Re: More of the usual pig ignorance from the frightie-righties..
Man_of_Mind
>
> Man_of_Mind restored the hilarious bitch-slappings administered to:
>>
>> GayLopez99 <raylo...@gmail.com> courageously deleted and bleated:
>>>
>>> Man_of_Mind restored the hilarious bitch-slappings administered to:
>>>>
>>>> On Dec 25, 10:25 am, GayLopez99 <raylo...@gmail.com> whined/opined:
>>>>>
>>>>> Man_of_Mind underscored the ignorance proudly exhibited by:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> pygmy_drama whimpered futilely:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Man_of_Mind was replying to:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 12/25/2009 9:35 AM, Gord Herman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Dec 25, 10:25 am, GayLopez99 <raylo...@gmail.com> whined:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Oh I know--weather is not climate--unless it's a hot day.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What trailer park do you live in?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Looks like a duplex, in Springfield Virginia..
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8430482.stm
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The capital, Oklahoma City was hit by 14in (35cm) of snow by Thursday
>>>>>>>>>> night, eclipsing the record of 2.5in set in 1914.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Of course, you have no knowledge of science because you really believe
>>>>>>>>> that more snow is a case for no global warming.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yeah, never mind that we had a very warm November, such that
>>>>>>>> the lawn had to be mowed weekly until after Thanksgiving..
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Also, the previous record for snowfall, here in Oklahoma,
>>>>>>>> was 12.1" back in 1988, see the details here..
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.kfor.com/news/local/kfor-story-blizzard-2009,0,4502513.story
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If you aren't able to grasp the basics, why continue to make an ass
>>>>>>>>> out of yourself?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> One of my buddies called me up last night and asked me how
>>>>>>>> I felt about the global warming falling out of the sky..
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I told him it sure beat having to to mow the yard again,
>>>>>>>> though I knew I was going to have shovel out a path to the
>>>>>>>> car to grab some stuff I'd left in it.. About a foot deep too.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> He, in turn, reported that he'd not had as many tomatoes this
>>>>>>>> year, owing to the sustained warmth (above 65'F) hadn't permitted
>>>>>>>> the vines to set as much fruit this past season..
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --It's a friendly sort of rivalry we have..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sounds more like two morons trying to out-idiot
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Too bad you weren't around when I told him that we'd be recycling
>>>>>> refrigerants (eg Freon) because of the ozone hole they affected..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --Guess how that turned out..
>>>>>
>>>>> The Ozone Hole has gotten bigger since the ban took place.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, that is correct..
>>>>
>>>> http://www.atm.ch.cam.ac.uk/tour/part3.html
>>>>
>>>>> Proving it was probably ineffective.
>>>>
>>>> No, proving it was even more urgent that we banned the CFC's
>>>> and developed alternatives for than we first recognized..
>>>>
>>>>> Any other 'pre-DICK-tions" you wanna make?
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, you're going to your own death, blithely ignorant of the
>>>> entire world of science, and we won't miss your ambitious ignorance
>>>> in the least..
>>>>
>>>>> Truth be told, climate is a lot harder to model than
>>>>> the AGW'tards think.
>>>>
>>>> And, precisely what sort of experience with that can your present?
>>>>
>>>> To be certain, it could be improved by some new insights,
>>>> but simply saying that it is more difficult than some
>>>> vague value of " the AGW 'tards" isn't helping your critique..
>>>>
>>>>> All the more reason to adopt China's attitude
>>>>> and go slow on greenhouse gas caps.
>>>>
>>>> Nope, you're again bass-ackwards on this matter..
>>>>
>>>> --Please continue striving for your very own Darwin Award..
>>>
>>> Projection
>>
>> 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..
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..
RayLopez99
> >> 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
Frogwatch
> 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
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.
Sam Wormley
>
> 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.
Bruce Richmond
As opposed to AGW alarmists that *make* the data say what they want it
to.
Sam Wormley
The data stands on its own.
Man_of_Mind
>
> Man_of_Mind restored the hilarious bitch-slappings administered to:
>>
>> GayLopez99 <raylo...@gmail.com> courageously deleted and bleated:
>>>
>>> Man_of_Mind restored the hilarious bitch-slappings administered to:
>>>>
>>>> GayLopez99 <raylo...@gmail.com> courageously deleted and bleated:
>>>>>
>>>>> Man_of_Mind restored the hilarious bitch-slappings administered to:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Dec 25, 10:25 am, GayLopez99 <raylo...@gmail.com> whined/opined:
>>>>>>> The Ozone Hole has gotten bigger since the ban took place.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, that is correct..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.atm.ch.cam.ac.uk/tour/part3.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Proving it was probably ineffective.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, proving it was even more urgent that we banned the CFC's
>>>>>> and developed alternatives for than we first recognized..
