Guest
On Saturday, 9 November 2019 02:42:13 UTC, Bill Sloman wrote:
the fact that so far you've completely failed to get it maybe?
the fact that so far you've completely failed to get it maybe?
OT: An Appeal by everyone's favourite eco-loon, Greta Thunbe
Guest
On Saturday, 9 November 2019 06:41:36 UTC, Michael Terrell wrote:
Is that in fact the only source of evil?
NT
Is that in fact the only source of evil?
NT
Guest
On Saturday, 9 November 2019 12:43:24 UTC, Bill Sloman wrote:
you are truly deeply stupid.
you are truly deeply stupid.
Guest
On Saturday, 9 November 2019 12:42:28 UTC, Bill Sloman wrote:
and that's why you asked it, to give you an excuse to bs about it. Nothing more than a toxic pathological troll.
and that's why you asked it, to give you an excuse to bs about it. Nothing more than a toxic pathological troll.
P
Phil Allison
Guest
Cursitor Doom wrote:
----------------------
** Think there are two possibilities with AGW:
--------------------------------------------
1. The Cruel God Theory.
We poor humans have been sitting on a knife edge for over a million years, with massive amounts of coal, gas and oil under the ground waiting to be used to vasty improve all our lives.
But we can use barley any of the damn stuff cos the CO2 produced thereby will immediately render the planet uninhabitable to punish us.
For what ??
2. Fallible Humans Theory:
The current AGW panic is not well based and driven mostly by folk with hidden agendas. Profits of Doom are not a new phenomenon.
When researchers get alarming results, they are duty bound to publish them - even if only computer model predictions with no history of accuracy.
Once a committee made up of international bureaucrats was given the god like task of deciding if the human race was really in peril - they opted for the least dangerous path, for themselves.
Money poured in for more research and was grabbed with both hands, everyone involved well knowing what was the needed outcome and what was not in order to keep the funds and jobs flowing.
Not a hoax as such, but a predictable phenomenon.
Funny thing how soon as computer climate models were written they predicted disaster.
We would never have known otherwise...
...... Phil
----------------------
** Think there are two possibilities with AGW:
--------------------------------------------
1. The Cruel God Theory.
We poor humans have been sitting on a knife edge for over a million years, with massive amounts of coal, gas and oil under the ground waiting to be used to vasty improve all our lives.
But we can use barley any of the damn stuff cos the CO2 produced thereby will immediately render the planet uninhabitable to punish us.
For what ??
2. Fallible Humans Theory:
The current AGW panic is not well based and driven mostly by folk with hidden agendas. Profits of Doom are not a new phenomenon.
When researchers get alarming results, they are duty bound to publish them - even if only computer model predictions with no history of accuracy.
Once a committee made up of international bureaucrats was given the god like task of deciding if the human race was really in peril - they opted for the least dangerous path, for themselves.
Money poured in for more research and was grabbed with both hands, everyone involved well knowing what was the needed outcome and what was not in order to keep the funds and jobs flowing.
Not a hoax as such, but a predictable phenomenon.
Funny thing how soon as computer climate models were written they predicted disaster.
We would never have known otherwise...
...... Phil
C
Cursitor Doom
Guest
On Sat, 09 Nov 2019 11:34:11 -0800, tabbypurr wrote:
> you are truly deeply stupid.
He is indeed. As is his wing man, 3rd-wit (less than a half-wit). I've
posted peer-reviewed, incontrovertible documentary evidence here to show
that the level of CO2 in the atmosphere has remained constant at 400ppm
for well over 100 years. And did they even bother to read it? No! They
dismissed it just as they always do with anything that challenges their
set-in-stone world-view. And all they do is demand I post more evidence
for them to airily dismiss. I've got better things to do than waste my
valuable time on this pair of fools.
--
This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via
the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other
protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of
GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet
protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.
> you are truly deeply stupid.
He is indeed. As is his wing man, 3rd-wit (less than a half-wit). I've
posted peer-reviewed, incontrovertible documentary evidence here to show
that the level of CO2 in the atmosphere has remained constant at 400ppm
for well over 100 years. And did they even bother to read it? No! They
dismissed it just as they always do with anything that challenges their
set-in-stone world-view. And all they do is demand I post more evidence
for them to airily dismiss. I've got better things to do than waste my
valuable time on this pair of fools.
--
This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via
the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other
protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of
GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet
protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.
C
Cursitor Doom
Guest
On Sat, 09 Nov 2019 05:41:10 -0800, tabbypurr wrote:
Aha! Well done. Let's see if we can get this to go viral on Twitter as an
internet meme: #BSSBS
:-D
--
This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via
the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other
protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of
GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet
protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.
Aha! Well done. Let's see if we can get this to go viral on Twitter as an
internet meme: #BSSBS
:-D
--
This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via
the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other
protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of
GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet
protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.
C
Cursitor Doom
Guest
On Sat, 09 Nov 2019 11:19:52 -0800, tabbypurr wrote:
LOL! So long as you're happy that's fine, then.
--
This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via
the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other
protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of
GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet
protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.
LOL! So long as you're happy that's fine, then.
--
This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via
the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other
protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of
GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet
protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.
C
Cursitor Doom
Guest
On Sat, 09 Nov 2019 11:28:55 -0800, tabbypurr wrote:
Quite. I've often thought that quote was highly defective.
--
This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via
the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other
protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of
GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet
protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.
Quite. I've often thought that quote was highly defective.
--
This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via
the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other
protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of
GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet
protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.
B
Bill Sloman
Guest
On Sunday, November 10, 2019 at 6:34:15 AM UTC+11, tabb...@gmail.com wrote:
Another gullible twit chimes in.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Another gullible twit chimes in.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
M
Michael Terrell
Guest
On Saturday, November 9, 2019 at 2:29:00 PM UTC-5, tabb...@gmail.com wrote:
Do you know of any that isn't based on greed?
Do you know of any that isn't based on greed?
B
Bill Sloman
Guest
On Sunday, November 10, 2019 at 6:32:40 AM UTC+11, tabb...@gmail.com wrote:
No. I asked for it because it's a reasonable reaction to a vague and unspecific (and - as it happens - wrong) assertion.
The fact that he wasn't going to deliver is and was predictable and diagnostic.
Cursitor Doom was being the same pathological troll that he always is. The fact that you don't seem to realise this (or at least won't admit it) puts you in the same category.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
No. I asked for it because it's a reasonable reaction to a vague and unspecific (and - as it happens - wrong) assertion.
The fact that he wasn't going to deliver is and was predictable and diagnostic.
Cursitor Doom was being the same pathological troll that he always is. The fact that you don't seem to realise this (or at least won't admit it) puts you in the same category.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
B
Bill Sloman
Guest
On Sunday, November 10, 2019 at 6:24:10 AM UTC+11, tabb...@gmail.com wrote:
Only NT could be silly enough to think that.
He does do the pretentious clown to perfection.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Only NT could be silly enough to think that.
He does do the pretentious clown to perfection.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
W
whit3rd
Guest
On Saturday, November 9, 2019 at 2:06:57 PM UTC-8, Cursitor Doom wrote:
W
whit3rd
Guest
On Saturday, November 9, 2019 at 4:13:35 AM UTC-8, Cursitor Doom wrote:
Oh, that's normal; an irrational individual will usually flee the subject if
his delusion is held up for examination. It's called 'fugue'. First
it was the 'evidence is hard' excuse, now it's 'arguments are pointless';
the reference to Hitler is a step or two away.
At one point, a (relatively sane) individual, Bernie Madoff, admitted "There is no innocent explanation".
Oh, that's normal; an irrational individual will usually flee the subject if
his delusion is held up for examination. It's called 'fugue'. First
it was the 'evidence is hard' excuse, now it's 'arguments are pointless';
the reference to Hitler is a step or two away.
At one point, a (relatively sane) individual, Bernie Madoff, admitted "There is no innocent explanation".
W
whit3rd
Guest
On Saturday, November 9, 2019 at 2:06:57 PM UTC-8, Cursitor Doom wrote:
Nonsense, that was just a single reported measurement, devoid of error
estimate, and recorded at no known conditions and/or location.
The 'peer review' result: no one nowadays cites that measurement for
any serious purpose. It isn't a meaningful survey of the Earth's atmosphere
at all, and the fact that the paper under it is yellow does NOT make it
an ancient truth. Yeah, it's peer-reviewed: the peers panned it.
There's a complete record in ice (trapped bubbles) that far exceeds the
significance of that tired bit of paper, and there's LOTS of ice; you can repeat
the historic measurements yourself if you have any doubt.
Good thing I've got a long-ish memory, your lack of a repeat of the
citation would have fooled folk if I hadn't recalled it.
Nonsense, that was just a single reported measurement, devoid of error
estimate, and recorded at no known conditions and/or location.
The 'peer review' result: no one nowadays cites that measurement for
any serious purpose. It isn't a meaningful survey of the Earth's atmosphere
at all, and the fact that the paper under it is yellow does NOT make it
an ancient truth. Yeah, it's peer-reviewed: the peers panned it.
There's a complete record in ice (trapped bubbles) that far exceeds the
significance of that tired bit of paper, and there's LOTS of ice; you can repeat
the historic measurements yourself if you have any doubt.
Good thing I've got a long-ish memory, your lack of a repeat of the
citation would have fooled folk if I hadn't recalled it.
W
whit3rd
Guest
On Saturday, November 9, 2019 at 2:34:22 PM UTC-8, Phil Allison wrote:
<gibberish deleted> --We were tossed out of Eden and told to work it
for ourselves, according to many monotheistic religions, so there's no cruelty required.
Thousands of humans, spread around the world, for decades, and 'hidden'?
Not remotely credible. And worse, thousands of scientists, not telling everyone
everything they know? That's contrary to human nature.
Better come up with a third theory, the first two are neither credible nor useful in
any kind of plan for our future on Earth.
<gibberish deleted> --We were tossed out of Eden and told to work it
for ourselves, according to many monotheistic religions, so there's no cruelty required.
Thousands of humans, spread around the world, for decades, and 'hidden'?
Not remotely credible. And worse, thousands of scientists, not telling everyone
everything they know? That's contrary to human nature.
Better come up with a third theory, the first two are neither credible nor useful in
any kind of plan for our future on Earth.
C
Cursitor Doom
Guest
On Sat, 09 Nov 2019 16:30:14 -0800, Michael Terrell wrote:
> Do you know of any that isn't based on greed?
Sadism?
--
This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via
the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other
protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of
GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet
protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.
> Do you know of any that isn't based on greed?
Sadism?
--
This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via
the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other
protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of
GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet
protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.
C
Cursitor Doom
Guest
On Sat, 09 Nov 2019 19:48:29 -0800, whit3rd wrote:
Your "long-ish memory" appears highly selective. I wasn't referring to a
snippet from an old book.
--
This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via
the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other
protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of
GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet
protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.
Your "long-ish memory" appears highly selective. I wasn't referring to a
snippet from an old book.
--
This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via
the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other
protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of
GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet
protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.
C
Cursitor Doom
Guest
On Sat, 09 Nov 2019 19:32:24 -0800, whit3rd wrote:
"Arguments are pointless" - yes indeed they are - when your opponent is
one Bill Sloman.
> the reference to Hitler is a step or two away.
???
You're bonkers.
--
This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via
the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other
protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of
GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet
protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.
"Arguments are pointless" - yes indeed they are - when your opponent is
one Bill Sloman.
> the reference to Hitler is a step or two away.
???
You're bonkers.
--
This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via
the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other
protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of
GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet
protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.