Gmail Calendar Documents Reader Web more »
Recently Visited Groups | Help | Sign in
Google Groups Home
More of the usual pig ignorance from the frightie-righties..
There are currently too many topics in this group that display first. To make this topic appear first, remove this option from another topic.
There was an error processing your request. Please try again.
flag
  Messages 1 - 25 of 54 - Collapse all  -  Translate all to Translated (View all originals)   Newer >
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
Man_of_Mind  
View profile  
 More options Dec 26 2009, 1:19 pm
Newsgroups: alt.global-warming, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, sci.physics, sci.environment
From: Man_of_Mind <baron.von.m...@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 2009 12:19:45 -0600
Local: Sat, Dec 26 2009 1:19 pm
Subject: Re: More of the usual pig ignorance from the frightie-righties..
GayLopez99 <raylope...@gmail.com> courageously deleted and bleated:

Yes, indeed I do..  In fact, I was going back over the foundations
of that in my differentials, ODE's to be exact, textbook..

Know anything about gravitational tensors, punk?

> Then why do you get into a modern 747

I haven't flown in one of those yet..

> Let's hear your pig ignorant views

I don't have any 'pig ignorant views', I'm degreed in physics..

 > The real debate is not with you and these newsgroups

Indeed, it also not about whether a climate change resulting from
global warming exists.  The 'debate', such as it is now, is now
centered entirely upon how much of an effect we will be experiencing
in the next few decades.  The after-effects of CFC's upon the ozone
in the upper atmosphere is but an example of just how "conservative"
the estimates from the 'computer models' have turned out to be..

So, yes, it can be a stone-cold bitch to solve for that many
variables when the initial boundary conditions are but estimates,
but we've gotten higher quality systems of measurements and the
observational data from weather satellites is much more precise..

That said, the 'real debate' is also not taking place on Inhofe's
EPS blog-site, nor any of the pseudo-science 'disinformation'
sources that you frightie-righties are want to cut-n-paste from..

--See subject header for details, cupcakes..


    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
RayLopez99  
View profile  
 More options Dec 26 2009, 7:48 pm
Newsgroups: alt.global-warming, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, sci.physics, sci.environment
From: RayLopez99 <raylope...@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 2009 16:48:17 -0800 (PST)
Local: Sat, Dec 26 2009 7:48 pm
Subject: Re: More of the usual pig ignorance from the frightie-righties..
On Dec 26, 1:19 pm, Man_of_Mind <baron.von.m...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> I note that you haven't presented anything regarding how the
> >> climate is modeled, nor your experience with such work.  And
> >> don't forget your original faux pas about the Ozone Hole..

> >> --Which I though might hit your 'mute' button..  *>LOL!<*

> > Do you have experience modeling the Navier-Stokes equation?

> Yes, indeed I do..  In fact, I was going back over the foundations
> of that in my differentials, ODE's to be exact, textbook..

Very good, you're a cut above your typical Green.  But as flawed.

> Know anything about gravitational tensors, punk?

Not much, not without Googling it.  From memory this is a pseudoforce
that comes with having a non-inertial frame of reference, or a
relativistic term.  Let me Google it... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tensor–vector–scalar_gravity
Yes, I was right. It's a Lagrangian term that comes with moving with
the particle.  Nothing to do with AGW but you win the point--you know
your stuff, after memorizing it for a decade.  Good boy.

> > Then why do you get into a modern 747

> I haven't flown in one of those yet..

Really, you should get out more.  You live in the boondocks.

>  > The real debate is not with you and these newsgroups

> Indeed, it also not about whether a climate change resulting from
> global warming exists.  The 'debate', such as it is now, is now
> centered entirely upon how much of an effect we will be experiencing
> in the next few decades.  The after-effects of CFC's upon the ozone
> in the upper atmosphere is but an example of just how "conservative"
> the estimates from the 'computer models' have turned out to be..

Right, we are in agreement here.  But CFCs also show how "wrong" the
models are...so why should the AGW GCMs be right?  All the more reason
to go slow.

> So, yes, it can be a stone-cold bitch to solve for that many
> variables when the initial boundary conditions are but estimates,
> but we've gotten higher quality systems of measurements and the
> observational data from weather satellites is much more precise..

Still doesn't matter, as you might recall from nonlinear PDEs the
boundary conditions being off 1% can affect the trajectory very
dramatically.  Any degree of imprecision is fatal of climate is
nonlinear to a strong degree.

