Don't Blame Me For Your Own Failure to Follow the Scientific Method

James McGinn

unread,

Nov 19, 2016, 6:40:25 PM11/19/16

to

Re: The 'Missing Link' of Meteorology's Theory of Storms
Postby jimmcginn » Mon Sep 05, 2016 9:10 am

CharlesChandler wrote:
@jimmcginn: please use the forum's quoting mechanism to clearly identify who said what. Don't just copy the text, insert your comments, and post it back, without clearly identifying which statements are yours and which statements were made by someone else. It adds unnecessary confusion when other people have to compare your posts to previous posts, to figure out which statements were yours.

One of the things If deal with all the time is blowback from people who upon being informed (by me) that their intuition has been misleading them want to lash out at me. It's not my fault, dude. You believed what you believed because you weren't careful enough, skeptical enough, cynical enough. Don't get mad at me because I followed the scientific method while you ignored the scientific method and followed your intuition. Don't get mad at me because you took people's word on it while I sought empirical verification. Don't get mad at me because I worked hard to verify first and believe second while you lazily accepted the consensus.

James McGinn
Solving Tornadoes

These are my books currently available on Amazon:
Vortex Phase: http://goo.gl/JFbXQr
What Goes Up: http://goo.gl/R6798E

Other books on the horizon:
Why Wind Farms Cause Drought
Meteorology of the Future
jimmcginn

edpr...@gmail.com

unread,

Nov 21, 2016, 1:58:50 PM11/21/16

to

On Saturday, November 19, 2016 at 6:40:25 PM UTC-5, James McGinn wrote:
[]
>
> [] It's not my fault, dude. You believed what you believed because you

> weren't careful enough, skeptical enough, cynical enough. Don't get mad
> at me because I followed the scientific method

You are SO FUNNY.

Show ONE experiment you conducted.

Show ONE mathematical calculation and specific prediction.

Still shilling books and replying with
insults when we point out your errors.

Well, thanks for the laugh anyway.

James McGinn

unread,

Nov 21, 2016, 3:25:50 PM11/21/16

to

I can't even imagine how frustrating it must be to be so sure you are right and so completely unable to say how or why.

pnal...@gmail.com

unread,

Nov 21, 2016, 3:42:57 PM11/21/16

to

On Monday, November 21, 2016 at 12:25:50 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> On Monday, November 21, 2016 at 10:58:50 AM UTC-8, edpr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Saturday, November 19, 2016 at 6:40:25 PM UTC-5, James McGinn wrote:
> > []
> > >
> > > [] It's not my fault, dude. You believed what you believed because you
> > > weren't careful enough, skeptical enough, cynical enough. Don't get mad
> > > at me because I followed the scientific method
> >
> > You are SO FUNNY.
> >
> > Show ONE experiment you conducted.
> >
> > Show ONE mathematical calculation and specific prediction.
> >
> > Still shilling books and replying with
> > insults when we point out your errors.
> >
> > Well, thanks for the laugh anyway.

>

> I can't even imagine how frustrating it must be to be so sure you are right and so completely unable to say how or why.

I was just going to say the exact same thing to you! After all, you have zero observations and/or experiments to support your own positions...

James McGinn

unread,

Nov 21, 2016, 4:20:17 PM11/21/16

to

LOL. Well, if that is what you think then feel free to make substantive argument to that effect. Keep in mind the inernet doesn't provide us access to your imagination.

pnal...@gmail.com

unread,

Nov 21, 2016, 5:39:02 PM11/21/16

to

... says the guy who has no evidence for his theories other than his own fertile imagination.

I'm not the guy making wild claims, so I'm not the guy who needs to prove anything at all. That is how science works; if you have a theory, then you provide the observations and experiments to support your position. If you have neither, then you have nothing. You have nothing.

James McGinn

unread,

Nov 21, 2016, 6:46:50 PM11/21/16

to

LOL. Uh, you essentially just admitted you have no substantive dispute with my hypothesis. I think that demonstrates one of two things. Either my hypothesis is correct or you are an idiot. I'm guessing both are true.

