Explanations That Everyone in the Scientific Community Accepts EXCEPT James McGinn

[James McGinn]

DM:
It would be an interesting exercise to list phenomena with scientific explanations that everyone in the scientific community accepts EXCEPT McGinn. There are at least four I can think of off the top of my head from his recent pontifications (gaseous H20 below the boiling point, latent heat, convection as a mechanism for thunderstorm formation, and the Hadley cell as the explanation for jet stream formation). Are there others?

James McGinn:
The following things meteorology accepts but I say are nonsense:
Gaseous H2O boiling point of H2O
Latent heat as playing a role in atmospheric flow
Convection as mechanism for thunderstorm formation
Hadley Cell as the explanation for jet stream formation

Here are some additional "myths" of meteorology:
That dry warm air can act as a cap to upwelling air
That the energy of storms comes from upwelling, moist air (I say it comes from low pressure delivered by jet streams and their tributaries from above
That Upwelling moist air can cause the widespread low pressure of storms (I say it is caused by jet streams)

Here are some videos you should watch to better understand my arguments and if you are new to meteorology this will help you better understand their arguments:

Why Meteorologists Maintain Dumb Explanations
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-1p1rJp1x4

H2O Surface Tension and Tornadoes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7q7zT-26BYQ

Surface Tension, Jet Streams, Storms and the Twisted Truth of Meteorology
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6GZEn7N7Ss

Convection Versus Plasma
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwSyalcoRAk

Alternative to Spiritualistic Thinking in the Atmospheric Sciences
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dexlOvP7mPw

[dm]

I had envisioned this as a means of establishing the breadth and depth of his ignorance about existing science and scientific methodologies. I should have anticipated that he would view this as a positive aspect of his "work." Oh well...

[James McGinn]

On Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 10:29:29 AM UTC-8, dm wrote:
> I had envisioned this as a means of establishing the breadth and depth of his ignorance about existing science and scientific methodologies. I should have anticipated that he would view this as a positive aspect of his "work." Oh well...

Right. I view this as an opportunity to explicate meteorological dumbness.

[Sergio]

it is all positive,

We should be grateful to be able to witness the brilliance, creation,
and birth of a new field of "Corrected Meteorology" by Mr. J. McGinn.

He may seem abrasive at times, but this is the new physics, without the
burdens of math, and old stale, stuck thinking. We have to move-on past
that, it is too hard to learn anyway, too complicated.

We are planning to have a meetup at http://www.bronycon.org/ and
instruct as many as we can to spread the word.

[James McGinn]

On Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 10:47:58 AM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
> On 2/18/2016 12:29 PM, dm wrote:
> > I had envisioned this as a means of establishing the breadth and
> > depth of his ignorance about existing science and scientific
> > methodologies. I should have anticipated that he would view this as a
> > positive aspect of his "work." Oh well...
> >
>
> it is all positive,
>
> We should be grateful to be able to witness the brilliance, creation,
> and birth of a new field of "Corrected Meteorology" by Mr. J. McGinn.

And to think, I'm just getting started.

[pipp...@gmail.com]

I stand corrected. This is perfectly demonstrating the breadth and depth of his ignorance about existing science and scientific methodologies. Thanks for the perspective, Sergio.

[James McGinn]

You church ladies don't have an argument. Science is about facts. If you can't confront facts you are just a believer.

Believers are the fodder of scientific progress.

[James McGinn]

On Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 10:29:29 AM UTC-8, dm wrote:

> I had envisioned this as a means of establishing the breadth and depth of his ignorance about existing science and scientific methodologies. I should have anticipated that he would view this as a positive aspect of his "work." Oh well...

So, DM, where are your arguments? Go ahead. Make my day. You have the internet at your fingertips. You have a wealth of meteorological resources at your fingertips. Go ahead. This should be easy for you. I mean, meteorology is and established science. Right? There should be hundreds of years worth of reproducible experimental evidence that disputes me. I'm just one person. There are thousands of meteorologists.

Or is it possible that meteorology is really just a religion, like climatology and global warming?

How else do we explain your inability to muster an argument?

Put up or shut up.

[James McGinn]

You have no argument. That tells the whole story.

[Sergio]

Yes, Believer's in the new Science about facts, sorting, altering,
creating, ignoring, and making of facts, + new vs old facts and the
large class of moving factoidials (object orientated transitional facts)
the rage today in millennial science.

FactZero is a hot new field of millennial science, an application of
ZPF, where out of nothing, something is there, but gone again if needed.

NewFact is also a new field of millennial science where, if supporting
things are needed quickly, one may supply "an answer" immediately.

>
> Believers are the fodder of scientific progress.
>

Scientifically there will be a meetup at http://www.bronycon.org/ and
instruct as many as we can to spread the word, and that is a NewFact.

[James McGinn]

Relevance?

[James McGinn]

So, what do you think it says about you that you can't put together a rational argument.

What does it say about what you believe?

What does it say about the difference between what you thought was true and what is actually true.

What does it say about Meteorology?