> That said, the 'real debate' is also not taking place on Inhofe's
> EPS blog-site, nor any of the pseudo-science 'disinformation'
> sources that you frightie-righties are want to cut-n-paste from..

> --See subject header for details, cupcakes..

Not clear what you mean here, fruitcake.  You mean real news is found
in your favorite site, "alt.fan.rush-limbaugh"?  OK nutter.  Goodbye
you failed excuse for a physics major!

RL


    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Frogwatch  
View profile  
 More options Dec 26 2009, 8:38 pm
Newsgroups: alt.global-warming, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, sci.physics, sci.environment
From: Frogwatch <dboh...@mindspring.com>
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 2009 17:38:33 -0800 (PST)
Local: Sat, Dec 26 2009 8:38 pm
Subject: Re: More of the usual pig ignorance from the frightie-righties..
On Dec 26, 7:48 pm, RayLopez99 <raylope...@gmail.com> wrote:

Having a BS degree in physics, an MS degree in Applied physics and
another MS degree in physics AND an MSEE and having worked on the
Infra-red spectroscopy models on which global warming theory is based,
I might know a tiny bit about AGW and I declare it to be pure BS, a
fantasy of Gorean proportions.

    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Sam Wormley  
View profile  
 More options Dec 26 2009, 8:59 pm
Newsgroups: alt.global-warming, sci.physics, sci.environment
From: Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 2009 19:59:22 -0600
Local: Sat, Dec 26 2009 8:59 pm
Subject: Re: More of the usual pig ignorance from the frightie-righties..
On 12/26/09 7:38 PM, Frogwatch wrote:

> Having a BS degree in physics, an MS degree in Applied physics and
> another MS degree in physics AND an MSEE and having worked on the
> Infra-red spectroscopy models on which global warming theory is based,
> I might know a tiny bit about AGW and I declare it to be pure BS, a
> fantasy of Gorean proportions.

   You sound just like that silly Martian, Marvin, who fails to take
   global climate change seriously, when the data indicates otherwise.
   Marvin likes to dismiss all data that doesn't fit what he wants it
   to say.

    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Bruce Richmond  
View profile  
 More options Dec 26 2009, 9:28 pm
Newsgroups: alt.global-warming, sci.physics, sci.environment
From: Bruce Richmond <bsr3...@my-deja.com>
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 2009 18:28:07 -0800 (PST)
Local: Sat, Dec 26 2009 9:28 pm
Subject: Re: More of the usual pig ignorance from the frightie-righties..
On Dec 26, 8:59 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 12/26/09 7:38 PM, Frogwatch wrote:

> > Having a BS degree in physics, an MS degree in Applied physics and
> > another MS degree in physics AND an MSEE and having worked on the
> > Infra-red spectroscopy models on which global warming theory is based,
> > I might know a tiny bit about AGW and I declare it to be pure BS, a
> > fantasy of Gorean proportions.

>    You sound just like that silly Martian, Marvin, who fails to take
>    global climate change seriously, when the data indicates otherwise.
>    Marvin likes to dismiss all data that doesn't fit what he wants it
>    to say.

As opposed to AGW alarmists that *make* the data say what they want it
to.

    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Sam Wormley  
View profile  
 More options Dec 26 2009, 11:29 pm
Newsgroups: alt.global-warming, sci.physics, sci.environment
From: Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 2009 22:29:30 -0600
Local: Sat, Dec 26 2009 11:29 pm
Subject: Re: More of the usual pig ignorance from the frightie-righties..
On 12/26/09 8:28 PM, Bruce Richmond wrote:

   The data stands on its own.

    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Man_of_Mind  
View profile  
 More options Dec 27 2009, 1:02 am
Newsgroups: alt.global-warming, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, sci.physics, sci.environment
From: Man_of_Mind <baron.von.m...@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2009 00:02:41 -0600
Local: Sun, Dec 27 2009 1:02 am
Subject: Re: More of the usual pig ignorance from the frightie-righties..
GayLopez99 <raylope...@gmail.com> courageously deleted and bleated:

Yes, it's painfully self-evident..

>> Know anything about gravitational tensors, punk?

> Not much, not without Googling it.

That's as I suspected.  I'm more concerned with predicting the
fields using radiometry to test the hypothesis..

>>> Then why do you get into a modern 747

>> I haven't flown in one of those yet..

> Really, you should get out more.

