Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #684774 > unrolled thread
| Started by | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-05-10 09:56 -0700 |
| Last post | 2018-05-13 04:34 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 69 — 10 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Global Warming is a religion James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-05-10 09:56 -0700
Global Warming is a religion pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-05-10 10:42 -0700
Re: Global Warming is a religion "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-05-10 10:55 -0700
Re: Global Warming is a religion James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-05-10 12:25 -0700
Re: Global Warming is a religion pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-05-10 16:06 -0700
Re: Global Warming is a religion James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-05-10 16:30 -0700
Re: Global Warming is a religion pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-05-10 17:26 -0700
Re: Global Warming is a religion James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-05-10 18:16 -0700
Re: Global Warming is a religion "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-05-11 13:18 -0700
Re: Global Warming is a religion Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-11 15:28 -0500
Re: Global Warming is a religion benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-11 21:02 -0400
Re: Global Warming is a religion Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-11 23:03 -0500
Re: Global Warming is a religion "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2018-05-11 14:49 -0700
Re: Global Warming is a religion benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-11 20:58 -0400
Re: Global Warming is a religion James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-05-11 21:11 -0700
Re: Global Warming is a religion pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-05-11 21:42 -0700
Re: Global Warming is a religion Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-12 14:52 +1000
Re: Global Warming is a religion Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-12 10:20 -0500
Re: Global Warming is a religion benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-12 14:55 -0400
Re: Global Warming is a religion James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-05-12 12:27 -0700
Re: Global Warming is a religion Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-13 05:46 +1000
Re: Global Warming is a religion Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-12 19:21 -0500
Re: Global Warming is a religion Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-13 14:31 +1000
Re: Global Warming is a religion Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-13 01:06 -0500
Re: Global Warming is a religion Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-14 06:39 +1000
Re: Global Warming is a religion Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-13 15:59 -0500
Re: Global Warming is a religion Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-14 07:13 +1000
Re: Global Warming is a religion Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-16 13:10 -0500
Re: Global Warming is a religion Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-17 06:32 +1000
Re: Global Warming is a religion Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-16 16:05 -0500
Re: Global Warming is a religion Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-17 08:27 +1000
Re: Global Warming is a religion Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-16 20:08 -0500
Re: Global Warming is a religion Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-17 13:30 +1000
Re: Global Warming is a religion benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-16 18:36 -0400
Re: Global Warming is a religion Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-16 20:14 -0500
Re: Global Warming is a religion James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-05-12 08:36 -0700
Re: Global Warming is a religion Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-13 05:42 +1000
Re: Global Warming is a religion Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-05-11 19:19 -0700
Re: Global Warming is a religion James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-05-12 08:53 -0700
Re: Global Warming is a religion "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2018-05-10 12:54 -0700
Global Warming is a religion James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-05-10 11:19 -0700
Re: Global Warming is a religion James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 10:23 -0700
Re: Global Warming is a religion pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-05-22 14:35 -0700
Re: Global Warming is a religion James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 16:28 -0700
Re: Global Warming is a religion Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-11 13:52 +1000
Re: Global Warming is a religion James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-05-11 07:45 -0700
Re: Global Warming is a religion Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-12 06:49 +1000
Re: Global Warming is a religion Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-11 18:27 -0500
Re: Global Warming is a religion Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-12 11:59 +1000
Re: Global Warming is a religion Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-12 00:02 -0500
Re: Global Warming is a religion benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-11 21:13 -0400
Re: Global Warming is a religion Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-12 12:00 +1000
Re: Global Warming is a religion Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-12 10:25 -0500
Re: Global Warming is a religion benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-12 15:00 -0400
Re: Global Warming is a religion James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-05-12 08:40 -0700
Re: Global Warming is a religion Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-13 06:01 +1000
Re: Global Warming is a religion Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-12 19:17 -0500
Re: Global Warming is a religion benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-12 21:07 -0400
Re: Global Warming is a religion Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-12 22:13 -0500
Re: Global Warming is a religion pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-05-12 13:40 -0700
Re: Global Warming is a religion "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-05-12 14:52 -0700
Re: Global Warming is a religion Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2018-05-12 16:03 -0700
