https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/features/500234/to-avert-climate-disaster-what-if-one-rogue-nation-dimmed-the-sunYour reference to Covid is surely mis-placed. Covid is an infectious
Absolutely everything is wrong with this article in which climate
hysterics describe the climate remedies they will use to (as with
Covid) confront a problem which does not exist, and those "remedies"
will in fact cause mass deaths.
Their plan is to fill the stratosphere with reflectives which willStrange ideas from zealots are not necessarily science, Willy Nilly.
block the Sun. Of course what would actually happen is that the
reflectives will persist in the stratosphere and we will all die of >catastrophic cold. But somehow that obvious outcome is not mentioned
in the article.
I won't cite lines and refutations -- the whole article is insane.
Science is out to kill us now. At the end it spouts the concluding
lunacy: "Any climate sceptics left are frauds or fools".
Many predictions are made that we will die from pollution. But a newScience comes to prove or disprove conjectures - hysterical visions
menace has appeared, not predicted in the literature -- we may instead
die from the idiotic actions of our pestilent priests of "science",
reacting to hysterical visions where no actual problem exists.
hysterical visions are not science, and may never become science.
On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 17:36:42 +1300, BR <bl...@blah.blah> wrote:
On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 08:11:00 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
hysterical visions are not science, and may never become science.
You mean like the hysterical visions of people like Greta Thunberg?No, I did not. When are you going to stop telling untruths, BR?
When you do Rich! You, Shaw and Greta are cut from the same cloth. Barely an active brain cell among you!Bill.
On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 08:11:00 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
No, I did not. When are you going to stop telling untruths, BR?hysterical visions are not science, and may never become science.
You mean like the hysterical visions of people like Greta Thunberg?
Bill.
On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 17:36:42 +1300, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 08:11:00 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:No, I did not. When are you going to stop telling untruths, BR?
hysterical visions are not science, and may never become science.
You mean like the hysterical visions of people like Greta Thunberg?
On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 19:29:32 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 17:36:42 +1300, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 08:11:00 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:No, I did not. When are you going to stop telling untruths, BR?
hysterical visions are not science, and may never become science.
You mean like the hysterical visions of people like Greta Thunberg?
I didn't tell anything, I merely asked you a question.
So explain are these "hysterical visions".
Does Greta Thunberg not have "hysterical visions"?
Bill.
On Tue, 17 Oct 2023 04:55:06 +1300, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 19:29:32 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:
On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 17:36:42 +1300, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 08:11:00 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>wrote:No, I did not. When are you going to stop telling untruths, BR?
hysterical visions are not science, and may never become science.
You mean like the hysterical visions of people like Greta Thunberg?
I didn't tell anything, I merely asked you a question.
So explain are these "hysterical visions".
Does Greta Thunberg not have "hysterical visions"?
Bill.
Read the url posted at the start of this thread:
On Tue, 17 Oct 2023 08:56:53 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 17 Oct 2023 04:55:06 +1300, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 19:29:32 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:
On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 17:36:42 +1300, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 08:11:00 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>wrote:
hysterical visions are not science, and may never become science.
You mean like the hysterical visions of people like Greta Thunberg? >>>>No, I did not. When are you going to stop telling untruths, BR?
I didn't tell anything, I merely asked you a question.
So explain are these "hysterical visions".
Does Greta Thunberg not have "hysterical visions"?
Bill.
Read the url posted at the start of this thread:
I've read it. It is nonsense.
So getting back to the question; does Greta Thunberg have "hysterical >visions" or does she not?
How about India Bourke?
Bill.
On Tue, 17 Oct 2023 17:36:10 +1300, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:You are the only scum here - your defamation, lies and abusive repetitive sarcasm are beyond anything that the rest of us combined do.
On Tue, 17 Oct 2023 08:56:53 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:
On Tue, 17 Oct 2023 04:55:06 +1300, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 19:29:32 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>wrote:
On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 17:36:42 +1300, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 08:11:00 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>wrote:
hysterical visions are not science, and may never become science.
You mean like the hysterical visions of people like Greta Thunberg? >>>>>No, I did not. When are you going to stop telling untruths, BR?