It doesn't pay as good as it used to..

> You live in the boondocks.

Yup..  And your point as?

>>> Let's hear your pig ignorant views

>> I don't have any 'pig ignorant views', I'm degreed in physics..

>>> The real debate is not with you and these newsgroups

>> Indeed, it also not about whether a climate change resulting from
>> global warming exists.  The 'debate', such as it is now, is now
>> centered entirely upon how much of an effect we will be experiencing
>> in the next few decades.  The after-effects of CFC's upon the ozone
>> in the upper atmosphere is but an example of just how "conservative"
>> the estimates from the 'computer models' have turned out to be..

> Right, we are in agreement here.  But CFCs also show how "wrong" the
> models are...so why should the AGW GCMs be right?

In both cases, we're seeing that we've erred in being too
conservative with our estimates of the situation.

>> So, yes, it can be a stone-cold bitch to solve for that many
>> variables when the initial boundary conditions are but estimates,
>> but we've gotten higher quality systems of measurements and the
>> observational data from weather satellites is much more precise..

> Still doesn't matter,

Yes, it does.  Our measurements are establishing better
the sorts of boundaries and initial values for the variables
that are being modeled..

> as you might recall from nonlinear PDEs the boundary conditions
> being off 1% can affect the trajectory very dramatically.  Any
> degree of imprecision is fatal of climate is nonlinear to a
> strong degree.

Could you translate that again please?

>> That said, the 'real debate' is also not taking place on Inhofe's
>> EPS blog-site, nor any of the pseudo-science 'disinformation'
>> sources that you frightie-righties are want to cut-n-paste from..

>> --See subject header for details, cupcakes..

> Not clear what you mean here

Yeah, that was becoming increasingly clear from your bloviations..

--See subject header for details..


    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
I M @ good guy  
View profile  
 More options Dec 27 2009, 6:31 am
Newsgroups: alt.global-warming, sci.physics, sci.environment
From: "I M @ good guy" <I...@good.guy>
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2009 06:31:50 -0500
Local: Sun, Dec 27 2009 6:31 am
Subject: Re: More of the usual pig ignorance from the frightie-righties..
On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 19:59:22 -0600, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 12/26/09 7:38 PM, Frogwatch wrote:
>> Having a BS degree in physics, an MS degree in Applied physics and
>> another MS degree in physics AND an MSEE and having worked on the
>> Infra-red spectroscopy models on which global warming theory is based,
>> I might know a tiny bit about AGW and I declare it to be pure BS, a
>> fantasy of Gorean proportions.

>   You sound just like that silly Martian, Marvin, who fails to take
>   global climate change seriously, when the data indicates otherwise.
>   Marvin likes to dismiss all data that doesn't fit what he wants it
>   to say.

        What data, is it in the 3rd grade textbook you use?

        Please ask Al Gore to send some warmer weather,
at least something above zero C.


    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Sam Wormley  
View profile  
 More options Dec 27 2009, 10:08 am
Newsgroups: alt.global-warming, sci.physics, sci.environment
From: Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2009 09:08:15 -0600
Local: Sun, Dec 27 2009 10:08 am
Subject: Re: More of the usual pig ignorance from the frightie-righties..
On 12/27/09 5:31 AM, I M @ good guy wrote:

   You guys that normally don't hang out in sci.physics have a lot
   of difficult discussing the physics, so I would suggest removing
   sci.physics in your replies.

    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
RayLopez99  
View profile  
 More options Dec 27 2009, 10:17 am
Newsgroups: alt.global-warming, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, sci.physics, sci.environment
From: RayLopez99 <raylope...@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2009 07:17:23 -0800 (PST)
Local: Sun, Dec 27 2009 10:17 am
Subject: Re: More of the usual pig ignorance from the frightie-righties..
On Dec 27, 1:02 am, Man_of_Mind <baron.von.m...@gmail.com> wrote

Good.  You're about a generation behind the geophysicists who already
use gravity anomalies to find oil formations.

> >>> Then why do you get into a modern 747

> >> I haven't flown in one of those yet..

> > Really, you should get out more.

> It doesn't pay as good as it used to..

True, and it will get worse if you Greens win.  Economic stagnation.
An economic Ice Age and Holocause, simultaneously.

> > You live in the boondocks.

> Yup..  And your point as?

That's my point.  You're out of touch, a hick.