Yuri Kreaton

unread,

Nov 21, 2016, 8:18:11 PM11/21/16

to

McFly has never written a single math equation.
He is mental, and a bullshitter.

pnal...@gmail.com

unread,

Nov 21, 2016, 8:35:23 PM11/21/16

to

Like I said, you don't have a clue as to how science works.

Jim, uh, you remain being a dumbfuck. I admitted no such thing. Am I suspicious of your theories? You bet I am! Do I need to prove you wrong? No fuckin' way! Do you need to prove your own position? Abso-fuckin'-lutely!

Jim, you just essentially admitted that you can't supply a single observation and/or experiment to support any of your theories, because if you could, you would! Your logic, as exposed above, is completely false. You hypothesis is wrong because you cannot supply any evidence to the contrary. Trying to trsnsfer your own weaknesses on me only goes to prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, just who the idiot is here. OK, I'm an idiot for even responding to your posts, but I can correct that by just ignoring you. You on the other hand, are an idiot, and are doomed to be such forever!

Jim, if you had a brain, you would probably take it out and play with it. But, that is a big 'if'!

Let's see those experiments and observations, Jim, before we both die of old age.

James McGinn

unread,

Nov 21, 2016, 9:30:05 PM11/21/16

to

LOL. If the position to which you subscribe was proven then my argument would be mute, wouldn't it?

You church ladies need to leave science to scientists.

pnal...@gmail.com

unread,

Nov 21, 2016, 10:37:18 PM11/21/16

to

Well, Jim your argument IS mute, since you have zero evidence! You don't think that anyone actually believes anything you have to say, do you?

> You church ladies need to leave science to scientists.

Jim, you are a dumbfuck, hence, you are no scientist. Yet another thing you are lying about, unless, of course, you can prove it. I doubt you have ever enrolled in any science class of any kind, let alone got a passing grade in one.

James McGinn

unread,

Nov 21, 2016, 11:56:43 PM11/21/16

to

The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits.

pnal...@gmail.com

unread,

Nov 22, 2016, 12:14:30 AM11/22/16

to

Yes, but your stupidity shows no bounds whatsoever, it keeps growing and growing, unabated...

James McGinn

unread,

Dec 2, 2016, 11:55:12 AM12/2/16

to

James McGinn

unread,

Dec 8, 2016, 2:32:52 AM12/8/16

to

On Saturday, November 19, 2016 at 3:40:25 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:

James McGinn

unread,

Dec 10, 2016, 12:28:02 PM12/10/16

to

On Monday, November 21, 2016 at 10:58:50 AM UTC-8, edpr...@gmail.com wrote:

You got nothing!!!

pnal...@gmail.com

unread,

Dec 10, 2016, 2:44:38 PM12/10/16

to

... says the guy with no experiment, no calculations and no observations to support his position.

Who has nothing?

James McGinn

unread,

Dec 10, 2016, 6:16:19 PM12/10/16

to

Do you dispute steam tables?

pnal...@gmail.com

unread,

Dec 10, 2016, 9:19:34 PM12/10/16

to

On Saturday, December 10, 2016 at 3:16:19 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:

> Do you dispute steam tables?

Not at all.

Do you understand what steam tables are telling you? Again, not at all!

Yuri Kreaton

unread,

Dec 11, 2016, 9:24:19 AM12/11/16

to

On 11/21/2016 11:14 PM, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, November 21, 2016 at 8:56:43 PM UTC-8, James McGinn

>>

>> The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its
>> limits.
>
> Yes, but your stupidity shows no bounds whatsoever, it keeps growing
> and growing, unabated...
>

James McGinn has increased his stupidity by a factor of at least 4 in
the last year. It is difficult to measure his rush to the bottom, what
tests are available to measure organic brain degeneration, specifically
lowering of IQ from the 80's into the 40's ?

a slow change, morphing into mindless zombie.

In responce, the Church has converted part of its vast stores of "Holy
Water" into "Holy Water Vapor", and is gassing James McGinn's locations
to cure the area.

Yuri Kreaton

unread,

Dec 11, 2016, 9:27:11 AM12/11/16

to

obvious he does not understand "steam tables" as he never seperates the
two words, nor discribe the table in any other way, as not to give
himself away that he is clueless.

