9/2018 2:36 PM, Sergio wrote:
> On 4/9/2018 1:19 PM, Sn!pe wrote:
>> Michael Ejercito <mejercit@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> ["kensi"]
>>
>>>      She has no credibility on these newsgroups.
>>>
>>>     Jeff Jacoby has plenty of credibility.
>>>
>>>     <http://www.jeffjacoby.com/20620/the-blessings-of-climate-change>
>>>
>>
>> That's an interesting, well-balanced article, thanks for the link.
>>
> 
> from the article;
> 
> 
> "Alarmists mindlessly condemn atmospheric CO2 as "carbon pollution," but
> carbon dioxide is essential to the health and grown of plant life.
> 
> NASA satellites show that over the past 35 years, there has been an
> increase in world greenery equal in area to twice the continental United
> States. Climate change has been a particular blessing in Africa, where
> the "Sahel greening" has significantly reduced famine.
> 
> The effects of climate change range from the obvious (lower heating
> bills) to the subtle (more habitat for moose and endangered sharks).
> Territory formerly deemed too forbiddingly cold will grow more temperate
> — and valuable. Delicacies from lobster to blueberries may become more
> plentiful.
> 
> Bottom line? Global warming will bring gains as well as losses, upsides
> no less than downsides. Climate science isn't a black-and-white morality
> tale. Our climate discourse shouldn't be either."
> 
Hey, Sergio, CO2 most definitely IS a pollutant. Yeah, we all know how 
beneficial it plants and stuff, but that doesn't matter. What is and is 
not a Pollutant is determined by EPA regulations. And they SPECIFICALLY
made CO2 a "pollutant". Why? Because the EPA may not regulate gasses 
that are not pollutants. So they simply declared CO2 a pollutant so they 
would have the authority to "regulate" it. This is truth.

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

#680517

On 4/9/2018 4:34 PM, benj wrote:
> On 4/9/2018 2:36 PM, Sergio wrote:
>> On 4/9/2018 1:19 PM, Sn!pe wrote:
>>> Michael Ejercito <mejercit@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> ["kensi"]
>>>
>>>>      She has no credibility on these newsgroups.
>>>>
>>>>     Jeff Jacoby has plenty of credibility.
>>>>
>>>>     <http://www.jeffjacoby.com/20620/the-blessings-of-climate-change>
>>>>
>>>
>>> That's an interesting, well-balanced article, thanks for the link.
>>>
>>
>> from the article;
>>
>>
>> "Alarmists mindlessly condemn atmospheric CO2 as "carbon pollution," but
>> carbon dioxide is essential to the health and grown of plant life.
>>
>> NASA satellites show that over the past 35 years, there has been an
>> increase in world greenery equal in area to twice the continental United
>> States. Climate change has been a particular blessing in Africa, where
>> the "Sahel greening" has significantly reduced famine.
>>
>> The effects of climate change range from the obvious (lower heating
>> bills) to the subtle (more habitat for moose and endangered sharks).
>> Territory formerly deemed too forbiddingly cold will grow more temperate
>> — and valuable. Delicacies from lobster to blueberries may become more
>> plentiful.
>>
>> Bottom line? Global warming will bring gains as well as losses, upsides
>> no less than downsides. Climate science isn't a black-and-white morality
>> tale. Our climate discourse shouldn't be either."
>>
> Hey, Sergio, CO2 most definitely IS a pollutant. Yeah, we all know how
> beneficial it plants and stuff, but that doesn't matter. What is and is
> not a Pollutant is determined by EPA regulations. And they SPECIFICALLY
> made CO2 a "pollutant". Why? Because the EPA may not regulate gasses
> that are not pollutants. So they simply declared CO2 a pollutant so they
> would have the authority to "regulate" it. This is truth.

That was crazy, and they did that without considering it is needed to
make plants grow.  Obama was going to use it to shut down coal plants,
and Obama's EPA were cowboys/cowgirls, trying to impress short sighted
leftist.  all marching in unison off the cliff, sig Obama, without
addressing nor understanding the real problems,

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

#680531

Sergio:


> That was crazy, and they did that without considering it is needed to
> make plants grow.  

