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 8 Aug 2007 12:56 On Aug 8, 1:37 am, <claudiusd...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > "z" <gzuck...(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- Hide quoted text - Right; just because you can measure the amount of CO2 in the air by the amount of IR it retains and the corresponding drop in temp of the target where the IR lands doesn't mean anything. Unless of course you still believe in energy being conserved.
From: Jonathan Kirwan on 8 Aug 2007 13:53 On Wed, 08 Aug 2007 09:33:57 -0700, z <gzuckier(a)snail-mail.net> wrote: >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. It's also the view that is then reduced to embracing the idea that all knowledge is a matter of authority and that to secure right-knowledge one must decide which authority to follow without question. That's all it takes for religious authorities to re-enter the fray, offering their authority as the sole truth of matters. That's what it stops being so funny. Jon
From: Lloyd on 8 Aug 2007 14:07 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 So he believes there is NO trapping of heat? He obviously includes water in that too. Can you say cuckoo?
From: Bill Ward on 8 Aug 2007 14:37 On Wed, 08 Aug 2007 11:07:33 -0700, Lloyd wrote: > 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 > > So he believes there is NO trapping of heat? He obviously includes water > in that too. Can you say cuckoo? I don't have to agree with someone to be interested in his opinion. You can't learn much by listening only to those you agree with.
From: ExterminateAllRepubliKKKans on 8 Aug 2007 20:02
<claudiusdenk(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote > There is no evidence that we've had a statistically significant rise in > temperature. Really? Then why do all of the worlds scientists claim otherwise? <claudiusdenk(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote > It's impossible to know how much bias may have been inadvertently > introduced to the world's temperature data. And yet that "bias" has been accurately estimated by climatologists and removed from the data. Just because you don't have the intellectual capacity to understand how, and are too innumerate to be able to do it yourself, has no impact on the fact that the worlds scientists have no such difficulty. And neither do I. |