> >> Indeed, it also not about whether a climate change resulting from
> >> global warming exists.  The 'debate', such as it is now, is now
> >> centered entirely upon how much of an effect we will be experiencing
> >> in the next few decades.  The after-effects of CFC's upon the ozone
> >> in the upper atmosphere is but an example of just how "conservative"
> >> the estimates from the 'computer models' have turned out to be..

> > Right, we are in agreement here.  But CFCs also show how "wrong" the
> > models are...so why should the AGW GCMs be right?

> In both cases, we're seeing that we've erred in being too
> conservative with our estimates of the situation.

No, the opposite.  Even cutting CO2 dramatically may not solve GW.

> > Still doesn't matter,

> Yes, it does.  Our measurements are establishing better
> the sorts of boundaries and initial values for the variables
> that are being modeled..

> > as you might recall from nonlinear PDEs the boundary conditions
> > being off 1% can affect the trajectory very dramatically.  Any
> > degree of imprecision is fatal of climate is nonlinear to a
> > strong degree.

> Could you translate that again please?

You're a brainaic and you can't understand what I just wrote?  Your
pedigree is suspect now.  I'm beginning to think you're like that
other bloke on this thread pretending to be degreed.

RL


    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
RayLopez99  
View profile  
 More options Dec 27 2009, 10:20 am
Newsgroups: alt.global-warming, sci.physics, sci.environment
From: RayLopez99 <raylope...@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2009 07:20:43 -0800 (PST)
Local: Sun, Dec 27 2009 10:20 am
Subject: Re: More of the usual pig ignorance from the frightie-righties..
On Dec 27, 4:38 am, Rav1ng rabbit <rab...@dot.com> wrote:

> Let me add to this, on day 38 and counting after climate gate the AGW
> deniers industry has not found one iota of evidence speaking against
> man-made global warming.

Wrong.  The rest of your post therefore can be ignored.  An iota is a
scintilla is a sot is a speck.  There is more than an iota.

> The science is still based on data which stands on its own, models are
> perfectly valid, there is agreement between data and models, and the
> models are able to predict what will happen to man-made global warming
> in a century from now. Our predicament is charted a century ahead, yet
> we fail to reach firm international agreement to curb greenhouse gas
> emissions.

I see--sarcasm is your weapon of choice.  You can also backwardly fit
any n-th order polynomial to any stock market data you like, but it
will fail to predict the future.  That's because the stock market,
like climate, is nonlinear.  Too advanced for you rabbit, but trust
the experts.

[Boring pseudo policy prescriptions from somebody who has no clue
about how politics work deleted]

RL


    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
RayLopez99  
View profile  
 More options Dec 27 2009, 10:22 am
Newsgroups: alt.global-warming, sci.physics, sci.environment
From: RayLopez99 <raylope...@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2009 07:22:01 -0800 (PST)
Local: Sun, Dec 27 2009 10:22 am
Subject: Re: More of the usual pig ignorance from the frightie-righties..
On Dec 27, 10:08 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:

>    You guys that normally don't hang out in sci.physics have a lot
>    of difficult discussing the physics, so I would suggest removing
>    sci.physics in your replies.

Can't stand the heat, Sam Worm?  I don't ordinarily post in
sci.physics not because of my physics background but because flakes
hang out there--is that you?

RL


    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Sam Wormley  
View profile  
 More options Dec 27 2009, 10:38 am
Newsgroups: alt.global-warming, sci.physics, sci.environment
From: Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2009 09:38:43 -0600
Local: Sun, Dec 27 2009 10:38 am
Subject: Re: More of the usual pig ignorance from the frightie-righties..
On 12/27/09 9:22 AM, RayLopez99 wrote:

> On Dec 27, 10:08 am, Sam Wormley<sworml...@gmail.com>  wrote:
>>     You guys that normally don't hang out in sci.physics have a lot
>>     of difficult discussing the physics, so I would suggest removing
>>     sci.physics in your replies.

> Can't stand the heat, Sam Worm?  I don't ordinarily post in
> sci.physics not because of my physics background but because flakes
> hang out there--is that you?

> RL

   I suggest you not post at all in sci.physics, unless, of course
   you would like to discuss some physics, such as all the vibration
   and rotation modes of the O-C-O molecule.

