AGWists are sore losers
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Relativity: Einstein's lost frame
Next: DISCOVERY OF BRIGHT GALAXIES IN THE DISTANT UNIVERSE AND A VARIABLE GRAVITATIONAL 'CONSTANT'
From: ExterminateAllRepubliKKKans on 6 Aug 2007 01:23 <kdthrge(a)yahoo.com> wrote > The effect of CO2 retaining thermal frequencies and causing higher > temperatures cannot be duplicated in the laboratory. Ahahahahahaha... It's done thousands of times a day all over the world. Fool. And if you had as much brain power as the average sponge, you wouild be able to do it at home for yourself rather than spending years on Usenet proving yourself to be an absolute fool. <kdthrge(a)yahoo.com> wrote > Only in the fantasies of the overgrown schoolboys who enjoy their > scaremongering > despite any actual science on this matter. You are still sniffing that roofing tar Death Rag.
From: Eric Gisse on 6 Aug 2007 07:47 On Aug 6, 3:07 am, kdth...(a)yahoo.com wrote: [...] What makes you think you have a direct line into what is "proper astophysics", or "proper climatology" for that matter? For a guy who does roofs for a living, you sure are sure of yourself.
From: Kurt Lochner on 6 Aug 2007 08:48 "deathrage" <kdthrge(a)yahoo.com> whined like a 'tard: > > On Aug 5, 10:07 pm, Jonathan Kirwan <jkir...(a)easystreet.com> wrote: > > > >"deathrage" <kdthrge(a)yahoo.com> whined like a 'tard: ____> > > >A quantity can not be negative. > > > > Yes, it can. > >HAHAHAHAHAhahahahaahHAHAHAHAAHhahahah You really seem want to prove the subject header, don't you? >If you are feeling stuffy, hot and frustrated[..] Please get an opthorectomy at your earliest inconvenience.. >A quantity cannot be negative[..] You're obviously suffering from delusions of adequacy again, Kent.. --Let me guess, you went off your meds again, no?
From: Jonathan Kirwan on 6 Aug 2007 10:49 On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 04:07:17 -0700, kdthrge(a)yahoo.com wrote: ><snip of more drivel> >Orbits of equal area have equal energy. Nope. >Orbits of less area have greater energy. ><snip of still more drivel> Nope. Jon
From: z on 6 Aug 2007 11:48
On Aug 3, 1:37 pm, claudiusd...(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > If CO2 didn't > lead temp in the past then why should we believe it does now? Because measurements of CO2 and temperature for the past century don't show any rise in temperature preceding the rise in CO2? That sort of does it for me. For about the fifth time I've told you, arguing against the hypothesis that there is a new process in place by arguing that the new process is different from the old process isn't very convincing, particularly when the argument that there is a new process comes from the fact that physical measurements don't match predictions of the old model. |