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Any other 'pre-DICK-tions" you wanna make?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yeah, you're going to your own death, blithely ignorant of the
>>>>>> entire world of science, and we won't miss your ambitious ignorance
>>>>>> in the least..
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Truth be told, climate is a lot harder to model than
>>>>>>> the AGW'tards think.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And, precisely what sort of experience with that can your present?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To be certain, it could be improved by some new insights,
>>>>>> but simply saying that it is more difficult than some
>>>>>> vague value of " the AGW 'tards" isn't helping your critique..
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> All the more reason to adopt China's attitude
>>>>>>> and go slow on greenhouse gas caps.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope, you're again bass-ackwards on this matter..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --Please continue striving for your very own Darwin Award..
>>>>>
>>>>> Projection
>>>>
>>>> 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
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..
I M @ good guy
wrote:
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.
Sam Wormley
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.
RayLopez99
> >>> 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
>
> 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..
>
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
RayLopez99
> 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
RayLopez99
> 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
Sam Wormley
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.
JohnM
> 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>
Man_of_Mind
>
> Man_of_Mind restored the hilarious bitch-slappings administered to:
>>
>> GayLopez99 <raylo...@gmail.com> courageously deleted and bleated:
>>>
>>> Man_of_Mind restored the hilarious bitch-slappings administered to:
>>>>
>>>> GayLopez99 <raylo...@gmail.com> courageously deleted and bleated:
>>>>>
>>>>> Man_of_Mind restored the hilarious bitch-slappings administered to:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> GayLopez99 <raylo...@gmail.com> courageously deleted and bleated:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Man_of_Mind restored the hilarious bitch-slappings administered to:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Dec 25, 10:25 am, GayLopez99 <raylo...@gmail.com> whined/opined:
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>
>> 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..
>
> 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?
>>>>> 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..
>>>>> 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.
>
> No, the opposite.
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..
>>>> 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?
>
> You're a brainaic and you can't understand what I just wrote?
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<*
I M @ good guy
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.
I M @ good guy
wrote:
>On 12/27/09 9:22 AM, RayLopez99 wrote:
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.
Sam Wormley
> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 09:38:43 -0600, Sam Wormley<swor...@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:
> Concerning Greenhouse Gas Forcing Functions
> http://www.realclimate.org/images/forcing_1750-2000-toppanel.jpg
>
> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/10/attribution-of-20th-century-climate-change-to-cosub2sub/
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Greenhouse_Effect.svg
Last Post
• ROTFLMAO
Where is the evidence speaking *for* "man-made global warming"?
Last Post
> On 12/27/09 4:53 PM, I M @ good guy wrote:
>
>
> >> 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:
>
> > Concerning Greenhouse Gas Forcing Functions
> > http://www.realclimate.org/images/forcing_1750-2000-toppanel.jpg
>
° realclimate.org is the web site of the CRUsaders.
I M @ good guy
wrote:
>On 12/27/09 4:53 PM, I M @ good guy wrote:
>> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 09:38:43 -0600, Sam Wormley<swor...@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?
>> Concerning Greenhouse Gas Forcing Functions
>> http://www.realclimate.org/images/forcing_1750-2000-toppanel.jpg
>>
>> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/10/attribution-of-20th-century-climate-change-to-cosub2sub/
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Greenhouse_Effect.svg
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.
I M @ good guy
I used to like to reverse words or first letters
of two words, like cruSAD'rs.
Raving Rabb1t
There are frighting similarities between fossil fools and creationists,
did you know that?
Q
--
The raving rabbit follows AGW deniers
Sam Wormley
Thanks to you, I watched 15 episode of Crusader Rabbit last night.
RayLopez99
>
> >>>> 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, 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?
>
> 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?
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
Androcles
"RayLopez99" <raylo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4fc7a111-df52-4c0f...@z40g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
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.
============================================
Bwhahahahaha!
What's the speed of getting wet if you jump into a swimming pool?
What's the speed of pressure if you descend to the ocean floor?
What's the speed of gravity if you fall to the ground?
What's the speed of lunacy if you think a gravitational field has a
speed?
