Groups > sci.physics > #563639 > unrolled thread

Why did the weather fanbois Wormley and McGinn choose sci.physics?

Started by	Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com>
First post	2016-03-19 11:14 -0400
Last post	2016-03-19 18:18 -0700
Articles	20 on this page of 36 — 11 participants

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Page 1 of 2 [1] 2 Next page →

#563639 — Why did the weather fanbois Wormley and McGinn choose sci.physics?

From	Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com>
Date	2016-03-19 11:14 -0400
Subject	Why did the weather fanbois Wormley and McGinn choose sci.physics?
Message-ID	<6vqqeb551t7s62t4iam3gi739qr9pjf8ta@4ax.com>

Why did the weather fanbois Wormley and McGinn choose sci.physics?

Why don't they post instead to groups where weather is on topic?

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#563643

From	HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com>
Date	2016-03-19 08:44 -0700
Message-ID	<49740208-ab40-4e63-817f-94a59f20a277@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#563639

Wally W.
Why did the weather fanbois Wormley and McGinn choose sci.physics? 

Why don't they post instead to groups where weather is on topic? 
-------------

Wally, I have given both of them permission to discuss weather related topics here.

Please note that your questioning whether or not this is on topic is off topic.

H.V.A.C.
Moderator
sci.physics

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#563686

From	Sergio <invalid@invalid.com>
Date	2016-03-19 14:01 -0500
Message-ID	<nck7n9$7i3$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to	#563643

On 3/19/2016 10:44 AM, HVAC wrote:
> Wally W.
> Why did the weather fanbois Wormley and McGinn choose sci.physics?
>
> Why don't they post instead to groups where weather is on topic?
> -------------
>
> Wally, I have given both of them permission to discuss weather related topics here.
>
> Please note that your questioning whether or not this is on topic is off topic.
>
> H.V.A.C.
> Moderator
> sci.physics
>

what if a post is 50% on topic and/or 50% off topic ?

or what if 90% of the words are not scientific like, or not physics 
similar  ?

does spelting count ?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#564097

From	Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com>
Date	2016-03-21 05:47 -0700
Message-ID	<1f38831a-07fc-49f1-8c0d-063c774d4717@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#563686

On Saturday, March 19, 2016 at 3:02:09 PM UTC-4, Sergio wrote:
> On 3/19/2016 10:44 AM, HVAC wrote:
> > Wally W.
> > Why did the weather fanbois Wormley and McGinn choose sci.physics?

Sam is a marketing bot. There are more readers in this NG. James is nuts.

> > Why don't they post instead to groups where weather is on topic?
> > -------------
> >
> > Wally, I have given both of them permission to discuss weather related topics here.

Speaking of nuts... Hey HVAC, how deep did your lobotomy actually end up being? 
O wait... TrollHVAC needs a brain before a lobotomy can be performed. Mea Culpa.

> > Please note that your questioning whether or not this is on topic is off topic.

So HeilHVAC, per your logic, whatever that is... it's OK for everyone to
be off-topic but it is not acceptable for anyone like Wally to point
out they are off-topic.  You HVACuous one do stand up comedy too?

> > H.V.A.C.
> > Moderator
> > sci.physics
> 
> what if a post is 50% on topic and/or 50% off topic ?

There's nothing wrong with personal discussion in the course of being
on-topic. That's how we all learn about one another. Some of the best
posts contain anecdotes from posters' experiences through the course
of their lives. At least, in my 20+ years of Usenet experience. YMMV.

> or what if 90% of the words are not scientific like, or not physics 
> similar  ?

What about those bozos who use the words 'Words Salad' only to complain
that what's written is Words Salad?! Wasted Irony. I have yet to read
an equivalent of that worthless quip expressed in any Math. Equations Salad?

> does spelting count ?

Nobody really expects Physicists to be able to always spell properly
in English. It's ususally, on average, a third language to them. The
norm is {Their Native Language (Hebrew, he brews, HEBLEW (if Chinese),
Math math MATH, English english ENGRISH, ...}. See, third. On average.

Bottom line is: DON'T FEED THE TROLLS!

It's an old lesson, but should still work. Just don't reply to the
Trolls. There are lots of posters, mostly nym-shifters and anonymous,
that never read. The more they cut&post, I really don't need to read either.