What does it say about the populace's general confidence in Meteorology? Atmopheric sciences. Science in general.

What does it say about your understanding of science?

[Sergio]

Excellent example of FactZero, nothing there in that.

>
> What does it say about what you believe?

It dosen't know what I belive. Do your beliefs push forward and exceed
science ?

>
> What does it say about the difference between what you thought was true and what is actually true.

Do you have these thoughts often ? about what is real, and reality ?

>
> What does it say about Meteorology?

if you are it, what do you say ?

>
> What does"it" say about the populace's general confidence in Meteorology?
Atmopheric sciences. Science in general.

"it" dosen't matter, "it" is what You think that counts.

>
> What does "it" say about your understanding of science?

I don't know what "it" said. It dosen't talk to me.


Anyhow, I see you joined up at http://www.bronycon.org/ I do some admin
for the site. You could instruct as many as you can there to spread the

[James McGinn]

On Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 10:29:29 AM UTC-8, dm wrote:

> I had envisioned this as a means of establishing the breadth and depth of his ignorance about existing science and scientific methodologies. I should have anticipated that he would view this as a positive aspect of his "work." Oh well...

So . . .

Uh . . .

So, where is your argument.

DM, this is your opportunity. Go ahead.

Show us all the evidence of Convection,Latent Heat, Thunderstorms, Hadley cells.

This is your opportunity. Go ahead.

Where is your evidence?

WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE?

[Sergio]

use your eyes, go outside, see the clouds, how do they get there ?

how does you heavy moisture air, jump up and make clouds without anybody
seeing, must be invisible water ?

[James McGinn]

On Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 6:26:06 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:

> use your eyes, go outside, see the clouds, how do they get there ?
>
> how does you heavy moisture air, jump up and make clouds without anybody
> seeing, must be invisible water ?

Ask yourself a question, you simpleton. Is convection the only thing that can possibly explain wind? If so why? If not what else can cause wind? Can this be oriented vertically.

If you had a brain you would have already been asking these questions.

You are too stupid for science.

[Sergio]

On 2/18/2016 9:02 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> On Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 6:26:06 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
>
>> use your eyes, go outside, see the clouds, how do they get there ?
>>
>> how does you heavy moisture air, jump up and make clouds without
>> anybody seeing, must be invisible water ?
>

> Ask myself a question, me simpleton. Is convection the only thing

> that can possibly explain wind? If so why? If not what else can
> cause wind? Can this be oriented vertically.

subject is magic water make-um clouds, not wind, you blowhard.


> If I had a brain I would have already been asking these
> questions.

so, how does water vapor get up in the sky to make-um clouds using
convection ?


>
> I are too stupid for science.
>

yep-um, you dumb-um.

[James McGinn]

On Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 7:51:50 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:

> so, how does water vapor get up in the sky

[James McGinn]

On Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 7:51:50 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:

> > If I had a brain I would have already been asking these
> > questions.
>
> so, how does water vapor get up in the sky to make-um clouds using
> convection ?

[Sergio]

On 2/18/2016 10:04 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> On Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 7:51:50 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
>
>> so, how does water vapor get up in the sky
>
> Convection Versus Plasma

> https://www.youtube.com/watch.guberJamesMcZetaMcGine.suck.anegg=LwScoRAk


QUaCK! quaCK! so you plasma it up there like Flash Gordon and his plasma
ray gun. QuAcK! What is plasma? you ask...

wiki says;

A plasma can be created by heating a gas. This and is accompanied by the
*dissociation of molecular bonds*, if present.

(the bold part means H2O got zapped and is now just H2 and O, and you
have to have huge energy source to tare up these molicules, the the H2
goes up fast and the O combines with another O and being heavy...)

so, WHERE'S DAT HUGE IONIZER THAT MAKES ALL YOUR CLOUDS FOR YA ?

>
> Alternative to Spiritualistic Thinking in the Atmospheric Sciences

> https://www.youtube.com/watch.moronJamesMcGoonpastehispanties-OvP7mPw

.....q..q.qUACK!!! calling upon the Spirit to "MAGIC"lly move the water
in the lake to the cloud, do that if you want to, to support your theory
that water is not an invisable gas.

OK, go ahead, I warned you, people going to think your as dumb as a box
of rocks on a mountain in Montana. I warned (QUACK!) you.

[James McGinn]

Duhr!

[James McGinn]

On Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 8:37:29 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:

> On 2/18/2016 10:04 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> > On Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 7:51:50 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
> >
> >> so, how does water vapor get up in the sky
> >
> > Convection Versus Plasma
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch.guberJamesMcZetaMcGine.suck.anegg=LwScoRAk
>
>
> QUaCK! quaCK! so you plasma it up there like Flash Gordon and his plasma
> ray gun. QuAcK! What is plasma? you ask...
>
> wiki says;
>
> A plasma can be created by heating a gas. This and is accompanied by the
> *dissociation of molecular bonds*, if present.

Yes. That is one way to make a plasma.

