Snit wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Right. But even the ones that work for the petroleum industry stopped
their denial of man-made global climate change.

No they didnt and plenty who do deny man-made
global climate change arent paid to do that.

They did drop their denial.

Nope, plenty didnt.

Here is their current page on the topic:

https://www.api.org/oil-and-natural-...climate-change

There isnt just one group of them.

There are those that still do -- I meant their "scientific" group.

Are there others still in denial?

Corse there are.

As far as those who deny it, there are about 70 scientists people point
to,
many of them dead, and several of whom are not even experts in the
field.

What matters is the evidence with science, not individuals.

Correct: though the experts will generally side with the evidence (if they
did not they would not be the experts!)

Problem is that the evidence changes, particularly with the
recent less than predicted rate of world temperature change.

At this point there is no internationally recognized scientific group
that still denies the evidence.

Science isnt about voting. At one time the vast majority of scientists
denied free radicals but then the evidence showed that they are real.

If the evidence showed it then over time the view of most scientists
likely changed. It is not like our knowledge does not grow.

And thats just as true of purported man made climate change.

Its obvious that climate does change, thats obvious from
the ice ages etc, but its much less clear how much of the
change we have seen is man made. It wasnt that long ago
that most scientists were hyperventilating about global cooling.

Yes, we can certainly measure a substantial hike in atmospheric
CO2 levels, but its much less clear how much effect that actually
has on world temperatures, let alone climate change.

And its even less clear whether lots more 'renewable' energy
will make any useful difference to world climate of whether
it makes much more sense to have lots more nukes and
dramatically reduce the addition to world CO2 levels and
stop wasting fossil fuels on power generation now that it
is clear that we are consuming them at a far greater rate
than they are being laid down.

On Apr 16, 2021 at 4:10:43 PM MST, ""Rod Speed"" wrote
:
....

What matters is the evidence with science, not individuals.

Correct: though the experts will generally side with the evidence (if they
did not they would not be the experts!)

Problem is that the evidence changes, particularly with the
recent less than predicted rate of world temperature change.

Do you mean the hand picked specific areas where it was less even as the world
beat the predictions?



At this point there is no internationally recognized scientific group
that still denies the evidence.

Science isnt about voting. At one time the vast majority of scientists
denied free radicals but then the evidence showed that they are real.

If the evidence showed it then over time the view of most scientists
likely changed. It is not like our knowledge does not grow.

And thats just as true of purported man made climate change.

Yes, we keep leaning more.

Its obvious that climate does change, thats obvious from
the ice ages etc, but its much less clear how much of the
change we have seen is man made.

The models show it to be between about 95% and 105% if I recall correctly. So,
yes, there is some disagreement.

It wasnt that long ago
that most scientists were hyperventilating about global cooling.

"Never" was neither long ago nor not long ago. It did not happen.

Yes, we can certainly measure a substantial hike in atmospheric
CO2 levels, but its much less clear how much effect that actually
has on world temperatures, let alone climate change.

We can quibble over exact amounts but there is no question it accounts for a
huge percentage of the warming we see.

And its even less clear whether lots more 'renewable' energy
will make any useful difference to world climate of whether
it makes much more sense to have lots more nukes and
dramatically reduce the addition to world CO2 levels and
stop wasting fossil fuels on power generation now that it
is clear that we are consuming them at a far greater rate
than they are being laid down.

Solar is not perfect but it is a lot less harmful.

--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot
use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow
superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

Snit wrote
Rod Speed wrote

What matters is the evidence with science, not individuals.

Correct: though the experts will generally side with the evidence (if
they did not they would not be the experts!)

Problem is that the evidence changes, particularly with the
recent less than predicted rate of world temperature change.

Do you mean the hand picked specific areas where it was less even as the
world beat the predictions?

Nope, the world as a whole didnt beat predictions.

At this point there is no internationally recognized scientific group
that still denies the evidence.

Science isnt about voting. At one time the vast majority of scientists
denied free radicals but then the evidence showed that they are real.

If the evidence showed it then over time the view of most scientists
likely changed. It is not like our knowledge does not grow.

And thats just as true of purported man made climate change.

Yes, we keep leaning more.

And we are finding that we cant predict what the world climate will do.

Its obvious that climate does change, thats obvious from the ice ages
etc, but its much less clear how much of the change we have seen is man
made.

The models show it to be between about 95% and 105% if I recall correctly.

Thats bull**** and the models clearly dont predict what actually
happened, so the models are clearly a long way from being useful.

So, yes, there is some disagreement.

And they are hopeless at predicting what will happen. .

It wasnt that long ago that most scientists were hyperventilating about
global cooling.

"Never" was neither long ago nor not long ago. It did not happen.

Bull****. Same with the mindless hyperventilation about world population.

Yes, we can certainly measure a substantial hike in atmospheric
CO2 levels, but its much less clear how much effect that actually
has on world temperatures, let alone climate change.

We can quibble over exact amounts but there is no question it accounts for
a huge percentage of the warming we see.

Thats mindless bull**** too. We havent in fact seen anything
even remotely like the same effect on world climate as we
have measured in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

And its even less clear whether lots more 'renewable' energy
will make any useful difference to world climate or whether
it makes much more sense to have lots more nukes and
dramatically reduce the addition to world CO2 levels and
stop wasting fossil fuels on power generation now that it
is clear that we are consuming them at a far greater rate
than they are being laid down.

Solar is not perfect but it is a lot less harmful.

Nukes arent harmful. And solar ****s power distribution
and isnt useful at higher latitudes and is ****ed in the
sense that its only useful for part of the day even at the
lower latitudes.

On 2021-04-17, Rod Speed wrote:
Snit wrote
Rod Speed wrote

What matters is the evidence with science, not individuals.

Correct: though the experts will generally side with the evidence (if
they did not they would not be the experts!)

Problem is that the evidence changes, particularly with the
recent less than predicted rate of world temperature change.

Do you mean the hand picked specific areas where it was less even as the
world beat the predictions?

Nope, the world as a whole didnt beat predictions.

At this point there is no internationally recognized scientific group
that still denies the evidence.

Science isnt about voting. At one time the vast majority of scientists
denied free radicals but then the evidence showed that they are real.

If the evidence showed it then over time the view of most scientists
likely changed. It is not like our knowledge does not grow.

And thats just as true of purported man made climate change.

Yes, we keep leaning more.

And we are finding that we cant predict what the world climate will do.

Its obvious that climate does change, thats obvious from the ice ages
etc, but its much less clear how much of the change we have seen is man
made.

The models show it to be between about 95% and 105% if I recall correctly.

Thats bull**** and the models clearly dont predict what actually
happened, so the models are clearly a long way from being useful.

So, yes, there is some disagreement.

