Re: the convection model is meaningless pseudoscience

From	Sergio <invalid@invalid.com>
Newsgroups	sci.physics
Subject	Re: the convection model is meaningless pseudoscience
Date	2016-02-26 18:27 -0600
Organization	Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID	<naqqjh$1cuo$3@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink)
References	(6 earlier) <6bd59cc8-97e6-4692-9ec8-c85ac1d47772@googlegroups.com> <PJudnUpI-6faPk3LnZ2dnUU7-TednZ2d@giganews.com> <dda10d1b-ae23-4173-b2a6-cdcbd5e63f8e@googlegroups.com> <PJudnURI-6cqO03LnZ2dnUU7-TcAAAAA@giganews.com> <f311fd2f-f624-4cce-8036-bffe58c2dad7@googlegroups.com>

Show all headers | View raw

On 2/26/2016 1:48 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 11:25:46 AM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
>> On 2/26/16 1:15 PM, James McGinn wrote:
>>> I never follow whacko links.
>>
>>
>>     You never follow science links.
>
take a look at the links below James, proof and evidence you are missing.

James McGinn Book Review

Customer Reviews;
1.0 out of 5 stars
insane rambling
*By K. Parker* on July 3, 2014
Format: Kindle Edition Verified Purchase
The author believes that elementary concepts, which have been taught to 
and understood by first year Chemistry and Physics students for many 
decades, are some kind of meteorological conspiracy. The author also 
does not understand the very basic physics that drive convective 
updrafts (the positive buoyancy due to warm temperature anomalies that 
result from latent heat release). Instead, apparently based largely on 
reading websites, he proposes a mechanism that makes no physical sense 
and is totally unobserved and unobservable. This text violates even 
basic tenets of logic. Totally without merit.

1.0 out of 5 starsWaste of time, a non-funny joke
*By hunter* on July 16, 2014
Format: Kindle Edition
This book misleads the reader on basic physical concepts like density, 
the basics of weather dynamics, and offers a silly idea that confuses 
metaphors about how the jet stream operates with reality. It solves 
nothing but does offer a way to waste time and money buying and reading 
it. This book is an example of the risks posed in the age of inexpensive 
self publishing by a moron.

*direct film evidence of convection*;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLp_rSBzteI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSFwH0BVd3Q

*direct film evidence of Water Vapor*,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQX6c_Ln2To

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgdoGPXOwGM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2g74X2nnBTw

*COLD STEAM direct evidence on film*;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKMNSvpB9dY

*Water Vapor explained to little James by Mr. Wizard*

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTKmWp7ek2A

Thread

the convection model is meaningless pseudoscience James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 18:16 -0800
  Re: the convection model is meaningless pseudoscience Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 20:33 -0600
    Re: the convection model is meaningless pseudoscience James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 23:53 -0800
      Re: the convection model is meaningless pseudoscience Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 08:29 -0600
        Re: the convection model is meaningless pseudoscience James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 09:50 -0800
          Re: the convection model is meaningless pseudoscience Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 12:44 -0600
            Re: the convection model is meaningless pseudoscience James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 11:01 -0800
              Re: the convection model is meaningless pseudoscience Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-26 13:07 -0600
              Re: the convection model is meaningless pseudoscience Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 13:11 -0600
                Re: the convection model is meaningless pseudoscience James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 11:15 -0800
                Re: the convection model is meaningless pseudoscience Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 13:25 -0600
                Re: the convection model is meaningless pseudoscience jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-26 19:33 +0000
                Re: the convection model is meaningless pseudoscience James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 11:48 -0800
                Re: the convection model is meaningless pseudoscience Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 14:03 -0600
                Re: the convection model is meaningless pseudoscience jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-26 20:39 +0000
                Re: the convection model is meaningless pseudoscience Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-26 18:27 -0600
      Re: the convection model is meaningless pseudoscience HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 06:45 -0800
        Re: the convection model is meaningless pseudoscience benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 13:57 -0500
    Re: the convection model is meaningless pseudoscience HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 06:43 -0800
      Re: the convection model is meaningless pseudoscience Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-26 12:52 -0600
  Re: the convection model is meaningless pseudoscience Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-25 21:15 -0600
    Re: the convection model is meaningless pseudoscience James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 14:59 -0800
      Re: the convection model is meaningless pseudoscience Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 17:04 -0600
      Re: the convection model is meaningless pseudoscience jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-26 23:06 +0000
        Re: the convection model is meaningless pseudoscience James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 15:27 -0800
          Re: the convection model is meaningless pseudoscience jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-26 23:40 +0000
  Re: the convection model is meaningless pseudoscience jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-26 03:13 +0000
    Re: the convection model is meaningless pseudoscience noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 12:09 -0800

csiph-web