C
Commander Kinsey
Guest
On Fri, 17 Jun 2022 10:17:39 +0100, whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote:
Which part do you not agree with? Governments or stupid?
Which part do you not agree with? Governments or stupid?
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
C
Commander Kinsey
Guest
On Wed, 15 Jun 2022 19:06:59 +0100, whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote:
What makes you think what I said was an excuse, I stated a fact. In fact, fuck you, I can\'t be bothered with the likes of you, you\'re a moronic individual no better than religious nuts. I tried to have an intelligent conversation with you, but like all the alarmists, you claim everything said against you is wrong without giving reasoning. Forget it.
On Monday, June 13, 2022 at 11:23:37 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jun 2022 02:04:51 +0100, whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 5:23:16 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
We can be more and more accurate with more power and more understanding.
Denial isn\'t improved with lame excuses like that. It\'ll be true forever, in any
situation, but has no logical connection to any current decision.
What makes you think what I said was an excuse, I stated a fact. In fact, fuck you, I can\'t be bothered with the likes of you, you\'re a moronic individual no better than religious nuts. I tried to have an intelligent conversation with you, but like all the alarmists, you claim everything said against you is wrong without giving reasoning. Forget it.
W
whit3rd
Guest
On Friday, June 17, 2022 at 12:36:26 AM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
False, if as you suggest \'back then\' is a couple of centuries.
The time of \'far more CO2\' was before humanity evolved, by over 100 million years, and did not support
any of the plants of today. Whether it would be a problem for people, or modern plants,
is definitely NOT known.
Where did you get the idea that \'there was far more CO2 back then\'? IPCC wouldn\'t have told
you wrong, but someone did.
On Fri, 17 Jun 2022 08:09:19 +0100, whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, June 16, 2022 at 11:47:53 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jun 2022 07:44:36 +0100, whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, June 16, 2022 at 11:13:03 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jun 2022 07:11:34 +0100, whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
You\'re waffling utter nonsense. The CO2 was in the air, it got buried, we\'re putting it back. Where in that is a problem?
Get your glasses, and READ what I wrote. The elements of the carbon cycling aren\'t nonexistent, it\'s the
\"CO2 in the atmosphere that is out of control\" and increasing.
Just what do you think was in the air before oil/coal/gas were created?
What time \'before oil/...\' exactly are you referring to? The question makes no sense without some context.
The question was quite clear. When oil/coal/gas was created, from dead plants and animals. Those plants and animals were just fine obviously.
Oh, you mean in a time when plants and animals had been around for eons? There was CO2 in the atmosphere
(from vulcanism) long before that. Gas eventually bleeds off into space, though, and is replaced slowly.
Air up high is cold. CO2 is opaque to important infrared (invisible) colors that act to shed heat into
space, and when there\'s not much of it, it radiates from warm lower elevations in the atmosphere. When
there\'s more of it, it radiates from cold upper parts of the atmosphere (because it\'s opaque, lower-atmosphere
heat doesn\'t escape into cold space).
Human history had 200- 250 ppm of CO2, and comparable total atmospheric pressure as today.
until a century or two ago (coal and the age of steam). Why do you ask?
There was far more CO2 back then than there is now, it did not cause a problem, it\'s as simple as that. Stop adding more unnecessary information.
False, if as you suggest \'back then\' is a couple of centuries.
The time of \'far more CO2\' was before humanity evolved, by over 100 million years, and did not support
any of the plants of today. Whether it would be a problem for people, or modern plants,
is definitely NOT known.
Where did you get the idea that \'there was far more CO2 back then\'? IPCC wouldn\'t have told
you wrong, but someone did.
W
whit3rd
Guest
On Friday, June 17, 2022 at 2:30:44 AM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
Both. IPCC is a respectable scientific institution, in Switzerland, and is
not the UN which is a collective of governments, meeting in New York city.
On Fri, 17 Jun 2022 10:17:39 +0100, whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, June 17, 2022 at 12:38:33 AM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jun 2022 08:31:57 +0100, whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, June 16, 2022 at 11:49:49 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jun 2022 07:29:08 +0100, whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, June 16, 2022 at 10:52:44 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
I don\'t rely on any info from anyone except myself. People say things for money, political reasoning, etc.
Not the IPCC; there\'s hundreds of different polities that needed an independent advisor, so
the UN created that group. Your \'political reasoning\' doesn\'t apply to their work on global warming,
such a broad group would never agree on any one political principle.
