Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#121
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Spank!
On 16/04/2021 08:19, #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. Alternatively you could argue that science would be far behind its current state without the support and championing by regions over the centuries... e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Golden_Age -- Cheers, John. /================================================== ===============\ | Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk | |-----------------------------------------------------------------| | John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk | \================================================= ================/ |
#122
Posted to alt.computer.workshop,alt.home.repair,uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Spank!
On Apr 17, 2021 at 6:17:43 PM MST, "%" wrote
: 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 It is. -- 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. |
#123
Posted to alt.computer.workshop,alt.home.repair,uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Spank!
On Fri, 16 Apr 2021 21:54:22 +0100, Rod Speed wrote:
"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message news 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. He means that more than a couple of hundred years ago, most of the science was done by the religious. And some of them like Mendel made tremendous advances in our scientific knowledge. Until it conflicted with the teachings of the bible and was silenced. |
#124
Posted to alt.computer.workshop,alt.home.repair,uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Spank!
On Sat, 17 Apr 2021 20:28:16 +0100, Rod Speed wrote:
"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. Irrelevant if it kills those or not. And they can hide indoors. The point is we should let it kill off any younger folk that it can, as they're the weaker ones. |
#125
Posted to alt.computer.workshop,alt.home.repair,uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Spank!
On Sat, 17 Apr 2021 00:10:43 +0100, Rod Speed wrote:
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. It's bloody obvious to me. We know there used to be more CO2 in the air.. And the world was perfectly fine back then. |
#126
Posted to alt.computer.workshop,alt.home.repair,uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Spank!
On Apr 18, 2021 at 10:38:16 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
: On Sat, 17 Apr 2021 20:28:16 +0100, Rod Speed wrote: "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. Irrelevant if it kills those or not. And they can hide indoors. The point is we should let it kill off any younger folk that it can, as they're the weaker ones. As you call for these deaths wby don't you volunteer? Set an example? -- 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. |
#127
Posted to alt.computer.workshop,alt.home.repair,uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Spank!
On Apr 18, 2021 at 10:42:24 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
: On Sat, 17 Apr 2021 00:10:43 +0100, Rod Speed wrote: 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 didn=E2=80=99t and plenty who do deny man-made global climate change arent paid to do that. They did drop their denial. Nope, plenty didn=E2=80=99t. 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 that=E2=80=99s just as true of purported man made climate change. Its obvious that climate does change, that=E2=80=99s obvious from the ice ages etc, but its much less clear how much of the change we have seen is man made. It wasn=E2=80=99t 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. It's bloody obvious to me. We know there used to be more CO2 in the air. And the world was perfectly fine back then. There has been no time in the history of man when the CO2 levels were as high as they are now. -- 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. |
#128
Posted to alt.computer.workshop,alt.home.repair,uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Spank!
"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message news On Fri, 16 Apr 2021 21:54:22 +0100, Rod Speed wrote: "Commander Kinsey" wrote in message news 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. He means that more than a couple of hundred years ago, most of the science was done by the religious. And some of them like Mendel made tremendous advances in our scientific knowledge. Until it conflicted with the teachings of the bible and was silenced. That didn't happen very often at all, just with Bruno and Galileo. They never did silence Darwin, just got a mega **** fight. |
#129
Posted to alt.computer.workshop,alt.home.repair,uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
****, the Git, the Troll-feeding Senile HUGE ASSHOLE!
On Sun, 18 Apr 2021 17:42:39 GMT, **** the git, the notorious,
troll-feeding, senile asshole, blathered again: As you call for these deaths wby don't you volunteer? Set an example? Maybe he's just a clinically insane bigmouthed troll, you demented senile notorious sucker of troll cock? |
#130
Posted to alt.computer.workshop,alt.home.repair,uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Spank!
"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message news On Sat, 17 Apr 2021 20:28:16 +0100, Rod Speed wrote: "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. Irrelevant if it kills those or not. And they can hide indoors. The point is we should let it kill off any younger folk that it can, as they're the weaker ones. In fact there isnt any evidence that it does kill of the weaker ones. The Spanish Flu didn't, in fact it killed off the stronger ones because their much better immune system grossly over reacted and it was the cytokine storm that killed them very quickly. |
#131
Posted to alt.computer.workshop,alt.home.repair,uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Spank!