You are replicating the "pop science" you saw in a magazine
like Omni (defunct) or Popular Mechanics. This experiment is best
left to Newton and Galileo (the big boys), not a backyard lunatic like
you.
Man_of_Mind
>
> Man_of_Mind restored the hilarious bitch-slappings administered to:
>>
>> GayLopez99 <raylo...@gmail.com> courageously deleted and bleated:
>>>
>>> Man_of_Mind restored the hilarious bitch-slappings administered to:
>>>>
>>>> GayLopez99 <raylo...@gmail.com> courageously deleted and bleated:
>>>>>
>>>>> Man_of_Mind restored the hilarious bitch-slappings administered to:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> GayLopez99 <raylo...@gmail.com> courageously deleted and bleated:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Man_of_Mind restored the hilarious bitch-slappings administered to:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> GayLopez99 <raylo...@gmail.com> courageously deleted and bleated:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Man_of_Mind restored the hilarious bitch-slappings administered to:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Dec 25, 10:25 am, GayLopez99 <raylo...@gmail.com> whined/opined:
>>>>>>>>>>> Truth be told, climate is a lot harder to model than
>>>>>>>>>>> the AGW'tards think.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And, precisely what sort of experience with that can your present?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> To be certain, it could be improved by some new insights,
>>>>>>>>>> but simply saying that it is more difficult than some
>>>>>>>>>> vague value of " the AGW 'tards" isn't helping your critique..
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> All the more reason to adopt China's attitude
>>>>>>>>>>> and go slow on greenhouse gas caps.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Nope, you're again bass-ackwards on this matter..
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --Please continue striving for your very own Darwin Award..
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Projection
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>> Yes, it's painfully self-evident..
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
Obviously, you don't "see" much outside of your ego-centric
'micro-verse' of right-wing pabulum and false doctrines..
> You are replicating the "pop science"
Nope, I haven't read any such publications about that,
and I defy you to cite anything that you're falsely
accusing me of, Gomez..
> Better if you spend your time doing original research
Really? And isn't that why I'm still working with the research
department on my own time, instead whatever conspiracy du juor
you can pull out of your hindquarters?
Now, will you answer my recent question in a cogent manner?
> Speed of gravity? Less than light it gravitons exist and
> have mass, otherwise, equal to light and possibly even
> greater than light.
Now, how would you go about constructing a way to test such
a hypothesis, your fallacy 'black-or-white' conjecture aside?
Come on, RL.. Post something constructive, for once..
> 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
Yeah, like I wouldn't know anything about being 'eccentric'..
*>LOL!<* I'll forward that to the Dean, just for laughs..
Now, since you have no methodology, no helpful suggestions,
and not a speck of insight into the matter, what are you
continuing to babble so self-importantly for? Oh, I see..
All you want to do is bolster your weak self-esteem by putting
down others, like the sad little right-wing neurotic you are..
Example follows..
>>>>>>> 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.
Yes, it is.. You're confusing your failed political ideology
for some variant of the study of climate and physics..
> You're going to opine about economics too?
If I feel like it. What are you going to do about it? Whine?
> Jack of all trades
*>LOL!<* And for your next nearly incoherent personal attack..
>>>>> 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,
Last time I flew, it was in a 737. Nice bird, but I see all
sorts of military aircraft flying overhead where I work, and
I'd rather be flying on those, the real airplanes..
And, it's not the middle of nowhere, but you can see it from here..
> if you live in cramped and tiny England.
However, that's not where I live..
Next?
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> No, the opposite.
>>
>> 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..
>
> My solution is a mild carbon tax, for budget balancing and
> Peak Oil mitigating reasons,
That's the first reasonable thing you've posted about it, which
makes you appear to be rational and sentient. However, the effect
is ruined when you proceeded with yet another faux pas..
> as the science behind AGW is still unsettled.
Nope, you're still quite wrong about that. The only thing
that's left "unsettled" is the amount of effects (eg warming)
that have yet to manifest. As I wrote previously..
>>>>> 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?
>>
>> 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?
>
> Yes, but if you had an iota of brains you would simply substitute
> "as" for the second "of".
So, you've again tried not to call attention to the error of
your prior pompous primate posturings.. What a surprise..
You really are a sham, when it comes to expressing scientific
concepts. Perhaps you should try actually proof-reading the
words you're posting, instead of sloppily pretending to know
enough about the subject you're emptily bloviating about, RL..
>>> Your pedigree is suspect now.
>>
>> Really? I was thinking much the same of your inane babblings..