And they are hopeless at predicting what will happen. .

It wasnt that long ago that most scientists were hyperventilating about
global cooling.

"Never" was neither long ago nor not long ago. It did not happen.

Bull****. Same with the mindless hyperventilation about world population.

Yes, we can certainly measure a substantial hike in atmospheric
CO2 levels, but its much less clear how much effect that actually
has on world temperatures, let alone climate change.

We can quibble over exact amounts but there is no question it accounts for
a huge percentage of the warming we see.

Thats mindless bull**** too. We havent in fact seen anything
even remotely like the same effect on world climate as we
have measured in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

And its even less clear whether lots more 'renewable' energy
will make any useful difference to world climate or whether
it makes much more sense to have lots more nukes and
dramatically reduce the addition to world CO2 levels and
stop wasting fossil fuels on power generation now that it
is clear that we are consuming them at a far greater rate
than they are being laid down.

Solar is not perfect but it is a lot less harmful.

Nukes arent harmful. And solar ****s power distribution
and isnt useful at higher latitudes and is ****ed in the
sense that its only useful for part of the day even at the
lower latitudes.

Just in case you are not aware, you are replying to one of USENET's most
prolific trolls. The snit Michael Glasser troll.

See the links in my siggie for details regarding this waste of skin.


--
pothead
Tommy Chong For President 2024
Lifetime Member of "The Prescott Parasite Eradication Team"
All about snit read below. Links courtesy of Ron:
https://web.archive.org/web/20181028....com/snit.html
https://web.archive.org/web/20190529.../snitlist.html
https://web.archive.org/web/20190529...ieMethods.html

On Apr 16, 2021 at 5:28:10 PM MST, ""Rod Speed"" wrote
:

Snit wrote
Rod Speed wrote

What matters is the evidence with science, not individuals.

Correct: though the experts will generally side with the evidence (if
they did not they would not be the experts!)

Problem is that the evidence changes, particularly with the
recent less than predicted rate of world temperature change.

Do you mean the hand picked specific areas where it was less even as the
world beat the predictions?

Nope, the world as a whole didnt beat predictions.

Would love to see the peer reviewed research you are referring to. Usually
when I hear people speak of this type stuff they mean this debunked info:

https://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2893/n...-isnt-cooling/

But happy to see what you have.

At this point there is no internationally recognized scientific group
that still denies the evidence.

Science isnt about voting. At one time the vast majority of scientists
denied free radicals but then the evidence showed that they are real.

If the evidence showed it then over time the view of most scientists
likely changed. It is not like our knowledge does not grow.

And thats just as true of purported man made climate change.

Yes, we keep leaning more.

And we are finding that we cant predict what the world climate will do.

Not with exact specificity but we have very good models.


https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/s...ections-right/

Where are you hearing otherwise?



Its obvious that climate does change, thats obvious from the ice ages
etc, but its much less clear how much of the change we have seen is man
made.

The models show it to be between about 95% and 105% if I recall correctly.

Thats bull**** and the models clearly dont predict what actually
happened, so the models are clearly a long way from being useful.

Again: source?

This says 110%... but I have seen a few percent above and below:


https://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...-judith-curry/

So, yes, there is some disagreement.

And they are hopeless at predicting what will happen. .

The evidence says otherwise.

It wasnt that long ago that most scientists were hyperventilating about
global cooling.

"Never" was neither long ago nor not long ago. It did not happen.

Bull****. Same with the mindless hyperventilation about world population.

Of course you have a source, right?

Most times people refer to a single Times story... and it was not even
accurate.


https://www.factcheck.org/2015/03/cr...h-and-galileo/

Yes, we can certainly measure a substantial hike in atmospheric
CO2 levels, but its much less clear how much effect that actually
has on world temperatures, let alone climate change.

We can quibble over exact amounts but there is no question it accounts for
a huge percentage of the warming we see.

Thats mindless bull**** too. We havent in fact seen anything
even remotely like the same effect on world climate as we
have measured in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Again: source?

And its even less clear whether lots more 'renewable' energy
will make any useful difference to world climate or whether
it makes much more sense to have lots more nukes and
dramatically reduce the addition to world CO2 levels and
stop wasting fossil fuels on power generation now that it
is clear that we are consuming them at a far greater rate
than they are being laid down.

Solar is not perfect but it is a lot less harmful.

Nukes arent harmful.

I assume you mean nuclear power. It is an option -- but we do not have a good
way to deal with the fallout. I mean the spent rods. The current plan of
burying them in the most seismically active mountain range is pretty daft. And
look at Russia and Japan for the issues it can cause.

But it is true no solution is without risk. Even solar has risks with the
building.

And solar ****s power distribution
and isnt useful at higher latitudes and is ****ed in the
sense that its only useful for part of the day even at the
lower latitudes.

That is complete and utter nonsense. Look at Germany.

Please try to use evidence.

--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot
use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow
superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

Snit wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Snit wrote
Rod Speed wrote

What matters is the evidence with science, not individuals.

Correct: though the experts will generally side with the evidence (if
they did not they would not be the experts!)

Problem is that the evidence changes, particularly with the
recent less than predicted rate of world temperature change.

Do you mean the hand picked specific areas where it was less even as the
world beat the predictions?

Nope, the world as a whole didnt beat predictions.

Would love to see the peer reviewed research you are referring to.

You're the one that needs to provide that
given you claim it exceeded predictions.

Usually when I hear people speak of this type stuff they mean this
debunked info:

https://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2893/n...-isnt-cooling/

But happy to see what you have.

See above.

At this point there is no internationally recognized scientific
group that still denies the evidence.

Science isnt about voting. At one time the vast majority of
scientists denied free radicals but then the evidence showed that
they are real.

If the evidence showed it then over time the view of most scientists
likely changed. It is not like our knowledge does not grow.

And thats just as true of purported man made climate change.

Yes, we keep leaning more.

And we are finding that we cant predict what the world climate will do.

Not with exact specificity but we have very good models.

Bull**** we do prediction wise.

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/s...ections-right/

Thats bull****. They arent in fact doing anything of the sort.

Where are you hearing otherwise?

Observing that the predictions are way off.

Its obvious that climate does change, thats obvious from the ice ages
etc, but its much less clear how much of the change we have seen is man
made.

The models show it to be between about 95% and 105% if I recall
correctly.

Thats bull**** and the models clearly dont predict what actually
happened, so the models are clearly a long way from being useful.

Again: source?

Again, you are the one that needs to provide the source.

This says 110%... but I have seen a few percent above and below:

https://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...-judith-curry/

Thats bull****.

So, yes, there is some disagreement.

And they are hopeless at predicting what will happen. .

The evidence says otherwise.

Bull**** it does with the last decade.

It wasnt that long ago that most scientists were hyperventilating
about global cooling.