What is even more crazy than that?

Well, it is your assumption that plants depend on man made CO2!
So how has plant life evolved on this planet over the last 3 billion 
years w/o the greedy hoards of multi billionaire corporate coal/oil 
magnates and their brain washed (brain dead) climate change denialist 
propaganda drones!

> Obama was going to use it to shut down coal plants,
> and Obama's EPA were cowboys/cowgirls, trying to impress short sighted
> leftist.  all marching in unison off the cliff, sig Obama, without
> addressing nor understanding the real problems,

The real problems?

So you do reckon that CO2 emission is the only thing that happens during 
burning fossil fuels? If so, than you know bugger all about human/animal 
health and the effects of particle emissions and chemical pollution.

Oh, and BTW have you ever contemplated on the real value of our carbon/
hydrocarbon sources before your advocacy for burning that damned thing up 
until there is nothing left to support manufacturing, specially in the 
steal and chemical industries for future generations???

Conclusion:
Virulent rightardism has fucked up your brain real good! Go and suckle on 
Trump's cock!

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

#680543

Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts by 
Checkmate!  In article <pagr6u$q4f$1@dont-email.me>, 
coming4you@never.invalid.net says...


> Trump's cock!
> 
Are you gay for Trump?

-- 
Checkmate ® 
Author, Humorist, Cynic
Philosopher, Humanitarian
Poet, Elektrishun to the Stars           
Copyright © 2018 
all rights reserved

In loving memory of The Battle Kitten
May 2010-February 12, 2017

"There are many here among us, 
who feel that life is but a joke."

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

#680501 — Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 @

On Mon, 9 Apr 2018 19:19:58 +0100, snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) wrote:

>NOT Michael Ejercito <mejercit@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>["kensi"]
>
>>     She has no credibility on these newsgroups.
>> 
>>    Jeff Jacoby has plenty of credibility.
>> 
>>    <http://www.jeffjacoby.com/20620/the-blessings-of-climate-change>
>>
>
>That's an interesting, well-balanced article, thanks for the link.

It's a pile of plagiarised jew shite.  And gook Ejershito likes to
zsuck Jeff Kakobstein's fat jew rectum.

--

"You are full of shit.  You'll never convince any of us real Jews that
there is no Jewish look.  I know my people and I can see their
Jewishness.  Susan is not a Jew.  If you want to get down her panties
just ask her she'll let you.  She's a non-Jew."
Message-ID: <bfbdb526-1042-4e8e-a39f-98d379739ef2@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>

"You can try all you want and get all the plastic surgery you want but
you'll never look like one of us because you are not a Jew.  You are
an Irish Shiksa that Isn't even a righteous non-Jew a Ger Tzadeck You
are VEEDMUS amongst us and are a gentile.  I would not be surprised if
you ever go to Eretz Israel and spout off your non-senseical lies that
a Jew doesn't kill you or a gentile murder you. You are wicked because
you antagonize and lie about the Tzadeckim. The best place for you is 
scrubbing toilets and urinals in a gymnasium that is predominate used
by Negros."
Message-ID: <ee17d097-89f7-4e72-a41a-afcf650c2062@p2g2000prn.googlegroups.com>

- drug-fucked jew wannabe Y-chi Netfish, mocking neo-jew Suzy KKKohen's
attempted 'conversion' to the jew race

"Warren is not well. He's a non-Jewish mental patient who usually declines to
take his medications. Please keep this in mind when viewing future posts."
Message-ID: <JZQTk.1726$mi4.491@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>

- neo-jew 'convert' Suzy KKKohen, mocking drug-fucked jew wannabe Y-chi Netfish's
claim to be a jew

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

#680509 — Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 @

In article <6rhncdtjkli6nc2j1fld5vmq3nq625imad@4ax.com>,
A shiteating cowardly nazoid sub-louse PEDO named Andrew "Andrzej"
Baron (aka "Ron Jacobson"/etc") wrote:

> It's a pile of plagiarised shite.