    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
JohnM  
View profile  
 More options Dec 27 2009, 11:11 am
Newsgroups: alt.global-warming, sci.physics, sci.environment
From: JohnM <john_howard_mor...@hotmail.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2009 08:11:45 -0800 (PST)
Local: Sun, Dec 27 2009 11:11 am
Subject: Re: More of the usual pig ignorance from the frightie-righties..
On Dec 27, 4:20 pm, RayLopez99 <raylope...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Dec 27, 4:38 am, Rav1ng rabbit <rab...@dot.com> wrote:

> > Let me add to this, on day 38 and counting after climate gate the AGW
> > deniers industry has not found one iota of evidence speaking against
> > man-made global warming.

> Wrong.  The rest of your post therefore can be ignored.  An iota is a
> scintilla is a sot is a speck.  There is more than an iota.

OK, so you say. But you seem not to want to share it with us. Any
particular reason?

<snip>


    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Man_of_Mind  
View profile  
 More options Dec 27 2009, 1:26 pm
Newsgroups: alt.global-warming, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, sci.physics, sci.environment
From: Man_of_Mind <baron.von.m...@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2009 12:26:22 -0600
Local: Sun, Dec 27 2009 1:26 pm
Subject: Re: More of the usual pig ignorance from the frightie-righties..
GayLopez99 <raylope...@gmail.com> courageously deleted and bleated:

Nooo, you're about two 'generations' behind me.  I'm looking
for a 'bow shock' off of a moving gravitational field..

What's the speed of gravity, Gomez?

>>>>> Then why do you get into a modern 747

>>>> I haven't flown in one of those yet..

>>> Really, you should get out more.

>> It doesn't pay as good as it used to..

> True, and it will get worse if you Greens win

Another false premise, supposition and conclusion on the
behalf of a "geophysicist"?  *>LOL!<*  That's dubious..

>>> You live in the boondocks.

>> Yup..  And your point as?

> That's my point.  You're out of touch, a hick.

That would be an unproven/unprovable negative claim on your behalf..

And your reasoning for that is?

> Even cutting CO2 dramatically may not solve GW.

So, your solution is to do nothing..

*>sigh<*  The subject header seems to appropriate now..

I think that you're being a little imprecise with your words..

"Any degree of imprecision is fatal of climate is nonlinear
  to a strong degree."

Would you like to revise that?

> Your pedigree is suspect now.

Really?  I was thinking much the same of your inane babblings..

> I'm beginning to think you're like that other bloke on this
> thread pretending to be degreed.

I see that Sam has you pinned for a liar as well..

Example follows..

>>>> That said, the 'real debate' is also not taking place on Inhofe's
>>>> EPS blog-site, nor any of the pseudo-science 'disinformation'
>>>> sources that you frightie-righties are want to cut-n-paste from..

>>>> --See subject header for details, cupcakes..

>>> Not clear what you mean here

>> Yeah, that was becoming increasingly clear from your bloviations..

*>cricket.wav<*

--See subject header for details..


    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
I M @ good guy  
View profile  
 More options Dec 27 2009, 5:48 pm
Newsgroups: alt.global-warming, sci.physics, sci.environment
From: "I M @ good guy" <I...@good.guy>
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2009 17:48:00 -0500
Subject: Re: More of the usual pig ignorance from the frightie-righties..
On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 09:08:15 -0600, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com>
wrote:

         Ok newbie, I spent about 15 years hanging
out in sci.physics, where were you, in elementary
school?

         I don't usually remove newsgroups, prior
posters are responsible for them, and removing
any breaks the thread for some interested people.

         But if you only read and post in sci.physics,
maybe I would be doing everybody a favor, fiction
about future disasters is not of widespread interest.


    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
I M @ good guy  
View profile  
 More options Dec 27 2009, 5:53 pm
Newsgroups: alt.global-warming, sci.physics, sci.environment
From: "I M @ good guy" <I...@good.guy>
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2009 17:53:56 -0500
Local: Sun, Dec 27 2009 5:53 pm
Subject: Re: More of the usual pig ignorance from the frightie-righties..
On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 09:38:43 -0600, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 12/27/09 9:22 AM, RayLopez99 wrote:
>> On Dec 27, 10:08 am, Sam Wormley<sworml...@gmail.com>  wrote:
>>>     You guys that normally don't hang out in sci.physics have a lot
>>>     of difficult discussing the physics, so I would suggest removing
>>>     sci.physics in your replies.

>> Can't stand the heat, Sam Worm?  I don't ordinarily post in
>> sci.physics not because of my physics background but because flakes
>> hang out there--is that you?

