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

Groups > sci.physics > #709437 > unrolled thread

Want a radical plan to slow climate change? Eat less meat

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Want a radical plan to slow climate change? Eat less meat kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-10-24 06:43 -0400
    Re: Want a radical plan to slow climate change? Eat less meat "Sir Gregory Hall,  Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-10-24 09:48 -0400
    Re: Want a radical plan to slow climate change? Eat less meat Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-10-24 11:49 -0700
      Re: Want a radical plan to slow climate change? Eat less meat "Sir Gregory Hall,  Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-10-24 14:53 -0400
        Re: Want a radical plan to slow climate change? Eat less meat pandora <pandora@peak.orq> - 2018-10-24 15:01 -0400
          Re: Want a radical plan to slow climate change? Eat less meat Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-10-24 14:06 -0500
          Re: Want a radical plan to slow climate change? Eat less meat pandora <pandora@peak.org> - 2018-10-25 14:49 -0500
            Re: Want a radical plan to slow climate change? Eat less meat Checkmate <ricksabain1@gmail.com> - 2018-10-25 16:22 -0400
              Re: Want a radical plan to slow climate change? Eat less meat % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-10-25 13:26 -0700
                Re: Want a radical plan to slow climate change? Eat less meat Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-10-26 01:16 -0700
              Re: Want a radical plan to slow climate change? Eat less meat snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2018-10-26 00:01 +0100
                Re: Want a radical plan to slow climate change? Eat less meat % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-10-25 16:05 -0700
                Re: Want a radical plan to slow climate change? Eat less meat Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-10-26 01:17 -0700
                  Re: Want a radical plan to slow climate change? Eat less meat snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2018-10-26 10:58 +0100
                    Re: Want a radical plan to slow climate change? Eat less meat Scatboi g8dgc <g8dgc@noneya.none> - 2018-10-26 11:08 -0400
                      Re: Want a radical plan to slow climate change? Eat less meat snipeco.2@gmail.com (Wader of Doom) - 2018-10-26 16:37 +0100
                        Re: Want a radical plan to slow climate change? Eat less meat Your Friendly Neighbourhood Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2018-10-26 10:39 -0500
                          Re: Want a radical plan to slow climate change? Eat less meat Scatboitoy g8dgc <g8dgc@noneya.none> - 2018-10-26 11:48 -0400
                            Re: Want a radical plan to slow climate change? Eat less meat invalid@invalid.invalid (Ï) - 2018-10-26 17:00 +0100
                        Re: Want a radical plan to slow climate change? Eat less meat g8dgc <g8dgc@noneya.none> - 2018-10-26 11:40 -0400
                          Re: Want a radical plan to slow climate change? Eat less meat snipeco.2@gmail.com (Wader of Doom) - 2018-10-26 16:47 +0100
                            Re: Want a radical plan to slow climate change? Eat less meat Your Friendly Neighbourhood Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2018-10-26 11:39 -0500
    Re: Want a radical plan to slow climate change? Eat less meat Avenging Angel <Not.fucking.likely@NoWay.com> - 2018-10-27 12:52 +0000
      Re: Want a radical plan to slow climate change? Eat less meat kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-10-27 10:20 -0400
        Re: Want a radical plan to slow climate change? Eat less meat Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2018-10-27 08:52 -0600
          Re: Want a radical plan to slow climate change? Eat less meat kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-10-27 10:58 -0400
            Re: Want a radical plan to slow climate change? Eat less meat Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2018-10-27 09:12 -0600
    Re: Want a radical plan to slow climate change? Eat less meat Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-10-27 09:23 -0400
      Re: Want a radical plan to slow climate change? Eat less meat kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-10-27 10:20 -0400
        Re: Want a radical plan to slow climate change? Eat less meat Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2018-10-27 08:52 -0600
          Re: Want a radical plan to slow climate change? Eat less meat kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-10-28 10:51 -0400
            Re: Want a radical plan to slow climate change? Eat less meat Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2018-10-28 10:03 -0600
            Re: Want a radical plan to slow climate change? Eat less meat snipeco.2@gmail.com (Wader of Doom) - 2018-10-28 16:26 +0000
              Re: Want a radical plan to slow climate change? Eat less meat "Sir Gregory Hall,  Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-10-28 17:08 -0400
                Re: Want a radical plan to slow climate change? Eat less meat snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2018-10-28 22:12 +0000
        Re: Want a radical plan to slow climate change? Eat less meat Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-10-27 14:53 -0400
          Re: Want a radical plan to slow climate change? Eat less meat kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-10-28 10:51 -0400
            Re: Want a radical plan to slow climate change? Eat less meat "Sir Gregory Hall,  Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-10-28 11:13 -0400
            Re: Want a radical plan to slow climate change? Eat less meat Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-10-28 12:31 -0400
              Re: Want a radical plan to slow climate change? Eat less meat mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2018-10-28 14:11 -0400
                Re: Want a radical plan to slow climate change? Eat less meat Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-10-28 11:48 -0700
              Re: Want a radical plan to slow climate change? Eat less meat Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-10-28 11:25 -0700
                Re: Want a radical plan to slow climate change? Eat less meat Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-10-30 00:02 -0400
                  Re: Want a radical plan to slow climate change? Eat less meat Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-10-30 09:05 -0700
                    Re: Want a radical plan to slow climate change? Eat less meat Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-10-30 22:56 -0400
                      Re: Want a radical plan to slow climate change? Eat less meat Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-10-31 09:42 -0700
                        Re: Want a radical plan to slow climate change? Eat less meat benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-31 17:44 -0400
              Re: Want a radical plan to slow climate change? Eat less meat Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-10-28 21:31 +0000
                Re: Want a radical plan to slow climate change? Eat less meat Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-10-29 23:50 -0400
                  Re: Want a radical plan to slow climate change? Eat less meat kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-10-30 10:53 -0400