I didn't tell anything, I merely asked you a question.
So explain are these "hysterical visions".
Does Greta Thunberg not have "hysterical visions"?
Bill.
Read the url posted at the start of this thread:
I've read it. It is nonsense.
So you deliberately delete part of the previous post - here is the
url: >https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/features/500234/to-avert-climate-disaster-what-if-one-rogue-nation-dimmed-the-sun
The next step would be the sort of scummy misrepresentation by
selective deleting of previous posts that the Tony has been called on
- you are usually much better than that at normal courtesies, BR.
So getting back to the question; does Greta Thunberg have "hysterical >>visions" or does she not?
How about India Bourke?
Bill.
On Tue, 17 Oct 2023 17:36:10 +1300, BR <bl...@blah.blah> wrote:
On Tue, 17 Oct 2023 08:56:53 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 17 Oct 2023 04:55:06 +1300, BR <bl...@blah.blah> wrote:
On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 19:29:32 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:
On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 17:36:42 +1300, BR <bl...@blah.blah> wrote:
On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 08:11:00 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> >>>>>wrote:
hysterical visions are not science, and may never become science. >>>>>You mean like the hysterical visions of people like Greta Thunberg? >>>>No, I did not. When are you going to stop telling untruths, BR?
I didn't tell anything, I merely asked you a question.
So explain are these "hysterical visions".
Does Greta Thunberg not have "hysterical visions"?
Bill.
Read the url posted at the start of this thread:
I've read it. It is nonsense.So you deliberately delete part of the previous post - here is the
url: https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/features/500234/to-avert-climate-disaster-what-if-one-rogue-nation-dimmed-the-sun
The next step would be the sort of scummy misrepresentation by
selective deleting of previous posts that the Tony has been called on
- you are usually much better than that at normal courtesies, BR.
So getting back to the question; does Greta Thunberg have "hysterical >visions" or does she not?
How about India Bourke?
Bill.
On Tue, 17 Oct 2023 17:36:10 +1300, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
On Tue, 17 Oct 2023 08:56:53 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:
On Tue, 17 Oct 2023 04:55:06 +1300, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 19:29:32 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>wrote:
On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 17:36:42 +1300, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 08:11:00 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>wrote:
hysterical visions are not science, and may never become science.
You mean like the hysterical visions of people like Greta Thunberg? >>>>>No, I did not. When are you going to stop telling untruths, BR?
I didn't tell anything, I merely asked you a question.
So explain are these "hysterical visions".
Does Greta Thunberg not have "hysterical visions"?
Bill.
Read the url posted at the start of this thread:
I've read it. It is nonsense.
So you deliberately delete part of the previous post - here is the
url: https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/features/500234/to-avert-climate-disaster-what-if-one-rogue-nation-dimmed-the-sun
The next step would be the sort of scummy misrepresentation by
selective deleting of previous posts that the Tony has been called on
- you are usually much better than that at normal courtesies, BR.
So getting back to the question; does Greta Thunberg have "hysterical >>visions" or does she not?
How about India Bourke?
Bill.
On 2023-10-17, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Relying on deletion of part of a post to distort a thread is scummy
On Tue, 17 Oct 2023 17:36:10 +1300, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
On Tue, 17 Oct 2023 08:56:53 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:
On Tue, 17 Oct 2023 04:55:06 +1300, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 19:29:32 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>wrote:
On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 17:36:42 +1300, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 08:11:00 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>wrote:
hysterical visions are not science, and may never become science. >>>>>>>You mean like the hysterical visions of people like Greta Thunberg? >>>>>>No, I did not. When are you going to stop telling untruths, BR?
I didn't tell anything, I merely asked you a question.
So explain are these "hysterical visions".
Does Greta Thunberg not have "hysterical visions"?
Bill.
Read the url posted at the start of this thread:
I've read it. It is nonsense.
So you deliberately delete part of the previous post - here is the
url:
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/features/500234/to-avert-climate-disaster-what-if-one-rogue-nation-dimmed-the-sun
The next step would be the sort of scummy misrepresentation by
selective deleting of previous posts that the Tony has been called on
- you are usually much better than that at normal courtesies, BR.
