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

Groups > sci.physics > #547471

Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science --

Show all headers | View raw

Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:
> On 23/01/2016 4:42 PM, James McGinn wrote:
>> On Friday, January 22, 2016 at 9:34:09 PM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>> They just don't want your cluttering up their newsgroup with nonsense.
>>> There are plenty of other places to spout, if you feel the need.
>> It is because I am a "denier" of global warming.
> I don't see how you can know that. There are many plausible reasons for 
> their having silenced you.
> Sylvia.


Certainly if someone had a theory of water vapor that proposed
nanoparticles of water that normal theory argues should vaporize
because of surface tension or that predicted the pressure
of steam was 1/20th of what had been understood for 200y
and then *also* was a known rabid multi-nym denier of the existence
of GHG and suchlike, it might tend to make me think twice about even passing 
something on for review even if it didn't seem to be word salad
or had a Baez index of 10,000.


--
Crank HOWTO
It's easy to be a crank. Just follow these simple guidelines and remember, you're never wrong. No matter what.
Step one: Develop a wacky idea.
Step two: Disseminate your idea
Step three: (Not) Responding to Criticism
Step four: Get Persecuted!
-- Mark Hoofnagle, http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/about.php

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

Thread

The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood."  -- Politics of Water Science -- James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 21:13 -0800
  Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-01-23 16:34 +1100
    Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 21:42 -0800
      Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-01-23 23:34 +1100
        Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com> - 2016-01-23 14:35 +0000
          Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-01-23 07:49 -0800
            Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-23 10:00 -0600
            Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-23 08:43 -0800
        Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-23 10:47 -0500
          Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-01-28 17:13 +1100
            Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-30 08:04 -0800
  Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood."  -- Politics of Water Science -- Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 10:22 -0800
    Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood." -- Politics of Water Science -- Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 13:31 -0600
  Re: The Thought Police Have Declared Water "Well Understood."  -- Politics of Water Science -- James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-27 11:33 -0800

csiph-web