"Never" was neither long ago nor not long ago. It did not happen.

Bull****. Same with the mindless hyperventilation about world population.

Of course you have a source, right?

You dont have one yourself.

Most times people refer to a single Times story... and it was not even
accurate.

https://www.factcheck.org/2015/03/cr...h-and-galileo/

More bull****.

Yes, we can certainly measure a substantial hike in atmospheric
CO2 levels, but its much less clear how much effect that actually
has on world temperatures, let alone climate change.

We can quibble over exact amounts but there is no question it accounts
for a huge percentage of the warming we see.

Thats mindless bull**** too. We havent in fact seen anything
even remotely like the same effect on world climate as we
have measured in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Again: source?

Dont need one with such a dramatic difference.

And its even less clear whether lots more 'renewable' energy
will make any useful difference to world climate or whether
it makes much more sense to have lots more nukes and
dramatically reduce the addition to world CO2 levels and
stop wasting fossil fuels on power generation now that it
is clear that we are consuming them at a far greater rate
than they are being laid down.

Solar is not perfect but it is a lot less harmful.

Nukes arent harmful.

I assume you mean nuclear power.

Yep.

It is an option --

It is in fact the only viable approach if you believe
that atmospheric CO2 levels are a problem.

but we do not have a good way to deal with the fallout. I mean the spent
rods.

We have always had a good way to deal with
those, reprocess them into new nuke fuel.

The only reason we dont do that at the moment is
because its cheaper to dig up more uranium etc.

The current plan of burying them in the most seismically active mountain
range is pretty daft.

Yes, it makes no sense to bury them anywhere.
It makes lots of sense to reprocess them into
new nuke fuel once that is cheaper than digging
up more uranium. **** all of the original fuel rod
is actually consumed.

And look at Russia and Japan for the issues it can cause.

Nothing like that happened in France and Germany or the USA.
So do nukes that way instead of ****ing up like both those have
done. The west has never been stupid enough to do nukes the
way that russia has, or stupid enough to put the backup generators
where they can be flooded by a tsunami like the stupid japs did.

But it is true no solution is without risk. Even solar has risks with the
building.

And the massive downside of not being useful at high
latitudes and for a large chunk of every day even at
low latitudes. Nukes work fine in both situations and
in fact the waste heat is useful at high latitudes.

And solar ****s power distribution and isnt useful at higher latitudes
and is ****ed in the
sense that its only useful for part of the day even at the lower
latitudes.

That is complete and utter nonsense.

Bull**** it is.

Look at Germany.

Which was actually stupid enough to shut
down perfectly viable nukes and replace
them with burning by far the dirtiest coal
available and which has by far the most
expensive electricity around, because
they have been that stupid.

Please try to use evidence.

That is the evidence that solar is ****ed compared with nukes.

On Apr 16, 2021 at 8:25:29 PM MST, ""Rod Speed"" wrote
:

Snit wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Snit wrote
Rod Speed wrote

What matters is the evidence with science, not individuals.

Correct: though the experts will generally side with the evidence (if
they did not they would not be the experts!)

Problem is that the evidence changes, particularly with the
recent less than predicted rate of world temperature change.

Do you mean the hand picked specific areas where it was less even as the
world beat the predictions?

Nope, the world as a whole didnt beat predictions.

Would love to see the peer reviewed research you are referring to.

You're the one that needs to provide that
given you claim it exceeded predictions.

You have no research to back your claims, nor scientific sites. OK. That is
what I figured.

Usually when I hear people speak of this type stuff they mean this
debunked info:

https://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2893/n...-isnt-cooling/

But happy to see what you have.

See above.

I did.

You have no research to back your claims, nor scientific sites. Again, that is
what I figured.

At this point there is no internationally recognized scientific
group that still denies the evidence.

Science isnt about voting. At one time the vast majority of
scientists denied free radicals but then the evidence showed that
they are real.

If the evidence showed it then over time the view of most scientists
likely changed. It is not like our knowledge does not grow.

And thats just as true of purported man made climate change.

Yes, we keep leaning more.

And we are finding that we cant predict what the world climate will do.

Not with exact specificity but we have very good models.

Bull**** we do prediction wise.

The evidence is contrary to your claim.


https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/s...ections-right/

Thats bull****. They arent in fact doing anything of the sort.

A claim you make with no support. OK.

Where are you hearing otherwise?

Observing that the predictions are way off.

But you have no evidence of this. Fair enough.

Its obvious that climate does change, thats obvious from the ice ages
etc, but its much less clear how much of the change we have seen is man
made.

The models show it to be between about 95% and 105% if I recall
correctly.

Thats bull**** and the models clearly dont predict what actually
happened, so the models are clearly a long way from being useful.

Again: source?

Again, you are the one that needs to provide the source.

I have no source to back your claims. Nor do you. Fair enough.

This says 110%... but I have seen a few percent above and below:


https://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...-judith-curry/

Thats bull****.

You do not believe the evidence. OK.

So, yes, there is some disagreement.

And they are hopeless at predicting what will happen. .

The evidence says otherwise.

Bull**** it does with the last decade.

You have no research to back your claims, nor scientific sites. OK. That is
what I figured.

It wasnt that long ago that most scientists were hyperventilating
about global cooling.

"Never" was neither long ago nor not long ago. It did not happen.

Bull****. Same with the mindless hyperventilation about world population.

Of course you have a source, right?

You dont have one yourself.

I have peer reviewed research and every single internationally recognized
scientific group with a stance in the topic. You have denial and no evidence.



Most times people refer to a single Times story... and it was not even
accurate.


https://www.factcheck.org/2015/03/cr...h-and-galileo/

More bull****.

You have no research to back your claims, nor scientific sites. OK. That is
what I figured.



Yes, we can certainly measure a substantial hike in atmospheric
CO2 levels, but its much less clear how much effect that actually
has on world temperatures, let alone climate change.

We can quibble over exact amounts but there is no question it accounts
for a huge percentage of the warming we see.

Thats mindless bull**** too. We havent in fact seen anything
even remotely like the same effect on world climate as we
have measured in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Again: source?

Dont need one with such a dramatic difference.

You have no research to back your claims, nor scientific sites. OK. That is
what I figured.

And its even less clear whether lots more 'renewable' energy
will make any useful difference to world climate or whether
it makes much more sense to have lots more nukes and
dramatically reduce the addition to world CO2 levels and
stop wasting fossil fuels on power generation now that it
is clear that we are consuming them at a far greater rate
than they are being laid down.

Solar is not perfect but it is a lot less harmful.

Nukes arent harmful.

I assume you mean nuclear power.

Yep.

It is an option --

It is in fact the only viable approach if you believe
that atmospheric CO2 levels are a problem.