>
> Then start thinking junior,
I seriously doubt that I'm any younger than yourself, Gomez..
And as for "parroting what others say and do", you first..
>>> 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.
That might not hurt what's left of your credibility..
--Which is becoming "vanishingly small"..
Ouroboros Rex
> 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.
Prove it.
Ouroboros Rex
Subject change denied.
RayLopez99
>
> >> GayLopez99 <raylope...@gmail.com> courageously deleted and bleated:
'
And you then wonder, after calling me GayLopez and Gomez, why you get
insulted? You really need to get out more, Junior.
>
> >>> Man_of_Mind restored the hilarious bitch-slappings administered to:
>
> >>>> GayLopez99 <raylope...@gmail.com> courageously deleted and bleated:
Says you? You're a fool.
> >> for a 'bow shock' off of a moving gravitational field..
>
> >> What's the speed of gravity, Gomez?
>
> > I see.
>
> Obviously, you don't "see" much outside of your ego-centric
> 'micro-verse' of right-wing pabulum and false doctrines..
Projection noted--substitute "left-wing" for "right-wing".
>
> > You are replicating the "pop science"
>
> Nope, I haven't read any such publications about that,
> and I defy you to cite anything that you're falsely
> accusing me of, Gomez..
Then you should read more.
>
> > Better if you spend your time doing original research
>
> Really? And isn't that why I'm still working with the research
> department on my own time, instead whatever conspiracy du juor
> you can pull out of your hindquarters?
And you claim to be middle aged, yet still working with lab rats in
the "research department", which is typically reserved for pre-doc and
post-doc students? Doesn't compute, like you. Original research
measuring bow shocks of gravity? LOL. You should team up with
Androcles and form a comedy club.
>
> Now, will you answer my recent question in a cogent manner?
>
> > Speed of gravity? Less than light it gravitons exist and
> > have mass, otherwise, equal to light and possibly even
> > greater than light.
>
> Now, how would you go about constructing a way to test such
> a hypothesis, your fallacy 'black-or-white' conjecture aside?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment
You are asking me, and you claim to be a researcher? And a modified
Michelson-Morley interferometer. What an idiot you are. Please
forward by private email your workplace--I need to speak to your
director or boss. Even if you're the janitor, you are wasting time
(and probably posting from work) and need to be fired.
>
> Come on, RL.. Post something constructive, for once..
>
> > 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
>
> Yeah, like I wouldn't know anything about being 'eccentric'..
WHAT? Are you claiming to be eccentric? You're an idiot to boot.
>
> *>LOL!<* I'll forward that to the Dean, just for laughs..
The "Dean"? You claim to be middle aged and still in school? Idiot.
Look, the rest of your post is so full of mistakes I've concluded
you're just a hapless troll, possibly still in junior high school.
I'm not wasting my time anymore with you, Junior.
You're dismissed.
RL
RayLopez99
WTF you moron? WTF learn to post properly you sack of sh iite. Are
you asking me to prove that AGW exists (which is what I said) or
Rav1ng rabbit to prove it doesn't exist?
Self nuke noted. Idiot.
RL
Man_of_Mind
>>
>>>>
>
> And you then wonder, after calling me GayLopez and Gomez, why you
> get insulted?
And then you wonder why your insults have no sting, Low Pest?
>>>>> Man_of_Mind restored the hilarious bitch-slappings administered to:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> GayLopez99 <raylo...@gmail.com> courageously deleted and bleated:
>
> Says you?
It's self-evident.. You delete what you cannot defeat..
>>>>>>> Man_of_Mind restored the hilarious bitch-slappings administered to:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> GayLopez99 <raylo...@gmail.com> courageously deleted and bleated:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Man_of_Mind restored the hilarious bitch-slappings administered to:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> GayLopez99 <raylo...@gmail.com> courageously deleted and bleated:
----------
>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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..
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>
>> Obviously, you don't "see" much outside of your ego-centric
>> 'micro-verse' of right-wing pabulum and false doctrines..
>
> Projection noted--substitute "left-wing" for "right-wing".
*>LOL!<* You're still new at this, aren't you?
Example follows..
>>> You are replicating the "pop science"
>>
>> Nope, I haven't read any such publications about that,
>> and I defy you to cite anything that you're falsely
>> accusing me of, Gomez..
>
> Then you should read more.
Lack of citations noted, and laughed at..
>>> Better if you spend your time doing original research
>>
>> Really? And isn't that why I'm still working with the research
>> department on my own time, instead whatever conspiracy du juor
>> you can pull out of your hindquarters?
