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 | 9 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 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]
| From | "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-12 14:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7ca76003-d4be-496c-9c7d-9cac2b3e5cda@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #685108 |
On Saturday, May 12, 2018 at 1:40:25 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > 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... Add more density to air and you lock in heat.Think Venus.keep in mind pressure creates heat.Think Earth's red hot core. Earth's are pressure at sea level we can live with.Lets keep it that way.NYC creates lots of heat,and humidity.Boston too. Here in Anaheim it can be 100 and you can still jog.WOW I like that. Bert
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-12 16:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4a9bea9c-3707-4c71-9501-9a640a1cabc2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #685115 |
On Saturday, May 12, 2018 at 2:52:14 PM UTC-7, reber G=emc^2 wrote: > On Saturday, May 12, 2018 at 1:40:25 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > > 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... > > Add more density to air and you lock in heat.Think Venus.keep in mind pressure creates heat.Think Earth's red hot core. Earth's are pressure at sea level we can live with.Lets keep it that way.NYC creates lots of heat,and humidity.Boston too. Here in Anaheim it can be 100 and you can still jog.WOW I like that. Bert Shutting down NYC sounds good to me! Double-A
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-12 17:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <pd81sm$i3f$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #685115 |
Bert's posted crap goes on and on and shows why Bert is a moron ------- See: Glazier's Dossier -------
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-12 16:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1e589656-8726-4688-8b9c-b266b2d8d8f4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #685108 |
On Saturday, May 12, 2018 at 1:40:25 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > 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... So, I should believe it because . . . uh, you believe it? Uh? Is this your final argument? Uh, . . . er, . . . uh.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-12 19:22 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pd80go$1tr7$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #685108 |
On 5/12/2018 3:40 PM, pnalsing@gmail.com wrote: > 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... > McGinn, here is a link, https://www.space.com/18527-venus-atmosphere.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-12 17:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <23a8d44f-94c5-4595-af48-0fcf09664dd5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #685146 |
On Saturday, May 12, 2018 at 5:22:53 PM UTC-7, Sergio wrote: > On 5/12/2018 3:40 PM, pnalsing@gmail.com wrote: > > 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... > > > > > McGinn, here is a link, > https://www.space.com/18527-venus-atmosphere.html Describe it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-12 14:42 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <qAGJC.115970$R51.14168@fx03.iad> |
| In reply to | #685023 |
On 5/11/2018 10:00 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. 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 libs ignore all details and try to convince people by just dropping jargon. Clearly "Peer review" cleverly designed to provide censorship and control of science by a the few in power. It's easy to propose a better system than peer review: You simply FIX the system that is already there so that is it fair and doesn't exclude people who go against the political wind (like say publish data debunking global warming propaganda). And there is no Nobel prize for fixing human systems of power, you idiot. > As usual, you will waffle and splutter, but you will fail to provide a > better system. As usual a lib "discussion" consists of only puerile grade school name calling and nonsense ridicule verbiage. What you are trying to accomplish is the subversion of the norms of science for political control ends. That is very unethical and anti-science. One Norm of science: Public Accessibility: All scientific knowledge should be freely available to everyone. Your contention that only scientific knowledge pre-approved by those in power should be available is antiscience. You can go back now to your froth and bluster against this little expose of your agenda.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-13 05:49 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <flour5FsshgU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #685087 |
On 13/05/2018 4:42 AM, benj wrote: > On 5/11/2018 10:00 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. 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 libs ignore all details and try to convince people by just > dropping jargon. Clearly "Peer review" cleverly designed to provide > censorship and control of science by a the few in power. It's easy to > propose a better system than peer review: You simply FIX the system that > is already there so that is it fair and doesn't exclude people who go > against the political wind (like say publish data debunking global > warming propaganda). And there is no Nobel prize for fixing human > systems of power, you idiot. **OK then, YOU propose a better system than the peer-review process. Waiting..... > >> As usual, you will waffle and splutter, but you will fail to provide a >> better system. > > As usual a lib "discussion" consists of only puerile grade school name > calling and nonsense ridicule verbiage. What you are trying to > accomplish is the subversion of the norms of science for political > control ends. That is very unethical and anti-science. **OK then, YOU propose a better system than the peer-review process. Waiting..... > > One Norm of science: Public Accessibility: > All scientific knowledge should be freely available to everyone. > > Your contention that only scientific knowledge pre-approved by those in > power should be available is antiscience. > > You can go back now to your froth and bluster against this little expose > of your agenda. **OK then, YOU propose a better system than the peer-review process. Waiting..... -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-13 04:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e1fbcd4c-af1c-41b6-912f-21e57ad26bf7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #684912 |
How true
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web