Welcome you to show your support for this.

but we do not have a good way to deal with the fallout. I mean the spent
rods.

We have always had a good way to deal with
those, reprocess them into new nuke fuel.

The only reason we dont do that at the moment is
because its cheaper to dig up more uranium etc.

Would love to see your evidence.

The current plan of burying them in the most seismically active mountain
range is pretty daft.

Yes, it makes no sense to bury them anywhere.
It makes lots of sense to reprocess them into
new nuke fuel once that is cheaper than digging
up more uranium. **** all of the original fuel rod
is actually consumed.

Great. Look forward to you evidence.

And look at Russia and Japan for the issues it can cause.

Nothing like that happened in France and Germany or the USA.

Nor did I suggest it had... but seems you missed the point.

So do nukes that way instead of ****ing up like both those have
done. The west has never been stupid enough to do nukes the
way that russia has, or stupid enough to put the backup generators
where they can be flooded by a tsunami like the stupid japs did.

But it is true no solution is without risk. Even solar has risks with the
building.

And the massive downside of not being useful at high
latitudes and for a large chunk of every day even at
low latitudes.

Batteries exist.

Nukes work fine in both situations and
in fact the waste heat is useful at high latitudes.

Open to your support of them as the best solution.

And solar ****s power distribution and isnt useful at higher latitudes
and is ****ed in the
sense that its only useful for part of the day even at the lower
latitudes.

That is complete and utter nonsense.

Bull**** it is.

Look at Germany.

Which was actually stupid enough to shut
down perfectly viable nukes and replace
them with burning by far the dirtiest coal
available and which has by far the most
expensive electricity around, because
they have been that stupid.

I am speaking of their solar, which they have plenty of, even though they get
far less sun.

Please try to use evidence.

That is the evidence that solar is ****ed compared with nukes.

If so then you should be able to show it.

But your record is weak on that front.

--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot
use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow
superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

Snit wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Snit wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Snit wrote
Rod Speed wrote

What matters is the evidence with science, not individuals.

Correct: though the experts will generally side with the evidence
(if they did not they would not be the experts!)

Problem is that the evidence changes, particularly with the
recent less than predicted rate of world temperature change.

Do you mean the hand picked specific areas where it was less even as
the world beat the predictions?

Nope, the world as a whole didnt beat predictions.

Would love to see the peer reviewed research you are referring to.

You're the one that needs to provide that
given you claim it exceeded predictions.

You have no research to back your claims, nor scientific sites. OK. That
is
what I figured.

You have no research to back your claims, nor scientific sites.
OK. That is what I figured.

Usually when I hear people speak of this type stuff they mean this
debunked info:

https://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2893/n...-isnt-cooling/

But happy to see what you have.

See above.

I did.

You have no research to back your claims, nor scientific sites. Again,
that is what I figured.

You have no research to back your claims, nor scientific sites.
Again, that is what I figured.

At this point there is no internationally recognized scientific
group that still denies the evidence.

Science isnt about voting. At one time the vast majority of
scientists denied free radicals but then the evidence showed that
they are real.

If the evidence showed it then over time the view of most
scientists likely changed. It is not like our knowledge does not
grow.

And thats just as true of purported man made climate change.

Yes, we keep leaning more.

And we are finding that we cant predict what the world climate will
do.

Not with exact specificity but we have very good models.

Bull**** we do prediction wise.

The evidence is contrary to your claim.

Easy to claim.

reams of your troll**** flushed where it belongs

And its even less clear whether lots more 'renewable' energy
will make any useful difference to world climate or whether
it makes much more sense to have lots more nukes and
dramatically reduce the addition to world CO2 levels and
stop wasting fossil fuels on power generation now that it
is clear that we are consuming them at a far greater rate
than they are being laid down.

Solar is not perfect but it is a lot less harmful.

Nukes arent harmful.

I assume you mean nuclear power.

Yep.

It is an option --

It is in fact the only viable approach if you believe
that atmospheric CO2 levels are a problem.

Welcome you to show your support for this.

Just did.

but we do not have a good way to deal with the fallout. I mean the
spent rods.

We have always had a good way to deal with
those, reprocess them into new nuke fuel.

The only reason we dont do that at the moment is
because its cheaper to dig up more uranium etc.

Would love to see your evidence.

The evidence is those keeping them, ****wit.

The current plan of burying them in the most seismically active
mountain range is pretty daft.

Yes, it makes no sense to bury them anywhere.
It makes lots of sense to reprocess them into
new nuke fuel once that is cheaper than digging
up more uranium. **** all of the original fuel rod
is actually consumed.

Great. Look forward to you evidence.

There is a wealth of evidence that ****
all of the original fuel rod is consumed.

And look at Russia and Japan for the issues it can cause.

Nothing like that happened in France and Germany or the USA.

Nor did I suggest it had... but seems you missed the point.

You never could bull**** your way out of a wet paper bag.

So do nukes that way instead of ****ing up like both those have
done. The west has never been stupid enough to do nukes the
way that russia has, or stupid enough to put the backup generators
where they can be flooded by a tsunami like the stupid japs did.

But it is true no solution is without risk. Even solar has risks with
the building.

And the massive downside of not being useful at high latitudes and for a
large chunk of every day even at low latitudes.

Batteries exist.

But are a stupid added cost and dont last long.

Nukes work fine in both situations and
in fact the waste heat is useful at high latitudes.

Open to your support of them as the best solution.

Already did that, ****wit.

And solar ****s power distribution and isnt useful at higher latitudes
and is ****ed in the sense that its only useful for part of the day
even at the lower latitudes.

That is complete and utter nonsense.

Bull**** it is.

Look at Germany.

Which was actually stupid enough to shut
down perfectly viable nukes and replace
them with burning by far the dirtiest coal
available and which has by far the most
expensive electricity around, because
they have been that stupid.

I am speaking of their solar, which they have plenty of, even though they
get far less sun.

And that produces the most expensive electricity
in western europe. France leaves them for dead.

reams of your troll**** flushed where it belongs

On Apr 16, 2021 at 9:01:57 PM MST, ""Rod Speed"" wrote
:

Snit wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Snit wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Snit wrote
Rod Speed wrote

What matters is the evidence with science, not individuals.

Correct: though the experts will generally side with the evidence
(if they did not they would not be the experts!)

Problem is that the evidence changes, particularly with the
recent less than predicted rate of world temperature change.

Do you mean the hand picked specific areas where it was less even as
the world beat the predictions?

Nope, the world as a whole didnt beat predictions.

Would love to see the peer reviewed research you are referring to.

You're the one that needs to provide that
given you claim it exceeded predictions.

You have no research to back your claims, nor scientific sites. OK. That
is
what I figured.

You have no research

Countered by the evidence provided.