>
> (the bold part means H2O got zapped and is now just H2 and O, and you
> have to have huge energy source to tare up these molicules, the the H2
> goes up fast and the O combines with another O and being heavy...)
>
> so, WHERE'S DAT HUGE IONIZER THAT MAKES ALL YOUR CLOUDS FOR YA ?

Imbecile. This plasma is associated with hydrogen bonds. Frickin pay attention.

>
>
> >
> > Alternative to Spiritualistic Thinking in the Atmospheric Sciences
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch.moronJamesMcGoonpastehispanties-OvP7mPw
>
> .....q..q.qUACK!!! calling upon the Spirit to "MAGIC"lly move the water
> in the lake to the cloud, do that if you want to, to support your theory
> that water is not an invisable gas.
>
> OK, go ahead, I warned you, people going to think your as dumb as a box
> of rocks on a mountain in Montana. I warned (QUACK!) you.

LOL. So, other than seeing that it is not listed in wikipedia, you have no dispute. RIGHT?

[Solving Tornadoes]

[dm]

Let's not forget:

* Wind farms cause regional drought:
http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_28941058/el-nino-when-will-it-start-raining-california
(with a bonus origin story that describes McGinn's first exposure to convection!)

[Sergio]

On 2/18/2016 10:54 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> On Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 8:37:29 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
>> On 2/18/2016 10:04 PM, James McGinn wrote:
>>> On Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 7:51:50 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
>>>
>>>> so, how does water vapor get up in the sky
>>>
>>> Convection Versus Plasma
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch.guberJamesMcZetaMcGine.suck.anegg=LwScoRAk
>>
>>
>> QUaCK! quaCK! so you plasma it up there like Flash Gordon and his plasma
>> ray gun. QuAcK! What is plasma? you ask...
>>
>> wiki says;
>>
>> A plasma can be created by heating a gas. This and is accompanied by the
>> *dissociation of molecular bonds*, if present.
>
> Yes. That is one way to make a plasma.
>

you just agreed with the wiki, on a scency subject.

>>
>> (the bold part means H2O got zapped and is now just H2 and O, and you
>> have to have huge energy source to tare up these molicules, the the H2
>> goes up fast and the O combines with another O and being heavy...)
>>
>> so, WHERE'S DAT HUGE IONIZER THAT MAKES ALL YOUR CLOUDS FOR YA ?
>
> Imbecile. This plasma is associated with hydrogen bonds. Frickin pay attention.
>

read wiki again, plasma has no bonds.

>>
>>>
>>> Alternative to Spiritualistic Thinking in the Atmospheric Sciences
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch.moronJamesMcGoonpastehispanties-OvP7mPw
>>
>> .....q..q.qUACK!!! calling upon the Spirit to "MAGIC"lly move the water
>> in the lake to the cloud, do that if you want to, to support your theory
>> that water is not an invisable gas.
>>
>> OK, go ahead, I warned you, people going to think your as dumb as a box
>> of rocks on a mountain in Montana. I warned (QUACK!) you.
>
> LOL. So, other than seeing that it is not listed in wikipedia, you have no dispute. RIGHT?
>

so you put your water in a cup,
use a "something-something"
and it "magically changes" into a "plasma"
then you mail it up to a cloud ?

how does it get up to a cloud ? did you email it ?


you demoted from .dot to small rock in box on mountain in Montana.
Wait, how about a small hill instead of mountain?

[HVAC]

Sergio
- show quoted text -

it is all positive,

We should be grateful to be able to witness the brilliance, creation,
and birth of a new field of "Corrected Meteorology" by Mr. J. McGinn.

He may seem abrasive at times, but this is the new physics, without the
burdens of math, and old stale, stuck thinking. We have to move-on past
that, it is too hard to learn anyway, too complicated.

--------------

I have to assume that this is sarcasm. Although this view is quite popular with people like BJ and John. They believe in ghosts, ESP, the 9/11 conspiracy and so on.

As far as McGuinn goes, he seems to be a bit of a retard. No offense intended of course.

Anyone who feels that mainstream science is holding back progress is a bit of a retard as well. Mainstream science has given us this amazing life we live today. With lifespans near double what they were in the past. With technological advances that has put a $29.00 device in my pocket that connects me with the entire planet using relativity corrected satellites in orbit over our planet. Keep in mind that when I was born, there were no human objects in space at all.

And what has McGuinn, BJ and John's 'science' given us? Nothing useful. And I mean NOTHING.

Fake ghost videos. Reports of ESP and remote viewing that total up to zero use to humanity. Religious wars.... That's what they have given us.

Thanks

[James McGinn]

On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 9:07:28 AM UTC-8, HVAC wrote:
> Sergio
> - show quoted text -
> it is all positive,
>
> We should be grateful to be able to witness the brilliance, creation,
> and birth of a new field of "Corrected Meteorology" by Mr. J. McGinn.
>
> He may seem abrasive at times, but this is the new physics, without the
> burdens of math,

Most of the math is most of meteorology is put there because most people are like you. They see numbers. They don't understand them. But they look complex. It looks like science to them.

Math is the glitter of science. All that glitters is not gold. Monkeys see something shiney and think it gold. You are a monkey.

You dimwits couldn't even see the rather obvious weaknesses that are so plainly apparent in current meteorology. Geez, how stupid do you have to be to not notice that water only boils above 212F. I knew this in elementary school. Not one of you dimwits noticed that. Deductive reasoning is well beyond any of you. If not for google and wikipedia you birdbrains would be completely lost.

Duhr.

[HVAC]

You dimwits couldn't even see the rather obvious weaknesses that are so plainly apparent in current meteorology. Geez, how stupid do you have to be to not notice that water only boils above 212F. I knew this in elementary school. Not one of you dimwits noticed that. Deductive reasoning is well beyond any of you. If not for google and wikipedia you birdbrains would be completely lost.

-------------

Again, mcguinn gives us nothing. He is too stupid to understand higher math, so therefore he denigrates it. He falls into the same category as BJ and John. In other words, he's a stillborn Luddite.

Don't go getting mad now, McFly

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

The guy has some strange mental aberration that prevents him from seeing
what is obvious to the rest of the world.

Either that or he is the world's greatest troll.


--
Jim Pennino

[dm]

I was inclined to think troll until the recent appearance of his videos. Now I'm leaning toward "a moderately intelligent person with a strange mental aberration, a strong tendency to believe in ridiculous conspiracies, and a well-developed persecution complex". But "unusually energetic troll and a quite good actor" is still a distinct possibility.

I guess further discussion on this point belongs on sci.psychology.

[James McGinn]

On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 9:37:59 AM UTC-8, HVAC wrote:
> You dimwits couldn't even see the rather obvious weaknesses that are so plainly apparent in current meteorology. Geez, how stupid do you have to be to not notice that water only boils above 212F. I knew this in elementary school. Not one of you dimwits noticed that. Deductive reasoning is well beyond any of you. If not for google and wikipedia you birdbrains would be completely lost.
> -------------
>
> Again, mcguinn gives us nothing. He is too stupid to understand higher math,

LOL. You are a fool. Any fool can claim to know math.

Math is simple. Theory is hard.

[James McGinn]

On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 10:14:10 AM UTC-8, dm wrote:
> I was inclined to think troll until the recent appearance of his videos. Now I'm leaning toward "a moderately intelligent person with a strange mental aberration, a strong tendency to believe in ridiculous conspiracies, and a well-developed persecution complex". But "unusually energetic troll and a quite good actor" is still a distinct possibility.
>
> I guess further discussion on this point belongs on sci.psychology.

Sheep can't reason. They just type.

[James McGinn]

On Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 10:29:29 AM UTC-8, dm wrote:
> I had envisioned this as a means of establishing the breadth and depth of his ignorance about existing science and scientific methodologies. I should have anticipated that he would view this as a positive aspect of his "work." Oh well...

Go ahead. Explain latent heat. Come on, powderpuff. Explain how latent heat pushed the jet streams into existence.

Frickin imbecile.

[Sergio]

we did not intend to make you defensive McGinn. We all know you are
backed into a corner, you have nothing material to support your
imagination, and you are throwing red herrings, whatever you can,
fussing, and attack people.

so far, there is nothing real that anybody can learn from you.
Imaginary yes.

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

The insane claim to have discovered something that contradicts the work
of thousands of people over hundreds of years.


--
Jim Pennino

[James McGinn]

Yeah, I'm insane, like Galileo, Newton, Einstein, and Wegner.

It shows to go ya, if you are dumb enough to believe what everybody believes you have zero chance of making a discovery.

Any real scientist knows that truth isn't determined by consensus, it's determined by facts.

Obviously you haven't the slightest idea what I mean by this.

[dm]

I think Sergio is the real genius here. He was the first to realize that this thread would exceed my expectations in just about every way possible.

[pnal...@gmail.com]

On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 1:17:53 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:

> Any real scientist knows that truth isn't determined by consensus, it's determined by facts.

The real problem here, of course, is that you refuse to accept any and all facts that disagree with your own 'opinions', because that's all you have, opinions, and they are not facts!

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

James McGinn <jimmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 12:01:05 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> James McGinn <jimmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 10:14:10 AM UTC-8, dm wrote:
>> >> I was inclined to think troll until the recent appearance of his videos. Now I'm leaning toward "a moderately intelligent person with a strange mental aberration, a strong tendency to believe in ridiculous conspiracies, and a well-developed persecution complex". But "unusually energetic troll and a quite good actor" is still a distinct possibility.
>> >>
>> >> I guess further discussion on this point belongs on sci.psychology.
>> >
>> > Sheep can't reason. They just type.
>>
>> The insane claim to have discovered something that contradicts the work
>> of thousands of people over hundreds of years.
>
> Yeah, I'm insane, like Galileo, Newton, Einstein, and Wegner.

More like Bozo the clown.

> It shows to go ya, if you are dumb enough to believe what everybody believes you have zero chance of making a discovery.