They\'re the last people I\'d trust. Would that be the same sort of group that thinks it\'s ok to retaliate to a violent war with just sanctions?
Worst reasoning ever. IPCC isn\'t informed by political pressure from UN, it\'s independence
IS A POLICY that all UN nations have an interest in enforcing.
IPCC earned a Nobel prize (2007), and you call them \'same sort of group...\' as
though that\'s an insight? It\'s a baseless slur, but worse: it\'s thoughtless.
It\'s a collection of stupid governments, which multiplies the stupidity. The more people in a committee, the stupider the outcome. None of them are thinking based on common sense or science, they\'re all thinking what will make them look good. Any government rejecting climate change will be booed at.
No, IPCC is not \'a collection of stupid governments\'. Every conclusion that you
derive from that premise is worthless.
Which part do you not agree with? Governments or stupid?
Both. IPCC is a respectable scientific institution, in Switzerland, and is
not the UN which is a collective of governments, meeting in New York city.
A
Anthony William Sloman
Guest
On Friday, June 17, 2022 at 7:52:44 AM UTC+2, Commander Kinsey wrote:
It\'s even older than that - it dates from the construction of the first railways in England. It wasn\'t any kind of science-based opinion, even then.
But people with more sense than you - which would be a bout 95% of the population - have enough sense to winnow through the opinions, and sort out the ones that are likely to be impartial and reliable. Your own capacity to collect and process information is extremely limited - as evidence by the truly moronic opinions you post here. You need a minder, but are much to much of an offensive creep to get the help you clearly need.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
On Tue, 14 Jun 2022 06:06:34 +0100, whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, June 13, 2022 at 8:54:37 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 03:07:15 +0100, whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
No BS here; the uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics means that unpredictibility
is an absolute feature of our universe.
Until we find otherwise. Remember, it used to be thought we couldn\'t travel over about 40mph without damaging our bodies.
No, I don\'t remember any such thing. Barney Olds didn\'t believe that, certainly!
It was a long time ago, around the time they were making cars that did that sort of speed. Presumably you\'re not old enough to remember that.
It\'s even older than that - it dates from the construction of the first railways in England. It wasn\'t any kind of science-based opinion, even then.
I\'m not gonna rely on anything less than the best info available, and I\'d advise you to do likewise.
I don\'t rely on any info from anyone except myself. People say things for money, political reasoning, etc.
But people with more sense than you - which would be a bout 95% of the population - have enough sense to winnow through the opinions, and sort out the ones that are likely to be impartial and reliable. Your own capacity to collect and process information is extremely limited - as evidence by the truly moronic opinions you post here. You need a minder, but are much to much of an offensive creep to get the help you clearly need.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
A
Anthony William Sloman
Guest
On Friday, June 17, 2022 at 8:49:49 AM UTC+2, Commander Kinsey wrote:
Except that they didn\'t. It was claimed by a few when the first railroads were set up around 1830. The trains rapidly got fast enough to prove that it was total nonsense, as had been obvious to better informed anyway.
But you are one of the most ill-informed people posting stuff here. You\'d be wise to find a more reliable source of information, but you are clearly ill-equipped to do that.
The IPCC is a bunch of climate experts, selected for their expertise on climate. That means that thye have published useful scientific papers on the subject, designed to create a coherent - which is to say - self-consistent body of knowledge on that subject. They are not asked for their opinion on the correct reaction to Russia\'s invasion of the Ukraine and would be relucant to give one because they haven\'t specialised in that particular area.
> They\'re the last people I\'d trust.
Who cares who you would trust? You clearly can\'t be bothered to think for yourself, and latch onto the first idea that lodges in your head.
>Would that be the same sort of group that thinks it\'s ok to retaliate to a violent war with just sanctions?
Clearly not. The IPCC is a group of experts on climate science. They exist to advise the politicians (and publish their advice so that everybody can read it).
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
On Fri, 17 Jun 2022 07:29:08 +0100, whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, June 16, 2022 at 10:52:44 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jun 2022 06:06:34 +0100, whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, June 13, 2022 at 8:54:37 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
... Remember, it used to be thought we couldn\'t travel over about 40mph without damaging our bodies.
No, I don\'t remember any such thing. Barney Olds didn\'t believe that, certainly!
It was a long time ago, around the time they were making cars that did that sort of speed. Presumably you\'re not old enough to remember that.
Yeah, it was Barney Oldfield who broke the minute mile in 1903.