>
> And you claim to be middle aged, yet still working
With the Dean of Research, as his former research assistant..
> which is typically reserved for pre-doc and post-doc students?
Yeah, how about that?
> Doesn't compute
You've already demonstrated that you suck at higher math, thanks..
> Original research measuring bow shocks of gravity?
Using radiometry to confirm the hypothesis'..
Now, will you answer my recent question in a cogent manner?
>>> Speed of gravity? Less than light it gravitons exist and
>>> have mass, otherwise, equal to light and possibly even
>>> greater than light.
>>
>> Now, how would you go about constructing a way to test such
>> a hypothesis, your fallacy 'black-or-white' conjecture aside?
>>
>> Come on, RL.. Post something constructive, for once..
>
> You are asking me
Yes, just to see if you're something past a "google scholar"..
> And a modified Michelson-Morley interferometer
You failed.. And for your next deflection after such..
> Please forward by private email your workplace--I need to speak
> to your director or boss. Even if you're the janitor, you are
> wasting time (and probably posting from work) and need to be fired.
Think you can net-cop me, little google scholar? *>LOL!<*
Give it a try, see what kind of problems you'll cause yourself..
C'mon, you know you're going to fail.. Let's see it..
>>> 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
>>
>> Yeah, like I wouldn't know anything about being 'eccentric'..
>>
>> *>LOL!<* I'll forward that to the Dean, just for laughs..
>>
> WHAT? Are you claiming to be eccentric?
No claim necessary, that's why refuting right-wing "google scholars"
like yourself is a trivial matter, and done for entertainment
purposes only. Don't try this at home folks, these were trained
professional right-wing hacks, failing miserably with a fixation
upon delusions of adequacy and an abject 'fail' of an ideology..
>> Now, since you have no methodology, no helpful suggestions,
>> and not a speck of insight into the matter, what are you
>> continuing to babble so self-importantly for? Oh, I see..
>> All you want to do is bolster your weak self-esteem by putting
>> down others, like the sad little right-wing neurotic you are..
>>
>> Example follows..
>
> Look, the rest of your post is so full of mistakes
Prove it, your 'say-so' doesn't count in the real world..
> I've concluded you're just a hapless troll
That's nice. I presume you'll not be spewing your useless tripe
around my postings and threads, else you'll get humbled again and
have to resort to the usual right-wing excuses for 'debate'..
Example follows..
> possibly still in junior high school.
Nope, you've again failed miserably to support your false
negative claims about my person, my profession and education.
Your lack of critical reasoning and continued character smears
is simple proof that you're inadequate to the task of discussing
a subject you clearly have a personal, perhaps political, bias on
and I doubt that you'll willingly discuss this in an open and
honest manner.. In fact, this about the point where most of
you right-wing pseudo-scientists turn tail and run away..
Example follows..
> I'm not wasting my time anymore with you, Junior.
>
> You're dismissed.
Translation: Your pompous primate posturings failed you, so
now you're going to take your petty vindictive personal attacks
and bravely run away..
Man_of_Mind
>
> On Dec 28, 1:08 pm, "Ouroboros Rex"<i...@casual.com> wrote:
>>
>> RayLopez99 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.
>>
>> Prove it.
>
> WTF you moron?
He asked you to prove it, that you have evidence that the e-mails
somehow dispute the man-made climate change hypothesis..
> WTF learn to post properly you sack of sh iite.
You first..
> Are you asking me to prove that AGW exists
Nope.. Prove the stolen e-mails dispute the hypothesis..
--Or, see subject header for details on your recent 'fail'..
RayLopez99
> --Or, see subject header for details on your recent 'fail'..
Email me your place of work if you think I cannot get you fired.
C'mon, be a man about it. Email me...I'm waiting. You'll be gone so
fast your head will spin, notwithstanding that homosexual affair
you've had for decades with your "Dean" (capital D is yours, and
typical of a government boffin who likes To Capitalize Everything).
Head injury is my diagnosis of you--physical or congenital--you tend
to act in a compulsive manner and insist on having the last word,
typical of head cases...I bet you can't resist replying to this
rebuttal, buttal. Prove me wrong.
Remember retard--email me your workplace... don't be scared, what's
the worse that can happen? If you do work and are not posting from
mom's basement you loser.
RL
Man_of_Mind
>
> Man_of_Mind restored the hilarious bitch-slappings bestowed upon:
>>
>> On 12/29/2009 9:52 AM, RayLopez99 wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> RayLopez99 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.