If you want to have a conversation, fine, but I am not interested in you
making insane claims you cannot back and then ignoring the fact evidence has
been provided. If you ACTUALLY want to learn about man-made global climate
change this is a good place to start:

http://climate.nasa.gov

If you just want to deny the evidence I am simply not interested.

Facts matter. Evidence matters. You failed to show anything even close... and
then snipped or ignored when I did. What value is such a conversation? None
that I can see.

--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot
use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow
superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

Snit wrote reams of troll****.

All flushed where it belongs.

On Sat, 17 Apr 2021 09:10:43 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

is clear that we are consuming them at a far greater rate
than they are being laid down.

That senile ****** still doesn't get what's the matter with you, eh, senile
Rodent? Must be your lucky day! LOL

--
Sqwertz to Rodent Speed:
"This is just a hunch, but I'm betting you're kinda an argumentative
asshole.
MID:

On Sat, 17 Apr 2021 04:23:56 GMT, **** the git, the notorious,
troll-feeding, senile asshole, blathered again:


Countered by the evidence provided.

You REALLY REALLY have a knack for continually sucking off the dumbest
trolls around, eh, **** the Git? G

On Sat, 17 Apr 2021 10:28:10 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH more of the abnormal trolling senile asshole's latest troll****
unread

--
Website (from 2007) dedicated to the 86-year-old trolling senile
cretin from Oz:
https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/r...d-faq.2973853/

On 2021-04-17, Rod Speed wrote:
Snit wrote reams of troll****.

All flushed where it belongs.

This thread is a perfect match for #36 in the "snitlist" documented in my
links below.

36- George Graves: "Jason. You have started an argument with
the Snit (AKA Michael Glasser), this should not be done. He
will drive you crazy with his twisted logic, his deep-rooted
need to be ALWAYS right at any cost. He will move goalposts,
set up strawmen, and bore you into submission with his endless
pedanticism. The only way to engage him is to hit and run. NEVER
engage him, it's a futile, empty procedure that will only anger
you and feed him. Take my advice and STAY AWAY!" 27 Oct 2004

It's best not to waste your time with the snit troll.



--
pothead
Tommy Chong For President 2024
Lifetime Member of "The Prescott Parasite Eradication Team"
Ask snit how he ****ed on his cat.
All about snit read below. Links courtesy of Ron:
https://web.archive.org/web/20181028....com/snit.html
https://web.archive.org/web/20190529.../snitlist.html
https://web.archive.org/web/20190529...ieMethods.html

On 2021-04-17, pothead wrote:
On 2021-04-17, Rod Speed wrote:
Snit wrote reams of troll****.

All flushed where it belongs.

This thread is a perfect match for #36 in the "snitlist" documented in my
links below.

36- George Graves: "Jason. You have started an argument with
the Snit (AKA Michael Glasser), this should not be done. He
will drive you crazy with his twisted logic, his deep-rooted
need to be ALWAYS right at any cost. He will move goalposts,
set up strawmen, and bore you into submission with his endless
pedanticism. The only way to engage him is to hit and run. NEVER
engage him, it's a futile, empty procedure that will only anger
you and feed him. Take my advice and STAY AWAY!" 27 Oct 2004

It's best not to waste your time with the snit troll.

Oh no! You've quoted something from 'the bad years'

On 2021-04-17, Steve Carroll "Steve wrote:
On 2021-04-17, pothead wrote:
On 2021-04-17, Rod Speed wrote:
Snit wrote reams of troll****.

All flushed where it belongs.

This thread is a perfect match for #36 in the "snitlist" documented in my
links below.

36- George Graves: "Jason. You have started an argument with
the Snit (AKA Michael Glasser), this should not be done. He
will drive you crazy with his twisted logic, his deep-rooted
need to be ALWAYS right at any cost. He will move goalposts,
set up strawmen, and bore you into submission with his endless
pedanticism. The only way to engage him is to hit and run. NEVER
engage him, it's a futile, empty procedure that will only anger
you and feed him. Take my advice and STAY AWAY!" 27 Oct 2004

It's best not to waste your time with the snit troll.

Oh no! You've quoted something from 'the bad years'

While there are many quotes in those lists, #36 is IMHO a perfect
single paragraph description of snit.
This thread is just the latest example of snit behaving exactly like George
Graves describes.

Snit is like a self fulfilling prophecy. He proves those lists in one form
or another every day. It takes a rare type of idiot to manage that. Snit is
that idiot and then some.

--
pothead
Tommy Chong For President 2024
Lifetime Member of "The Prescott Parasite Eradication Team"
Ask snit how he ****ed on his cat.
All about snit read below. Links courtesy of Ron:
https://web.archive.org/web/20181028....com/snit.html
https://web.archive.org/web/20190529.../snitlist.html
https://web.archive.org/web/20190529...ieMethods.html

On Fri, 16 Apr 2021 01:43:41 +0100, Fredxx wrote:

On 15/04/2021 19:03, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Thu, 15 Apr 2021 01:12:30 +0100, Fredxx wrote:

On 14/04/2021 18:47, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Tue, 13 Apr 2021 18:10:15 +0100, Fredxx wrote:

On 13/04/2021 17:56, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Tue, 13 Apr 2021 16:57:26 +0100, Fredxx
wrote:

On 13/04/2021 16:47, Commander Kinsey wrote:
What an OCD moron....


Dear [made up name, my 4th account I believe],
You have received a warning at Parrot Forum - Parrot Owner's
Community.

Reason:
Insulted Other Member(s)

Greetings;
You have received a one point infraction with ten day expiry.

Primary cause:
You ignored, belittled, trolled, insulted, and attempted to
ridicule me
in moderator capacity.

You have transgressed paragraphs seven and nine of the Parrot Forum
Rules.

Perhaps one day you'll take the hint and refrain from insulting
another
member.

I was told off for going slightly off topic. All I did was point out
that conversations tend to do that. I didn't call him an OCD ****.

If you don't regard your insult to be one, then I suggest you
reconsider
researching the matter of what constitutes an insult to those around
you.

It's impossible to insult someone. If I call you a moron and you
are a
moron, I've stated a fact. If I call you a moron and you aren't one,
then I've lied.

So what you are saying is you can't fathom the concept that you can
insult someone with a fact.

You're getting it now. If you're short and I call you short, I've just
made an observation. You already knew you were short. It would be like
me telling you it's raining when you're soaking wet, you already knew,
no information was passed, I can't have insulted you.

No, I've got it ad you haven't. I repeat, "So what you are saying is you
can't fathom the concept that you can insult someone with a fact"

You are a moron. Both a fact and an insult. Do you recognise these words
as an insult? If "yes" then you are a moron. If "no" then you are less
of a moron.