One can't reason with barbarian trolls. Ever. Insane James, Sam Worm
Liar, reber, Soylent Tomatoes, KCIR, Fakey Friendly, Ayad, ... if I
see these names on a thread I completely ignore them. At times their
thread will have a second poster respond, then I might query the
response. Sadly, these trolls have multiple personality disorders
manifested by multiple user handles and play this troll trick too.

Trolls' job is to dilute the quality of unmoderated NGs, this one NG
s.p. is a prime target. It's somehow too late to change the rules, of
expected self-discipline and self-responsibity, which were forged by naive
humans who thought all people have good manners. God they were wrong!

DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. DON'T REASON WITH THE TROLLS. 
Don't ever feed them a single bit of attention they crave. 
Trolls will die! trolls will die! TROLLS WILL DIE!

-- Mahipal “IPMM... माहिपाल ७६३८: More Get S.M.A.R.T. reruns, please U.N.C.L.E.”

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#563656

From	James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com>
Date	2016-03-19 10:37 -0700
Message-ID	<15b544b3-2090-4946-b3c5-da4eb8501871@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#563639

On Saturday, March 19, 2016 at 8:14:39 AM UTC-7, Wally W. wrote:
> Why did the weather fanbois Wormley and McGinn choose sci.physics?
> 
> Why don't they post instead to groups where weather is on topic?

Discussing the physics of the atmosphere (ie. storm theory) is strictly a taboo subject for meteorologists.  There are very deep, historical and political reasons for this.  It's kind of like why you will never find a climatologists that is willing to discuss the physics of the greenhouse effect.  It's kind of like they know their theory is nonsense and so the best chance they have to preserving its perceived validity is to not discuss it and just refer all inquiries to the peer-review literature, kind of like how clergy refer people that are skeptical to the bible.  

Ultimately meteorology's storm theory is indefensible pseudoscience.  That is why people like Nutcase Dude are unable to present a real argument.  All they can do is continually refer to other fellow believers.  All they can do is keep dodging the substantive issues and try to convince everybody else that non-beliervers are crazy--the same tactics we see from believers in global warming.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#563672

From	Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com>
Date	2016-03-19 14:06 -0400
Message-ID	<n45reb9peocu6m7m9u1s5am6dtik5pldng@4ax.com>
In reply to	#563656

On Sat, 19 Mar 2016 10:37:55 -0700 (PDT), James McGinn wrote:

>On Saturday, March 19, 2016 at 8:14:39 AM UTC-7, Wally W. wrote:
>> Why did the weather fanbois Wormley and McGinn choose sci.physics?
>> 
>> Why don't they post instead to groups where weather is on topic?
>
>Discussing the physics of the atmosphere (ie. storm theory) is strictly a taboo subject for meteorologists.  

So it is a political move: you are looking here for allies in your
fight against meteorologists?

How is that going for you?

>There are very deep, historical and political reasons for this.  It's kind of like why you will never find a climatologists that is willing to discuss the physics of the greenhouse effect.  It's kind of like they know their theory is nonsense and so the best chance they have to preserving its perceived validity is to not discuss it and just refer all inquiries to the peer-review literature, kind of like how clergy refer people that are skeptical to the bible.  
>
>Ultimately meteorology's storm theory is indefensible pseudoscience.  That is why people like Nutcase Dude are unable to present a real argument.  All they can do is continually refer to other fellow believers.  All they can do is keep dodging the substantive issues and try to convince everybody else that non-beliervers are crazy--the same tactics we see from believers in global warming.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#563676

From	James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com>
Date	2016-03-19 11:27 -0700
Message-ID	<74eaf874-0aa4-4d51-a70a-274172181928@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#563672

On Saturday, March 19, 2016 at 11:06:38 AM UTC-7, Wally W. wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Mar 2016 10:37:55 -0700 (PDT), James McGinn wrote:
> 
> >On Saturday, March 19, 2016 at 8:14:39 AM UTC-7, Wally W. wrote:
> >> Why did the weather fanbois Wormley and McGinn choose sci.physics?
> >> 
> >> Why don't they post instead to groups where weather is on topic?
> >
> >Discussing the physics of the atmosphere (ie. storm theory) is strictly a taboo subject for meteorologists.  
> 
> So it is a political move: you are looking here for allies in your
> fight against meteorologists?
> 
> How is that going for you?

Are you willing and able to discuss the content of meteorology's storm theory?  

Do you understand . . . or do you just believe?

How would you even know?

Does convection theory make sense to you?  

What do you think it indicates if you are unable to explain what you think you know?

What do you think it indicates if you have a emotional reaction to your inability to explain what you think you know?  

What emotions were you feeling when you made the first post on this thread.

Think about it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#563685

From	Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com>
Date	2016-03-19 14:43 -0400
Message-ID	<977rebpeu48ff1if5898otfcl3jv4iis6g@4ax.com>
In reply to	#563676

On Sat, 19 Mar 2016 11:27:09 -0700 (PDT), James McGinn wrote:

>On Saturday, March 19, 2016 at 11:06:38 AM UTC-7, Wally W. wrote:
>> On Sat, 19 Mar 2016 10:37:55 -0700 (PDT), James McGinn wrote:
>> 
>> >On Saturday, March 19, 2016 at 8:14:39 AM UTC-7, Wally W. wrote:
>> >> Why did the weather fanbois Wormley and McGinn choose sci.physics?
>> >> 
>> >> Why don't they post instead to groups where weather is on topic?
>> >
>> >Discussing the physics of the atmosphere (ie. storm theory) is strictly a taboo subject for meteorologists.  
>> 
>> So it is a political move: you are looking here for allies in your
>> fight against meteorologists?
>> 
>> How is that going for you?
>
>Are you willing and able to discuss the content of meteorology's storm theory?

It is not on topic in sci.physics to the extent you whinge about it
here.

>Do you understand . . . or do you just believe?

When reading sci.physics, how much to you think I should care?


>How would you even know?
>
>Does convection theory make sense to you?  
>
>What do you think it indicates if you are unable to explain what you think you know?
>
>What do you think it indicates if you have a emotional reaction to your inability to explain what you think you know?  
>
>What emotions were you feeling when you made the first post on this thread.

Frustration with people who relentlessly spew off-topic in
sci.physics.

>Think about it.

I did. Now that you have an answer to your question above, what do you
intend to do with it?

At least Sam posts about topics other than his hobby horse.

If one can call his copy-and-paste spews "posting."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#563688

From	James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com>
Date	2016-03-19 12:19 -0700
Message-ID	<4e57b9d4-e8fd-48b1-9c2a-9cc54c657ef3@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#563685

On Saturday, March 19, 2016 at 11:43:41 AM UTC-7, Wally W. wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Mar 2016 11:27:09 -0700 (PDT), James McGinn wrote:
> 
> >On Saturday, March 19, 2016 at 11:06:38 AM UTC-7, Wally W. wrote:
> >> On Sat, 19 Mar 2016 10:37:55 -0700 (PDT), James McGinn wrote:
> >> 
> >> >On Saturday, March 19, 2016 at 8:14:39 AM UTC-7, Wally W. wrote:
> >> >> Why did the weather fanbois Wormley and McGinn choose sci.physics?
> >> >> 
> >> >> Why don't they post instead to groups where weather is on topic?
> >> >
> >> >Discussing the physics of the atmosphere (ie. storm theory) is strictly a taboo subject for meteorologists.  
> >> 
> >> So it is a political move: you are looking here for allies in your
> >> fight against meteorologists?
> >> 
> >> How is that going for you?
> >
> >Are you willing and able to discuss the content of meteorology's storm theory?
> 
> It is not on topic in sci.physics to the extent you whinge about it
> here.

Is the atmosphere not physical?

> 
> >Do you understand . . . or do you just believe?
> 
> When reading sci.physics, how much to you think I should care?

Why wouldn't you?

> 
> 
> >How would you even know?
> >
> >Does convection theory make sense to you?  

Gee golly, no response here.  Hmm.  I wonder why?

> >
> >What do you think it indicates if you are unable to explain what you think you know?
> >
> >What do you think it indicates if you have a emotional reaction to your inability to explain what you think you know?  
> >
> >What emotions were you feeling when you made the first post on this thread.
> 
> Frustration with people who relentlessly spew off-topic in
> sci.physics.

Hmm.  Yet you have no presence in this NG.  Hmm.

> 
> >Think about it.
> 
> I did. Now that you have an answer to your question above, what do you
> intend to do with it?

Tell us why you wouldn't answer the question about convection?

> 
> At least Sam posts about topics other than his hobby horse.
> 
> If one can call his copy-and-paste spews "posting."

So, here's a topic for discussion. What do you think it indicates when the most prominent advocates of a scientific notion are unwilling or unable to discuss its details? 