Re: Global Warming is a religion "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2018-05-12 17:45 -0700
Re: Global Warming is a religion James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-05-12 16:18 -0700
Re: Global Warming is a religion Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-12 19:22 -0500
Re: Global Warming is a religion James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-05-12 17:57 -0700
Re: Global Warming is a religion benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-12 14:42 -0400
Re: Global Warming is a religion Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-13 05:49 +1000
Re: Global Warming is a religion Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-05-13 04:34 -0700
Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 Next page →
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-10 11:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f7258678-f83f-4b58-bb4e-9b88171922f1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #684786 |
Go to hell you worthless, brainless troll. You got Nothing!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-22 10:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c69afb31-10df-4c6c-bb7f-92e6c5a12871@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #684786 |
On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 10:43:02 AM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > Really, Jim, you should be peddling your Snake Oil in another forum, you have worn out your welcome in this one. > > Everyone knows, without a shred of a doubt, that you are just another physics Crank with a goofy theory that has neither observations nor experiments to offer as evidence to support it. You are just another waste of oxygen who is in search of an audience, and there is zero chance that you are a physicist since you don't even know that basics of that branch of science. > > Go away, once and for all... LOL You can't dispute a word of my theory, you braindead science groupy. You got nothing.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pnalsing@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-22 14:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a4e814dd-1f13-4e54-af88-b8a23f007867@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #686651 |
On Tuesday, May 22, 2018 at 10:23:13 AM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote: > On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 10:43:02 AM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > > Really, Jim, you should be peddling your Snake Oil in another forum, you have worn out your welcome in this one. > > > > Everyone knows, without a shred of a doubt, that you are just another physics Crank with a goofy theory that has neither observations nor experiments to offer as evidence to support it. You are just another waste of oxygen who is in search of an audience, and there is zero chance that you are a physicist since you don't even know the basics of that branch of science. > > Go away, once and for all... > LOL You can't dispute a word of my theory, you braindead science groupy. You got nothing. I dispute every word of your theory, as does any actual scientist and scores of others who are simply way more intelligent than yourself. you have never offered a single observation and/or experiment as evidence in support of your incredibly stupid theories.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-22 16:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7958042e-b998-42a1-a96b-6d5183021508@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #686678 |
On Tuesday, May 22, 2018 at 2:35:52 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > On Tuesday, May 22, 2018 at 10:23:13 AM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote: > > On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 10:43:02 AM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > > > Really, Jim, you should be peddling your Snake Oil in another forum, you have worn out your welcome in this one. > > > > > > Everyone knows, without a shred of a doubt, that you are just another physics Crank with a goofy theory that has neither observations nor experiments to offer as evidence to support it. You are just another waste of oxygen who is in search of an audience, and there is zero chance that you are a physicist since you don't even know the basics of that branch of science. > > > > Go away, once and for all... > > > LOL You can't dispute a word of my theory, you braindead science groupy. You got nothing. > > I dispute every word of your theory, Perfectly meaningless. You have no dispute. You barely comprehend any of this. as does any actual scientist and scores of others who are simply way more intelligent than yourself. you have never offered a single observation and/or experiment as evidence in support of your incredibly stupid theories.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-11 13:52 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <flkibbFtfvvU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #684774 |
On 11/05/2018 2:56 AM, James McGinn wrote: > Global warming (climate change) is really nothing but a science based religion. **Nope. Just plain ole' science you moron. If you can provide some PEER-REVIEWED science back your nonsensical bullshit, feel free to do so. I suspect we'll be waiting quite awhile. You're full of shit. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-11 07:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <14bbfbe3-80a0-4657-b093-93db93da353b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #684870 |
On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 8:52:17 PM UTC-7, Trevor Wilson wrote: > On 11/05/2018 2:56 AM, James McGinn wrote: > > Global warming (climate change) is really nothing but a science based religion. > > **Nope. Just plain ole' science you moron. > > If you can provide some PEER-REVIEWED science back your nonsensical > bullshit, feel free to do so. > > I suspect we'll be waiting quite awhile. You're full of shit. > > -- > Trevor Wilson > www.rageaudio.com.au peer review is worthless in this politically corrupt discipline
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-12 06:49 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <flmdvqFbun4U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #684912 |