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

#710106

Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts by 
Checkmate!  In article <pr4u53$1q62$2@gioia.aioe.org>, 
melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie says...


===3 
===3 On 10/28/2018 12:31 PM, Wally W. wrote:
===3 > I didn't mention a diety.
===3 
===3 Diety are really skinny.  Nobody wants to mention that.

Fat people don't want to mention that.

-- 
Checkmate ® 
Author, Humorist, Cynic
Philosopher, Humanitarian
Poet, Elektrishun to the Stars
Usenet Shot-Caller           
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."

"I am the author of nearly as much kook butthurt as 
kensi."    -Nadegda  
Message-ID: <pbg8ne$p9k$21@dont-email.me>

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

#710099

On Sunday, October 28, 2018 at 12:31:04 PM UTC-4, Wally W. wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Oct 2018 10:51:49 -0400, kensi wrote:
> 
> >On 10/27/2018 2:53 PM, Wally W. wrote:
> >> On Sat, 27 Oct 2018 10:20:25 -0400, kensi wrote:
> >>> On 10/27/2018 9:23 AM, Wally W. wrote:
> >>>> Q: Want a radical plan to slow climate change?
> >>>> A: No.
> >>>
> >>> Traitor.
> >> 
> >> There is no disloyalty to anything that matters in rejecting your
> >> misguided and misanthropic religion.
> >
> >I have no religion; I am an atheist. So your argument fails.
> 
> Your wannabe logic fails.
> 
> I didn't mention a diety.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
> Atheism is, in the broadest sense, the absence of belief in the
> existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is the rejection of belief
> that any deities exist. In an even narrower sense, atheism is
> specifically the position that there are no deities.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion
> Religion may be defined as a cultural system of designated behaviors
> and practices, world views, texts, sanctified places, prophecies,
> ethics, or organizations, that relates humanity to supernatural,
> transcendental, or spiritual elements.
> 
> Devotion to the AGW "cause" is certainly a fixation on a
> transcendental element.
> 
> Busted!

And all of that is off topic in sci.physics!

Ad hominem attacks are not science.
Please behave and talk science.