And before then they thought you couldn\'t go that fast without dying. So clearly although we always think we know everything, there\'s always more to learn.
Except that they didn\'t. It was claimed by a few when the first railroads were set up around 1830. The trains rapidly got fast enough to prove that it was total nonsense, as had been obvious to better informed anyway.
I\'m not gonna rely on anything less than the best info available, and I\'d advise you to do likewise.
I don\'t rely on any info from anyone except myself. People say things for money, political reasoning, etc.
But you are one of the most ill-informed people posting stuff here. You\'d be wise to find a more reliable source of information, but you are clearly ill-equipped to do that.
Not the IPCC; there\'s hundreds of different polities that needed an independent advisor, so
the UN created that group. Your \'political reasoning\' doesn\'t apply to their work on global warming,
such a broad group would never agree on any one political principle.
The IPCC is a bunch of climate experts, selected for their expertise on climate. That means that thye have published useful scientific papers on the subject, designed to create a coherent - which is to say - self-consistent body of knowledge on that subject. They are not asked for their opinion on the correct reaction to Russia\'s invasion of the Ukraine and would be relucant to give one because they haven\'t specialised in that particular area.
> They\'re the last people I\'d trust.
Who cares who you would trust? You clearly can\'t be bothered to think for yourself, and latch onto the first idea that lodges in your head.
>Would that be the same sort of group that thinks it\'s ok to retaliate to a violent war with just sanctions?
Clearly not. The IPCC is a group of experts on climate science. They exist to advise the politicians (and publish their advice so that everybody can read it).
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
J
jaouad zarrabi
Guest
El viernes, 17 de junio de 2022 a las 13:19:32 UTC+2, bill....@ieee.org escribió:
- Over 1,000 Different Products
- Cash & Bullion Account
- Attractive Prices
- Quick & Easy
-Tax Free Bullion
- Financial Strength
- Global Reach
- Multi-Jurisdiction
https://www.bullionstar.com/?r=27869
BullionStar is Singapore\'s Premier Bullion DealerOn Friday, June 17, 2022 at 8:49:49 AM UTC+2, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jun 2022 07:29:08 +0100, whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, June 16, 2022 at 10:52:44 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jun 2022 06:06:34 +0100, whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, June 13, 2022 at 8:54:37 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
... Remember, it used to be thought we couldn\'t travel over about 40mph without damaging our bodies.
No, I don\'t remember any such thing. Barney Olds didn\'t believe that, certainly!
It was a long time ago, around the time they were making cars that did that sort of speed. Presumably you\'re not old enough to remember that.
Yeah, it was Barney Oldfield who broke the minute mile in 1903.
And before then they thought you couldn\'t go that fast without dying. So clearly although we always think we know everything, there\'s always more to learn.
Except that they didn\'t. It was claimed by a few when the first railroads were set up around 1830. The trains rapidly got fast enough to prove that it was total nonsense, as had been obvious to better informed anyway.
I\'m not gonna rely on anything less than the best info available, and I\'d advise you to do likewise.
I don\'t rely on any info from anyone except myself. People say things for money, political reasoning, etc.
But you are one of the most ill-informed people posting stuff here. You\'d be wise to find a more reliable source of information, but you are clearly ill-equipped to do that.
Not the IPCC; there\'s hundreds of different polities that needed an independent advisor, so
the UN created that group. Your \'political reasoning\' doesn\'t apply to their work on global warming,
such a broad group would never agree on any one political principle.
The IPCC is a bunch of climate experts, selected for their expertise on climate. That means that thye have published useful scientific papers on the subject, designed to create a coherent - which is to say - self-consistent body of knowledge on that subject. They are not asked for their opinion on the correct reaction to Russia\'s invasion of the Ukraine and would be relucant to give one because they haven\'t specialised in that particular area.
They\'re the last people I\'d trust.
Who cares who you would trust? You clearly can\'t be bothered to think for yourself, and latch onto the first idea that lodges in your head.
Would that be the same sort of group that thinks it\'s ok to retaliate to a violent war with just sanctions?
Clearly not. The IPCC is a group of experts on climate science. They exist to advise the politicians (and publish their advice so that everybody can read it).
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
- Over 1,000 Different Products
- Cash & Bullion Account
- Attractive Prices
- Quick & Easy
-Tax Free Bullion
- Financial Strength
- Global Reach
- Multi-Jurisdiction
https://www.bullionstar.com/?r=27869