Once again you are playing the man.
Take the question at face value and explain your point of view. Then accept >that the reply maybe not agreeable to you but that is life.
As I said above, I do not believe she does.
So getting back to the question; does Greta Thunberg have "hysterical >>>visions" or does she not?
Absolutely everything is wrong with this article in which climateYour reference to Covid is surely mis-placed. Covid is an infectious
hysterics describe the climate remedies they will use to (as with
Covid) confront a problem which does not exist, and those "remedies"
will in fact cause mass deaths.
Their plan is to fill the stratosphere with reflectives which willStrange ideas from zealots are not necessarily science, Willy Nilly.
block the Sun. Of course what would actually happen is that the
reflectives will persist in the stratosphere and we will all die of >catastrophic cold. But somehow that obvious outcome is not mentioned
in the article.
I won't cite lines and refutations -- the whole article is insane.
Science is out to kill us now. At the end it spouts the concluding
lunacy: "Any climate sceptics left are frauds or fools".
Many predictions are made that we will die from pollution. But a newScience comes to prove or disprove conjectures - hysterical visions
menace has appeared, not predicted in the literature -- we may instead
die from the idiotic actions of our pestilent priests of "science",
reacting to hysterical visions where no actual problem exists.
How about India Bourke?
Bill.
On Wed, 18 Oct 2023, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
Science comes to prove or disprove conjectures
Science cannot "prove" conjectures -- it can only disprove them. As
Einstein said, "If I were wrong, one (disproof) would be enough."
This is why the notion of scientific "consensus" is not science,
especially when disagreeing scientists are censored.
Science comes to prove or disprove conjectures
On Wed, 18 Oct 2023 08:03:25 GMT, willynilly@qwert.com (Willy Nilly)
wrote:
On Wed, 18 Oct 2023, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
Science comes to prove or disprove conjectures
Science cannot "prove" conjectures -- it can only disprove them. As >>Einstein said, "If I were wrong, one (disproof) would be enough."
This is why the notion of scientific "consensus" is not science,
especially when disagreeing scientists are censored.
You are off topic as well as being plain wrong. There are plenty of conjectures that can be proved by science - think of DNA evidence that
may prove that an individual was at a crime scene . . .
On Wed, 18 Oct 2023 08:03:25 GMT, willy...@qwert.com (Willy Nilly)
wrote:
On Wed, 18 Oct 2023, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Science comes to prove or disprove conjectures
Science cannot "prove" conjectures -- it can only disprove them. As >Einstein said, "If I were wrong, one (disproof) would be enough."You are off topic as well as being plain wrong. There are plenty of conjectures that can be proved by science - think of DNA evidence that
This is why the notion of scientific "consensus" is not science,
especially when disagreeing scientists are censored.
may prove that an individual was at a crime scene . . .
On Wednesday, 18 October 2023 at 21:12:27 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:And that can be sufficient to secure a conviction in many cases.
On Wed, 18 Oct 2023 08:03:25 GMT, willy...@qwert.com (Willy Nilly)
wrote:
On Wed, 18 Oct 2023, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:You are off topic as well as being plain wrong. There are plenty of
Science comes to prove or disprove conjectures
Science cannot "prove" conjectures -- it can only disprove them. As
Einstein said, "If I were wrong, one (disproof) would be enough."
This is why the notion of scientific "consensus" is not science,
especially when disagreeing scientists are censored.
conjectures that can be proved by science - think of DNA evidence that
may prove that an individual was at a crime scene . . .
It only proves that a sample of material that came from someone was found at the crime scene.
Unsurprising to see such BS from Dickbot.You do see your own failings in everyone else, JohnO.
He supports that twat Andrew Little who wanted to remove the burden of proof in sex assault cases.Andrew Little did not want to remove the burden of proof - you are
On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 00:10:42 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>But does not prove anything in itself - and that is the point. Your example is bullshit and JohnO pointed it out precisely.
wrote:
On Wednesday, 18 October 2023 at 21:12:27 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:And that can be sufficient to secure a conviction in many cases.
