No one and nothing could ever pry Paul Alsing's hands off his Kool-Aid.

On 9/25/19 4:47 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 25 Sep 2019 10:28:08 -0700, Snit
wrote:

On 9/25/19 9:31 AM, chrisv wrote:
AnonLinuxUser wrote:

And they say it is settled science. No such thing.

Says the ignorant asshole right-winger who also claims that evolution
is not settled science.

Maybe if you weren't so fscking *ignorant*, you would agree that these
issues *were* settled.


The right wingers are insisting they should have an equal seat at the
table even when they come to it with a pre-K level of knowledge.

Why not? It's worked for the left wingers.

You are changing topics but I will bite. Give examples. And then show
where I backed them when they did so.

Oh.

You are JUST changing topics away from the pre-K level of knowledge
shown on science from the Republican party and many on the right.


--
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 9/25/19 4:47 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 25 Sep 2019 11:31:10 -0500, chrisv
wrote:

AnonLinuxUser wrote:

And they say it is settled science. No such thing.

Says the ignorant asshole right-winger who also claims that evolution
is not settled science.

Maybe if you weren't so fscking *ignorant*, you would agree that these
issues *were* settled.

You will become ignorant if you insist any scientific issues are
settled.

Do you think we should not use electronics because of the uncertainties
in the field of electromagnetism?

Do you feel medical science should ignore bacterial infections because
of uncertainty in the field of germ theory?




--
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 9/25/19 4:45 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 24 Sep 2019 18:30:02 -0700, Snit
wrote:

On 9/24/19 4:36 PM, Steve Carroll wrote:
On 2019-09-24, AnonLinuxUser wrote:
On 9/24/2019 3:41 PM, Roger Blake wrote:
On 2019-09-24, Snit wrote:
Not quite... you call it "her" science... really she is saying we should
accept well understood science, just as we should accept the world is
not flat. That is not HER science... it is science she is accepting.

What she is accepting is junk science based on manipulated and blatantly
falsified data, as well as egregious lies and fear-mongering of the type
environmentalists have been engaging in for over 50 years.

From what I've read, I think it goes even further to the 1930s.

Climate 'scares' go back even further than the 1930s.

But we have a handle on climate 'science' now, we have all the details
we need so as to develop the perfect 'solution' and we know exactly how
much it will cost eyeroll.


We know moving to green energy is a necessity.

Yep. Pebble bed or thorium reactors are the way to go.

If you can make it be safe and cost effective then sure. But until then
let's go with better options, such as solar and wind.

--
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 9/25/19 4:43 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 24 Sep 2019 16:11:56 -0700, Snit
wrote:

On 9/24/19 3:26 PM, AnonLinuxUser wrote:
On 9/24/2019 3:41 PM, Roger Blake wrote:
On 2019-09-24, Snit wrote:
Not quite... you call it "her" science... really she is saying we should
accept well understood science, just as we should accept the world is
not flat. That is not HER science... it is science she is accepting.

What she is accepting is junk science based on manipulated and blatantly
falsified data, as well as egregious lies and fear-mongering of the type
environmentalists have been engaging in for over 50 years.

From what I've read, I think it goes even further to the 1930s.


So show it. Quote her. Show where she is deeply inconsistent with, say,
this link:

http://climate.nasa.gov

NASA is .... disingenuous.

Incorrect, but if you do not like them then use another source. Here,
pick one:

https://www.climatecentral.org/

https://www.climate.gov/

https://www.ipcc.ch/

http://sites.nationalacademies.org/s...mate/index.htm

https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming

https://www.worldwildlife.org/threat...climate-change

https://www.globalchange.gov/climate-change

https://www.nature.com/nclimate/

https://www.epa.gov/climate-research

https://www.nsta.org/climate/

https://www.noaa.gov/education/resou...change-impacts

http://www.realclimate.org/

https://skepticalscience.com/

But (and this is predictable): YOU WILL NOT!




--
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 9/25/2019 9:15 AM, Steve Carroll wrote:
On 2019-09-25, AnonLinuxUser wrote:
On 9/24/2019 5:36 PM, Steve Carroll wrote:
On 2019-09-24, AnonLinuxUser wrote:
On 9/24/2019 3:41 PM, Roger Blake wrote:
On 2019-09-24, Snit wrote:
Not quite... you call it "her" science... really she is saying we should
accept well understood science, just as we should accept the world is
not flat. That is not HER science... it is science she is accepting.

What she is accepting is junk science based on manipulated and blatantly
falsified data, as well as egregious lies and fear-mongering of the type
environmentalists have been engaging in for over 50 years.