"Snit" wrote in message ... On Apr 18, 2021 at 10:38:16 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote : On Sat, 17 Apr 2021 20:28:16 +0100, Rod Speed wrote: "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. Irrelevant if it kills those or not. And they can hide indoors. The point is we should let it kill off any younger folk that it can, as they're the weaker ones. As you call for these deaths wby don't you volunteer? And he is significantly medically ****ed. But doesnt reproduce. Set an example? He does, but by streaking, quite literally. |
#132
Posted to alt.computer.workshop,alt.home.repair,uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
****, the Git, the Troll-feeding Senile HUGE ASSHOLE!
On Sun, 18 Apr 2021 18:12:48 GMT, **** the git, the notorious,
troll-feeding, senile asshole, blathered again: There has been no time in the history of man when the CO2 levels were as high as they are now. There has been no time for him like when you appear and readily suck him off, time and again, you revolting senile sucker of troll cock! |
#133
Posted to alt.computer.workshop,alt.home.repair,uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
The Two Inseparable Trolling Resident Sociopaths together again!
On Mon, 19 Apr 2021 04:20:18 +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: |
#134
Posted to alt.computer.workshop,alt.home.repair,uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
The Two Inseparable Trolling Resident Sociopaths together again!
On Mon, 19 Apr 2021 04:24:27 +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 our two village idiots, Birdbrain and Rodent Speed: Birdbrain: "You beat me to it. Plain sex is boring." Senile Rodent: "Then **** the cats. That wont be boring." Birdbrain: "Sell me a de-clawing tool first." Senile Rodent: "Wont help with the teeth." Birdbrain: "They've never gone for me with their mouths." Rodent Speed: "They will if you are stupid enough to try ****ing them." Birdbrain: "No, they always use claws." Rodent Speed: "They wont if you try ****ing them. Try it and see." Message-ID: |
#135
Posted to alt.computer.workshop,alt.home.repair,uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Spank!
"Snit" wrote in message ... On Apr 18, 2021 at 10:42:24 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote : On Sat, 17 Apr 2021 00:10:43 +0100, Rod Speed wrote: 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 didn=E2=80=99t and plenty who do deny man-made global climate change arent paid to do that. They did drop their denial. Nope, plenty didn=E2=80=99t. 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 that=E2=80=99s just as true of purported man made climate change. Its obvious that climate does change, that=E2=80=99s obvious from the ice ages etc, but its much less clear how much of the change we have seen is man made. It wasn=E2=80=99t 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. It's bloody obvious to me. We know there used to be more CO2 in the air. And the world was perfectly fine back then. There has been no time in the history of man when the CO2 levels were as high as they are now. The world was fine anyway. No climate catastrophe that you clowns keep mindlessly hyperventilating about. |
#136
Posted to alt.computer.workshop,alt.home.repair,uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Lonely Obnoxious Cantankerous Auto-contradicting Senile Ozzie Troll Alert!
On Mon, 19 Apr 2021 04:28:26 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again: As you call for these deaths wby don't you volunteer? And he is significantly medically ****ed. Indeed, he is! But still not as much as you, you totally ****ed up senile cretin, who gets up every night between 1 and 4 am in Australia, just so he got someone to talk to on Usenet! -- Keema Nam addressing nym-shifting senile Rodent: "You are now exposed as a liar, as well as an ignorant troll." "MID: .com" |
#137
Posted to alt.computer.workshop,alt.home.repair,uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Lonely Obnoxious Cantankerous Auto-contradicting Senile Ozzie Troll Alert!
On Mon, 19 Apr 2021 04:31:01 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again: There has been no time in the history of man when the CO2 levels were as high as they are now. The world was fine anyway. No climate catastrophe that you clowns keep mindlessly hyperventilating about. And no trolling senile assholes like you who's so miserable he can't hide what's the matter with him! BTW, 04:31 in Australia, and you are up and trolling, ALREADY, yet again? VEG -- Marland answering senile Rodent's statement, "I don't leak": "That¢s because so much **** and ****e emanates from your gob that there is nothing left to exit normally, your arsehole has clammed shut through disuse and the end of prick is only clear because you are such a ******." Message-ID: |
#138
Posted to alt.computer.workshop,uk.d-i-y,alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Spank!
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. Maybe you shouldn't have called him a parrot killer who then sexually pleasures himself with their corpse . |
#139
Posted to alt.computer.workshop,alt.home.repair,uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Spank!
On Sat, 17 Apr 2021 20:34:32 +0100, Rod Speed wrote:
"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 Inventing things is a living. |
#140
Posted to alt.computer.workshop,alt.home.repair,uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Spank!
On Sat, 17 Apr 2021 01:34:37 +0100, pothead wrote:
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. And you're saying this to Rod Speed?! |
#141
Posted to alt.computer.workshop,alt.home.repair,uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Spank!