>>>>
>>>> Prove it.
>>>
>>> WTF you moron?
>>
>> He asked you to prove it, that you have evidence that the e-mails
>> somehow dispute the man-made climate change hypothesis..
>>
>>> WTF learn to post properly you sack of sh iite.
>>
>> You first..
>>
>>> Are you asking me to prove that AGW exists
>>
>> Nope.. Prove the stolen e-mails dispute the hypothesis..
>>
>
> Email me your place of work if you think I cannot get you fired.
Your e-mail works?
> C'mon, be a man about it. Email me...I'm waiting.
I've addressed your libelous remarks in e-mail..
> You'll be gone so fast your head will spin
Wanna bet on that? I work off-campus, and there's nothing
you can do about it except to rage impotently about it..
> Head injury is my diagnosis of you
That's nice. What else would you like to telepathically
diagnose about my physical condition? Let's hear it..
> you tend to act in a compulsive manner and insist on having the
> last word
I see, so you're now so obsessed about a few of my replies,
after saying that you weren't going to reply to my postings,
that you're going to try and net-cop me?
*>LOL!<*
> Remember retard--email me your workplace... don't be scared,
> what's the worse that can happen?
Oh, I suppose that would be a libel suit being filed against you..
--Should I contact Verizon?
Ouroboros Rex
Just prove the statement you said was wrong is wrong. What's so
difficult?
We'll wait.
Ouroboros Rex
> On Dec 29, 11:49 am, Man_of_Mind <baron.von.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> --Or, see subject header for details on your recent 'fail'..
>
> Email me your place of work if you think I cannot get you fired.
Resorting to threats = abject surrender.
Man_of_Mind
He got really quiet after I e-mailed him..
--I take it that he does this often?
RayLopez99
>
> He got really quiet after I e-mailed him..
>
> --I take it that he does this often?
In your email you did not provide an address where I can direct my
concerns about you to your employer. Your email did identify your
(real?) name, "K*L*", but no address. Please provide it. This is the
last time I'll ask, and then I'll assume you chicken out.
Why, are you afraid? If you did nothing wrong then my complaint will
be tossed into the circular file. But if I have a legitimate
complaint...
As for your sexual orientation, I was merely retailiating to what you
wrote about me, and frankly I could care less.
C'mon KL, puck puck puck puck chicken, boy? Address of workplace.
Please provide.
RL
Man_of_Mind
>
> On Dec 30, 1:40 am, Man_of_Mind replied to:
>>
>> On 12/29/2009 2:46 PM, Ouroboros Rex wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Dec 29, 11:49 am, Man_of_Mind restored:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 12/29/2009 9:52 AM, RayLopez99 whined impotently:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Dec 28, 1:08 pm, "Ouroboros Rex"<i...@casual.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> RayLopez99 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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Prove it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> WTF you moron?
>>>>>
>>>>> He asked you to prove it, that you have evidence that the e-mails
>>>>> somehow dispute the man-made climate change hypothesis..
>>>>>
>>>>>> WTF learn to post properly you sack of sh iite.
>>>>>
>>>>> You first..
>>>>>
>>>>>> Are you asking me to prove that AGW exists
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope.. Prove the stolen e-mails dispute the hypothesis..
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Email me your place of work if you think I cannot get you fired.
>>>
>>> Resorting to threats = abject surrender.
>>
>>
>> --I take it that he does this often?
>
> In your email you did not provide an address where I can direct my
> concerns about you to your employer.
I see that the obvious has again escaped your one-dimensional thinking..
Let's see what you're going to project about yourself, first..
> Your email did identify your (real?)
Yup, it's real. Why do you suggest otherwise? Is your name
really "Ray Lopez"? Probably not..
"RL (not my real name, I like to go by "Bill Gates" sometimes)"
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.os.linux/msg/038f63b09b9cddd7?hl=en&dmode=source
"No, I just have enough sense to not post with my real name,
since in the non-virtual world I am somebody, unlike you TK."
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.misc/msg/7cd0719b904c514d?hl=en&dmode=source
"Ray LOPEZ <--a good name, if it was really my own, to
survive the p(x) = 0.86 surname dieoff!"
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.genealogy/msg/cc01e09ee78a2175?hl=en&dmode=source
"No, I stole it from a chess incident, where the then current
chess champion Garry Kasparov (arguably one of the best players
ever, and now a political dissident of sorts in Putin's Russia)
played a correspondence game against the Rest of the World,
abbreviated as "ROW"."