Ed

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

#710295

On Sun, 28 Oct 2018 11:25:12 -0700 (PDT), Edward Prochak wrote:

>On Sunday, October 28, 2018 at 12:31:04 PM UTC-4, Wally W. wrote:
>> On Sun, 28 Oct 2018 10:51:49 -0400, kensi wrote:
>> 
>> >On 10/27/2018 2:53 PM, Wally W. wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 27 Oct 2018 10:20:25 -0400, kensi wrote:
>> >>> On 10/27/2018 9:23 AM, Wally W. wrote:
>> >>>> Q: Want a radical plan to slow climate change?
>> >>>> A: No.
>> >>>
>> >>> Traitor.
>> >> 
>> >> There is no disloyalty to anything that matters in rejecting your
>> >> misguided and misanthropic religion.
>> >
>> >I have no religion; I am an atheist. So your argument fails.
>> 
>> Your wannabe logic fails.
>> 
>> I didn't mention a diety.
>> 
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
>> Atheism is, in the broadest sense, the absence of belief in the
>> existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is the rejection of belief
>> that any deities exist. In an even narrower sense, atheism is
>> specifically the position that there are no deities.
>> 
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion
>> Religion may be defined as a cultural system of designated behaviors
>> and practices, world views, texts, sanctified places, prophecies,
>> ethics, or organizations, that relates humanity to supernatural,
>> transcendental, or spiritual elements.
>> 
>> Devotion to the AGW "cause" is certainly a fixation on a
>> transcendental element.
>> 
>> Busted!
>
>And all of that is off topic in sci.physics!
>
>Ad hominem attacks are not science.
>Please behave and talk science.
>
>Ed

Let's take this on here instead of the thread the one about a cooling
technology. kensi called others k00ky and traitor in this thread.
Where is your criticism of kensi for those ad hom?

You said the thread about cooling technology was more about material
science but excused it because it was on "the edge of Physics." The
vast majority of posts about *anything* physical are on "the edge of
Physics."

This group is not sci.the-edge-of-physics.

It is not "behaving" for kensi to post daily clap trap about climate
change to sci.physics.

Wanting "a **radical** plan to slow climate change" is not science, it
is extremism.

Why is the only acceptable response to roll over?

On the contrary:

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to
do nothing." - Edmund Burke

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

#710374

On Tuesday, October 30, 2018 at 12:02:15 AM UTC-4, Wally W. wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Oct 2018 11:25:12 -0700 (PDT), Edward Prochak wrote:
> 
[religion comments snipped]
> >
> >Ad hominem attacks are not science.
> >Please behave and talk science.
> >
> >Ed
> 
> Let's take this on here instead of the thread the one about a cooling
> technology. kensi called others k00ky and traitor in this thread.
> Where is your criticism of kensi for those ad hom?

Because I had skipped the older posts. I certainly hope kensi also will
try to reduce the flames. Note my comment above, while replying to you,
does not single you out. So to make you happy, I'll repeat it:
   Ad hominem attacks are not science.

> 
> You said the thread about cooling technology was more about material
> science but excused it because it was on "the edge of Physics." The
> vast majority of posts about *anything* physical are on "the edge of
> Physics."
> 
> This group is not sci.the-edge-of-physics.

Well, actually you are right. but physics covers everything,
including materials science, so I correct myself. That article
about the cooling film is physics. And I can easily argue this
article is also physics, covering energy transfers between systems.

> 
> It is not "behaving" for kensi to post daily clap trap about climate
> change to sci.physics.
> 
> Wanting "a **radical** plan to slow climate change" is not science, it
> is extremism.

It is supposed to be a discussion starter. A chance to talk physics.
It might be better of the posts showed articles from physics World
for example, but I'm open to discussing climate change in a thoughtful
respectable manner.

> 
> Why is the only acceptable response to roll over?

No, the acceptable responses include:
analyzing the physics in or referenced by the article
to see if it make sense. This can be done from any angle
you want to approach it from. just keep it about the science.

Ignoring the topic because you are just not interested.