From what I've read, I think it goes even further to the 1930s.

Climate 'scares' go back even further than the 1930s.

But we have a handle on climate 'science' now, we have all the details
we need so as to develop the perfect 'solution' and we know exactly how
much it will cost eyeroll.


LOL! Even further than that? Does it go back to Karl Marxs time?

And they say it is settled science. No such thing.

Wait... so you're saying this ~decade 'irreversible' sales pitch may not
be true?! How can that be?


Of course. I've read where a consensus among scientists about what they
believe to be a proven fact, and only later new scientists prove it was
caused by something else. Happens all the time. LOL!

On 9/25/2019 5:47 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 25 Sep 2019 10:28:08 -0700, Snit
wrote:

On 9/25/19 9:31 AM, chrisv wrote:
AnonLinuxUser wrote:

And they say it is settled science. No such thing.

Says the ignorant asshole right-winger who also claims that evolution
is not settled science.

Maybe if you weren't so fscking *ignorant*, you would agree that these
issues *were* settled.


The right wingers are insisting they should have an equal seat at the
table even when they come to it with a pre-K level of knowledge.

Why not? It's worked for the left wingers.


This guy is in my bozo bin. Only read it from your response to him.
Looks like he never read much in the history of scientific research.
Nothing ever is settled in science, because they keep coming up with
newer ideas that prove the old scientific thinking wrong.

On 9/25/2019 11:14 AM, Chris wrote:
Jeff-Relf.Me @. wrote:
Hurricanes aren't new to the Bahamas;
no, what's new is all the people living there now.

The entire planet shouldn't give up its sovereignty just to
(notionally) "save" the fools who built shacks in "Hurricane Alley".

Also, fires are natural; especially now, when there's enough
warmth, water, and carbon dioxide to grow plentiful forests.


Death, disease, earthquakes, flooding are also all natural. Does that mean
we shouldn't do anything about them? Of course not, otherwise we'd still be
living in caves.

Every year we're releasing 100,000 years' worth of CO2 into the atmosphere.
That certainly is not natural.


Of course. That's why the Elite made the Georgia guide stones.
They want to kill most of us off down to 500million and no more.

On 9/25/2019 10:42 AM, chrisv wrote:
AnonLinuxUser wrote:

chrisv wrote:

AnonLinuxUser wrote:

Chris wrote:

Tell that to the 70,000 Bahamians who had their houses destroyed by the
most powerful hurricane ever.

The uncontrolled fires in Siberia.

The non-stop drought in Australia.

The shrinking seas in the Middle East and Central Asia.

Sure humanity will likely survive. Millions of humans will have their way
of life changed forever, however.

Economies will be affected, national instability will increase in many
countries, conflict over food or resources, mass migration will grow. All
these things are already happening and uncontrolled climate change will
make it significantly worse.

****ing moron!

The clarion call of someone who's got no argument. Keep lashing out if it
makes you feel better.

All of this seems to point to one other alternative... Space Travel and
colonization.

Yeah, because that would cost less, and help more people, than simply
taking care of the Earth.

Idiot.

Fool! The only alternative is to just croak. No, if we had space
colonization and could move a lot of people else where that is
habitable, the earth wouldn't have to bear the burden of too many people.

You , as usual , are an idiot.

How does one respond, to such shameless idiocy?

I couldn't get lower than you, that much is certain.
You should sue the college you got your degree from and get your money
back. You were gyped.

On 2019-09-25 4:43 p.m., Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 24 Sep 2019 16:11:56 -0700, Snit
wrote:

On 9/24/19 3:26 PM, AnonLinuxUser wrote:
On 9/24/2019 3:41 PM, Roger Blake wrote:
On 2019-09-24, Snit wrote:
Not quite... you call it "her" science... really she is saying we should
accept well understood science, just as we should accept the world is
not flat. That is not HER science... it is science she is accepting.

What she is accepting is junk science based on manipulated and blatantly
falsified data, as well as egregious lies and fear-mongering of the type
environmentalists have been engaging in for over 50 years.

From what I've read, I think it goes even further to the 1930s.


So show it. Quote her. Show where she is deeply inconsistent with, say,
this link:

http://climate.nasa.gov

NASA is .... disingenuous.

But (and this is predictable): YOU WILL NOT!