On 12/05/2018 12:45 AM, James McGinn wrote: > On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 8:52:17 PM UTC-7, Trevor Wilson wrote: >> On 11/05/2018 2:56 AM, James McGinn wrote: >>> Global warming (climate change) is really nothing but a science based religion. >> >> **Nope. Just plain ole' science you moron. >> >> If you can provide some PEER-REVIEWED science back your nonsensical >> bullshit, feel free to do so. >> >> I suspect we'll be waiting quite awhile. You're full of shit. >> >> -- >> Trevor Wilson >> www.rageaudio.com.au > > peer review is worthless in this politically corrupt discipline > **Bullshit. We hear the same retort from all the other failed, alleged scientists. The peer-review process may not be perfect, but it is, far and away, the best process available to sort the crackpots from the real scientists. Come back when you have had your nonsense peer-reviewed. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-11 18:27 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pd58tv$1f0g$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #684975 |
On 5/11/2018 3:49 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: > On 12/05/2018 12:45 AM, James McGinn wrote: >> On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 8:52:17 PM UTC-7, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>> On 11/05/2018 2:56 AM, James McGinn wrote: >>>> Global warming (climate change) is really nothing but a science >>>> based religion. >>> >>> **Nope. Just plain ole' science you moron. >>> >>> If you can provide some PEER-REVIEWED science back your nonsensical >>> bullshit, feel free to do so. >>> >>> I suspect we'll be waiting quite awhile. You're full of shit. >>> >>> -- >>> Trevor Wilson >>> www.rageaudio.com.au >> >> peer review is worthless in this politically corrupt discipline >> > > **Bullshit. We hear the same retort from all the other failed, alleged > scientists. The peer-review process may not be perfect, but it is, far > and away, the best process available to sort the crackpots from the real > scientists. > > Come back when you have had your nonsense peer-reviewed. > > James McGinn has already had his material peer reviewed by Claudoius Denk, who found it simply amazing.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-12 11:59 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <fln03rFfhngU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #684990 |
On 12/05/2018 9:27 AM, Sergio wrote: > On 5/11/2018 3:49 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >> On 12/05/2018 12:45 AM, James McGinn wrote: >>> On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 8:52:17 PM UTC-7, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>> On 11/05/2018 2:56 AM, James McGinn wrote: >>>>> Global warming (climate change) is really nothing but a science >>>>> based religion. >>>> >>>> **Nope. Just plain ole' science you moron. >>>> >>>> If you can provide some PEER-REVIEWED science back your nonsensical >>>> bullshit, feel free to do so. >>>> >>>> I suspect we'll be waiting quite awhile. You're full of shit. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Trevor Wilson >>>> www.rageaudio.com.au >>> >>> peer review is worthless in this politically corrupt discipline >>> >> >> **Bullshit. We hear the same retort from all the other failed, alleged >> scientists. The peer-review process may not be perfect, but it is, far >> and away, the best process available to sort the crackpots from the real >> scientists. >> >> Come back when you have had your nonsense peer-reviewed. >> >> > > James McGinn has already had his material peer reviewed by Claudoius > Denk, who found it simply amazing. > **Whoever Claudoius Denk is, that does not constitute peer-review. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-12 00:02 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pd5sgv$80d$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #685021 |
On 5/11/2018 8:59 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: > On 12/05/2018 9:27 AM, Sergio wrote: >> On 5/11/2018 3:49 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>> On 12/05/2018 12:45 AM, James McGinn wrote: >>>> On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 8:52:17 PM UTC-7, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>> On 11/05/2018 2:56 AM, James McGinn wrote: >>>>>> Global warming (climate change) is really nothing but a science >>>>>> based religion. >>>>> >>>>> **Nope. Just plain ole' science you moron. >>>>> >>>>> If you can provide some PEER-REVIEWED science back your nonsensical >>>>> bullshit, feel free to do so. >>>>> >>>>> I suspect we'll be waiting quite awhile. You're full of shit. >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Trevor Wilson >>>>> www.rageaudio.com.au >>>> >>>> peer review is worthless in this politically corrupt discipline >>>> >>> >>> **Bullshit. We hear the same retort from all the other failed, alleged >>> scientists. The peer-review process may not be perfect, but it is, far >>> and away, the best process available to sort the crackpots from the real >>> scientists. >>> >>> Come back when you have had your nonsense peer-reviewed. >>> >>> >> >> James McGinn has already had his material peer reviewed by Claudoius >> Denk, who found it simply amazing. >> > > **Whoever Claudoius Denk is, that does not constitute peer-review. > claud is a McGinn sock, mcginnisalltroll, mcginnisalltroll
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-11 21:13 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <gdrJC.110651$go7.107236@fx08.iad> |
| In reply to | #684975 |
On 5/11/2018 4:49 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: > On 12/05/2018 12:45 AM, James McGinn wrote: >> On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 8:52:17 PM UTC-7, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>> On 11/05/2018 2:56 AM, James McGinn wrote: >>>> Global warming (climate change) is really nothing but a science >>>> based religion. >>> >>> **Nope. Just plain ole' science you moron. >>> >>> If you can provide some PEER-REVIEWED science back your nonsensical >>> bullshit, feel free to do so. >>> >>> I suspect we'll be waiting quite awhile. You're full of shit. >>> >>> -- >>> Trevor Wilson >>> www.rageaudio.com.au >> >> peer review is worthless in this politically corrupt discipline >> > > **Bullshit. We hear the same retort from all the other failed, alleged > scientists. The peer-review process may not be perfect, but it is, far > and away, the best process available to sort the crackpots from the real > scientists. > > Come back when you have had your nonsense peer-reviewed. > > Defense of censorship in Science in science noted and expected. "peer review" is review by those working in field not censorship of politically incorrect (like anything that debunks global warming) papers to make sure they never see the light of day. To call censorship "control of crackpots" shows that you are for censorship and control science and are basically unethical and dishonest and should have no place in science (like so many of those in control of "peer review").