Allow me to provide two subcategories to provide focus for this discussion:
Climatology: Global Warming
Meteorology: Storm Theory

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#563692

From	Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com>
Date	2016-03-19 15:24 -0400
Message-ID	<no9reblvil3kogq0a1bol4k8mprlm1ksum@4ax.com>
In reply to	#563688

On Sat, 19 Mar 2016 12:19:49 -0700 (PDT), James McGinn wrote:

>Allow me to provide two subcategories to provide focus for this discussion:
>Climatology: Global Warming

That is Sam's hobby horse.

>Meteorology: Storm Theory

That is your hobby horse.

There are better groups to discuss both topics.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#563696

From	James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com>
Date	2016-03-19 12:33 -0700
Message-ID	<2ee12132-35a6-4b69-b0cc-fbe95f8c6107@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#563692

On Saturday, March 19, 2016 at 12:24:46 PM UTC-7, Wally W. wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Mar 2016 12:19:49 -0700 (PDT), James McGinn wrote:
> 
> >Allow me to provide two subcategories to provide focus for this discussion:
> >Climatology: Global Warming
> 
> That is Sam's hobby horse.
> 
> >Meteorology: Storm Theory
> 
> That is your hobby horse.
> 
> There are better groups to discuss both topics.

I think we learn more about what people really think from the questions they don't answer than we do from those they do.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#563708

From	jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com
Date	2016-03-19 20:01 +0000
Message-ID	<1qn0sc-s46.ln1@mail.specsol.com>
In reply to	#563696

James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:

> I think we learn

You have never learned a thing in your entire life, kook.


-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#563745

From	Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com>
Date	2016-03-19 19:36 -0400
Message-ID	<5horeb9rtac0fdqkgjs2fgs5d3o5plcten@4ax.com>
In reply to	#563696

On Sat, 19 Mar 2016 12:33:08 -0700 (PDT), James McGinn wrote:

>On Saturday, March 19, 2016 at 12:24:46 PM UTC-7, Wally W. wrote:
>> On Sat, 19 Mar 2016 12:19:49 -0700 (PDT), James McGinn wrote:
>> 
>> >Allow me to provide two subcategories to provide focus for this discussion:
>> >Climatology: Global Warming
>> 
>> That is Sam's hobby horse.
>> 
>> >Meteorology: Storm Theory
>> 
>> That is your hobby horse.
>> 
>> There are better groups to discuss both topics.
>
>I think we learn more about what people really think from the questions they don't answer than we do from those they do.

What leads you to believe I don't "really" think there are better
groups where you and Sam can post about your obsessions?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#564073

From	Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com>
Date	2016-03-20 23:10 -0700
Message-ID	<a81202d8-f223-481e-a17b-e67c9de6a12b@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#563745

On Saturday, March 19, 2016 at 4:36:49 PM UTC-7, Wally W. wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Mar 2016 12:33:08 -0700 (PDT), James McGinn wrote:
> 
> >On Saturday, March 19, 2016 at 12:24:46 PM UTC-7, Wally W. wrote:
> >> On Sat, 19 Mar 2016 12:19:49 -0700 (PDT), James McGinn wrote:
> >> 
> >> >Allow me to provide two subcategories to provide focus for this discussion:
> >> >Climatology: Global Warming
> >> 
> >> That is Sam's hobby horse.
> >> 
> >> >Meteorology: Storm Theory
> >> 
> >> That is your hobby horse.
> >> 
> >> There are better groups to discuss both topics.
> >
> >I think we learn more about what people really think from the questions they don't answer than we do from those they do.
> 
> What leads you to believe I don't "really" think there are better
> groups where you and Sam can post about your obsessions?

The fact that you haven't named one.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#563809

From	"nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com>
Date	2016-03-19 22:44 -0700
Message-ID	<85e2a74c-e637-46d5-9bc1-8023ed26c933@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#563688

On Saturday, March 19, 2016 at 12:19:56 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
> On Saturday, March 19, 2016 at 11:43:41 AM UTC-7, Wally W. wrote:
> > On Sat, 19 Mar 2016 11:27:09 -0700 (PDT), James McGinn wrote:
> > 
> > >On Saturday, March 19, 2016 at 11:06:38 AM UTC-7, Wally W. wrote:
> > >> On Sat, 19 Mar 2016 10:37:55 -0700 (PDT), James McGinn wrote:
> > >> 
> > >> >On Saturday, March 19, 2016 at 8:14:39 AM UTC-7, Wally W. wrote:
> > >> >> Why did the weather fanbois Wormley and McGinn choose sci.physics?
> > >> >> 
> > >> >> Why don't they post instead to groups where weather is on topic?
> > >> >
> > >> >Discussing the physics of the atmosphere (ie. storm theory) is strictly
> > >> > a taboo subject for meteorologists.  