So EAT it, nazoid sub-louse... like Shitler did!

     Yes folks, FOUR leading experts concluded: Shitler ate shit!

     -------------------------------------------------------------

     "He is an extreme masochist who derives sexual pleasure from
     having a woman squat over him while she uriniates or defecates 
     on his face."


Quoted from

"A Psychological Analysis of Adolph Hitler"

Walter C. Langer, Harvard

With the collaboration of
Prof. Henry A. Murr, Harvard Psychological Clinic
Dr. Ernst Kris, New School for Social Research
Dr. Bertram D. Lawin, New York Psychoanalytic Institute

http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/h/hitler-adolf/oss-papers/text/oss-profile-04-06.html

Some believe that he [Hitler] is entirely immune from such impulses.
Some believe that he is a chronic masturbator. Some believe that
he derives his sexual pleasure [Page 138] through voyeurism. Many
believe that he is completely impotent. Others, and these are perhaps
in the majority, that he is homosexual. It is probably true that he is
impotent but he is certainiy not homosexual in the ordinary sense of
the term. His perversion has quite a different nature which few have
guessed. He is an extreme masochist who derives sexual pleasure from
having a woman squat over him while she uriniates or defecates on his
face. (Strasser, 919; see also 931, 932)*

[*Note: There may be some people who would question the reliability of
any information given by Otto Strasser because of his reputation. It
is perhaps because of his reputation that he came by this information
which had been so carefully guarded. He also supplied the interviewer
with a great deal of other information concerning Hitler which
checked very closely with that of other informants. As far as this
study is concerned we have no reason to question his sincerity.]

Although this perversion is not a common one, it is not unknown in
clinical work, particularly in its incipient stages. The four
collaborators on this study, in addition to Dr. De Saussure who
learned of the perversion from other sources, have all had experience
with cases of this type. All five agree that their information as
given is probably true in view of their clinical experience and their
knowledge of Hitler's character. In the following section further
evidence of its validition will be cited. At the present moment it is
sufficient to recognize the influence that this perversion must have
on the conscious mental life of Hitler.

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

#680773 — Re: A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be, back in 1988 @

"jew pedophile Ron Jacobson (jew pedophile Baruch 'Barry' Shein's jew 
aliash)"  wrote in message 
news:6rhncdtjkli6nc2j1fld5vmq3nq625imad@4ax.com...

>On Mon, 9 Apr 2018 19:19:58 +0100, snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) wrote:

>>NOT Michael Ejercito <mejercit@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>["kensi"]
>>
>>>     She has no credibility on these newsgroups.
>>>
>>>    Jeff Jacoby has plenty of credibility.
>>>
>>>    <http://www.jeffjacoby.com/20620/the-blessings-of-climate-change>
>>>
>>
>>That's an interesting, well-balanced article, thanks for the link.

>It's a pile of plagiarised jew shite.  And gook Ejershito likes to
>zsuck Jeff Kakobstein's fat jew rectum.

    You have no evidence of plagiarism.


Michael 


---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

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

#680603

On Mon, 9 Apr 2018, snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) mewed...
>Michael Ejercito <mejercit@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>["kensi"]
>
>>     She has no credibility on these newsgroups.
>> 
>>    Jeff Jacoby has plenty of credibility.
>> 
>>    <http://www.jeffjacoby.com/20620/the-blessings-of-climate-change>
>
>That's an interesting, well-balanced article, thanks for the link.

He gets zero thanks from Yours Truly. Why? Because he
posted a link and was too lazy and rude to summarize the
contents so those of us who *might* be interested at 
least had an inkling whether or not it was worth logging
on.

Why do so many on Usenet act like commensalism is de 
rigueur? The only benefit of Ejercito's post is to himself.
He apparently likes to hear himself talk but is less than
percipient.

-- 

The Mountain

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

Page 9 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web