Xref: news comp.os.linux.advocacy:2430088 alt.comp.os.windows-10:102117
sci.physics:2286065 alt.checkmate:438491
Path:
peer01.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!pee r01.am4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx41.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Eric Stevens
Newsgroups:
comp.os.linux.advocacy,alt.comp.os.windows-10,sci.physics,alt.checkmate
Subject: Since when was it a good idea for the government to control
production ?!
Message-ID:
References:









User-Agent: ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 33
X-Complaints-To:
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2019 11:43:13 +1200
X-Received-Bytes: 2473
X-Received-Body-CRC: 2014975854

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 25 Sep 2019 17:14:47 -0000 (UTC), Chris
wrote:

Every year we're releasing 100,000 years' worth of CO2 into the atmosphere.
That certainly is not natural.

How does that work?

Pretty sure I've explained this to you before. Coal and oil are called
fossil fuels for a reason; they take millions of years to create and formed
from the remains of prehistoric organisms. These organisms were made up of
ancient carbon from the time they were alive.

The carbon cycle is a continuous process. Today atmospheric carbon is being
deposited on the sea floor in dead organisms and will become oil on eons to
come.

The fact is we're burning this ancient carbon source far, far quicker than
new carbon is being deposited. The difference in the rates has been
calculated to be equivalent to 100,000 years.

I can't currently lay my finger on those calculations.

And because we're doing this we're at the risk releasing even more carbon
that's currently in permafrost.

https://thinkprogress.org/alaskas-vi...-8cf7aec95fc7/

AnonLinuxUser wrote:
On 9/25/2019 11:14 AM, Chris wrote:
Jeff-Relf.Me @. wrote:
Hurricanes aren't new to the Bahamas;
no, what's new is all the people living there now.

The entire planet shouldn't give up its sovereignty just to
(notionally) "save" the fools who built shacks in "Hurricane Alley".

Also, fires are natural; especially now, when there's enough
warmth, water, and carbon dioxide to grow plentiful forests.


Death, disease, earthquakes, flooding are also all natural. Does that mean
we shouldn't do anything about them? Of course not, otherwise we'd still be
living in caves.

Every year we're releasing 100,000 years' worth of CO2 into the atmosphere.
That certainly is not natural.


Of course. That's why the Elite made the Georgia guide stones.
They want to kill most of us off down to 500million and no more.

Erm, ok..? Whatever you say, bud.

AnonLinuxUser wrote:
On 9/25/2019 9:15 AM, Steve Carroll wrote:
On 2019-09-25, AnonLinuxUser wrote:
On 9/24/2019 5:36 PM, Steve Carroll wrote:
On 2019-09-24, AnonLinuxUser wrote:
On 9/24/2019 3:41 PM, Roger Blake wrote:
On 2019-09-24, Snit wrote:
Not quite... you call it "her" science... really she is saying we should
accept well understood science, just as we should accept the world is
not flat. That is not HER science... it is science she is accepting.

What she is accepting is junk science based on manipulated and blatantly
falsified data, as well as egregious lies and fear-mongering of the type
environmentalists have been engaging in for over 50 years.

From what I've read, I think it goes even further to the 1930s.

Climate 'scares' go back even further than the 1930s.

But we have a handle on climate 'science' now, we have all the details
we need so as to develop the perfect 'solution' and we know exactly how
much it will cost eyeroll.


LOL! Even further than that? Does it go back to Karl Marxs time?

And they say it is settled science. No such thing.

Wait... so you're saying this ~decade 'irreversible' sales pitch may not
be true?! How can that be?


Of course. I've read where a consensus among scientists about what they
believe to be a proven fact, and only later new scientists prove it was
caused by something else. Happens all the time. LOL!

Like? Give examples.

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 24 Sep 2019 18:30:02 -0700, Snit
wrote:

On 9/24/19 4:36 PM, Steve Carroll wrote:
On 2019-09-24, AnonLinuxUser wrote:
On 9/24/2019 3:41 PM, Roger Blake wrote:
On 2019-09-24, Snit wrote:
Not quite... you call it "her" science... really she is saying we should
accept well understood science, just as we should accept the world is
not flat. That is not HER science... it is science she is accepting.

What she is accepting is junk science based on manipulated and blatantly
falsified data, as well as egregious lies and fear-mongering of the type
environmentalists have been engaging in for over 50 years.

From what I've read, I think it goes even further to the 1930s.

Climate 'scares' go back even further than the 1930s.

But we have a handle on climate 'science' now, we have all the details
we need so as to develop the perfect 'solution' and we know exactly how
much it will cost eyeroll.


We know moving to green energy is a necessity.

Yep. Pebble bed or thorium reactors are the way to go.