In your case it shows what happens when hundreds of years of data and
research are ignored.

> Any real scientist knows that truth isn't determined by consensus, it's determined by facts.

Which you repeatedly ignore as they contradict your kook theories.

> Obviously you haven't the slightest idea what I mean by this.

What you mean is that thousands of people have been wrong for hundreds
of years and only you have realized some sort of truth.



--
Jim Pennino

[James McGinn]

On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 2:01:05 PM UTC-8,

Well, I think the point is, sheep don't make discoveries. If you don't have the intellectual guts to ignore what "everybody says is true" you never make progress.

Scientific methods don't work unless you apply them. Most people barely understand what they believe--as you've demonstrated vividly. They just believe.

It especially telling that you birdbrain claim I'm stating something that is inconsistent with the facts. Yet your responses is all the obvious political banter we see from the believers of any religion or ideology.

Believers whine when somebody refutes there beliefs. You keep whining. I'll keep making progress.

[James McGinn]

On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 10:14:10 AM UTC-8, dm wrote:

> I was inclined to think troll until the recent appearance of his videos. Now I'm leaning toward "a moderately intelligent person with a strange mental aberration, a strong tendency to believe in ridiculous conspiracies, and a well-developed persecution complex". But "unusually energetic troll and a quite good actor" is still a distinct possibility.
>
> I guess further discussion on this point belongs on sci.psychology.

LOL. Stop whining. You are the one that started the discussion. See the first post in this thread. Where is your arugment. Go ahead. Go ahead, you fool. Present your argument.

Face it. You are just a braindead believer. Until I mentioned this you never doubted any of this for even one second.

Believiers believe. Scientists reason.

Which are you?

[Sergio]

On 2/19/2016 4:25 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 2:01:05 PM UTC-8,
>
> Well, I think the point is, sheep don't make discoveries. If you
> don't have the intellectual guts to ignore what "everybody says is
> true" you never make progress.

guts don't make discoveries, brains do,
your brain checked out a few years ago.

>
> Scientific methods don't work unless you apply them. Most people
> barely understand what they believe--as you've demonstrated vividly.
> They just believe.

that is the only thing you have is your belief.

You have not shown how your thoughts tie in with reality. Most use math
to do this.

>
> It especially telling that you birdbrain claim I'm stating something
> that is inconsistent with the facts.

none of your ideas are factual. You know this.
If you don't, ask a friend there with you to watch your tube videos to
see if your nuts.

> Yet your responses is all the
> obvious political banter we see from the believers of any religion or
> ideology.

your banter is only about what you think.

>
> Believers whine when somebody refutes there beliefs. You keep
> whining. I'll keep making progress.

so, how many books have you sold for real money ?

[James McGinn]

On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 3:12:29 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:

> guts don't make discoveries, brains do,

Hmm. It would appear you haven't a dispute. Hmm.

I wonder what that indicates?

Hmm.

[Claudius Denk]

LOL. You retards aren't stating facts. You are stating beliefs. Do you not know the difference?

[Claudius Denk]

On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 12:01:05 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

It would only take one to show I'm wrong.
Albert Einstein

[Sergio]

so, how much money have you made on your book sales ?

you could make a movie like Al Gore, and make a ton of money!

[James McGinn]

On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 4:08:02 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
> On 2/19/2016 5:16 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> > On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 3:12:29 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
> >
> >> guts don't make discoveries, brains do,
> >
> > Hmm. It would appear you haven't a dispute. Hmm.
> >
> > I wonder what that indicates?
> >
> > Hmm.
>
> so, how much money have you made on your book sales ?
>
> you could make a movie like Al Gore, and make a ton of money!

Why don't you enlist a meteorologists to help you make your case? Surely. They know. They are experts. LOL.

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

You are the one whining and refusing to look at facts here.

Your claims are trivially shown to be false by simple experiments that
can be done in a kitchen and have been done over and over in classrooms.


--
Jim Pennino

[James McGinn]

Is it your own special secret?

[James McGinn]

On Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 10:29:29 AM UTC-8, dm wrote:
> I had envisioned this as a means of establishing the breadth and depth of his ignorance about existing science and scientific methodologies. I should have anticipated that he would view this as a positive aspect of his "work." Oh well...

You are an inane dimwit that doesn't have a point.

[Sergio]

his point is right on,
his point is that you have no idea about any science at all.


You troll, and the cheese has slid off your cracker.

Have fun with your kOoK videos, they show you total fruitcake, permantly
out to lunch, like altzimer grannie.