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.invest.stocks/msg/47761c39313debbe?hl=en&dmode=source
> but no address. Please provide it
So why should I co-operate with a known sociopathic liar?
> This is the last time I'll ask
Good, as it's also the stupidest thing you've ever asked me..
> and then I'll assume
Yes, you've a strong track record of assuming all kinds of stuff..
Example follows, my "integrity-challenged" net-pet..
> Why, are you afraid?
Nope, just playing you like a cheap guitar, and you've delightfully
responded in a cheap, petty and vindictive manner that speaks very
plainly about your abject lack of integrity, such that no one
could ever take you seriously for a fellow-academic..
Thanks for inadvertently proving my point..
> If you did nothing wrong
*>LOL!<* I challenged to you try and get me fired, and you've
responded with a libelous claim that will cost you, "Ray"..
To wit:
"Email me your place of work if you think I cannot get you fired.
C'mon, be a man about it. Email me...I'm waiting. You'll be
gone so fast your head will spin, notwithstanding that homosexual
affair you've had for decades with your "Dean" (capital D is yours,
and typical of a government boffin who likes To Capitalize
Everything)."
Awww, did I hurt the little sociopath's feelings by challenging
you to prove that the stolen e-mails from CRU somehow dispute the
man-made global warming hypothesis?
> But if I have a legitimate complaint...
You don't, but thanks for giving me one against you..
Would you like to publicly apologize now, or later?
> As for your sexual orientation, I was merely retailiating
"retailiating"?.. *>chuckling<* The abject lack of proper
spelling, and resorting to immature epithets, on you behalf,
speaks volumes about your lack of an educational background..
Example follows..
> C'mon KL, puck puck puck puck chicken
*>LOL!<* Tell us, "Ray", just how much time do you waste trying
to pretend that you have anything relevant to say about the
global warming hypothesis?
Why can't you prove that they do dispute the outcome of this?
And why do you resort to grade school taunts when you're proven wrong?
And why do you act out, so afraid, in a petty vindictive manner
when you've previously claimed to accept the AGW hypothesis?
--I accept your ungraceful and unprofessional surrender, poseur..
mrbawana2u
<baron.von.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
>[who cares?]
1600 posts in dec, loadturd.
You're a pathetic retard.
Last Post
> 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.
• Well, indeed worms, it seems that you are the silly
one since you are gloing by the product of
Hadley-CRU-Jones , GISS/NASA/Hansen, and
NOAA. It is you and all your AGE fascist fool
friends who refuse to accept reality.
— —
| In real science the burden of proof is always
| on the proposer, never on the sceptics. So far
| neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one
| iota of valid data for global warming nor have
| they provided data that climate change is being
| effected by commerce and industry, and not by
| natural phenomena
Last Post
> On 12/26/09 8:28 PM, Bruce Richmond wrote:
>
>
>
> > 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.
>
> > to.
>
> The data stands on its own.
• It has no legs on which to stand. As if we haven't
know for many years the AGW is an hoax,
Climategate put a seal on it.
Sam Wormley
>
> � It has no legs on which to stand. As if we haven't
> know for many years the AGW is an hoax,
> Climategate put a seal on it.
On issues like global warming and evolution, scientists need to speak up
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/31/AR2009123101155.html
The central lesson of Climategate is not that climate science is
corrupt. The leaked e-mails do nothing to disprove the scientific
consensus on global warming. Instead, the controversy highlights that in
a world of blogs, cable news and talk radio, scientists are poorly
equipped to communicate their knowledge and, especially, to respond when
science comes under attack.
Last Post
> >> 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.
• Indeed worms, you not only do own or manage
Usenet or sci.physics, you fail to follow the basic
rules for posting. Your arrogance is more suitble
for an earth worm.
Sam Wormley
> � Indeed worms, you not only do own or manage
> Usenet or sci.physics, you fail to follow the basic
> rules for posting. Your arrogance is more suitble
> for an earth worm.
>
leona...@gmail.com
> > Usenet or sci.physics, you fail to follow the basic
> > rules for posting. Your arrogance is more suitble
> > for an earth worm.
>
> On issues like global warming and evolution, scientists need to speak up
>
>
> The central lesson of Climategate is not that climate science is
> corrupt. The leaked e-mails do nothing to disprove the scientific
> consensus on global warming. Instead, the controversy highlights that in
> a world of blogs, cable news and talk radio, scientists are poorly
> equipped to communicate their knowledge and, especially, to respond when
> science comes under attack.