> 
> On the contrary:
> 
> "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to
> do nothing." - Edmund Burke

Exactly. Which is PRECISELY why I felt the need to try to
douse some of the flames here. Now you have a choice.
And that does not mean the only acceptable response is for you
to agree with me. or kensi.

An unacceptable response is to continue supporting ad hominem attacks.

climate science is ultimately physics.
Ed
 

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

#710464

On Tue, 30 Oct 2018 09:05:05 -0700 (PDT), Edward Prochak wrote:

>On Tuesday, October 30, 2018 at 12:02:15 AM UTC-4, Wally W. wrote:
>> On Sun, 28 Oct 2018 11:25:12 -0700 (PDT), Edward Prochak wrote:
>> 
>[religion comments snipped]
>> >
>> >Ad hominem attacks are not science.
>> >Please behave and talk science.
>> >
>> >Ed
>> 
>> Let's take this on here instead of the thread the one about a cooling
>> technology. kensi called others k00ky and traitor in this thread.
>> Where is your criticism of kensi for those ad hom?
>
>Because I had skipped the older posts. I certainly hope kensi also will
>try to reduce the flames. Note my comment above, while replying to you,
>does not single you out. So to make you happy, I'll repeat it:
>   Ad hominem attacks are not science.
>
>> 
>> You said the thread about cooling technology was more about material
>> science but excused it because it was on "the edge of Physics." The
>> vast majority of posts about *anything* physical are on "the edge of
>> Physics."
>> 
>> This group is not sci.the-edge-of-physics.
>
>Well, actually you are right. but physics covers everything,
>including materials science, so I correct myself. That article
>about the cooling film is physics. And I can easily argue this
>article is also physics, covering energy transfers between systems.
>
>> 
>> It is not "behaving" for kensi to post daily clap trap about climate
>> change to sci.physics.
>> 
>> Wanting "a **radical** plan to slow climate change" is not science, it
>> is extremism.
>
>It is supposed to be a discussion starter. 

You know this how?

If true, I generally don't want to have a discussion with kensi. I
want her to stop trying to scare people.

>A chance to talk physics.

If everything is about physics, then we don't need a discussion
starter.

Besides, to alarmists: everything is about "climate change."

>It might be better of the posts showed articles from physics World
>for example, but I'm open to discussing climate change in a thoughtful
>respectable manner.

Me,too: in the alt.global-warming group. Sometimes here, but kensi's
daily climate change spew is reminiscent of comparable efforts by Sam
Wormley. Thankfully, he stopped doing it here.
 
>> Why is the only acceptable response to roll over?
>
>No, the acceptable responses include:
>analyzing the physics in or referenced by the article
>to see if it make sense. This can be done from any angle
>you want to approach it from. just keep it about the science.
>
>Ignoring the topic because you are just not interested.
>
>> 
>> On the contrary:
>> 
>> "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to
>> do nothing." - Edmund Burke
>
>Exactly. Which is PRECISELY why I felt the need to try to
>douse some of the flames here. Now you have a choice.
>And that does not mean the only acceptable response is for you
>to agree with me. or kensi.

How about dousing the daily introduction of inflamatory, off-topic
rants about climate change?

>An unacceptable response is to continue supporting ad hominem attacks.
>
>climate science is ultimately physics.

You said above, "physics covers everything." So you would open the
door to everything.

I want to post about a "my little pony" collection in sci.physics
because the texture of their fur has interesting interactions with
light.

Are you okay with that?

Maybe I could post about my trout fishing trip because the boat
demonstrated Archimedes Principle and the tensile strength of the fish
line was interesting. Not to mention the harmonic motion of the
fishing pole.

"climate science is ultimately physics" is an excuse to cave to the
religious agenda of alarmists who apparently don't have enough real
problems of their own to solve.

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

#710543

On Tuesday, October 30, 2018 at 10:56:44 PM UTC-4, Wally W. wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Oct 2018 09:05:05 -0700 (PDT), Edward Prochak wrote:
> 
> >On Tuesday, October 30, 2018 at 12:02:15 AM UTC-4, Wally W. wrote:
[]
> >> It is not "behaving" for kensi to post daily clap trap about climate
> >> change to sci.physics.
> >> 
> >> Wanting "a **radical** plan to slow climate change" is not science, it
> >> is extremism.
> >
> >It is supposed to be a discussion starter. 
> 
> You know this how?