[Solving Tornadoes]

On Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 9:55:13 AM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> DM:
> It would be an interesting exercise to list phenomena with scientific explanations that everyone in the scientific community accepts EXCEPT McGinn. There are at least four I can think of off the top of my head from his recent pontifications (gaseous H20 below the boiling point, latent heat, convection as a mechanism for thunderstorm formation, and the Hadley cell as the explanation for jet stream formation). Are there others?
>
> James McGinn:
> The following things meteorology accepts but I say are nonsense:
> Gaseous H2O boiling point of H2O
> Latent heat as playing a role in atmospheric flow
> Convection as mechanism for thunderstorm formation
> Hadley Cell as the explanation for jet stream formation
>
> Here are some additional "myths" of meteorology:
> That dry warm air can act as a cap to upwelling air
> That the energy of storms comes from upwelling, moist air (I say it comes from low pressure delivered by jet streams and their tributaries from above
> That Upwelling moist air can cause the widespread low pressure of storms (I say it is caused by jet streams)
>
> Here are some videos you should watch to better understand my arguments and if you are new to meteorology this will help you better understand their arguments:
>
> Why Meteorologists Maintain Dumb Explanations
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-1p1rJp1x4
>
> H2O Surface Tension and Tornadoes
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7q7zT-26BYQ
>
> Surface Tension, Jet Streams, Storms and the Twisted Truth of Meteorology
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6GZEn7N7Ss
>
> Convection Versus Plasma
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwSyalcoRAk
>
> Alternative to Spiritualistic Thinking in the Atmospheric Sciences
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dexlOvP7mPw

Note that not one person in this whole thread put forth a substantive dispute. Not one.

[Sergio]

<snip crap>




nothing

[Sergio]

On 2/18/2016 11:55 AM, James McGinn wrote:


James McGinn Book Review

Customer Reviews;
1.0 out of 5 stars
insane rambling
By K. Parker on July 3, 2014
Format: Kindle Edition Verified Purchase
The author believes that elementary concepts, which have been taught to
and understood by first year Chemistry and Physics students for many
decades, are some kind of meteorological conspiracy. The author also
does not understand the very basic physics that drive convective
updrafts (the positive buoyancy due to warm temperature anomalies that
result from latent heat release). Instead, apparently based largely on
reading websites, he proposes a mechanism that makes no physical sense
and is totally unobserved and unobservable. This text violates even
basic tenets of logic. Totally without merit.


1.0 out of 5 starsWaste of time, a non-funny joke
By hunter on July 16, 2014
Format: Kindle Edition
This book misleads the reader on basic physical concepts like density,
the basics of weather dynamics, and offers a silly idea that confuses
metaphors about how the jet stream operates with reality. It solves
nothing but does offer a way to waste time and money buying and reading
it. This book is an example of the risks posed in the age of inexpensive
self publishing.

[James McGinn]

My channel
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCcg8R1ALfDP7sGkeIEBjkMQ

Wizard of Oz and the Discovery of Atmospheric Plasma
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pl-GOPq8aA0

Why Meteorologists Maintain Dumb Explanations
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-1p1rJp1x4

H2O Surface Tension and Tornadoes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7q7zT-26BYQ

How Non-Newtonian Fluids Reveal the Mechanism Underlying Ice
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6vPdAo78rU

Surface Tension, Jet Streams, Storms and the Twisted Truth of Meteorology
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6GZEn7N7Ss

Convection Versus Plasma
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwSyalcoRAk

Impact of Polarity Neutralization on the Water Sciences
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSGv08Rb_Lo

[James McGinn]

[Sergio]

On 3/6/2016 11:38 AM, James McGinn wrote:
> Answer:


*direct film evidence of convection*;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLp_rSBzteI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSFwH0BVd3Q


*direct film evidence of Water Vapor*,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQX6c_Ln2To

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgdoGPXOwGM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2g74X2nnBTw



*COLD STEAM direct evidence on film*;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKMNSvpB9dY



*Water Vapor explained to little James by Mr. Wizard*

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTKmWp7ek2A

[James McGinn]

On Sunday, March 6, 2016 at 9:50:54 AM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
> On 3/6/2016 11:38 AM, James McGinn wrote:
> > Answer:
>
>
> *direct film evidence of convection*;

These are pictures of clouds, dumbass.

[Sergio]

wrong,

Schlieren Optics directly shows convection,

the movement of air due to different densities

everyone knows that,

you should study up on it, + buy a toy boat, play ship's captain in your
mama's tub. cheaper yet - use Ivory soap it floats.


how do you get your shoes on in the morning ?

[James McGinn]

On Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 9:55:13 AM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> DM:
> It would be an interesting exercise to list phenomena with scientific explanations that everyone in the scientific community accepts EXCEPT McGinn. There are at least four I can think of off the top of my head from his recent pontifications (gaseous H20 below the boiling point, latent heat, convection as a mechanism for thunderstorm formation, and the Hadley cell as the explanation for jet stream formation). Are there others?
>
> James McGinn:
> The following things meteorology accepts but I say are nonsense:
> Gaseous H2O boiling point of H2O
> Latent heat as playing a role in atmospheric flow
> Convection as mechanism for thunderstorm formation
> Hadley Cell as the explanation for jet stream formation
>
> Here are some additional "myths" of meteorology:
> That dry warm air can act as a cap to upwelling air
> That the energy of storms comes from upwelling, moist air (I say it comes from low pressure delivered by jet streams and their tributaries from above
> That Upwelling moist air can cause the widespread low pressure of storms (I say it is caused by jet streams)
>
> Here are some videos you should watch to better understand my arguments and if you are new to meteorology this will help you better understand their arguments:
>