Theoretical and untested technology. Yeah, that's *totally* the way to
go...

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 24 Sep 2019 21:52:23 -0000 (UTC), Chris
wrote:

Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. wrote:
On Tue, 24 Sep 2019 07:22:29 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:

Jeff-Relf.Me @. wrote:
Paul Alsing replied ( to me ):

440 million years ago, in the Earth's coldest period,
carbon dioxide levels were 11 times higher than they are today.

Even if it was - you don't show any evidence - there weren't many humans
around then, were there?

Climate change is a problem for us and our ecosystem only. The planet (and
life on it) will survive as it already has done over four mass extinctions.
We may not.

Oh, shut up, you hysterical bitch. You are SOOOO stupid
if you actually believe humanity cannot adapt to a few
degrees rise in global average temperatures. Gimme
a ****ing break. You liberals are definitely an evolutionary
dead end. I hope you liberals ALL die off because two
degrees is just way more than you can cope with.

Tell that to the 70,000 Bahamians who had their houses destroyed by the
most powerful hurricane ever.

That last bit is bull****.

Hurricane Dorian joint first strongest winds reported on a hurricane to hit
landfall:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Dorian

The uncontrolled fires in Siberia.

They have always happened.

Prove it

The non-stop drought in Australia.

It will stop. Just as the much more severe droughts (plural) in the
1800s and early 1900s did.

Will it? I guess if you say so that'll give them great comfort. As we will
know, the past climate is not the same as it is now.

The shrinking seas in the Middle East and Central Asia.

The Middle East is plate tectonics.

Nope.

If you mean what I think you mean
by Central Asia, that's man made interference with the river flows.

And why do you think people are diverting river flows? Lack of rain.

Sure humanity will likely survive. Millions of humans will have their way
of life changed forever, however.

They always do.

Not at this current rapid timescale.

Economies will be affected, national instability will increase in many
countries, conflict over food or resources, mass migration will grow. All
these things are already happening and uncontrolled climate change will
make it significantly worse.

It's always uncontrolled.

****ing moron!

The clarion call of someone who's got no argument. Keep lashing out if it
makes you feel better.

On Thu, 26 Sep 2019 07:51:47 -0000 (UTC), Chris
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 25 Sep 2019 17:14:47 -0000 (UTC), Chris
wrote:

Every year we're releasing 100,000 years' worth of CO2 into the atmosphere.
That certainly is not natural.

How does that work?

Pretty sure I've explained this to you before. C

On reading ahead - nope.

Coal and oil are called
fossil fuels for a reason; they take millions of years to create and formed
from the remains of prehistoric organisms. These organisms were made up of
ancient carbon from the time they were alive.

Coal is unlikely to be made again in bulk ever since the bacteria
evolved which could digest lignin.

But now, from where do you think the "remains of preshistoric
organisms" derived their carbon? That's right, from the atmosphere.
What happens when the atmosphere runs out of accessible carbon?
Answer: current organisms die. We got perilously close to the minum
useable level of CO2 in the atmosphere in the last iceage. Now that
atmospheric CO2 is being boosted plant life is loving it. The planet
is greening enormously. But I digress ...

The carbon cycle is a continuous process. Today atmospheric carbon is being
deposited on the sea floor in dead organisms and will become oil on eons to
come.

Don't forget it is also forming carbonates in the rocks and in the
sea.

The fact is we're burning this ancient carbon source far, far quicker than
new carbon is being deposited. The difference in the rates has been
calculated to be equivalent to 100,000 years.

There is enough to last us for quite a long time. Long before it runs
out we will have found a better power source.

I can't currently lay my finger on those calculations.

And because we're doing this we're at the risk releasing even more carbon
that's currently in permafrost.

https://thinkprogress.org/alaskas-vi...-8cf7aec95fc7/

That's good for the planet.

You should read
https://www.c-span.org/video/?400360-1/the-tuned-brain
In it Peter Whybrow argues that human brains are not wired for modern
society, in which long-term thinking is crucial for survival. He says
that humans' “ancient brain” focuses on short-term survival and
responds well to our economic system, which rewards short-term gains,
but is not well-suited to deal with major long-term problems like
global warming.

I would go further and say that brains suited to short-term thinking
and not suited to dealing with existential problems with long term and
slowly evolving solutions. Such a brain wants a solution -NOW-! -
and uses tantrums, panic and magical thinking if it can't get an
immediate solution.

--


Eric Stevens

There are two classes of people. Those who divide people into
two classes and those who don't. I belong to the second class.