  That's completely false. Unless of course by "discuss" you mean "attempt to destroy".

> > >> So it is a political move: you are looking here for allies in your
> > >> fight against meteorologists?
> > >> 
> > >> How is that going for you?
> > >
> > >Are you willing and able to discuss the content of meteorology's storm
> > > theory?

  Are you? Or are you obsessed with scrapping it completely?

> > It is not on topic in sci.physics to the extent you whinge about it
> > here.
> 
> Is the atmosphere not physical?

  Physics is about so very much more than the narrow focus of your obsession, yet you seem to be trying to dominate the group.

> > >Do you understand . . . or do you just believe?
> > 
> > When reading sci.physics, how much to you think I should care?
> 
> Why wouldn't you?

  Why shouldn't he obsess over your obsession to the degree you do, you mean.

> > >How would you even know?
> > >
> > >Does convection theory make sense to you?  
> 
> Gee golly, no response here.  Hmm.  I wonder why?

  Gee golly, because he's already answered.

> > >What do you think it indicates if you are unable to explain what you think
> > > you know?
> > >
> > >What do you think it indicates if you have a emotional reaction to your
> > > inability to explain what you think you know?  
> > >
> > >What emotions were you feeling when you made the first post on this thread.
> > 
> > Frustration with people who relentlessly spew off-topic in
> > sci.physics.
> 
> Hmm.  Yet you have no presence in this NG.  Hmm.

User Wally W.

Group sci.physics 2572 posts.

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!activity/sci.physics/L2eX_TNeBwAJ

User James McGinn

Group sci.physics 1777 posts

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!profile/sci.physics/APn2wQfFuZr-VW9iHCqp8IAl2rrcmdv8CZ0x5PUNpoD7EfIZWmcevOTMDTdA20Ko4yKaNoxBwIs9

> > >Think about it.
> > 
> > I did. Now that you have an answer to your question above, what do you
> > intend to do with it?
> 
> Tell us why you wouldn't answer the question about convection?

  Because he already has?

> > At least Sam posts about topics other than his hobby horse.
> > 
> > If one can call his copy-and-paste spews "posting."
> 
> So, here's a topic for discussion. What do you think it indicates when the
> most prominent advocates of a scientific notion are unwilling or unable to
> discuss its details? 

  As you are unwilling or unable to discuss yours the way you want to "discuss" meteorology's storm theory?
 
> Allow me to provide two subcategories to provide focus for this discussion:
> Climatology: Global Warming
> Meteorology: Storm Theory

  Again with the obsession.

  You can get medications for that level of OCD, you know.


  Mark L. Fergerson

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#563815

From	James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com>
Date	2016-03-19 23:20 -0700
Message-ID	<19b00df7-421d-4904-8f77-49b82b6fee93@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#563809

On Saturday, March 19, 2016 at 10:44:16 PM UTC-7, nu...@bid.nes wrote:

>   That's completely false. Unless of course by "discuss" you mean "attempt to destroy".

Bad science is an impediment to science.  So, yes, I do want to destroy it.  That's the way science works.  If their theory is sound they have nothing to worry about.  

The problem is that they don't understand their own theory.  So, in order to get meteorologists to reject their own theory the would have be educated.  And they've been living in conceptual darness for so long . . . 

> > > >Are you willing and able to discuss the content of meteorology's storm
> > > > theory?
> 
>   Are you? Or are you obsessed with scrapping it completely?

Of course I am.  Yes.  I plead guilty as charged.  It's a nonsense theory.

>   Physics is about so very much more than the narrow focus of your obsession, yet you seem to be trying to dominate the group.

Who cares.  Current theory is believed.  Yet most people think they understand it.  Until they are put on the spot and forced to explain what they think they understand they won't come to grips with the fact that they really only believe it and don't really understand it.  So, I have no qualms about putting people on the spot.  I want people to feel embarrassed by their inability to answer my questions.  That is the only way they will be honest with themselves that they really don't understand it, then learning can begin.