It contains a claim and a reference.
looks like something of interest to discuss.
> 
> If true, I generally don't want to have a discussion with kensi.

You can join or ignore. (If you think kensi is a troll then
follow the maxim: don't feed the trolls).

> I
> want her to stop trying to scare people.

What in the initial post was scary to you?

> 
> >A chance to talk physics.
> 
> If everything is about physics, then we don't need a discussion
> starter.

There are threads for a reason. Within physics there are a
lot of possible topics. 
> 
> Besides, to alarmists: everything is about "climate change."

You read too much into that first post.
> 
> >It might be better of the posts showed articles from physics World
> >for example, but I'm open to discussing climate change in a thoughtful
> >respectable manner.
> 
> Me,too: in the alt.global-warming group. Sometimes here, but kensi's
> daily climate change spew is reminiscent of comparable efforts by Sam
> Wormley. Thankfully, he stopped doing it here.

I liked Sam's posts and similar thread starters.
At least they make some effort. If you don't like those topics
make them read and go on. Better yet, start one your self.

>  
> >> Why is the only acceptable response to roll over?
> >
> >No, the acceptable responses include:
> >analyzing the physics in or referenced by the article
> >to see if it make sense. This can be done from any angle
> >you want to approach it from. just keep it about the science.
> >
> >Ignoring the topic because you are just not interested.
> >
> >> 
> >> On the contrary:
> >> 
> >> "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to
> >> do nothing." - Edmund Burke
> >
> >Exactly. Which is PRECISELY why I felt the need to try to
> >douse some of the flames here. Now you have a choice.
> >And that does not mean the only acceptable response is for you
> >to agree with me. or kensi.
> 
> How about dousing the daily introduction of inflamatory, off-topic
> rants about climate change?

Again what do you think is so inflammatory about:
"Raising animals for food is a major contributor to climate change, 
 responsible for an estimated 14.5 percent of all global emissions:"

How about we analyze the claim without the climate reference:
"Raising animals for food is [] 
 responsible for an estimated 14.5 percent of all global emissions:"

is that claim correct?

> 
> >An unacceptable response is to continue supporting ad hominem attacks.
> >
> >climate science is ultimately physics.
> 
> You said above, "physics covers everything." So you would open the
> door to everything.

you did not complete your sentence:
"...open the door to everything physics related."
where we remember that Ad hominem attacks are not physics. 
> 
> I want to post about a "my little pony" collection in sci.physics
> because the texture of their fur has interesting interactions with
> light.
> 
> Are you okay with that?

Sure. we can discuss how much the interactions obey
classical optics or are quantum related.
Are there be better materials for the fur?

> 
> Maybe I could post about my trout fishing trip because the boat
> demonstrated Archimedes Principle and the tensile strength of the fish
> line was interesting. Not to mention the harmonic motion of the
> fishing pole.

yes. that sounds cool.
> 
> "climate science is ultimately physics" is an excuse to cave to the
> religious agenda of alarmists who apparently don't have enough real
> problems of their own to solve.

Not caving in to alarmists at all. I'm just trying to hear
reasonable discussions. If you have reasons not to talk about
climate change in particular, just ignore the thread.

If you want to talk calmly and scientifically about it,
I suggested earlier about how we could proceed on this thread.

Tomorrow I may just do that, with or without you.

