Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #561060

Re: Global Warming Hysteria Has Proven That Peer Review Without Substance is Worthless

Cross-posted to 2 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

James McGinn, in
<news:e80ed6ad-4c21-4062-af91-d0498fb667d9@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Wednesday, March 9, 2016 at 9:05:26 PM UTC-8,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>> James McGinn, in
>> <news:e25b40f2-a02e-4093-ac5b-166f1e8ed741@googlegroups.com> did
>> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

>>> On Wednesday, March 9, 2016 at 11:48:31 AM UTC-8,
>>> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>>>> Morons will STFU. I repeat, morons will STFU. That means you, Jim.

>>> I can't<SMACKAKOOK!>

>> Oh, but I have indicated how and why I'm right, Jim. Your kooky
>> conspiracy theory has been proven to be physically impossible. 

> Is there any possibility that you could provided details?  Or is that a secret?  Just wondering.

You mean that reality you yet again cowardly snipped out, Jim, thereby
proving to a worldwide audience that you're nothing more than a
delusional kooktard too frightened by your disconnect from reality
worsening that you don't dare examine where you went wrong?

<snicker>

>> Hence, it is nothing more than the mad ranting of a delusional moron, Jim.
>> That delusional moron is you, Jim. Deal with that reality as you will.
>> 
>> Your kooky conspiracy theory was gutted in full view of a worldwide
>> audience. It'll never recover. It's dead, Jim.

> I just wish I could figure out what your point is.  Any chance you could help me with that?

The point is that I've met the conditions of your kooky challenge, you
owe me $100,000 per your publicly made and thus legally binding
challenge. I've further completely demolished your kooky conspiracy
theory by proving your premise was false, proving that you're a moron
in the process, Jim.

And try as you might, you can't run away from that. The entire world
now *knows* you're a moron, Jim. How will you ever show your face in
public again?

<snicker>

>> The molar mass of water is 18.02 g/mol, as calculated from the sum of 
>> the atomic masses of its constituent atoms.
>> 
>> The average molar mass of air (approximately 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, 
>> 1% other gases) is 28.57 g/mol at STP.
>> 
>> Thus using Avogadro's Law and the Ideal Gas Law, water in its gaseous 
>> phase and air have a molar volume of 22.414 L/mol at STP. IOW, a molar 
>> mass of air and a molar mass of water in its gaseous phase occupy the 
>> same volume of 22.414 liters at STP.
>> 
>> The density of water in its gaseous phase at STP is 0.804 g/L, whereas 
>> the density of dry air is 1.27 g/L at STP.
>> 
>> Therefore that 22.414 liters molar volume would weigh:
>> 18.02 grams for water in its gaseous phase
>> 28.57 g for dry air
>> 
>> Therefore, water in its gaseous phase is lighter than air. 

> And if it's not in it's gaseous phase then what?

It is in its gaseous phase, Jim. I've proven that via two
peer-reviewed studies and several scientific concepts. The only place
water droplets exist in our atmosphere are in clouds. You're just too
much of a coward to reexamine the underlying premise of your kooky
theory, because you know that when you find you've been wrong all
along, you'll go insane thinking of all the time, effort, money and
credibility you've squandered on proving yourself a moron.

<snicker>

> What is the boiling point of H2O?  

What does that have to do with evaporation and sublimation, Jim? Are
you yet again denying that evaporation and sublimation take place?

>> Therefore air containing water in its gaseous phase is lighter than dry air.

> You mean if it's over 212F?

You mean you're a moron who cannot wrap his underpowered kookbrain
around simply physical phenomena, Jim?

Here, run away from reality again, Jim. Prove to a worldwide audience
that you're a reality-denying loon:

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
The molar mass of water is 18.02 g/mol, as calculated from the sum of 
the atomic masses of its constituent atoms.

The average molar mass of air (approximately 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, 
1% other gases) is 28.57 g/mol at STP.

Thus using Avogadro's Law and the Ideal Gas Law, water in its gaseous 
phase and air have a molar volume of 22.414 L/mol at STP. IOW, a molar 
mass of air and a molar mass of water in its gaseous phase occupy the 
same volume of 22.414 liters at STP.

The density of water in its gaseous phase at STP is 0.804 g/L, whereas 
the density of dry air is 1.27 g/L at STP.

Therefore that 22.414 liters molar volume would weigh:
18.02 grams for water in its gaseous phase
28.57 g for dry air

Therefore, water in its gaseous phase is lighter than air. Therefore 
air containing water in its gaseous phase is lighter than dry air.

Therefore, drier air *must* sink through air laden with water in its 
gaseous phase, because it is less buoyant.

Except that's not all, Jim. Because air becomes denser as the altitude 
decreases.

At any given altitude, air of the same temperature and gaseous water 
partial pressure will have the same density.

At any given altitude, air of lower temperature but similar gaseous 
water partial pressure will have higher density.

At any given altitude, air of the same temperature but greater gaseous 
water partial pressure will have lower density.

For air of the same temperature and gaseous water partial pressure, 
air at a higher altitude will have lower density.

(1) For instance, at sea level, 20 C temperature, and 0% relative 
humidity, the air density is 1.204 kg/m^3.

Keeping all other factors in (1) the same but increasing relative 
humidity to 100%, or elevation to 74 meters, or temperature to 22.4 C, 
the air density is 1.194 kg/m^3.

Thus in order for the air at sea level to rise 74 meters due to 
increased buoyancy, it must have 100% more relative humidity than the 
air 74 meters above (IOW, the air at sea level must be at 100% RH, the 
air 74 meters above must be at 0% RH), given the same temperature; or 
the temperature of that sea level air must be at least 2.4 C greater 
than the air at 74 meters, given the same relative humidity.

Given that temperature can change much more than 2.4 C, whereas 
relative humidity can only max out at 100%, one can see that 
temperature-induced convection is the predominant driver of weather 
systems, destroying yet another of your kooky contentions.

IOW, in order for air to rise, it must overcome gravity, which 
requires energy (said energy in the form of temperature of the air 
itself decreasing air density or the latent heat of vaporization of 
monomer water in its gaseous phase replacing a certain percentage of 
higher molar weight air molecules and thus decreasing air density).

It's not because of your blather that the air at a lower altitude is 
"heavier" due to "water droplets", Ko0okTard, it's because density of 
the air varies with altitude, as does temperature. Or are you going to 
deny the existence of gravity the same as you've denied the existence 
of evaporation and sublimation?

These factors cause air to flow from higher pressure regions to lower 
pressure regions. But once you get near the top of the troposphere, 
the temperature no longer goes down, it goes up, thus air finds it 
more difficult to continue rising (especially considering that as it 
rises and expands through the troposphere due to decreasing pressure 
at altitude, it gets cooler and thus more dense due to the Ideal Gas 
Law). This generally balances out at the tropopause. Above this, the 
jet stream winds decrease in speed.

This horizontally flowing air at the tropopause is affected by 
planetary rotation, causing the air to turn to the right (in the 
Northern Hemisphere) in a phenomenon known as the Coriolis Effect. 
This causes a spiraling around the cold and warm air masses which 
induced the jet stream to begin with, thus causing those cold and warm 
air masses to spiral. This wind shear between warm and cold air masses 
is how hurricanes form, Jim.

You'll note the jet stream runs at the top and slightly above the 
tropopause for the polar jets, thus they don't "deliver energy and 
activity to top of the thunderclouds", given that the tropopause 
ranges from an average of 5.6 miles at the poles to 11 miles at the 
equator, whereas the highest clouds are thin wispy cirrus, 
cirrostratus and cirrocumulus clouds, and they are the *only* types of 
clouds at the top of the troposphere, except for the occasional 
unusually strong weather system forming cumulus, cumulonimbus or 
nimbostratus clouds all the way up to the top of the tropopause.

Because remember, it's the updraft which forms the clouds in the first 
place, and the speed of the updraft which determines what type of 
cloud is formed. And that updraft is caused by a combination of warmer 
air and air with higher gaseous water content creating air with 
greater buoyancy, carrying that gaseous water content upward, where 
the temperature drops, causing that gaseous water to condense and / or 
nucleate into clouds and eventually fall as rain under the right 
conditions.

And that destroys yet another of your kooky contentions... because 
you're a low-information uneducated moron trying to argue a subject 
about which you know very little, while k'laming yourself to be a 
'physicist' because you once took a Basic Meteorology elective 
class... a rather pathetic appeal to authority fallacy whilst trying 
to establish yourself as that authority. You are not an authority, 
Jim, you're just a delusional kooktard spouting a kooky and 
discredited conspiracy theory.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

That's one means by which I utterly destroyed your kooky conspiracy 
theory, Jim.

I've destroyed the central tenets of your kooky conspiracy theory, 
James. You and your kooky theory no longer have a leg to stand on.

I've proven your kooky conspiracy theory is a physical impossibility. 
That's... what? The 5th avenue I've used to utterly destroy your kooky 
conspiracy theory?

Now let's explore another avenue of destruction of your kooky 
conspiracy theory, Jim. It proves that what you k'lame is happening is 
a physical impossibility. If high-energy ultraviolet just 3.32 nm 
wavelength away from the x-ray range were getting through the 
atmosphere to the troposphere, life on this planet would be nigh-well 
impossible. And that's the *minimum* photon energy required to even 
*begin* to create plasma from water... to plasmize all the water in 
the atmosphere would require a very high flux of very energetic 
photons reaching throughout the troposphere.

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Do you not understand what plasma is, you fecking nong? If plasma 
existed in the trophosphere, the electromagnetic interference from 
that electromagnetic plasma would make radio communication nigh well 
impossible. If plasma existed in the troposphere, we'd see lightning 
strikes right out of the blue... but you're the moron who never 
stopped to consider *why* lightning always comes from moving air near 
clouds or other sources of moisture... because you're the moron who 
knew nothing of the Triboelectric Effect until I schooled you. Nor, 
apparently, were you aware that water is a dielectric until I schooled 
you.

Plasma does not exist in our atmosphere except in the plasmasphere, 
just outside the upper ionosphere, just inside the magnetosphere. 
That's a minimum of 48 miles above the tropopause.

For clouds, there is no plasma involved in their apparent buoyancy. 
It's merely that the droplet size is sufficiently small (from a few 
microns to a few tens of microns) that the droplets have no 
appreciable fall velocity in light of random air movements and 
updraft. The fall speed is related to the droplet's mass and surface 
area. A roughly spherical droplet has a mass proportional to its 
radius cubed. The downward-facing surface area of such a droplet is 
proportional to the radius squared. Thus, as that tiny micron-sized 
water droplet grows, its mass becomes more important. At a droplet 
radius of 100 microns (an order of magnitude larger than the largest 
average droplet size), the fall velocity is only ~27 cm/s. Thus they 
stay suspended because clouds generally form in areas where air which 
is laden with gaseous water (and is thus less dense) rises, offsetting 
the fall velocity. As the altitude increases, the temperature falls, 
thus the water carrying capacity of that air drops, thus the gaseous 
phase water condenses into those tiny droplets, those tiny droplets 
grow, and eventually the ratio of droplet mass:downward-facing surface 
area is sufficient for that droplet to overcome the updraft and fall 
to the ground. Which is why different cloud types (caused by different 
updraft speeds) cause different types of rain.

Stratiform clouds (those producing steady rain) typically form in an 
environment with widespread but weak upward motion (say, a few cm/s); 
convective clouds (those causing showers and thunderstorms) are 
associated with updrafts that exceed a few meters per second.

For clear sky, the relative humidity proves that there is water in its 
fully gaseous phase in the air, given that water is miscible in air 
down to ~-60 C. Sublimation further proves this fact. The speed of 
sound being faster in the less-dense air laden with gaseous water as 
compared to dry air further proves this fact. The relative density of 
air laden with gaseous phase water being less than dry air further 
proves this fact.

Your contention that lightning is caused by your purported plasma is 
another easily disproved kook contention... the upward draft in areas 
where cloud formation is prevalent also contributes to creating 
lightning ... this can be proven by the fact that tribocharging (the 
Triboelectric Effect, a form of contact electrification) is caused by 
rubbing a dielectric such as a balloon or comb... water is a 
dielectric. So lightning is nothing more than an updraft-induced 
tribocharging. This is why NASA cancels launches if the space vehicle 
being launched has to fly through certain types of clouds, because the 
P-static (precipitation static) would interfere with communication and 
telemetry, and particularly the mission-critical flight termination 
signals should something go wrong. NASA calls this their 
Triboelectrification Rule. This is why convective clouds are typically 
the only type of clouds to exhibit lightning... the updraft is faster, 
thus the Triboelectric Effect is stronger.

So... given the above, I'm sure you can figure out for yourself which 
types of clouds would trigger NASA's Triboelectrification Rule, right?

As regards your kooky claim that water forms a plasma in the 
atmosphere (which means you must be talking about the troposphere, 
given that's where nearly all clouds form except for the high, thin, 
wispy nacreous and noctilucent clouds):

<http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2001-02/983243860.Ph.r.html>
=========================================================
It has been measured that to create any degree of ionization in a 
water vapor atmosphere you need to have electrons with energy of at 
least around 12 electron volts. (See Ref. below) That means that if 
you want to ionize the water (make a plasma) by thermal energy only 
you must impart enough thermal energy to get a lot of electrons of 
energy about 12 electron volts or higher. That means the water 
molecules will have to be heated up to an excitation level of about 
this magnitude. For a water molecule to be heated to this excitation 
energy we are talking about a temperature of about 12,000 degrees K. 
So if you could heat the water to this temperature you would begin to 
make such a plasma.
=========================================================

Do you know what 12 eV entails, Jim? That'd entail photons of 103.32 
nm, a frequency of 2.9016e15 Hz, extremely energetic ultraviolet 
light, nearly in the x-ray range.

And that's the *minimum* required to even create *any* degree of 
plasma from water... you're claiming *all* the water in the atmosphere 
is plasma.

Only 3% of the ultraviolet light from the sun makes its way through 
the atmosphere to the trophosphere, Jim, most of it far less 
energetic, ranging upwards of 400 nm.

In fact, because ultraviolet shorter than 121 nm ionizes air so 
strongly, it is absorbed far above the troposphere, hence, water 
plasma *cannot* exist in the troposphere, where the overwhelming 
majority of atmospheric water is (and hence where all clouds are 
except for those wispy nacreous and noctilucent clouds), Jim.

Do you not understand that therefore there is no plasma in the 
troposphere, and thus your kooky conspiracy theory is the mad ranting 
of an uneducated goof trying to pretend that he's a physicist because 
he took an elective Basic Meteorology class once, when really you're 
just a delusional kooktard?

Anyone with any interest can look up the data and corroborate it for 
themselves. I am certain, Jim, that you will not... you will instead 
run away from reality again. It is all you can do, given your 
delusional mental state. Your sanity hangs in the balance, thus you'll 
avoid any proof which upsets the delicate smoke-and-mirrors world 
you've constructed as means of propping up your failing sanity, Jim.

So yet again via yet another avenue, I utterly destroy your kooky 
conspiracy theory, Jim. That's reality. Deal with it.

<snicker>
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

See how simple things are when one is sane, Jim? See how much sense 
that all makes? The world (indeed, the universe) doesn't work by kooky 
conspiracies and impossibilities as you claim, Jim, it works by a set 
of immutable rules. Learn those rules, Jim, and stop being such a 
fucking moron. Go back and finish high school, Jim. You'll be the 
better for it, and likely the saner, too.

<snicker>

-- 

Shiny Tinfoil Brain (aka Bite My Shiny Metal Ass) didn't know:
=====================================
The Euler equation is a subset of equations known as the Euler-Fourier
Formulas, thus that a sinewave is a transformation of a circle (which
should have been intuitive, given that generators *rotate* to create
*sinusoids*);

That cross correlation is used with Fourier transforms;

That superposition is the same as wave interference;

That wave interference works the same for standing or traveling waves;

That RMS and peak-to-peak voltage are two different things;

That RMS isn't a DC voltage;

That 170 volt peak, 120.208 volt RMS L-N 3-phase service gives 208.207
volts RMS L-L;

That 4444525800 != 4400000000 != 1;

The difference between frequency and period of a sinewave;

That there's no difference between 'i' and 'j' in electrical
engineering, physics and control systems engineering;

What a positive or negative vector is;

That the vector sum of 3-phase AC constitutes a closed loop per
Kirchhoff's Voltage Law, thus that the three phases sum to zero;

That "mnemonic" is not spelled "mneumonic";

That his claim: "Water is tetrahedral. It actually has 4 poles, 2
positive and 2 negative." is nonsense from a blathering moron.

That water does not have negative poles. The oxygen has an
electronegativity of 8+, the hydrogens 1+.

That the term "electronegativity" denotes a *positive* nucleal charge.

What the definition of the word "equivalent" is.

And the moron continues to demonstrate his inability to read a graph.
=====================================

SPNAK!