Since I know I'm not a moron, all you've done is lied. Therefore your
"insult" has not upset me at all and cannot be called an insult.

Nope, you've just proven you're a moron in denial.

I gave a sensible explanation of it, you didn't. You failed.

On Fri, 16 Apr 2021 08:19:55 +0100, #Paul wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
You have to wonder how far we would be today if religion
had not impeded science.

You've pre-loaded the statement; since it is reasonable to believe
that at least in some cases religion has impeded science, is is only
natural to make the follow-on assumption that science would have been
further advanced. Well, unless the impediment was somehow such that it
slowed science so as to avoid some sort of science based global
catastrophe; perhaps a nuclear war at a time when people were less
averse to mass slaughter and less aware of the global consequences.

A more neutral question might be somthing along the lines of:

"You have to wonder whether religion has, overall, been a help
or hindrance to scientific advance."

A bit of both, in my opinion, and which is more dominant depends
a lot on how widely - or how far back - you cast your viewpoint.

Why are you concentrating on disasters? I just mean that advances like satnav might have happened 20 years earlier, and by now we could have been on mars.

On Fri, 16 Apr 2021 19:09:40 +0100, Snit wrote:

On Apr 16, 2021 at 11:00:16 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
:

On Fri, 16 Apr 2021 03:44:18 +0100, Snit wrote:

On Apr 15, 2021 at 7:14:23 PM MST, "rbowman" wrote
:

On 04/15/2021 12:02 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Wed, 14 Apr 2021 19:12:00 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote

Another account must be made so they don't get the last word in. The
silliest thing I got banned for was saying the word "damn". And not
even
in a rude way, probably something like "the damn weather is awful
today".
Turns out the admin was a religious nutter.

Yeah, I got the same thing from another religious nutter for
using the term "hell of a lot", not a moderator in that case.

You have to wonder how far we would be today if religion had not impeded
science.

Do you know who first formulated the Big Bang theory? Ever here of
Gregor Mendel? Blaise Pascal?

Quite a few scientists manage to have a foot in both worlds. In general
the Catholics seem more flexible than the Protestants, particularly the
'gimme that old time religion' branch.

In the past the two were heavily tied together... but that is no longer the
case. There are still some religious scientists, but scientists tend to be
atheist at a higher level than the general public. They also tend to be more
liberal, which makes sense given how at least in the US conservatives tend
to
reject our best evidence.

Scientists are liberal because they want funding for free.

Scientists are liberal because the conservative mindset is to deny evidence.
We can see this with COVID,

No, we just don't make such a fuss over a small thing. A thing that kills 4 times less than cancer and 40 times less than the world population growth.

man-made global climate change,

It was 1C here in Scotland a few days ago, in spring. There is no global warming.

research on reduction of abortions,

That's not science, that's morals.

and in some cases even things like evolution.

Evolution could take place if we let coronavirus kill off the weak.

On Fri, 16 Apr 2021 19:10:05 +0100, Snit wrote:

On Apr 16, 2021 at 10:59:28 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
:

On Thu, 15 Apr 2021 21:15:17 +0100, Snit wrote:

On Apr 15, 2021 at 11:02:15 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
:

On Wed, 14 Apr 2021 19:12:00 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote

Another account must be made so they don't get the last word in. The
silliest thing I got banned for was saying the word "damn". And not even
in a rude way, probably something like "the damn weather is awful today".
Turns out the admin was a religious nutter.

Yeah, I got the same thing from another religious nutter for
using the term "hell of a lot", not a moderator in that case.

You have to wonder how far we would be today if religion had not impeded
science.

Until a few hundred years ago there was not much of a split.

In English please.

The two have a history that is tied together.

I doubt it. Religion did not help science. Just because some scientists were religious means nothing. If there had been no religion, those same people would still have become scientists.

pothead wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Snit wrote reams of troll****.

All flushed where it belongs.

This thread is a perfect match for #36 in the
"snitlist" documented in my links below.

Yep.

36- George Graves: "Jason. You have started an argument
with the Snit (AKA Michael Glasser), this should not be done.
He will drive you crazy with his twisted logic, his deep-rooted
need to be ALWAYS right at any cost.

No one ever drives me crazy, I just flush troll**** where it belongs.

He will move goalposts, set up strawmen, and bore you
into submission with his endless pedanticism. The only
way to engage him is to hit and run. NEVER engage him,
it's a futile, empty procedure that will only anger you

No troll ever angers me.

and feed him. Take my advice and STAY AWAY!" 27 Oct 2004

It's best not to waste your time with the snit troll.

That’s why I flushed his troll**** where it belongs.

On 2021-04-17, Rod Speed wrote:
pothead wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Snit wrote reams of troll****.

All flushed where it belongs.

This thread is a perfect match for #36 in the
"snitlist" documented in my links below.

Yep.

+1


36- George Graves: "Jason. You have started an argument
with the Snit (AKA Michael Glasser), this should not be done.
He will drive you crazy with his twisted logic, his deep-rooted
need to be ALWAYS right at any cost.

No one ever drives me crazy, I just flush troll**** where it belongs.

Good for you!
It's best to just sit back and have a good laugh at snit's expense.




He will move goalposts, set up strawmen, and bore you
into submission with his endless pedanticism. The only
way to engage him is to hit and run. NEVER engage him,
it's a futile, empty procedure that will only anger you

No troll ever angers me.


See above.


and feed him. Take my advice and STAY AWAY!" 27 Oct 2004

It's best not to waste your time with the snit troll.

Thats why I flushed his troll**** where it belongs.

Maybe someday someone will flush snit and then the sewers of Prescott AZ can
deal with him.
lol !



--
pothead
Tommy Chong For President 2024
Lifetime Member of "The Prescott Parasite Eradication Team"
Ask snit how he ****ed on his cat.
All about snit read below. Links courtesy of Ron:
https://web.archive.org/web/20181028....com/snit.html
https://web.archive.org/web/20190529.../snitlist.html
https://web.archive.org/web/20190529...ieMethods.html

"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 16 Apr 2021 19:09:40 +0100, Snit
wrote:

On Apr 16, 2021 at 11:00:16 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
:

On Fri, 16 Apr 2021 03:44:18 +0100, Snit
wrote:

On Apr 15, 2021 at 7:14:23 PM MST, "rbowman" wrote
:

On 04/15/2021 12:02 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Wed, 14 Apr 2021 19:12:00 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote

Another account must be made so they don't get the last word in.
The
silliest thing I got banned for was saying the word "damn". And
not
even
in a rude way, probably something like "the damn weather is awful
today".
Turns out the admin was a religious nutter.

Yeah, I got the same thing from another religious nutter for
using the term "hell of a lot", not a moderator in that case.

You have to wonder how far we would be today if religion had not
impeded
science.