>> RL

>   I suggest you not post at all in sci.physics, unless, of course
>   you would like to discuss some physics, such as all the vibration
>   and rotation modes of the O-C-O molecule.

         And you don't understand there is a lot more H-O-H?

         I have heard of water on the brain, but AGW fanatics
must have CO2 on the brain.


    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Sam Wormley  
View profile  
 More options Dec 27 2009, 6:23 pm
Newsgroups: alt.global-warming, sci.physics, sci.environment
From: Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2009 17:23:28 -0600
Local: Sun, Dec 27 2009 6:23 pm
Subject: Re: More of the usual pig ignorance from the frightie-righties..
On 12/27/09 4:53 PM, I M @ good guy wrote:

> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 09:38:43 -0600, Sam Wormley<sworml...@gmail.com>

>>    I suggest you not post at all in sci.physics, unless, of course
>>    you would like to discuss some physics, such as all the vibration
>>    and rotation modes of the O-C-O molecule.

> And you don't understand there is a lot more H-O-H?

> I have heard of water on the brain, but AGW fanatics
> must have CO2 on the brain.

Remember:


    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Last Post  
View profile  
 More options Dec 27 2009, 6:51 pm
Newsgroups: alt.global-warming, sci.physics, sci.environment
From: Last Post <last_p...@primus.ca>
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2009 15:51:08 -0800 (PST)
Local: Sun, Dec 27 2009 6:51 pm
Subject: Re: More of the usual pig ignorance from the frightie-righties..
On Dec 27, 11:11 am, JohnM <john_howard_mor...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

> On Dec 27, 4:20 pm, RayLopez99 <raylope...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > On Dec 27, 4:38 am, Rav1ng rabbit <rab...@dot.com> wrote:

> > > Let me add to this, on day 38 and counting after climate gate the AGW
> > > deniers industry has not found one iota of evidence speaking against
> > > man-made global warming.

> > Wrong.  The rest of your post therefore can be ignored.  An iota is a
> > scintilla is a sot is a speck.  There is more than an iota.

> OK, so you say. But you seem not to want to share it with us. Any
> particular reason?

• ROTFLMAO
    Where is the evidence speaking *for* "man-made global warming"?

    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Last Post  
View profile  
 More options Dec 27 2009, 7:02 pm
Newsgroups: alt.global-warming, sci.physics, sci.environment
From: Last Post <last_p...@primus.ca>
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2009 16:02:12 -0800 (PST)
Local: Sun, Dec 27 2009 7:02 pm
Subject: Re: More of the usual pig ignorance from the frightie-righties..
On Dec 27, 6:23 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:

° realclimate.org is the web site of the CRUsaders.

    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
I M @ good guy  
View profile  
 More options Dec 27 2009, 10:33 pm
Newsgroups: alt.global-warming, sci.physics, sci.environment
From: "I M @ good guy" <I...@good.guy>
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2009 22:33:53 -0500
Local: Sun, Dec 27 2009 10:33 pm
Subject: Re: More of the usual pig ignorance from the frightie-righties..
On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 17:23:28 -0600, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 12/27/09 4:53 PM, I M @ good guy wrote:
>> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 09:38:43 -0600, Sam Wormley<sworml...@gmail.com>
>>>    I suggest you not post at all in sci.physics, unless, of course
>>>    you would like to discuss some physics, such as all the vibration
>>>    and rotation modes of the O-C-O molecule.

>> And you don't understand there is a lot more H-O-H?

>> I have heard of water on the brain, but AGW fanatics
>> must have CO2 on the brain.

>Remember:

          Remember what, something fictional, made up,
some hypothetical computer climate model program
parameters with no rational physical basis?

        I think you are covering to much ground
with too little close inspection, I found your
first post to sci.physics and it was a snotty
one line retort, hardly a discussion of physics.

    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
I M @ good guy  
View profile  
 More options Dec 27 2009, 11:22 pm
Newsgroups: alt.global-warming, sci.physics, sci.environment
From: "I M @ good guy" <I...@good.guy>
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2009 23:22:08 -0500
Local: Sun, Dec 27 2009 11:22 pm
Subject: Re: More of the usual pig ignorance from the frightie-righties..
On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 16:02:12 -0800 (PST), Last Post

        I used to like to reverse words or first letters
of two words, like cruSAD'rs.

