• Sheep May Safely Graze

    From Mr Flibble@21:1/5 to All on Sat Aug 23 13:38:49 2025
    Sheep may safely graze despite Olcott trying to cause panic.

    /Flibble

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Alan Mackenzie@21:1/5 to Mr Flibble on Sat Aug 23 15:04:16 2025
    Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> wrote:
    Sheep may safely graze despite Olcott trying to cause panic.

    Blythe Bells.

    /Flibble

    --
    Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Damon@21:1/5 to olcott on Sat Aug 23 13:57:12 2025
    On 8/23/25 11:19 AM, olcott wrote:
    On 8/23/2025 8:38 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
    Sheep may safely graze despite Olcott trying to cause panic.

    /Flibble


    It is the case that climate change will have devastating
    consequences. It already killed 1/3 of a bat species
    in Australia. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-46859000

    And your concept of "logic" will have no impact on that.


    Severe anthropogenic climate change
    proven entirely with verifiable facts
    https://www.researchgate.net/ publication/336568434_Severe_anthropogenic_climate_change_proven_entirely_with_verifiable_facts


    Which is just a "lie" as it is just a statement of some peoples
    opinions, not recognizing that emperical facts about the world are not
    subject to the logical concept of "proof"

    That chart on page five seems to indicate that there
    are many more degrees than the target 1.5 degrees that
    are already baked into the atmosphere.

    Such a huge increase in average temperatures will
    cause 145F heats waves here and there now and then
    killing everything in is path in less than five minutes.

    We can keep believing the hired liars of the fossil fuel
    industry or band together mandating a universal carbon
    fee and dividend program to give everyone skin in the game.


    Or we can believe the admitted liar of Peter Olcott, or we can look to
    real facts.

    Your claims just taint the real truth.

    Your problem is you are just showing that you are not capable of doing a
    proper analysis.

    The fact that you have already admitted that you claim the right to
    redefine terms-of-art if youy disagree with them means that NOTHING you
    say can be taken at face value, and your paper with ZERO citations is
    just not a usable source of information.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)