James McGinn

unread,

Dec 11, 2016, 2:26:41 PM12/11/16

to

Uh, er . . . uh, whelp, my steam table seems to indicate that the boiling temperarture at sea level is 100 degrees Celsius!!!

Wow!!!

What does your imagination indicate?

Or is that a secret?

James McGinn

unread,

Dec 11, 2016, 2:28:20 PM12/11/16

to

On Sunday, December 11, 2016 at 6:24:19 AM UTC-8, Yuri Kreaton wrote:
> On 11/21/2016 11:14 PM, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, November 21, 2016 at 8:56:43 PM UTC-8, James McGinn
>
> >>
> >> The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its
> >> limits.
> >
> > Yes, but your stupidity shows no bounds whatsoever, it keeps growing
> > and growing, unabated...
> >
>
> James McGinn has increased his stupidity by a factor of at least 4 in
> the last year. It is difficult to measure his rush to the bottom, what
> tests are available to measure organic brain degeneration, specifically
> lowering of IQ from the 80's into the 40's ?

i whish eye wuz more smarter lyke yiew.

James McGinn

unread,

Dec 11, 2016, 2:36:30 PM12/11/16

to

Would you discribe your smoking shirts as feeling sticky as the nurse tries to seperate them from your body? How about your wetting pants? Do they complain about the smell?

James McGinn

unread,

Dec 11, 2016, 8:42:42 PM12/11/16

to

On Saturday, December 10, 2016 at 11:44:38 AM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:

You.

James McGinn

unread,

Dec 12, 2016, 12:05:01 PM12/12/16

to

On Sunday, December 11, 2016 at 6:27:11 AM UTC-8, Yuri Kreaton wrote:

Maybe you can petition Google to provide you a link to your imagination so that the rest of us can see what you see.

James McGinn

unread,

Dec 12, 2016, 5:27:20 PM12/12/16

to

Do you dispute that the steam tables were determined experimentally?

James McGinn

unread,

Dec 14, 2016, 1:24:32 PM12/14/16

to

On Saturday, November 19, 2016 at 3:40:25 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> Re: The 'Missing Link' of Meteorology's Theory of Storms
> Postby jimmcginn » Mon Sep 05, 2016 9:10 am
>
> CharlesChandler wrote:
> @jimmcginn: please use the forum's quoting mechanism to clearly identify who said what. Don't just copy the text, insert your comments, and post it back, without clearly identifying which statements are yours and which statements were made by someone else. It adds unnecessary confusion when other people have to compare your posts to previous posts, to figure out which statements were yours.
>
>

> One of the things If deal with all the time is blowback from people who upon being informed (by me) that their intuition has been misleading them want to lash out at me. It's not my fault, dude. You believed what you believed because you weren't careful enough, skeptical enough, cynical enough. Don't get mad at me because I followed the scientific method while you ignored the scientific method and followed your intuition. Don't get mad at me because you took people's word on it while I sought empirical verification. Don't get mad at me because I worked hard to verify first and believe second while you lazily accepted the consensus.
>
> James McGinn

noTthaTguY

unread,

Dec 14, 2016, 1:52:27 PM12/14/16

to

if you would only transcribe three entries
from your alleged\putative teamtable,
we could l00k at that

James McGinn

unread,

Dec 14, 2016, 2:21:13 PM12/14/16

to

I wouldn't pretend to compete with your imagination.

James McGinn

unread,

Jan 2, 2017, 1:41:36 AM1/2/17

to

Uh, . . . er . . . uh. I think my point still stands.

It's too bad your evidence doesn't actually . . . well, you know . . . exist.

James McGinn

unread,

Jan 2, 2017, 1:42:20 AM1/2/17

to

On Saturday, December 10, 2016 at 11:44:38 AM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:

Steam tables.

James McGinn

unread,

Jan 2, 2017, 11:59:40 AM1/2/17

to

Address the issue, you evasive jackass. Do you dispute the steam tables? Yes or no?

Answer the question you evasive twit.

James McGinn

unread,

Jan 14, 2017, 11:23:09 AM1/14/17

to

On Saturday, November 19, 2016 at 3:40:25 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> Re: The 'Missing Link' of Meteorology's Theory of Storms
> