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

AnonLinuxUser wrote:
On 9/26/2019 1:51 AM, Chris wrote:
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.


Ever been there?
https://www.zmescience.com/other/fea...st-apocalypse/

Thankfully not. "America's Stonehenge"? Gimme a break. They're not even 40
years old. They're about as relevant as the Noah's ark thing in Kentucky.
Parts of the US have SERIOUS issues with reality.

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 26 Sep 2019 07:56:50 -0000 (UTC), Chris
wrote:

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...

*All* technology starts off that way.

Sure, but thorium reactors and pebble ones have gone through the cycle and
failed. Despite their supposed advantages no-one has managed to make them a
viable proposition.

Plus in the time it takes do the work to get them working we're going to be
toast. We need workable solutions today coupled with long term options.
That means conventional fission and solar/wind/tidal/hydro now with fusion
in 20-30 years.

AnonLinuxUser wrote:
On 9/26/2019 1:51 AM, Chris wrote:
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.

Like you can't go faster than the speed of light.
Yet they are baffled that they have spotted many objects out there that
are doing just that.

Really? Name one object that has been observed travelling faster than the
speed of light.

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 26 Sep 2019 07:51:49 -0000 (UTC), Chris
wrote:

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.

Phlogiston theory.

Bad air theory of disease.

Opposition to plate tectonics.

None were proven facts. There's a substantial difference between a proven
fact and a theory.

On 2019-09-26 12:13 p.m., Chris wrote:
AnonLinuxUser wrote:
On 9/26/2019 1:51 AM, Chris wrote:
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.

Like you can't go faster than the speed of light.
Yet they are baffled that they have spotted many objects out there that
are doing just that.

Really? Name one object that has been observed travelling faster than the
speed of light.

dark

On 2019-09-26 12:13 p.m., Chris wrote:
Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 26 Sep 2019 07:51:49 -0000 (UTC), Chris
wrote:

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.

Phlogiston theory.

Bad air theory of disease.

Opposition to plate tectonics.

None were proven facts. There's a substantial difference between a proven
fact and a theory.

no there isn't

On 9/26/2019 1:13 PM, Chris wrote:
AnonLinuxUser wrote:
On 9/26/2019 1:51 AM, Chris wrote:
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.

Like you can't go faster than the speed of light.
Yet they are baffled that they have spotted many objects out there that
are doing just that.

Really? Name one object that has been observed travelling faster than the
speed of light.


Name one object he says. It wasn't I that observed, but the government.
Ask them.

On 9/26/2019 1:02 PM, Chris wrote:
AnonLinuxUser wrote:
On 9/26/2019 1:51 AM, Chris wrote:
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.


Ever been there?
https://www.zmescience.com/other/fea...st-apocalypse/

Thankfully not. "America's Stonehenge"? Gimme a break. They're not even 40
years old. They're about as relevant as the Noah's ark thing in Kentucky.
Parts of the US have SERIOUS issues with reality.


Then who spent the money to put them up?

Didn't you read what the stones had written on them,... and in several
languages?

AnonLinuxUser wrote:
On 9/26/2019 1:13 PM, Chris wrote:
AnonLinuxUser wrote:
On 9/26/2019 1:51 AM, Chris wrote:
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.

Like you can't go faster than the speed of light.
Yet they are baffled that they have spotted many objects out there that
are doing just that.

Really? Name one object that has been observed travelling faster than the
speed of light.


Name one object he says. It wasn't I that observed, but the government.
Ask them.

Right got it. You can't put your money where your mouth is. Come back when
you understand how science works.

On 2019-09-26 3:13 p.m., Chris wrote:
% wrote:
On 2019-09-26 12:13 p.m., Chris wrote:
Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 26 Sep 2019 07:51:49 -0000 (UTC), Chris
wrote:

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.

Phlogiston theory.

Bad air theory of disease.

Opposition to plate tectonics.

None were proven facts. There's a substantial difference between a proven
fact and a theory.

no there isn't

Sure is. Take Fermat's last theorem. He made it 1637, but the proof wasn't
solved until 1994. Despite it not being proved for over 300 years it still
inspired developments in maths.

no it didn't

On 9/26/19 2:27 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 25 Sep 2019 19:04:33 -0700, Snit
wrote:

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.

I am merely broadening the scope of your claim.


Notice you gave no examples. You merely are avoiding the topic of how
Republicans show little knowledge of one of the most important topics of
our age.

--
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 9/26/19 2:10 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 25 Sep 2019 19:09:09 -0700, Snit
wrote:

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/

Most of those are already on my 'take care' list.

So show where the GND is contrary to the science.

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

My prediction was correct.



--
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 2019-09-26 3:34 p.m., Snit wrote:
On 9/26/19 2:27 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 25 Sep 2019 19:04:33 -0700, Snit
wrote:

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.Â* 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.

I am merely broadening the scope of your claim.


Notice you gave no examples. You merely are avoiding the topic of how
Republicans show little knowledge of one of the most important topics of
our age.

what was the topic

On 2019-09-26 3:35 p.m., Snit wrote:
On 9/26/19 2:10 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 25 Sep 2019 19:09:09 -0700, Snit
wrote:

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.

Â*Â* 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/

Most of those are already on my 'take care' list.

So show where the GND is contrary to the science.

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

My prediction was correct.



do you have a web site for that

On 9/26/19 4:04 PM, % wrote:
On 2019-09-26 3:35 p.m., Snit wrote:
On 9/26/19 2:10 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 25 Sep 2019 19:09:09 -0700, Snit
wrote:

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.

Â*Â* 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/

Most of those are already on my 'take care' list.

So show where the GND is contrary to the science.

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

My prediction was correct.



do you have a web site for that

it.is.the.way.it.is.com

--
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.