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: Bill Ward on 8 Aug 2007 01:24 On Tue, 07 Aug 2007 19:51:58 -0700, kdthrge wrote: > On Aug 7, 5:45 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On Aug 7, 9:18 am, claudiusd...(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: >> >> > On Aug 7, 8:10 am, z <gzuck...(a)snail-mail.net> wrote: >> >> > > On Aug 6, 12:57 pm, <claudiusd...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >> > > > 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. >> >> > > Nothing is true! Science is false! Everything is subject to unknown >> > > bias! You can never be sure of physical measurements! Find your >> > > trust in the Lord! >> >> > Science is complex. Find a new hobby. >> > l> Yes, it is complex. That is why stupid people have a hard time with it. > > Science is more than repitition of invalid concepts. Such as the concept > of negative quantities. There are no negative quantities. Anytime, > anywhere. > > Yet the schoolchildren of theoretical physics are told this idea, believe > it and repeat it. Any dissent to this is considered stupid by those who > repeat this idea without any understanding, who become irritated by those > that use reason to do mathematics. > > Without valid mathematical law, mathematics are useless. In computer > programing it is well understood that a single error in code, defeats the > entire program. Mathematical law. The need for mathematics to be based on > valid law escapes the subscribers to modern theoretical beliefs. > > The inablity of theoretical physics to do valid mathematics means that the > sum total of their product is worthless. But since they are able to avoid > and ignore valid science by their communal stupidity, this fact also > escapes them. > > Mathematics should be left to those who are more honest. Perhaps such as > carpenters and other regular people or those that do real science based > upon direct science in which they do not hide behind the inability to > prove anything right or wrong as the theoretical physcists do, as they > enjoy their lyrical semantics and mental masturbation. > > KDeatherage Have you seen this? What do you think of it? http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Falsification_of_CO2.pdf
From: claudiusdenk on 8 Aug 2007 01:37 "z" <gzuckier(a)snail-mail.net> wrote in message news:1186499744.033982.66930(a)57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com... > On Aug 4, 6:29 am, kdth...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > >> The effect of CO2 retaining thermal frequencies and causing higher >> temperatures cannot be duplicated in the laboratory. > > Hey Mr. Short-Term-Memory, you forgot this already!!: > kdth...(a)yahoo.com wrote: >> There is no laboratory measurements of temperature affect from >> concentrations of CO2. Except the hoax exhibit encased in glass or >> similar material > "The stream passes through the optical filter, which blocks all > wavelengths except those that CO2 absorbs. What's this got to do with anything? The filtered infrared > energy strikes the detector and causes it to heat up. Uh, yeah so? When CO2 is > drawn through the sampling cell by the D-TEK CO2's internal pump, some > of the infrared energy is absorbed by the CO2. Uh, okay. Continue, but hurry up and get to the point. This causes a decrease > in the amount of infrared energy reaching the detector and a > corresponding drop in the detector's temperature, which triggers the D- > TEK CO2 to alarm. This whole process takes a fraction of a second." You must be some kind of mental retard to think that anything you've stated here gives us any reason to believe CO2 can/will effect atmospheric temperaturs. You're a whacko. > http://www.inficon.com/download/en/D-TEK_CO2.pdf > http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/ed5692a3d63a22a1 > > >
From: z on 8 Aug 2007 12:33 On Aug 7, 10:51 pm, kdth...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > The inablity of theoretical physics to do valid mathematics means that > the sum total of their product is worthless. But since they are able > to avoid and ignore valid science by their communal stupidity, this > fact also escapes them. so much for nuclear power replacing fossil fuels, then.
From: z on 8 Aug 2007 12:33 On Aug 7, 11:38 pm, kdth...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > Theoretical science is a joke. Because it is run by dishonest and > frustrated schoolboys who have no attachment to reality and who live > in some narcissistic fantasy of their own intellectual superiority. > This world of rhetoric and dogma has nothing to do with actual > science. That's the chuckle of the day, folks.
From: z on 8 Aug 2007 12:53
On Aug 8, 1:24 am, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > On Tue, 07 Aug 2007 19:51:58 -0700, kdthrge wrote: > > On Aug 7, 5:45 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Aug 7, 9:18 am, claudiusd...(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > > >> > On Aug 7, 8:10 am, z <gzuck...(a)snail-mail.net> wrote: > > >> > > On Aug 6, 12:57 pm, <claudiusd...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > >> > > > 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. > > >> > > Nothing is true! Science is false! Everything is subject to unknown > >> > > bias! You can never be sure of physical measurements! Find your > >> > > trust in the Lord! > > >> > Science is complex. Find a new hobby. > > > l> Yes, it is complex. That is why stupid people have a hard time with it. > > > Science is more than repitition of invalid concepts. Such as the concept > > of negative quantities. There are no negative quantities. Anytime, > > anywhere. > > > Yet the schoolchildren of theoretical physics are told this idea, believe > > it and repeat it. Any dissent to this is considered stupid by those who > > repeat this idea without any understanding, who become irritated by those > > that use reason to do mathematics. > > > Without valid mathematical law, mathematics are useless. In computer > > programing it is well understood that a single error in code, defeats the > > entire program. Mathematical law. The need for mathematics to be based on > > valid law escapes the subscribers to modern theoretical beliefs. > > > The inablity of theoretical physics to do valid mathematics means that the > > sum total of their product is worthless. But since they are able to avoid > > and ignore valid science by their communal stupidity, this fact also > > escapes them. > > > Mathematics should be left to those who are more honest. Perhaps such as > > carpenters and other regular people or those that do real science based > > upon direct science in which they do not hide behind the inability to > > prove anything right or wrong as the theoretical physcists do, as they > > enjoy their lyrical semantics and mental masturbation. > > > KDeatherage > > Have you seen this? What do you think of it? > > http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Falsification_of_CO2.pdf- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Well, let's see: "a fctitious mechanism in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist." Really? Please expand on this. Oh, you don't. Drat. "there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fctitious atmospheric greenhouse effects," Uh, that's not exactly news. I think most people who know anything about it realize that greenhouses actually work on a different principle than the atmosphere, and the "greenhouse effect" is not the scientifically precise term. Really. "there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet" Of course there are. You just don't think they are accurate. "It is obvious that a doubling of the concentration of the trace gas CO2, whose thermal conductivity is approximately one half than that of nitrogen and oxygen, does change the thermal conductivity at the most by 0; 03% and the isochoric thermal diffusivity at the most by 0:07 %. These numbers lie within the range of the measuring inaccuracy and other uncertainties such as rounding errors and therefore have no signifcance at all." Ah; so IR absorbance doesn't enter into it at all. That might benefit from some explanation and/or reference. Well, that gets us through page 8 out of 113. |