>   Why shouldn't he obsess over your obsession to the degree you do, you mean.

Right.  Why not.  What do you have to lose.  Convection theory is not worth holding onto.  It's a useless theory of no practical value.

>   As you are unwilling or unable to discuss yours the way you want to "discuss" meteorology's storm theory?

Of course.  All I'm trying to do is to level the playing field.  Given a chance, my theory will defeat the convection model.

I'm proud to be obsessed with improving a scientific discipline.  It might improve forecasting.  And there is even an outside chance there could be some development of mitigation measures for such things as hurricanes.  

The big conceptual breakthrough that this represents is in understanding that the energy of storms does not come up from below but comes down from above.  Knowing that doesn't lead to any obvious solutions for tornadoes and hurricanes but it does open up the field to doing research to see if mitigation measures in the lower stratosphere and upper troposphere might be effective to mitigating or redirecting hurricane.  

The point is that once you have a conceptually clear understanding of what is actually happening with storms the possibility exists to conduct research that currently would not be considered.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#563829

From	Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com>
Date	2016-03-20 03:01 -0400
Message-ID	<8fisebd01d2nn0bv935djcdf0bhvbjso6q@4ax.com>
In reply to	#563815

On Sat, 19 Mar 2016 23:20:27 -0700 (PDT), James McGinn wrote:

>
>>   Why shouldn't he obsess over your obsession to the degree you do, you mean.
>
>Right.  Why not.  

Opportunity cost.

>What do you have to lose.  

By putting all my eggs in your basket?

Did you think about that question even a little bit before posting it?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#563830

From	James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com>
Date	2016-03-20 00:09 -0700
Message-ID	<17499ef7-77a0-4920-a97f-9939107413ee@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#563829

On Sunday, March 20, 2016 at 12:01:16 AM UTC-7, Wally W. wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Mar 2016 23:20:27 -0700 (PDT), James McGinn wrote:
> 
> >
> >>   Why shouldn't he obsess over your obsession to the degree you do, you mean.
> >
> >Right.  Why not.  
> 
> Opportunity cost.
> 
> >What do you have to lose.  
> 
> By putting all my eggs in your basket?
> 
> Did you think about that question even a little bit before posting it?

Hell no.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#563874

From	moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
Date	2016-03-20 17:52 +0000
Message-ID	<ncmo1h$r7u$2@pcls7.std.com>
In reply to	#563676

James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> writes:

>> So it is a political move: you are looking here for allies in your
>> fight against meteorologists?
>> 
>> How is that going for you?

>Are you willing and able to discuss the content of meteorology's storm 
>theory?  

>Do you understand . . . or do you just believe?

>How would you even know?

I don't know meteorology specifically, but I do know the chemistry and
physics behind it, such as the gas laws.

A few days ago, they started predicting a snowstorm for us from a storm 
that hadn't even formed yet. The storm formed when and where predicted
and will hit us tonight, as predicted.  They do have issues with the exact
track, as the forecast for where I am has varied between a coating to 6-12
inches, depending on the exact path.  (I haven't seen the forecast for 
today yet)

So, they do seem to have things pretty much correct.

>Does convection theory make sense to you?  

From both physics and chemistry theory, and from demonstrations I saw in
college, yes.

>What do you think it indicates if you have a emotional reaction to your 
>inability to explain what you think you know?  

>What emotions were you feeling when you made the first post on this thread.

Why do you keep projecting your own reactions onto others?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#563877

From	James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com>
Date	2016-03-20 10:59 -0700
Message-ID	<578d2706-d6e5-4aad-97b0-41118702bd8a@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#563874

On Sunday, March 20, 2016 at 10:53:14 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> writes:

> I don't know meteorology specifically, but I do know the chemistry and
> physics behind it, such as the gas laws.

Why don't you address somenthing in that regard then.

Using gas laws what is difference in weight between moist air and dry air.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2 [1] 2 Next page →

csiph-web

Why did the weather fanbois Wormley and McGinn choose sci.physics?

Contents

#563639 — Why did the weather fanbois Wormley and McGinn choose sci.physics?

#563643

#563686

#564097

#563656

#563672

#563676

#563685

#563688

#563692

#563696

#563708

#563745

#564073

#563809

#563815

#563829

#563830

#563874

#563877