Enjoy,
  Ed

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

#710586

On 10/31/2018 12:42 PM, Edward Prochak wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 30, 2018 at 10:56:44 PM UTC-4, Wally W. wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Oct 2018 09:05:05 -0700 (PDT), Edward Prochak wrote:
>>
>>> On Tuesday, October 30, 2018 at 12:02:15 AM UTC-4, Wally W. wrote:
> []
>>>> It is not "behaving" for kensi to post daily clap trap about climate
>>>> change to sci.physics.
>>>>
>>>> Wanting "a **radical** plan to slow climate change" is not science, it
>>>> is extremism.
>>>
>>> It is supposed to be a discussion starter.
>>
>> You know this how?
> 
> It contains a claim and a reference.
> looks like something of interest to discuss.
>>
>> If true, I generally don't want to have a discussion with kensi.
> 
> You can join or ignore. (If you think kensi is a troll then
> follow the maxim: don't feed the trolls).
> 
>> I
>> want her to stop trying to scare people.
> 
> What in the initial post was scary to you?
> 
>>
>>> A chance to talk physics.
>>
>> If everything is about physics, then we don't need a discussion
>> starter.
> 
> There are threads for a reason. Within physics there are a
> lot of possible topics.
>>
>> Besides, to alarmists: everything is about "climate change."
> 
> You read too much into that first post.
>>
>>> It might be better of the posts showed articles from physics World
>>> for example, but I'm open to discussing climate change in a thoughtful
>>> respectable manner.
>>
>> Me,too: in the alt.global-warming group. Sometimes here, but kensi's
>> daily climate change spew is reminiscent of comparable efforts by Sam
>> Wormley. Thankfully, he stopped doing it here.
> 
> I liked Sam's posts and similar thread starters.
> At least they make some effort. If you don't like those topics
> make them read and go on. Better yet, start one your self.
> 
>>   
>>>> Why is the only acceptable response to roll over?
>>>
>>> No, the acceptable responses include:
>>> analyzing the physics in or referenced by the article
>>> to see if it make sense. This can be done from any angle
>>> you want to approach it from. just keep it about the science.
>>>
>>> Ignoring the topic because you are just not interested.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On the contrary:
>>>>
>>>> "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to
>>>> do nothing." - Edmund Burke
>>>
>>> Exactly. Which is PRECISELY why I felt the need to try to
>>> douse some of the flames here. Now you have a choice.
>>> And that does not mean the only acceptable response is for you
>>> to agree with me. or kensi.
>>
>> How about dousing the daily introduction of inflamatory, off-topic
>> rants about climate change?
> 
> Again what do you think is so inflammatory about:
> "Raising animals for food is a major contributor to climate change,
>   responsible for an estimated 14.5 percent of all global emissions:"
> 
> How about we analyze the claim without the climate reference:
> "Raising animals for food is []
>   responsible for an estimated 14.5 percent of all global emissions:"
> 
> is that claim correct?
> 
>>
>>> An unacceptable response is to continue supporting ad hominem attacks.
>>>
>>> climate science is ultimately physics.
>>
>> You said above, "physics covers everything." So you would open the
>> door to everything.
> 
> you did not complete your sentence:
> "...open the door to everything physics related."
> where we remember that Ad hominem attacks are not physics.
>>
>> I want to post about a "my little pony" collection in sci.physics
>> because the texture of their fur has interesting interactions with
>> light.
>>
>> Are you okay with that?
> 
> Sure. we can discuss how much the interactions obey
> classical optics or are quantum related.
> Are there be better materials for the fur?
> 
>>
>> Maybe I could post about my trout fishing trip because the boat
>> demonstrated Archimedes Principle and the tensile strength of the fish
>> line was interesting. Not to mention the harmonic motion of the
>> fishing pole.
> 
> yes. that sounds cool.
>>
>> "climate science is ultimately physics" is an excuse to cave to the
>> religious agenda of alarmists who apparently don't have enough real
>> problems of their own to solve.
> 
> Not caving in to alarmists at all. I'm just trying to hear
> reasonable discussions. If you have reasons not to talk about
> climate change in particular, just ignore the thread.

There is NO "reasonable discussion" possible about "climate change" so 
long as the chicken little side (you) are only willing to repeat 
propaganda and use all the propaganda tricks to change the subject.

> If you want to talk calmly and scientifically about it,
> I suggested earlier about how we could proceed on this thread.