• ROTFLMAO
Poor, poor Wormy, I read that Wapo editorial
and it was a tepid endorsement of AGW bullshit.
No science there at all ... Only politics ...
Sam Wormley
> On Jan 1, 3:58 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 1/1/10 2:56 PM, Last Post wrote:
>>
>>> Usenet or sci.physics, you fail to follow the basic
>>> rules for posting. Your arrogance is more suitble
>>> for an earth worm.
>>
>> On issues like global warming and evolution, scientists need to speak up
>>
>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/31/AR200...
>>
>> The central lesson of Climategate is not that climate science is
>> corrupt. The leaked e-mails do nothing to disprove the scientific
>> consensus on global warming. Instead, the controversy highlights that in
>> a world of blogs, cable news and talk radio, scientists are poorly
>> equipped to communicate their knowledge and, especially, to respond when
>> science comes under attack.
>
> Poor, poor Wormy, I read that Wapo editorial
> and it was a tepid endorsement of AGW bullshit.
> No science there at all ... Only politics ...
>
Glad you find tis so entertaining, Leonard.
Androcles
"Sam Wormley" <swor...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:QbqdnW9FZd0NwqPW...@mchsi.com...
> On 1/1/10 2:40 PM, Last Post wrote:
>
>>
Nature is a democracy, all we need is a consensus and she'll behave
the way we want her to, right, Worms?
Every advance since Copernicus has been made by individuals and
against the "scientific consensus". The central lesson of Climategate is
the Washington Post is corrupt and full of shit.
leona...@gmail.com
Usenet or sci.physics, you fail to follow the basic
rules for posting. Your arrogance is more suitble
for an earth worm.
> On issues like global warming and evolution, scientists need to speak up
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/31/AR200...
• ROTFLMAO:—
There was no science in that Wapo op-ed
> The central lesson of Climategate is not that climate science is
> corrupt.
• No it is that a whole bunch of 'climate scientists
ARE corrupt.
>The leaked e-mails do nothing to disprove the scientific
> consensus on global warming.
• One might say that "scientific consensus on global
warming" was a contrivance created by Algore and
propagated by his PR people and assorted profiteers.
• The CRU leaks served to put the seal on the
perversion of science by a powerful cabal for
their personal profits and their underwriters, a
list of which I posted in these groups.
> Instead, the controversy highlights that in
> a world of blogs, cable news and talk radio, scientists are poorly
> equipped to communicate their knowledge and, especially, to respond when
> science comes under attack.
• ROTFLMAO:– HO, Ho, ho that's rich.
The only attacks on science come from the likes
of Hansen, Gore, Wigley, Mann, Briffa, Jones,
et al.
— —
Man_of_Mind
>
> Man_of_Mind restored the hilarious bitch-slapping bestowed upon:
>>
>> On 12/30/2009 1:55 PM, RayLopez99 writhed in denials:
>>>
>>> On Dec 30, 1:40 am, Man_of_Mind replied to:
>>>>
>>>> On 12/29/2009 2:46 PM, Ouroboros Rex wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> RayLopez99 was foaming at the mouth because:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Dec 29, 11:49 am, Man_of_Mind restored:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 12/29/2009 9:52 AM, RayLopez99 whined impotently:
You do, little frightie-rightie..
> 1600 posts in dec, loadturd.
So?
> You're a pathetic retard.
*>LOL!<*
mrbawana2u
wrote:
>[who cares?]
1600 posts in dec, loadturd the returd.
Man_of_Mind
>
> Man_of_Mind restored the hilarious bitch-slapping bestowed upon:
>>
>> msbawwhanwhanwhan was whimpering like a right-wing 'tard:
>>>
>>> Man_of_Mind restored the hilarious bitch-slapping bestowed upon:
>>>>
>>>> On 12/30/2009 1:55 PM, RayLopez99 writhed in denials:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Dec 30, 1:40 am, Man_of_Mind replied to:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 12/29/2009 2:46 PM, Ouroboros Rex wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> RayLopez99 was foaming at the mouth because:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Dec 29, 11:49 am, Man_of_Mind restored:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 12/29/2009 9:52 AM, RayLopez99 whined impotently:
>>
>
> [who cares?]
You do..
> 1600 posts in dec
Jealous, hunh?
--Thanks for again proving my point.. See subject header for details..
mrbawana2u
wrote:
>[who cares?]
1600 posts in dec, loadturd the returd.