On Sat, 17 Apr 2021 05:23:56 +0100, Snit wrote:
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 A government website is the last place to go for facts. |
#142
Posted to alt.computer.workshop,alt.home.repair,uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Spank!
On Sat, 17 Apr 2021 05:01:57 +0100, 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 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 Thank **** you replied to this so I don't have to, his leftist bull**** is tedious enough without him going on about global warming (oh, must call it climate change in case it goes the other way so they can still be right) too. |
#143
Posted to alt.computer.workshop,alt.home.repair,uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Spank!
"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message news On Sat, 17 Apr 2021 20:34:32 +0100, Rod Speed wrote: "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 Inventing things is a living. He would have got the same food and accommodation if he had just grovelled to some god or other instead of doing something useful. |
#144
Posted to alt.computer.workshop,alt.home.repair,uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
The Two Brain Dead Inseparable Trolling Resident Sociopaths together again!
On Wed, 21 Apr 2021 04:44:53 +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: __________________________________________________ ___________________________ |
#145
Posted to alt.computer.workshop,alt.home.repair,uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Spank!
On Apr 20, 2021 at 11:20:45 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
: On Sat, 17 Apr 2021 05:23:56 +0100, Snit wrote: 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 didn=E2=80=99t 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 A government website is the last place to go for facts. Do you have a more reputable site to get info on man-made global climate change? if so please share. -- 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. |
#146
Posted to alt.computer.workshop,alt.home.repair,uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
****, the Git, the Troll-feeding Senile HUGE ASSHOLE!
On Tue, 20 Apr 2021 19:02:12 GMT, **** the git, the notorious,
troll-feeding, senile asshole, blathered again: Do you have a more reputable site to get info on man-made global climate change? if so please share. Do you know what sick troll-feeding asshole you are, ****? |
#147
Posted to alt.computer.workshop,alt.home.repair,uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Spank!
"Snit" wrote in message ... On Apr 20, 2021 at 11:20:45 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote : On Sat, 17 Apr 2021 05:23:56 +0100, Snit wrote: 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 didn=E2=80=99t 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 A government website is the last place to go for facts. Do you have a more reputable site to get info on man-made global climate change? if so please share. It isnt about reputable, its about the evidence presented with science. |
#148
Posted to alt.computer.workshop,alt.home.repair,uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
More Heavy Trolling by the Senile Octogenarian Nym-Shifting Ozzie Cretin!
On Wed, 21 Apr 2021 06:03:55 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again: It isnt about reputable, its about the evidence presented with science. Nope, senile cretin, this is about you being sick trolling asshole and him being a sick troll-feeding asshole ...and about NOTHING ELSE! -- Bod addressing senile Rot: "Rod, you have a sick twisted mind. I suggest you stop your mindless and totally irresponsible talk. Your mouth could get you into a lot of trouble." Message-ID: |
#149
Posted to alt.computer.workshop,alt.home.repair,uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Spank!
On Apr 20, 2021 at 1:03:55 PM MST, ""Rod Speed"" wrote
: "Snit" wrote in message ... On Apr 20, 2021 at 11:20:45 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote : On Sat, 17 Apr 2021 05:23:56 +0100, Snit wrote: 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 didn=E2=80=99t 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 A government website is the last place to go for facts. Do you have a more reputable site to get info on man-made global climate change? if so please share. It isnt about reputable, its about the evidence presented with science. Peer reviewed studies. Well respected scientific sites, recognized internationally. Expert opinion. All of these are better than the denial and ignorance from the US Republican party. -- 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. |
#150
Posted to alt.computer.workshop,alt.home.repair,uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Spank!
"Snit" wrote in message ... On Apr 20, 2021 at 1:03:55 PM MST, ""Rod Speed"" wrote : "Snit" wrote in message ... On Apr 20, 2021 at 11:20:45 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote : On Sat, 17 Apr 2021 05:23:56 +0100, Snit wrote: 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 didn=E2=80=99t 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 A government website is the last place to go for facts. Do you have a more reputable site to get info on man-made global climate change? if so please share. It isnt about reputable, its about the evidence presented with science. Peer reviewed studies. Reviewed by other MMCC cult members... Well respected scientific sites, recognized internationally. It isnt about respect, its about the evidence presented with science. Expert opinion. It isnt about opinion, its about the evidence presented with science. |
#151
Posted to alt.computer.workshop,alt.home.repair,uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Spank!