Do you know who first formulated the Big Bang theory? Ever here of
Gregor Mendel? Blaise Pascal?

Quite a few scientists manage to have a foot in both worlds. In
general
the Catholics seem more flexible than the Protestants, particularly
the
'gimme that old time religion' branch.

In the past the two were heavily tied together... but that is no
longer the
case. There are still some religious scientists, but scientists tend
to be
atheist at a higher level than the general public. They also tend to
be more
liberal, which makes sense given how at least in the US conservatives
tend
to
reject our best evidence.

Scientists are liberal because they want funding for free.

Scientists are liberal because the conservative mindset is to deny
evidence.
We can see this with COVID,

No, we just don't make such a fuss over a small thing. A thing that kills
4 times less than cancer and 40 times less than the world population
growth.

man-made global climate change,

It was 1C here in Scotland a few days ago, in spring. There is no global
warming.

research on reduction of abortions,

That's not science, that's morals.

and in some cases even things like evolution.

Evolution could take place if we let coronavirus kill off the weak.

Nope, because it mostly kills those way past reproducing.

"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 16 Apr 2021 19:10:05 +0100, Snit
wrote:

On Apr 16, 2021 at 10:59:28 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
:

On Thu, 15 Apr 2021 21:15:17 +0100, Snit
wrote:

On Apr 15, 2021 at 11:02:15 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
:

On Wed, 14 Apr 2021 19:12:00 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote

Another account must be made so they don't get the last word in.
The
silliest thing I got banned for was saying the word "damn". And
not even
in a rude way, probably something like "the damn weather is awful
today".
Turns out the admin was a religious nutter.

Yeah, I got the same thing from another religious nutter for
using the term "hell of a lot", not a moderator in that case.

You have to wonder how far we would be today if religion had not
impeded
science.

Until a few hundred years ago there was not much of a split.

In English please.

The two have a history that is tied together.

I doubt it.

Its true anyway.

Religion did not help science.

Yes it did, if only because a lot of the professionally religious
had a lot time on their hands that allowed them to do science.

Just because some scientists were religious means nothing.

In earlier times it was in fact almost all of them.

If there had been no religion, those same people would still have become
scientists.

Nope, they wouldn't have been in religious institutions with
a lot of time on their hands as parasites on the community.

Mendel would have had to get off his lard arse and earn a living.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor...ife_and_career

On Sun, 18 Apr 2021 05:14:37 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


No one ever drives me crazy, I just flush troll**** where it belongs.

You ARE bat****-crazy, you subnormal trolling senile sociopath who gets up
EVERY NIGHT between 1 and 4 am in Australia, just so he can continue with
his senile trolling without too long a break!

--
Website (from 2007) dedicated to the 86-year-old trolling senile
cretin from Oz:
https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/r...d-faq.2973853/

On Sat, 17 Apr 2021 19:24:48 -0000 (UTC), pothead wrote:


That¢s why I flushed his troll**** where it belongs.

Maybe someday someone will flush snit and then the sewers of Prescott AZ can
deal with him.
lol !

You are confused, pothead! ;-) You ARE talking to (and supporting) a KNOWN
trolling Australian arsehole who actually managed to get a website dedicated
to his trolling!

On Sun, 18 Apr 2021 05:34:32 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the two subnormal sociopathic cretins' endless absolutely idiotic
blather

--
Another typical retarded "conversation" between Birdbrain and senile Rodent:

Senile Rodent: " Did you ever dig a hole to bury your own ****?"

Birdbrain: "I do if there's no flush toilet around."

Senile Rodent: "Yeah, I prefer camping like that, off by myself with
no dunnys around and have always buried the ****."

MID:

"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 16 Apr 2021 08:19:55 +0100, #Paul
wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
You have to wonder how far we would be today if religion
had not impeded science.

You've pre-loaded the statement; since it is reasonable to believe
that at least in some cases religion has impeded science, is is only
natural to make the follow-on assumption that science would have been
further advanced. Well, unless the impediment was somehow such that it
slowed science so as to avoid some sort of science based global
catastrophe; perhaps a nuclear war at a time when people were less
averse to mass slaughter and less aware of the global consequences.

A more neutral question might be somthing along the lines of:

"You have to wonder whether religion has, overall, been a help
or hindrance to scientific advance."

A bit of both, in my opinion, and which is more dominant depends
a lot on how widely - or how far back - you cast your viewpoint.

Why are you concentrating on disasters?

He isnt.

I just mean that advances like satnav might have happened 20 years
earlier,

Don't buy that. Satellites had nothing to do with religion, it was
WW2 and the V2 and von Braun that produced that eventually.

and by now we could have been on mars.

Again, nothing to do with religion, that
was actually driven by the cold war.

On Sun, 18 Apr 2021 07:13:14 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the two subnormal sociopathic cretins' endless absolutely idiotic
blather

--
TYPICAL retarded "conversation" between sociopath Rodent and sociopath
Birdbrain from August 26th 2018:

Birdbrain: "I have one head but 5 fingers."

Senile Rodent: "Obvious lie. You hairy legged cross dressers are so inbred
that you all have two heads."

Birdbrain: "You're the one that likes hairy legs remember?"

Senile Rodent: "The problem isnt the hairy legs, it's the gross inbreeding
that
produces two headed unemployables like you."

Birdbrain: "So why did you mention hairy legs?"

Senile Rodent: "Because that's what those who arent actually stupid enough
to shave their legs have."

Birdbrain: "You only have hairy legs if both of the following are true:
1) You're quite far back on the evolutionary scale.
2) You haven't learned what a razor is for."

Senile Rodent: "Only a terminal ****wit or a woman shaves their legs."

Birdbrain: "There is literally zero point in having hair all over your
body."

Senile Rodent: "There is even less point in wasting your time changing what
you are born with."

MID:

On Apr 17, 2021 at 10:28:03 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
:


....
Scientists are liberal because they want funding for free.

Scientists are liberal because the conservative mindset is to deny evidence.
We can see this with COVID,

No, we just don't make such a fuss over a small thing. A thing that kills 4
times less than cancer and 40 times less than the world population growth.

The idea that over half a million dead in America, and many more than that
around the world, and that is WITH some fairly significant precautions, is a
"small thing" is an utter rejection of the facts.

man-made global climate change,

It was 1C here in Scotland a few days ago, in spring. There is no global
warming.

Denial of the fact from you. That is what I mean.

http://climate.nasa.gov

research on reduction of abortions,

That's not science, that's morals.

If you want to reduce abortions, which most conservatives claim to want, there
are known methods to do it. At least in American the Republican party (the
more conservative of the two) rejects every one of these things. There
"solution" is to deny women equal rights.

and in some cases even things like evolution.

Evolution could take place if we let coronavirus kill off the weak.