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-12 12:00 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <fln071FfhngU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #685013 |
On 12/05/2018 11:13 AM, benj wrote: > On 5/11/2018 4:49 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >> On 12/05/2018 12:45 AM, James McGinn wrote: >>> On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 8:52:17 PM UTC-7, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>> On 11/05/2018 2:56 AM, James McGinn wrote: >>>>> Global warming (climate change) is really nothing but a science >>>>> based religion. >>>> >>>> **Nope. Just plain ole' science you moron. >>>> >>>> If you can provide some PEER-REVIEWED science back your nonsensical >>>> bullshit, feel free to do so. >>>> >>>> I suspect we'll be waiting quite awhile. You're full of shit. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Trevor Wilson >>>> www.rageaudio.com.au >>> >>> peer review is worthless in this politically corrupt discipline >>> >> >> **Bullshit. We hear the same retort from all the other failed, alleged >> scientists. The peer-review process may not be perfect, but it is, far >> and away, the best process available to sort the crackpots from the >> real scientists. >> >> Come back when you have had your nonsense peer-reviewed. >> >> > Defense of censorship in Science in science noted and expected. > > "peer review" is review by those working in field not censorship of > politically incorrect (like anything that debunks global warming) papers > to make sure they never see the light of day. > > To call censorship "control of crackpots" shows that you are for > censorship and control science and are basically unethical and dishonest > and should have no place in science (like so many of those in control of > "peer review"). **I expected such stupidity from you. Tell you what: YOU propose a better system than the peer-review system, presently in place and there'll be a Nobel Prize in it for you. As usual, you will waffle and splutter, but you will fail to provide a better system. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-12 10:25 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pd712b$6nt$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #685023 |
On 5/11/2018 9:00 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: > On 12/05/2018 11:13 AM, benj wrote: >> On 5/11/2018 4:49 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>> On 12/05/2018 12:45 AM, James McGinn wrote: >>>> On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 8:52:17 PM UTC-7, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>> On 11/05/2018 2:56 AM, James McGinn wrote: >>>>>> Global warming (climate change) is really nothing but a science >>>>>> based religion. >>>>> >>>>> **Nope. Just plain ole' science you moron. >>>>> >>>>> If you can provide some PEER-REVIEWED science back your nonsensical >>>>> bullshit, feel free to do so. >>>>> >>>>> I suspect we'll be waiting quite awhile. You're full of shit. >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Trevor Wilson >>>>> www.rageaudio.com.au >>>> >>>> peer review is worthless in this politically corrupt discipline >>>> >>> >>> **Bullshit. We hear the same retort from all the other failed, >>> alleged scientists. The peer-review process may not be perfect, but >>> it is, far and away, the best process available to sort the crackpots >>> from the real scientists. >>> >>> Come back when you have had your nonsense peer-reviewed. >>> >>> >> Defense of censorship in Science in science noted and expected. >> >> "peer review" is review by those working in field not censorship of >> politically incorrect (like anything that debunks global warming) >> papers to make sure they never see the light of day. >> >> To call censorship "control of crackpots" shows that you are for >> censorship and control science and are basically unethical and >> dishonest and should have no place in science (like so many of those >> in control of "peer review"). > > **I expected such stupidity from you. your expectation is not peer-reviewed. You state an open bias, so no need to read anything else <snip non-peer reviewed txt>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-12 15:00 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <%QGJC.113650$o43.95267@fx33.iad> |
| In reply to | #685063 |
On 5/12/2018 11:25 AM, Sergio wrote: > On 5/11/2018 9:00 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >> On 12/05/2018 11:13 AM, benj wrote: >>> On 5/11/2018 4:49 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>> On 12/05/2018 12:45 AM, James McGinn wrote: >>>>> On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 8:52:17 PM UTC-7, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>> On 11/05/2018 2:56 AM, James McGinn wrote: >>>>>>> Global warming (climate change) is really nothing but a science >>>>>>> based religion. >>>>>> >>>>>> **Nope. Just plain ole' science you moron. >>>>>> >>>>>> If you can provide some PEER-REVIEWED science back your nonsensical >>>>>> bullshit, feel free to do so. >>>>>> >>>>>> I suspect we'll be waiting quite awhile. You're full of shit. >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Trevor Wilson >>>>>> www.rageaudio.com.au >>>>> >>>>> peer review is worthless in this politically corrupt discipline >>>>> >>>> >>>> **Bullshit. We hear the same retort from all the other failed, >>>> alleged scientists. The peer-review process may not be perfect, but >>>> it is, far and away, the best process available to sort the crackpots >>>> from the real scientists. >>>> >>>> Come back when you