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

Groups > sci.physics > #710586

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

Show all headers | View raw

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.

Back to sci.physics | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

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

csiph-web