> Why Meteorologists Maintain Dumb Explanations
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-1p1rJp1x4
>
> H2O Surface Tension and Tornadoes
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7q7zT-26BYQ
>

> Surface Tension, Jet Streams, Storms and the Twisted Truth of Meteorology
>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6GZEn7N7Ss
>
> Convection Versus Plasma
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwSyalcoRAk
>

[James McGinn]

On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 9:07:28 AM UTC-8, HVAC wrote:
> Sergio
> - show quoted text -
> it is all positive,
>
> We should be grateful to be able to witness the brilliance, creation,
> and birth of a new field of "Corrected Meteorology" by Mr. J. McGinn.

Indeed Mr. HVAC! Indeed!

>
> He may seem abrasive at times, but this is the new physics, without the
> burdens of math, and old stale, stuck thinking. We have to move-on past
> that, it is too hard to learn anyway, too complicated.
> --------------
>
> I have to assume that this is sarcasm. Although this view is quite popular with people like BJ and John. They believe in ghosts, ESP, the 9/11 conspiracy and so on.
>
> As far as McGuinn goes, he seems to be a bit of a retard. No offense intended of course.
>
> Anyone who feels that mainstream science is holding back progress is a bit of a retard as well. Mainstream science has given us this amazing life we live today. With lifespans near double what they were in the past. With technological advances that has put a $29.00 device in my pocket that connects me with the entire planet using relativity corrected satellites in orbit over our planet. Keep in mind that when I was born, there were no human objects in space at all.

You seem to be lacking any substantive dispute. Right? Why do you think that is?

>
> And what has McGuinn, BJ and John's 'science' given us? Nothing useful. And I mean NOTHING.
>
> Fake ghost videos. Reports of ESP and remote viewing that total up to zero use to humanity. Religious wars.... That's what they have given us.
>
> Thanks

Well, as with all aspects of human existence, there are those that whine and
there are those that get shit done.

And why are you getting mad at me. It's not my fault that you are boring.

[James McGinn]

On Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 11:04:19 AM UTC-8, pipp...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 1:54:49 PM UTC-5, James McGinn wrote:
> > On Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 10:47:58 AM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:

> > > On 2/18/2016 12:29 PM, dm wrote:
> > > > I had envisioned this as a means of establishing the breadth and
> > > > depth of his ignorance about existing science and scientific
> > > > methodologies. I should have anticipated that he would view this as a
> > > > positive aspect of his "work." Oh well...
> > > >
> > >

> > > it is all positive,
> > >
> > > We should be grateful to be able to witness the brilliance, creation,
> > > and birth of a new field of "Corrected Meteorology" by Mr. J. McGinn.
> >

> > And to think, I'm just getting started.
>
> I stand corrected. This is perfectly demonstrating the breadth and depth of
his ignorance about existing science and scientific methodologies. Thanks for
the perspective, Sergio.

Oh yeah, Sergio is a genius.

[James McGinn]

[edpr...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, May 14, 2016 at 9:18:43 PM UTC-4, James McGinn wrote:
> On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 9:07:28 AM UTC-8, HVAC wrote:

[]

> >
> > And what has McGuinn, BJ and John's 'science' given us?
> > Nothing useful. And I mean NOTHING.
> >

[]

>
> Well, as with all aspects of human existence, there are those that whine and
> there are those that get shit done.

And we have all seen your whining JM.

>
> And why are you getting mad at me. It's not my fault that you are boring.

And it is not our fault that you are annoying.
But have a nice day anyway.


ed

[Odd Bodkin]

On 8/2/2016 7:44 AM, edpr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, May 14, 2016 at 9:18:43 PM UTC-4, James McGinn wrote:
>> On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 9:07:28 AM UTC-8, HVAC wrote:
> []
>>>
>>> And what has McGuinn, BJ and John's 'science' given us?
>>> Nothing useful. And I mean NOTHING.
>>>
> []
>>
>> Well, as with all aspects of human existence, there are those that whine and
>> there are those that get shit done.

There's a small irony here that the guy who is unemployed and living in
a duplex paid by his parents telling himself that he's the guy that gets
shit done. Isn't it amazing how the deluded mind works? "No, I can't get
a job, because I'm a persecuted genius! No, I don't have friends,
because I'm a revolutionary who recognizes that the vast majority of
people are brainless sheep! But that's no matter, I'm getting shit done,
and it doesn't matter a lick whether the work is appreciated or not!"