have had your nonsense peer-reviewed. >>>> >>>> >>> Defense of censorship in Science in science noted and expected. >>> >>> "peer review" is review by those working in field not censorship of >>> politically incorrect (like anything that debunks global warming) >>> papers to make sure they never see the light of day. >>> >>> To call censorship "control of crackpots" shows that you are for >>> censorship and control science and are basically unethical and >>> dishonest and should have no place in science (like so many of those >>> in control of "peer review"). >> >> **I expected such stupidity from you. > > your expectation is not peer-reviewed. You state an open bias, so no > need to read anything else > > <snip non-peer reviewed txt> Notice how Trevor is all about "control"! Gun control! Crackpot control! Oh that's right in Oz they all still bow and scrape to the Queen. Trevor's theory is that there are some people so superior (no doubt imagines himself in that classification) that for the good of humanity they must have the power to tell the rest what they can and cannot do. ie. Control.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-12 08:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c1cb7b89-55c5-497d-9df9-441c7fddb0d4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #685023 |
On Friday, May 11, 2018 at 7:01:09 PM UTC-7, Trevor Wilson wrote: > On 12/05/2018 11:13 AM, benj wrote: > > On 5/11/2018 4:49 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: > >> On 12/05/2018 12:45 AM, James McGinn wrote: > >>> On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 8:52:17 PM UTC-7, Trevor Wilson wrote: > >>>> On 11/05/2018 2:56 AM, James McGinn wrote: > >>>>> Global warming (climate change) is really nothing but a science > >>>>> based religion. > >>>> > >>>> **Nope. Just plain ole' science you moron. > >>>> > >>>> If you can provide some PEER-REVIEWED science back your nonsensical > >>>> bullshit, feel free to do so. > >>>> > >>>> I suspect we'll be waiting quite awhile. You're full of shit. > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Trevor Wilson > >>>> www.rageaudio.com.au > >>> > >>> peer review is worthless in this politically corrupt discipline > >>> > >> > >> **Bullshit. We hear the same retort from all the other failed, alleged > >> scientists. The peer-review process may not be perfect, but it is, far > >> and away, the best process available to sort the crackpots from the > >> real scientists. > >> > >> Come back when you have had your nonsense peer-reviewed. > >> > >> > > Defense of censorship in Science in science noted and expected. > > > > "peer review" is review by those working in field not censorship of > > politically incorrect (like anything that debunks global warming) papers > > to make sure they never see the light of day. > > > > To call censorship "control of crackpots" shows that you are for > > censorship and control science and are basically unethical and dishonest > > and should have no place in science (like so many of those in control of > > "peer review"). > > **I expected such stupidity from you. Tell you what: YOU propose a > better system than the peer-review system, Okay. The scientific method. Show us reproducible experimental evidence that CO2 warms or insulates the atmosphere. You can't because your belief is based on emotions, not fact. The facts are that CO2 is a linear, nonpolar gas that has a low heat capacity. Claims that it heats the atmosphere have no basis in anything but group delusion.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-13 06:01 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <flovhuFt30eU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #685065 |
On 13/05/2018 1:40 AM, James McGinn wrote: > On Friday, May 11, 2018 at 7:01:09 PM UTC-7, Trevor Wilson wrote: >> On 12/05/2018 11:13 AM, benj wrote: >>> On 5/11/2018 4:49 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>> On 12/05/2018 12:45 AM, James McGinn wrote: >>>>> On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 8:52:17 PM UTC-7, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>> On 11/05/2018 2:56 AM, James McGinn wrote: >>>>>>> Global warming (climate change) is really nothing but a science >>>>>>> based religion. >>>>>> >>>>>> **Nope. Just plain ole' science you moron. >>>>>> >>>>>> If you can provide some PEER-REVIEWED science back your nonsensical >>>>>> bullshit, feel free to do so. >>>>>> >>>>>> I suspect we'll be waiting quite awhile. You're full of shit. >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Trevor Wilson >>>>>> www.rageaudio.com.au >>>>> >>>>> peer review is worthless in this politically corrupt discipline >>>>> >>>> >>>> **Bullshit. We hear the same retort from all the other failed, alleged >>>> scientists. The peer-review process may not be perfect, but it is, far >>>> and away, the best process available to sort the crackpots from the >>>> real scientists. >>>> >>>> Come back when you have had your nonsense peer-reviewed. >>>> >>>> >>> Defense of censorship in Science in science noted and expected. >>> >>> "peer review" is review by those working in field not censorship of >>> politically incorrect (like anything that debunks global warming) papers >>> to make sure they never see the light of day. >>> >>> To call censorship "control of crackpots" shows that you are for >>> censorship and control science and are basically unethical and dishonest >>> and should have no place in science (like so many of those in control of >>> "peer review"). >> >> **I expected such stupidity from you. Tell you what: YOU propose a >> better system