    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Raving Rabb1t  
View profile  
 More options Dec 28 2009, 8:03 am
Newsgroups: alt.global-warming, sci.physics, sci.environment
From: Raving Rabb1t <rab...@dot.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2009 14:03:28 +0100
Local: Mon, Dec 28 2009 8:03 am
Subject: Re: More of the usual pig ignorance from the frightie-righties..

There are frighting similarities between fossil fools and creationists,
did you know that?

Q

--
The raving rabbit follows AGW deniers


    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Sam Wormley  
View profile  
 More options Dec 28 2009, 8:58 am
Newsgroups: alt.global-warming, sci.physics, sci.environment
From: Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2009 07:58:26 -0600
Local: Mon, Dec 28 2009 8:58 am
Subject: Re: More of the usual pig ignorance from the frightie-righties..
On 12/27/09 6:02 PM, Last Post wrote:

   Thanks to you, I watched 15 episode of Crusader Rabbit last night.

    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
RayLopez99  
View profile  
 More options Dec 28 2009, 9:57 am
Newsgroups: alt.global-warming, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, sci.physics, sci.environment
From: RayLopez99 <raylope...@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2009 06:57:15 -0800 (PST)
Local: Mon, Dec 28 2009 9:57 am
Subject: Re: More of the usual pig ignorance from the frightie-righties..
On Dec 27, 1:26 pm, Man_of_Mind <baron.von.m...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >>>> Know anything about gravitational tensors, punk?

> >>> Not much, not without Googling it.

> >> That's as I suspected.  I'm more concerned with predicting the
> >> fields using radiometry to test the hypothesis..

> > Good.  You're about a generation behind the geophysicists who
> > already use gravity anomalies to find oil formations.

> Nooo, you're about two 'generations' behind me.  I'm looking
> for a 'bow shock' off of a moving gravitational field..

> What's the speed of gravity, Gomez?

I see.  You are replicating the "pop science" you saw in a magazine
like Omni (defunct) or Popular Mechanics.  This experiment is best
left to CERN and the big boys, not a backyard laboratory hick like
you.  Better if you spend your time doing original research and not
trying to puff up your resume with fashionable science.  Shame on you
(or us, if you're funded by taxpayers).  Speed of gravity?  Less than
light it gravitons exist and have mass, otherwise, equal to light and
possibly even greater than light.   BTW back in the 1960s gravity
waves were first attempted to be found, I forgot the scientist but his
apparatus was about the size of a coffee can as I recall.  He was a
bit eccentric too, like you, but the difference was he was a genius,
unlike you.

> >>>>> Then why do you get into a modern 747

> >>>> I haven't flown in one of those yet..

> >>> Really, you should get out more.

> >> It doesn't pay as good as it used to..

> > True, and it will get worse if you Greens win

> Another false premise, supposition and conclusion on the
> behalf of a "geophysicist"?  *>LOL!<*  That's dubious..

No it's not.  You're going to opine about economics too?  Jack of all
trades (master of none).

> >>> You live in the boondocks.

> >> Yup..  And your point as?

> > That's my point.  You're out of touch, a hick.

> That would be an unproven/unprovable negative claim on your behalf..

The proof was supplied by you, hayseed.  You've never flown in a
Boeing jumbo jet.  Possibly never flow in a plane at all, if you live
in cramped and tiny England.

> >>> Right, we are in agreement here.  But CFCs also show how "wrong" the
> >>> models are...so why should the AGW GCMs be right?

> >> In both cases, we're seeing that we've erred in being too
> >> conservative with our estimates of the situation.

> > No, the opposite.

> And your reasoning for that is?

> > Even cutting CO2 dramatically may not solve GW.

> So, your solution is to do nothing..

My solution is a mild carbon tax, for budget balancing and Peak Oil
mitigating reasons, as the science behind AGW is still unsettled.

Yes, but if you had an iota of brains you would simply substitute "as"
for the second "of".

> > Your pedigree is suspect now.

> Really?  I was thinking much the same of your inane babblings..

Then start thinking junior, and quit parroting what others say and do.

> > I'm beginning to think you're like that other bloke on this
> > thread pretending to be degreed.

> I see that Sam has you pinned for a liar as well..

Sam the censor bigot?  Yes he wants me to stop posting in
sci.physics.  I guess he can't stand somebody else stealing his
limelight I suppose.

RL


    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Messages 1 - 25 of 54   Newer >
« Back to Discussions « Newer topic     Older topic »

Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
©2010 Google