On Apr 20, 2021 at 2:20:13 PM MST, ""Rod Speed"" wrote
: "Snit" wrote in message ... On Apr 20, 2021 at 1:03:55 PM MST, ""Rod Speed"" wrote : "Snit" wrote in message ... On Apr 20, 2021 at 11:20:45 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote : On Sat, 17 Apr 2021 05:23:56 +0100, Snit wrote: 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 didn=E2=80=99t 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 A government website is the last place to go for facts. Do you have a more reputable site to get info on man-made global climate change? if so please share. It isnt about reputable, its about the evidence presented with science. Peer reviewed studies. Reviewed by other MMCC cult members... Well respected scientific sites, recognized internationally. It isnt about respect, its about the evidence presented with science. Expert opinion. It isnt about opinion, its about the evidence presented with science. You reject evidence. We will simply not see eye-to-eye. -- 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. |
#152
Posted to alt.computer.workshop,alt.home.repair,uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Spank!
"Snit" wrote in message ... On Apr 20, 2021 at 2:20:13 PM MST, ""Rod Speed"" wrote : "Snit" wrote in message ... On Apr 20, 2021 at 1:03:55 PM MST, ""Rod Speed"" wrote : "Snit" wrote in message ... On Apr 20, 2021 at 11:20:45 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote : On Sat, 17 Apr 2021 05:23:56 +0100, Snit wrote: 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 didn=E2=80=99t 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 A government website is the last place to go for facts. Do you have a more reputable site to get info on man-made global climate change? if so please share. It isnt about reputable, its about the evidence presented with science. Peer reviewed studies. Reviewed by other MMCC cult members... Well respected scientific sites, recognized internationally. It isnt about respect, its about the evidence presented with science. Expert opinion. It isnt about opinion, its about the evidence presented with science. You reject evidence. Nope. We will simply not see eye-to-eye. Yep, you are just another MMCC cult member. |
#153
Posted to alt.computer.workshop,alt.home.repair,uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
****, the Git, the Troll-feeding Senile HUGE ASSHOLE!
On Tue, 20 Apr 2021 21:21:20 GMT, **** the git, the notorious,
troll-feeding, senile asshole, blathered again: You reject evidence. We will simply not see eye-to-eye. You just don't get it, eh, you troll-feeding senile asshole? LOL |
#154
Posted to alt.computer.workshop,alt.home.repair,uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Spank!
On Apr 20, 2021 at 2:30:48 PM MST, ""Rod Speed"" wrote
: "Snit" wrote in message ... On Apr 20, 2021 at 2:20:13 PM MST, ""Rod Speed"" wrote : "Snit" wrote in message ... On Apr 20, 2021 at 1:03:55 PM MST, ""Rod Speed"" wrote : "Snit" wrote in message ... On Apr 20, 2021 at 11:20:45 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote : On Sat, 17 Apr 2021 05:23:56 +0100, Snit wrote: 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 didn=E2=80=99t 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 A government website is the last place to go for facts. Do you have a more reputable site to get info on man-made global climate change? if so please share. It isnt about reputable, its about the evidence presented with science. Peer reviewed studies. Reviewed by other MMCC cult members... Well respected scientific sites, recognized internationally. It isnt about respect, its about the evidence presented with science. Expert opinion. It isnt about opinion, its about the evidence presented with science. You reject evidence. Nope. We will simply not see eye-to-eye. Yep, you are just another MMCC cult member. You refer to those who look to evidence, reason, logic, science, and fact checking as a "cult". Got it. Again, not gonna see eye-to-eye on this. -- 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. |
#155
Posted to alt.computer.workshop,alt.home.repair,uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Spank!
"Snit" wrote in message ... On Apr 20, 2021 at 2:30:48 PM MST, ""Rod Speed"" wrote : "Snit" wrote in message ... On Apr 20, 2021 at 2:20:13 PM MST, ""Rod Speed"" wrote : "Snit" wrote in message ... On Apr 20, 2021 at 1:03:55 PM MST, ""Rod Speed"" wrote : "Snit" wrote in message ... On Apr 20, 2021 at 11:20:45 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote : On Sat, 17 Apr 2021 05:23:56 +0100, Snit wrote: 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 didn=E2=80=99t 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 A government website is the last place to go for facts. Do you have a more reputable site to get info on man-made global climate change? if so please share. It isnt about reputable, its about the evidence presented with science. Peer reviewed studies. Reviewed by other MMCC cult members... Well respected scientific sites, recognized internationally. It isnt about respect, its about the evidence presented with science. Expert opinion. It isnt about opinion, its about the evidence presented with science. You reject evidence. Nope. We will simply not see eye-to-eye. Yep, you are just another MMCC cult member. You refer to those who look to evidence, reason, logic, science, and fact checking as a "cult". You are lying thru your ****ing teeth, as always. Got it. Another bare faced lie. Again, not gonna see eye-to-eye on this. Yep, YOU are just another MMCC cult member. |
#156
Posted to alt.computer.workshop,alt.home.repair,uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Spank!