than the peer-review system, > > Okay. The scientific method. Show us reproducible experimental evidence that CO2 warms or insulates the atmosphere. **Already done elsewhere. > > You can't because your belief is based on emotions, not fact. **Well, no. It is based on hard, experimental data, which has been performed THOUSANDS of times since the 19th century. > > The facts are that CO2 is a linear, nonpolar gas that has a low heat capacity. Claims that it heats the atmosphere have no basis in anything but group delusion. **Really? Let's take an example we all know: Mercury is the closest planet to our local star (the Sun). Aphelion is approximately 70 million km. Perihelion is approximately 46 million km. daytime temperature is around 427 degrees C. It has no significant atmosphere. Venus is the second planet from the Sun. Aphelion is approximately 109 million km. Perihelion is approximately 107.5 million km. Therefore, Venus has approximately 25% of Solar radiation reaching it, compared to Mercury. Therefore, it could be expected to have a daytime temperature of approximately 107 degrees C. It doesn't. The daytime (and, significantly, the night time) temperature of Venus is around 462 degrees C. Venus has an atmosphere consisting of around 96.5% CO2. Clearly, all that CO2 must be responsible for something. I wonder what it could be? -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-12 19:17 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pd806h$1tj5$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #685107 |
On 5/12/2018 3:01 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 13/05/2018 1:40 AM, James McGinn wrote:
>> On Friday, May 11, 2018 at 7:01:09 PM UTC-7, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>> On 12/05/2018 11:13 AM, benj wrote:
>>>> On 5/11/2018 4:49 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>> On 12/05/2018 12:45 AM, James McGinn wrote:
>>>>>> On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 8:52:17 PM UTC-7, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/05/2018 2:56 AM, James McGinn wrote:
>>>>>>>> Global warming (climate change) is really nothing but a science
>>>>>>>> based religion.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> **Nope. Just plain ole' science you moron.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you can provide some PEER-REVIEWED science back your nonsensical
>>>>>>> bullshit, feel free to do so.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I suspect we'll be waiting quite awhile. You're full of shit.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Trevor Wilson
>>>>>>> www.rageaudio.com.au
>>>>>>
>>>>>> peer review is worthless in this politically corrupt discipline
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> **Bullshit. We hear the same retort from all the other failed, alleged
>>>>> scientists. The peer-review process may not be perfect, but it is, far
>>>>> and away, the best process available to sort the crackpots from the
>>>>> real scientists.
>>>>>
>>>>> Come back when you have had your nonsense peer-reviewed.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Defense of censorship in Science in science noted and expected.
>>>>
>>>> "peer review" is review by those working in field not censorship of
>>>> politically incorrect (like anything that debunks global warming)
>>>> papers
>>>> to make sure they never see the light of day.
>>>>
>>>> To call censorship "control of crackpots" shows that you are for
>>>> censorship and control science and are basically unethical and
>>>> dishonest
>>>> and should have no place in science (like so many of those in
>>>> control of
>>>> "peer review").
>>>
>>> **I expected such stupidity from you. Tell you what: YOU propose a
>>> better system than the peer-review system,
>>
>> Okay. The scientific method. Show us reproducible experimental
>> evidence that CO2 warms or insulates the atmosphere.
>
> **Already done elsewhere.
>
>>
>> You can't because your belief is based on emotions, not fact.
>
> **Well, no. It is based on hard, experimental data, which has been
> performed THOUSANDS of times since the 19th century.
>
>>
>> The facts are that CO2 is a linear, nonpolar gas that has a low heat
>> capacity. Claims that it heats the atmosphere have no basis in
>> anything but group delusion.
>
> **Really? Let's take an example we all know:
>
> Mercury is the closest planet to our local star (the Sun). Aphelion is
> approximately 70 million km. Perihelion is approximately 46 million km.
> daytime temperature is around 427 degrees C. It has no significant
> atmosphere.
>
> Venus is the second planet from the Sun. Aphelion is approximately 109
> million km. Perihelion is approximately 107.5 million km. Therefore,
> Venus has approximately 25% of Solar radiation reaching it, compared to
> Mercury. Therefore, it could be expected to have a daytime temperature
> of approximately 107 degrees C. It doesn't. The daytime (and,
> significantly, the night time) temperature of Venus is around 462
> degrees C. Venus has an atmosphere consisting of around 96.5% CO2.
>
> Clearly, all that CO2 must be responsible for something. I wonder what
> it could be?
>
>
Mars has 95% CO2 also.
what is needed is the amount of CO2 on the planet,
"Although Venus and Earth are similar in size, someone standing on the
ground on Venus would experience air about 90 times heavier than Earth's
atmosphere; pressures are similar to diving 3,000 feet beneath the
ocean. Ironically, the most Earth-like atmosphere in the solar system
occurs 30 to 40 miles (50 to 60 kilometers) above the surface of Venus.