>
> And we have all seen your whining JM.
>
>>
>> And why are you getting mad at me. It's not my fault that you are boring.
>
> And it is not our fault that you are annoying.
> But have a nice day anyway.
>
>
> ed
>

--
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[James McGinn]

On Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 10:47:58 AM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
> On 2/18/2016 12:29 PM, dm wrote:
> > I had envisioned this as a means of establishing the breadth and
> > depth of his ignorance about existing science and scientific
> > methodologies. I should have anticipated that he would view this as a
> > positive aspect of his "work." Oh well...
> >
>
> it is all positive,
>
> We should be grateful to be able to witness the brilliance, creation,
> and birth of a new field of "Corrected Meteorology" by Mr. J. McGinn.
>

> He may seem abrasive at times, but this is the new physics, without the
> burdens of math, and old stale, stuck thinking. We have to move-on past
> that, it is too hard to learn anyway, too complicated.
>

> We are planning to have a meetup at http://www.bronycon.org/ and
> instruct as many as we can to spread the word.

Are you going to wear your smokey shirt?

[James McGinn]

[James McGinn]

On Sunday, March 6, 2016 at 1:06:40 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
> On 3/6/2016 11:53 AM, James McGinn wrote:
> > On Sunday, March 6, 2016 at 9:50:54 AM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
> >> On 3/6/2016 11:38 AM, James McGinn wrote:
> >> > Answer:
> >>
> >>
> >> *direct film evidence of convection*;
> >
> > These are pictures of clouds, dumbass.
> >
>
> wrong,
>
> Schlieren Optics directly shows convection,

LOL. Really? Uh . . . er.

Uh.

>
> the movement of air due to different densities

Uh, is that your theory? Can you explain how this explains the jet streams?

>
> everyone knows that,

Really? Everybody? Maybe you mean you and your dog.

[James McGinn]

[James McGinn]

On Tuesday, August 2, 2016 at 9:54:52 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 8/2/2016 7:44 AM, edpr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Saturday, May 14, 2016 at 9:18:43 PM UTC-4, James McGinn wrote:
> >> On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 9:07:28 AM UTC-8, HVAC wrote:
> > []
> >>>
> >>> And what has McGuinn, BJ and John's 'science' given us?
> >>> Nothing useful. And I mean NOTHING.
> >>>
> > []
> >>
> >> Well, as with all aspects of human existence, there are those that whine and
> >> there are those that get shit done.
>
> There's a small irony here that the guy who is unemployed and living in
> a duplex paid by his parents telling himself that he's the guy that gets
> shit done. Isn't it amazing how the deluded mind works? "No, I can't get
> a job, because I'm a persecuted genius! No, I don't have friends,
> because I'm a revolutionary who recognizes that the vast majority of
> people are brainless sheep! But that's no matter, I'm getting shit done,
> and it doesn't matter a lick whether the work is appreciated or not!"

Stick with the wood.

[James McGinn]

[James McGinn]

[James McGinn]

[James McGinn]

[James McGinn]

Poor dumb Ed.

[James McGinn]

On Tuesday, August 2, 2016 at 9:54:52 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote:

All your retards have is ad hominen.

[James McGinn]

On Tuesday, August 2, 2016 at 5:44:52 AM UTC-7, Edward Prochak wrote:

You got nothing!!!!

[James McGinn]

[Claudius Denk]

On Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 11:04:19 AM UTC-8, pipp...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 1:54:49 PM UTC-5, James McGinn wrote:

> > On Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 10:47:58 AM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
> > > On 2/18/2016 12:29 PM, dm wrote:
> > > > I had envisioned this as a means of establishing the breadth and
> > > > depth of his ignorance about existing science and scientific
> > > > methodologies. I should have anticipated that he would view this as a
> > > > positive aspect of his "work." Oh well...
> > > >
> > >
> > > it is all positive,
> > >
> > > We should be grateful to be able to witness the brilliance, creation,
> > > and birth of a new field of "Corrected Meteorology" by Mr. J. McGinn.
> >

> > And to think, I'm just getting started.
>
> I stand corrected. This is perfectly demonstrating the breadth and depth of his ignorance about existing science and scientific methodologies. Thanks for the perspective, Sergio.

You got Nothing!!!

[James McGinn]

On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 5:01:04 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> James McGinn <jimmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 2:01:05 PM UTC-8,
> >
> > Well, I think the point is, sheep don't make discoveries. If you don't have the intellectual guts to ignore what "everybody says is true" you never make progress.
> >
> > Scientific methods don't work unless you apply them. Most people barely understand what they believe--as you've demonstrated vividly. They just believe.
> >
> > It especially telling that you birdbrain claim I'm stating something that is inconsistent with the facts. Yet your responses is all the obvious political banter we see from the believers of any religion or ideology.
> >
> > Believers whine when somebody refutes there beliefs. You keep whining. I'll keep making progress.
>
> You are the one whining and refusing to look at facts here.
>
> Your claims are trivially shown to be false by simple experiments that
> can be done in a kitchen and have been done over and over in classrooms.
>
>
> --
> Jim Pennino

Fucking retarded non-argument. If it simple go ahead and show us, you imbecile.

[Claudius Denk]

On Tuesday, August 2, 2016 at 5:44:52 AM UTC-7, Edward Prochak wrote:

Find another hobby you illiterate fool.

[James McGinn]

[James McGinn]

[James McGinn]

[James McGinn]