On Apr 20, 2021 at 6:02:44 PM MST, ""Rod Speed"" wrote
: We will simply not see eye-to-eye. Yep, you are just another MMCC cult member. You refer to those who look to evidence, reason, logic, science, and fact checking as a "cult". You are lying thru your ****ing teeth, as always. Got it. Another bare faced lie. Again, not gonna see eye-to-eye on this. Yep, YOU are just another MMCC cult member. Again, I look to peer reviewed papers (and not just hand picking but a wide range if I am interested in a topic), scientific sites, fact checkers, top experts and organizations, etc. You find this to be a bad thing and say that ties me to a cult. We do not see eye-to-eye. So what? -- 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. |
#157
Posted to alt.computer.workshop,alt.home.repair,uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Spank!
Snit wrote
Rod Speed wrote We will simply not see eye-to-eye. Yep, you are just another MMCC cult member. You refer to those who look to evidence, reason, logic, science, and fact checking as a "cult". You are lying thru your ****ing teeth, as always. Got it. Another bare faced lie. Again, not gonna see eye-to-eye on this. Yep, YOU are just another MMCC cult member. Again, I look to peer reviewed papers Peer reviewed by other members of the MMCC cult. (and not just hand picking but a wide range if I am interested in a topic), scientific sites, fact checkers, top experts and organizations, etc. But are too stupid to even work out that real science is about evidence, not experts, organisations, reputation etc etc etc. You find this to be a bad thing More of your bare faced lies. and say that ties me to a cult. More of your bare faced lies. We do not see eye-to-eye. Yep, you are just another MMCC cult member. So what? So your troll**** gets flushed where it belongs. |
#158
Posted to alt.computer.workshop,alt.home.repair,uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Spank!
On Apr 20, 2021 at 7:47:57 PM MST, ""Rod Speed"" wrote
: Snit wrote Rod Speed wrote We will simply not see eye-to-eye. Yep, you are just another MMCC cult member. You refer to those who look to evidence, reason, logic, science, and fact checking as a "cult". You are lying thru your ****ing teeth, as always. Got it. Another bare faced lie. Again, not gonna see eye-to-eye on this. Yep, YOU are just another MMCC cult member. Again, I look to peer reviewed papers Peer reviewed by other members of the MMCC cult. (and not just hand picking but a wide range if I am interested in a topic), scientific sites, fact checkers, top experts and organizations, etc. But are too stupid to even work out that real science is about evidence, not experts, organisations, reputation etc etc etc. You find this to be a bad thing More of your bare faced lies. and say that ties me to a cult. More of your bare faced lies. We do not see eye-to-eye. Yep, you are just another MMCC cult member. So what? So your troll**** gets flushed where it belongs. Again, I look to peer reviewed papers (and not just hand picking but a wide range if I am interested in a topic), scientific sites, fact checkers, top experts and organizations, etc. You find this to be a bad thing and say that ties me to a cult. We do not see eye-to-eye. So what? -- 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. |
#159
Posted to alt.computer.workshop,alt.home.repair,uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Spank!
Some gutless ****wit troll desperately cowering behind
"Snit" repetitively ****ted the same mindless troll**** and lies as it always does when its got done like a ****ing dinner, as it always is. |
#160
Posted to alt.computer.workshop,alt.home.repair,uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Spank!
On Apr 20, 2021 at 8:47:23 PM MST, ""Rod Speed"" wrote
: Some gutless ****wit troll desperately cowering behind "Snit" repetitively ****ted the same mindless troll**** and lies as it always does when its got done like a ****ing dinner, as it always is. What you snipped: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Again, I look to peer reviewed papers (and not just hand picking but a wide range if I am interested in a topic), scientific sites, fact checkers, top experts and organizations, etc. You find this to be a bad thing and say that ties me to a cult. We do not see eye-to-eye. So what? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sad your frustration at not being able to answer this question led you to lash out so immaturely. I hope you do better next time. -- 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. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Spank! | Home Repair | |||
SPANK ON PINKO SENSEI THE DOUCHELICKER | Woodworking |