Both oxygen and hydrogen rise above the heavier gas layer covering the
ground, and the pressures are similar to our planet."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-12 21:07 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <YcMJC.152717$RM2.127538@fx05.iad> |
| In reply to | #685144 |
On 5/12/2018 8:17 PM, Sergio wrote: > On 5/12/2018 3:01 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >> On 13/05/2018 1:40 AM, James McGinn wrote: >>> On Friday, May 11, 2018 at 7:01:09 PM UTC-7, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>> On 12/05/2018 11:13 AM, benj wrote: >>>>> On 5/11/2018 4:49 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>> On 12/05/2018 12:45 AM, James McGinn wrote: >>>>>>> On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 8:52:17 PM UTC-7, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>> On 11/05/2018 2:56 AM, James McGinn wrote: >>>>>>>>> Global warming (climate change) is really nothing but a science >>>>>>>>> based religion. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> **Nope. Just plain ole' science you moron. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If you can provide some PEER-REVIEWED science back your nonsensical >>>>>>>> bullshit, feel free to do so. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I suspect we'll be waiting quite awhile. You're full of shit. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> Trevor Wilson >>>>>>>> www.rageaudio.com.au >>>>>>> >>>>>>> peer review is worthless in this politically corrupt discipline >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> **Bullshit. We hear the same retort from all the other failed, alleged >>>>>> scientists. The peer-review process may not be perfect, but it is, far >>>>>> and away, the best process available to sort the crackpots from the >>>>>> real scientists. >>>>>> >>>>>> Come back when you have had your nonsense peer-reviewed. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> Defense of censorship in Science in science noted and expected. >>>>> >>>>> "peer review" is review by those working in field not censorship of >>>>> politically incorrect (like anything that debunks global warming) >>>>> papers >>>>> to make sure they never see the light of day. >>>>> >>>>> To call censorship "control of crackpots" shows that you are for >>>>> censorship and control science and are basically unethical and >>>>> dishonest >>>>> and should have no place in science (like so many of those in >>>>> control of >>>>> "peer review"). >>>> >>>> **I expected such stupidity from you. Tell you what: YOU propose a >>>> better system than the peer-review system, >>> >>> Okay. The scientific method. Show us reproducible experimental >>> evidence that CO2 warms or insulates the atmosphere. >> >> **Already done elsewhere. >> >>> >>> You can't because your belief is based on emotions, not fact. >> >> **Well, no. It is based on hard, experimental data, which has been >> performed THOUSANDS of times since the 19th century. >> >>> >>> The facts are that CO2 is a linear, nonpolar gas that has a low heat >>> capacity. Claims that it heats the atmosphere have no basis in >>> anything but group delusion. >> >> **Really? Let's take an example we all know: >> >> Mercury is the closest planet to our local star (the Sun). Aphelion is >> approximately 70 million km. Perihelion is approximately 46 million km. >> daytime temperature is around 427 degrees C. It has no significant >> atmosphere. >> >> Venus is the second planet from the Sun. Aphelion is approximately 109 >> million km. Perihelion is approximately 107.5 million km. Therefore, >> Venus has approximately 25% of Solar radiation reaching it, compared to >> Mercury. Therefore, it could be expected to have a daytime temperature >> of approximately 107 degrees C. It doesn't. The daytime (and, >> significantly, the night time) temperature of Venus is around 462 >> degrees C. Venus has an atmosphere consisting of around 96.5% CO2. >> >> Clearly, all that CO2 must be responsible for something. I wonder what >> it could be? >> >> > > Mars has 95% CO2 also. > > what is needed is the amount of CO2 on the planet, > > "Although Venus and Earth are similar in size, someone standing on the > ground on Venus would experience air about 90 times heavier than Earth's > atmosphere; pressures are similar to diving 3,000 feet beneath the > ocean. Ironically, the most Earth-like atmosphere in the solar system > occurs 30 to 40 miles (50 to 60 kilometers) above the surface of Venus. > Both oxygen and hydrogen rise above the heavier gas layer covering the > ground, and the pressures are similar to our planet." > Sergio, It's obvious lib science that the heavy concentration of CO2 greenhouse gas on Mars is what has turned that planet into a dead scorching baked desert of blowing sands! The civilization who built the "face" monument are long dead, destroyed by their own emissions! The same thing will happen to Earth if we don't start collecting the Trillion dollar energy tax soon!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-12 22:13 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pd8ahc$b3r$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #685156 |