On Wed, 18 Oct 2023 08:03:25 GMT, willy...@qwert.com (Willy Nilly)
wrote:
On Wed, 18 Oct 2023, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:You are off topic as well as being plain wrong. There are plenty of
Science comes to prove or disprove conjectures
Science cannot "prove" conjectures -- it can only disprove them. As
Einstein said, "If I were wrong, one (disproof) would be enough."
This is why the notion of scientific "consensus" is not science,
especially when disagreeing scientists are censored.
conjectures that can be proved by science - think of DNA evidence that
may prove that an individual was at a crime scene . . .
It only proves that a sample of material that came from someone was found at >>the crime scene.
Unsurprising to see such BS from Dickbot.You do see your own failings in everyone else, JohnO.
He supports that twat Andrew Little who wanted to remove the burden of proof >>in sex assault cases.Andrew Little did not want to remove the burden of proof - you are
just trying to distract from your own failings by total bullshit
statements. Not good enough, JohnO.
On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 20:08:12 -0000 (UTC), TonyNo you idiot, I am not. But you stated "DNA evidence (that)
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 00:10:42 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >>>wrote:But does not prove anything in itself - and that is the point. Your example >>is
On Wednesday, 18 October 2023 at 21:12:27 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:And that can be sufficient to secure a conviction in many cases.
On Wed, 18 Oct 2023 08:03:25 GMT, willy...@qwert.com (Willy Nilly)
wrote:
On Wed, 18 Oct 2023, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:You are off topic as well as being plain wrong. There are plenty of
Science comes to prove or disprove conjectures
Science cannot "prove" conjectures -- it can only disprove them. As >>>>> >Einstein said, "If I were wrong, one (disproof) would be enough."
This is why the notion of scientific "consensus" is not science,
especially when disagreeing scientists are censored.
conjectures that can be proved by science - think of DNA evidence that >>>>> may prove that an individual was at a crime scene . . .
It only proves that a sample of material that came from someone was found >>>>at
the crime scene.
bullshit and JohnO pointed it out precisely.
Are you trying to claim that DNA evidence should not be regarded as
reliable evidence in a court case, Tony?
Absolute proof, in bothAnd one day you might demonstrate that but as of today you have failed to do so. Meanwhile do grow up and stop your childish hissy fits - the election is over and the bad guys got smashed as they deserved - end of story. A new day dawns.
court cases and in science, is very rare; the burden of proof is
beyond reasonable doubt, as in "It is beyond reasonable doubt that
Tony is often wrong."
Unsurprising to see such BS from Dickbot.You do see your own failings in everyone else, JohnO.
He supports that twat Andrew Little who wanted to remove the burden of >>>>proofAndrew Little did not want to remove the burden of proof - you are
in sex assault cases.
just trying to distract from your own failings by total bullshit >>>statements. Not good enough, JohnO.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 00:10:42 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >>wrote:But does not prove anything in itself - and that is the point. Your example is >bullshit and JohnO pointed it out precisely.
On Wednesday, 18 October 2023 at 21:12:27 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:And that can be sufficient to secure a conviction in many cases.
On Wed, 18 Oct 2023 08:03:25 GMT, willy...@qwert.com (Willy Nilly)
wrote:
On Wed, 18 Oct 2023, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:You are off topic as well as being plain wrong. There are plenty of
Science comes to prove or disprove conjectures
Science cannot "prove" conjectures -- it can only disprove them. As
Einstein said, "If I were wrong, one (disproof) would be enough."
This is why the notion of scientific "consensus" is not science,
especially when disagreeing scientists are censored.
conjectures that can be proved by science - think of DNA evidence that >>>> may prove that an individual was at a crime scene . . .
It only proves that a sample of material that came from someone was found at >>>the crime scene.
Unsurprising to see such BS from Dickbot.You do see your own failings in everyone else, JohnO.
He supports that twat Andrew Little who wanted to remove the burden of proof >>>in sex assault cases.Andrew Little did not want to remove the burden of proof - you are
just trying to distract from your own failings by total bullshit >>statements. Not good enough, JohnO.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 121:20:22 |
| Calls: | 6,662 |
| Files: | 12,212 |
| Messages: | 5,334,487 |