Evolution IS taking place. And the more the virus spreads the more it mutates
/ evolves.

--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot
use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow
superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

On Apr 17, 2021 at 10:28:50 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
:

On Fri, 16 Apr 2021 19:10:05 +0100, Snit wrote:

On Apr 16, 2021 at 10:59:28 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
:

On Thu, 15 Apr 2021 21:15:17 +0100, Snit wrote:

On Apr 15, 2021 at 11:02:15 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
:

On Wed, 14 Apr 2021 19:12:00 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote

Another account must be made so they don't get the last word in. The
silliest thing I got banned for was saying the word "damn". And not even
in a rude way, probably something like "the damn weather is awful today".
Turns out the admin was a religious nutter.

Yeah, I got the same thing from another religious nutter for
using the term "hell of a lot", not a moderator in that case.

You have to wonder how far we would be today if religion had not impeded
science.

Until a few hundred years ago there was not much of a split.

In English please.

The two have a history that is tied together.

I doubt it.

You have been shown evidence. Your acceptance or rejection of the evidence is
on you.

Religion did not help science. Just because some scientists were religious
means nothing. If there had been no religion, those same people would still
have become scientists.

It was not just that they were religious, they were doing research in the name
of religion. Why do you think there is a Vatican Observatory? How about the
Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences? And Islam-backed work, getting
much from the Greeks, pushed a lot in the areas of mathematics, optics,
astronomy, and medicine. Many early scientists saw studying the world as a
form of studying their idea of a deity.

But look at you, now, you reject both religion AND much of science. Meanwhile
I am not religious but very much look to science.


--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot
use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow
superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

On Sat, 17 Apr 2021 22:56:53 GMT, **** the git, the notorious,
troll-feeding, senile asshole, blathered again:


You have been shown evidence.

You've shown that you ARE a devoted sucker of troll cock, senile asshole!

On Sat, 17 Apr 2021 22:50:26 GMT, **** the git, the notorious,
troll-feeding, senile asshole, blathered again:


The idea that

His idea is that any time he appears you will instantly suck him off again,
**** the Git!

Snit wrote
Commander Kinsey wrote
Snit wrote

research on reduction of abortions,

That's not science, that's morals.

If you want to reduce abortions, which most conservatives claim to
want, there are known methods to do it. At least in American the
Republican party (the more conservative of the two) rejects every
one of these things. There "solution" is to deny women equal rights.

Abortion has nothing to do with equal rights.

On Apr 17, 2021 at 4:28:52 PM MST, ""Rod Speed"" wrote
:

Snit wrote
Commander Kinsey wrote
Snit wrote

research on reduction of abortions,

That's not science, that's morals.

If you want to reduce abortions, which most conservatives claim to
want, there are known methods to do it. At least in American the
Republican party (the more conservative of the two) rejects every
one of these things. There "solution" is to deny women equal rights.

Abortion has nothing to do with equal rights.

Right. Denying people the right to one does.

--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot
use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow
superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

"Snit" wrote in message
...
On Apr 17, 2021 at 4:28:52 PM MST, ""Rod Speed"" wrote
:

Snit wrote
Commander Kinsey wrote
Snit wrote

research on reduction of abortions,

That's not science, that's morals.

If you want to reduce abortions, which most conservatives claim to
want, there are known methods to do it. At least in American the
Republican party (the more conservative of the two) rejects every one of
these things. There "solution" is to deny women equal rights.

Abortion has nothing to do with equal rights.

Right. Denying people the right to one does.

Wrong, Nothing unequal about it.

On Apr 17, 2021 at 4:34:04 PM MST, ""Rod Speed"" wrote
:



"Snit" wrote in message
...
On Apr 17, 2021 at 4:28:52 PM MST, ""Rod Speed"" wrote
:

Snit wrote
Commander Kinsey wrote
Snit wrote

research on reduction of abortions,

That's not science, that's morals.

If you want to reduce abortions, which most conservatives claim to
want, there are known methods to do it. At least in American the
Republican party (the more conservative of the two) rejects every one of
these things. There "solution" is to deny women equal rights.

Abortion has nothing to do with equal rights.

Right. Denying people the right to one does.

Wrong, Nothing unequal about it.

Denying people equal rights ties into a conversation about equal rights. Don't
think people should have abortions -- then don't have one. And, hey, I want to
see there be fewer, so let's back policy which is known to reduce the number.

But Republicans won't (as a party... some individuals might!)


--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot
use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow
superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

"Snit" wrote in message
...
On Apr 17, 2021 at 4:34:04 PM MST, ""Rod Speed"" wrote
:



"Snit" wrote in message
...
On Apr 17, 2021 at 4:28:52 PM MST, ""Rod Speed"" wrote
:

Snit wrote
Commander Kinsey wrote
Snit wrote

research on reduction of abortions,

That's not science, that's morals.

If you want to reduce abortions, which most conservatives claim to
want, there are known methods to do it. At least in American the
Republican party (the more conservative of the two) rejects every one
of these things. There "solution" is to deny women equal rights.

Abortion has nothing to do with equal rights.

Right. Denying people the right to one does.

Wrong, Nothing unequal about it.

Denying people equal rights

Abortion has nothing to do with equal rights.

And, hey, I want to see there be fewer, so let's back policy which is
known to reduce the number.

There is no such policy.

On 2021-04-17 3:50 p.m., Snit wrote:
On Apr 17, 2021 at 10:28:03 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
:


...
Scientists are liberal because they want funding for free.

Scientists are liberal because the conservative mindset is to deny evidence.
We can see this with COVID,

No, we just don't make such a fuss over a small thing. A thing that kills 4
times less than cancer and 40 times less than the world population growth.

The idea that over half a million dead in America, and many more than that
around the world, and that is WITH some fairly significant precautions, is a
"small thing" is an utter rejection of the facts.

man-made global climate change,

It was 1C here in Scotland a few days ago, in spring. There is no global
warming.

Denial of the fact from you. That is what I mean.

http://climate.nasa.gov

research on reduction of abortions,

That's not science, that's morals.

If you want to reduce abortions, which most conservatives claim to want, there
are known methods to do it. At least in American the Republican party (the
more conservative of the two) rejects every one of these things. There
"solution" is to deny women equal rights.

and in some cases even things like evolution.

Evolution could take place if we let coronavirus kill off the weak.

Evolution IS taking place. And the more the virus spreads the more it mutates
/ evolves.

well which is it

On Sat, 17 Apr 2021 23:45:22 GMT, **** the git, the notorious,
troll-feeding, senile asshole, blathered again:


Denying people equal rights ties into a conversation about equal rights.

What kind of sick troll**** are you NOW "discussing", you troll-feeding
senile asshole? LOL