On 5/12/2018 8:07 PM, benj wrote: > On 5/12/2018 8:17 PM, Sergio wrote: >> On 5/12/2018 3:01 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>> On 13/05/2018 1:40 AM, James McGinn wrote: >>>> On Friday, May 11, 2018 at 7:01:09 PM UTC-7, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>> On 12/05/2018 11:13 AM, benj wrote: >>>>>> On 5/11/2018 4:49 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>>> On 12/05/2018 12:45 AM, James McGinn wrote: >>>>>>>> On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 8:52:17 PM UTC-7, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 11/05/2018 2:56 AM, James McGinn wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Global warming (climate change) is really nothing but a science >>>>>>>>>> based religion. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> **Nope. Just plain ole' science you moron. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If you can provide some PEER-REVIEWED science back your >>>>>>>>> nonsensical >>>>>>>>> bullshit, feel free to do so. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I suspect we'll be waiting quite awhile. You're full of shit. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> Trevor Wilson >>>>>>>>> www.rageaudio.com.au >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> peer review is worthless in this politically corrupt discipline >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> **Bullshit. We hear the same retort from all the other failed, >>>>>>> alleged >>>>>>> scientists. The peer-review process may not be perfect, but it >>>>>>> is, far >>>>>>> and away, the best process available to sort the crackpots from the >>>>>>> real scientists. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Come back when you have had your nonsense peer-reviewed. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> Defense of censorship in Science in science noted and expected. >>>>>> >>>>>> "peer review" is review by those working in field not censorship of >>>>>> politically incorrect (like anything that debunks global warming) >>>>>> papers >>>>>> to make sure they never see the light of day. >>>>>> >>>>>> To call censorship "control of crackpots" shows that you are for >>>>>> censorship and control science and are basically unethical and >>>>>> dishonest >>>>>> and should have no place in science (like so many of those in >>>>>> control of >>>>>> "peer review"). >>>>> >>>>> **I expected such stupidity from you. Tell you what: YOU propose a >>>>> better system than the peer-review system, >>>> >>>> Okay. The scientific method. Show us reproducible experimental >>>> evidence that CO2 warms or insulates the atmosphere. >>> >>> **Already done elsewhere. >>> >>>> >>>> You can't because your belief is based on emotions, not fact. >>> >>> **Well, no. It is based on hard, experimental data, which has been >>> performed THOUSANDS of times since the 19th century. >>> >>>> >>>> The facts are that CO2 is a linear, nonpolar gas that has a low heat >>>> capacity. Claims that it heats the atmosphere have no basis in >>>> anything but group delusion. >>> >>> **Really? Let's take an example we all know: >>> >>> Mercury is the closest planet to our local star (the Sun). Aphelion is >>> approximately 70 million km. Perihelion is approximately 46 million km. >>> daytime temperature is around 427 degrees C. It has no significant >>> atmosphere. >>> >>> Venus is the second planet from the Sun. Aphelion is approximately 109 >>> million km. Perihelion is approximately 107.5 million km. Therefore, >>> Venus has approximately 25% of Solar radiation reaching it, compared to >>> Mercury. Therefore, it could be expected to have a daytime temperature >>> of approximately 107 degrees C. It doesn't. The daytime (and, >>> significantly, the night time) temperature of Venus is around 462 >>> degrees C. Venus has an atmosphere consisting of around 96.5% CO2. >>> >>> Clearly, all that CO2 must be responsible for something. I wonder what >>> it could be? >>> >>> >> >> Mars has 95% CO2 also. >> >> what is needed is the amount of CO2 on the planet, >> >> "Although Venus and Earth are similar in size, someone standing on the >> ground on Venus would experience air about 90 times heavier than Earth's >> atmosphere; pressures are similar to diving 3,000 feet beneath the >> ocean. Ironically, the most Earth-like atmosphere in the solar system >> occurs 30 to 40 miles (50 to 60 kilometers) above the surface of Venus. >> Both oxygen and hydrogen rise above the heavier gas layer covering the >> ground, and the pressures are similar to our planet." >> > Sergio, It's obvious lib science that the heavy concentration of CO2 > greenhouse gas on Mars is what has turned that planet into a dead > scorching baked desert of blowing sands! The civilization who built the > "face" monument are long dead, destroyed by their own emissions! The > same thing will happen to Earth if we don't start collecting the > Trillion dollar energy tax soon! that money will go to building a giant "face" monument on Earth to honor those Martians, because were liberal leftist socialists. But they failed to keep the planet alive, because the spent tax money on building a giant face
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pnalsing@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-12 13:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8a2e7fdb-711d-45e1-bc70-e4ba766a8efd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #685065 |
On Saturday, May 12, 2018 at 8:40:50 AM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote: > On Friday, May 11, 2018 at 7:01:09 PM UTC-7, Trevor Wilson wrote: > > > > **I expected such stupidity from you. Tell you what: YOU propose a > > better system than the peer-review system, > Okay. The scientific method. Show us reproducible experimental evidence that CO2 warms or insulates the atmosphere. What an amazing thing for you to say, Jim! I have been asking you for years to show everyone your own reproducible experimental evidence showing that the gaseous form of water cannot exist below the boiling point of water in our atmosphere at STP, and you have been totally unable to comply. Show us your own reproducible experimental evidence showing that moist air is heavier than dry air. Of course, you can't, because, as always, you are wrong. Go ahead, I'll go make the popcorn...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web