<snicker>

Back to sci.physics | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Global Warming Hysteria Has Proven That Peer Review Without Substance is Worthless James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 09:31 -0800
  Re: Global Warming Hysteria Has Proven That Peer Review Without Substance is Worthless Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 11:52 -0600
    Re: Global Warming Hysteria Has Proven That Peer Review Without Substance is Worthless James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 10:12 -0800
      Re: Global Warming Hysteria Has Proven That Peer Review Without Substance is Worthless Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 15:08 -0600
        Re: Global Warming Hysteria Has Proven That Peer Review Without Substance is Worthless James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 13:17 -0800
          Re: Global Warming Hysteria Has Proven That Peer Review Without Substance is Worthless Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-03-09 15:52 -0600
  Re: Global Warming Hysteria Has Proven That Peer Review Without Substance is Worthless Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-09 20:38 +0100
    Re: Global Warming Hysteria Has Proven That Peer Review Without Substance is Worthless James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 12:04 -0800
      Re: Global Warming Hysteria Has Proven That Peer Review Without Substance is Worthless Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-10 05:55 +0100
        Re: Global Warming Hysteria Has Proven That Peer Review Without Substance is Worthless James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 21:16 -0800
          Re: Global Warming Hysteria Has Proven That Peer Review Without Substance is Worthless Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-10 07:39 +0100
            Re: Global Warming Hysteria Has Proven That Peer Review Without Substance is Worthless on!on@anon.invalid (Mr On!on) - 2016-03-10 11:49 +0000
            Re: Global Warming Hysteria Has Proven That Peer Review Without Substance is Worthless James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 04:58 -0800
              Re: Global Warming Hysteria Has Proven That Peer Review Without Substance is Worthless Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-10 18:36 +0100
                Re: Global Warming Hysteria Has Proven That Peer Review Without Substance is Worthless James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 14:31 -0800
                Re: Global Warming Hysteria Has Proven That Peer Review Without Substance is Worthless Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 17:11 -0600
                Re: Global Warming Hysteria Has Proven That Peer Review Without Substance is Worthless James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 15:18 -0800
                Re: Global Warming Hysteria Has Proven That Peer Review Without Substance is Worthless Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 19:31 -0600
                Re: Global Warming Hysteria Has Proven That Peer Review Without Substance is Worthless Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-11 07:29 +0100
                Re: Global Warming Hysteria Has Proven That Peer Review Without Substance is Worthless James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 23:50 -0800
                Re: Global Warming Hysteria Has Proven That Peer Review Without Substance is Worthless Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-13 05:59 +0100
        Re: Global Warming Hysteria Has Proven That Peer Review Without Substance is Worthless Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-10 07:19 +0100
          Re: Global Warming Hysteria Has Proven That Peer Review Without Substance is Worthless James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 05:18 -0800
            Re: Global Warming Hysteria Has Proven That Peer Review Without Substance is Worthless HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 05:35 -0800
              Re: Global Warming Hysteria Has Proven That Peer Review Without Substance is Worthless benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 00:21 -0500
            Re: Global Warming Hysteria Has Proven That Peer Review Without Substance is Worthless Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 06:38 -0800
            Re: Global Warming Hysteria Has Proven That Peer Review Without Substance is Worthless Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-10 19:01 +0100
              Re: Global Warming Hysteria Has Proven That Peer Review Without Substance is Worthless James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 12:20 -0800
                Re: Global Warming Hysteria Has Proven That Peer Review Without Substance is Worthless Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 15:31 -0600
                Re: Global Warming Hysteria Has Proven That Peer Review Without Substance is Worthless James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 14:13 -0800
                Re: Global Warming Hysteria Has Proven That Peer Review Without Substance is Worthless Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-11 07:45 +0100
                Re: Global Warming Hysteria Has Proven That Peer Review Without Substance is Worthless Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 01:00 -0800
                Re: Global Warming Hysteria Has Proven That Peer Review Without Substance is Worthless Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-13 06:39 +0100
                Re: Global Warming Hysteria Has Proven That Peer Review Without Substance is Worthless James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-12 22:16 -0800
                Re: Global Warming Hysteria Has Proven That Peer Review Without Substance is Worthless Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-13 07:59 +0100
                Re: Global Warming Hysteria Has Proven That Peer Review Without Substance is Worthless James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-12 23:25 -0800
                Re: Global Warming Hysteria Has Proven That Peer Review Without Substance is Worthless Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-14 05:43 +0100
                Re: Global Warming Hysteria Has Proven That Peer Review Without Substance is Worthless Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 14:24 -0500
              Re: Global Warming Hysteria Has Proven That Peer Review Without Substance is Worthless Scotland The Puny <breainiac@ball.net> - 2016-03-10 17:55 -0500
                Re: Global Warming Hysteria Has Proven That Peer Review Without Substance is Worthless Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 17:13 -0600
        Re: Global Warming Hysteria Has Proven That Peer Review Without Substance is Worthless on!on@anon.invalid (Mr On!on) - 2016-03-10 11:37 +0000
    Re: Global Warming Hysteria Has Proven That Peer Review Without Substance is Worthless vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-03-10 07:02 +0000
      Re: Global Warming Hysteria Has Proven That Peer Review Without Substance is Worthless "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop  Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-03-10 02:33 -0500
        Re: Global Warming Hysteria Has Proven That Peer Review Without Substance is Worthless Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-10 17:00 +0800
          Re: Global Warming Hysteria Has Proven That Peer Review Without Substance is Worthless "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop  Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-03-10 12:18 -0500
      Re: Global Warming Hysteria Has Proven That Peer Review Without Substance is Worthless James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 04:57 -0800
      Re: Global Warming Hysteria Has Proven That Peer Review Without Substance is Worthless Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-10 18:26 +0100
        Re: Global Warming Hysteria Has Proven That Peer Review Without Substance is Worthless vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-03-10 23:52 +0000
          Re: Global Warming Hysteria Has Proven That Peer Review Without Substance is Worthless "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 17:01 -0700
  Re: Global Warming Hysteria Has Proven That Peer Review Without Substance is Worthless Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-03-09 15:09 -0600
  Re: Global Warming Hysteria Has Proven That Peer Review Without Substance is Worthless Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 03:20 -0800
    Re: Global Warming Hysteria Has Proven That Peer Review Without Substance is Worthless James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 04:52 -0800
      Re: Global Warming Hysteria Has Proven That Peer Review Without Substance is Worthless Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 05:33 -0800

csiph-web