You start. How about climate change is real and agreed to by vertually 
everyone in science. But "climate change" does NOT mean "anthropogenic 
global warming" is real. That is just a ploy so you can be "right" 
weather the climate goes up or down (it is doing neither as short term 
change is amazingly small)

> Tomorrow I may just do that, with or without you.

We'll wait right her for you to stop the propaganda and begin 
referencing science instead of "journalist science" like "kensi" and 
Nads only do.

Here, How much "global warming" has their been since 1880? You may use 
NASA publications as a reference.

> Enjoy,
>    Ed

We look forward to your new honesty.

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

#710130

Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
On Sun, 28 Oct 2018 12:31:00 -0400, Wally W. wrote:

> On Sun, 28 Oct 2018 10:51:49 -0400, kensi wrote:
> 
>>On 10/27/2018 2:53 PM, Wally W. wrote:
>>> On Sat, 27 Oct 2018 10:20:25 -0400, kensi wrote:
>>>> On 10/27/2018 9:23 AM, Wally W. wrote:
>>>>> Q: Want a radical plan to slow climate change?
>>>>> A: No.
>>>>
>>>> Traitor.
>>> 
>>> There is no disloyalty to anything that matters in rejecting your
>>> misguided and misanthropic religion.
>>
>>I have no religion; I am an atheist. So your argument fails.
> 
> Your wannabe logic fails.
> 
> I didn't mention a diety.

No, you didn't mention a "diety". Whatever that is.

<snicker>

But you did mention religion, which kensi lacks, therefore making you 
automatically wrong.

> Devotion to the AGW "cause" is certainly a fixation on a transcendental
> element.

Don't be ridiculous. There's nothing whatsoever "transcendental" about CO2 
molecules, or heat energy.

> Bu<SMACKAKOOK!>

Go back to playing in the little leagues, troll-let.

-- 
FNVWe Nadegda

"By all means, compare these shitheads to Nazis. Again and again. I'm with 
you." -- Mike Godwin, Aug 13, 2017, 8:03 PM

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

#710294

On Sun, 28 Oct 2018 21:31:27 -0000 (UTC), Nadegda wrote:

>Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
>On Sun, 28 Oct 2018 12:31:00 -0400, Wally W. wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 28 Oct 2018 10:51:49 -0400, kensi wrote:
>> 
>>>On 10/27/2018 2:53 PM, Wally W. wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 27 Oct 2018 10:20:25 -0400, kensi wrote:
>>>>> On 10/27/2018 9:23 AM, Wally W. wrote:
>>>>>> Q: Want a radical plan to slow climate change?
>>>>>> A: No.
>>>>>
>>>>> Traitor.
>>>> 
>>>> There is no disloyalty to anything that matters in rejecting your
>>>> misguided and misanthropic religion.
>>>
>>>I have no religion; I am an atheist. So your argument fails.
>> 
>> Your wannabe logic fails.
>> 
>> I didn't mention a diety.
>
>No, you didn't mention a "diety". Whatever that is.
>
><snicker>
>
>But you did mention religion, which kensi lacks, therefore making you 
>automatically wrong.
>
>> Devotion to the AGW "cause" is certainly a fixation on a transcendental
>> element.
>
>Don't be ridiculous. There's nothing whatsoever "transcendental" about CO2 
>molecules, or heat energy.

But there is about the schadenfreude in "the sky is falling and
everyone *else* is going to die." 
>
>> Bu<SMACKAKOOK!>

Nice follow up to the typo flame. /sarc

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

#710342

On 10/29/2018 11:50 PM, Wally W. wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Oct 2018 21:31:27 -0000 (UTC), Nadegda wrote:
>> On Sun, 28 Oct 2018 12:31:00 -0400, Wally W. wrote:
>>> Devotion to the AGW "cause" is certainly a fixation on a transcendental
>>> element.
>>
>> Don't be ridiculous. There's nothing whatsoever "transcendental" about CO2
>> molecules, or heat energy.
> 
> Bu<SMACKAK00K!>
You were ridiculous again. Nadegda told you to stop that and you didn't 
listen!

-- 
"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] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web