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: z on 6 Aug 2007 11:49 On Aug 3, 2:23 pm, claudiusd...(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > > I'd MUCH rather folks go read the peer-reviewed papers for themselves. > > I have. All of them. Don't be shy.- hahaha, boy you had us going for a while. Good one!
From: Talk-n-Dog on 6 Aug 2007 12:02 Eric Gisse wrote: > 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. > Roofer's know that when it's raining you can't fix the leak, and when it's sunny you don't need to fix the roof. -- http://OutSourcedNews.com Our constitution protects aliens, drunks and U.S. Senators. Which at times are, one and the same... The problem with the global warming theory, is that a theory is like a bowl of ice-cream, it only takes a little dab of bullshit to ruin the whole thing. - Gump That -
From: kdthrge on 6 Aug 2007 12:27 On Aug 6, 9:49 am, Jonathan Kirwan <jkir...(a)easystreet.com> wrote: > On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 04:07:17 -0700, kdth...(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. > Orbits of equal area have equal energy. Orbits of less area have greater energy. This is proper astrophysics. If you cannot understand the mathematics which proves this, don't blame it on me. Unsupported and rhetorical denials of psuedo educated chumps mean nothing. The proof is in the pudding. I think theoretical scientists should be paid in negative quantities of dollars. This would maybe wake them up to reality. In the meantime, mathematics should be left to those that understand natural law and mathematical law. How many negative ergs does it take to heat your house? Maybe if you use negative ergs, your steam radiator will work like an air conditioner? What is the negative quantity of theoretical physicists that have actual understanding of basic physics?? What is the negative quantity of intelligence that they possess as a collective negative sum?? Learnin Kirwan, the expert in negative momentum and negative quantities should know the answer to these puzzles. KDeatherage CO2Phobia is a psychological disease. Seek professional help, buy an air conditioner and hire a criminal defense attornety.
From: claudiusdenk on 6 Aug 2007 12:57 "z" <gzuckier(a)snail-mail.net> wrote in message news:1186415317.389417.97590(a)k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > 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. > You're just weighing moonbeams here. There is no evidence that we've had a statistically significant rise in temperature. It's impossible to know how much bias may have been inadvertently introduced to the world's temperature data. Don't buy into the propaganda that pretends to ignore this statistical fact.
From: claudiusdenk on 6 Aug 2007 12:58
"Jonathan Kirwan" <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote in message news:4secb3dsntf6kv1lhsnqbsqlq71u1gq177(a)4ax.com... > On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 13:16:14 -0700, claudiusdenk(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > >><snip> >>> You take it any way you please. Irrelevant to me. You were the one >>> asking for an opinion. If you can't be bothered to ask your own >>> question, why should I be bothered to care? >> >>Likewise. > > I'm cool with that. You can't handle science. It's your delusion. |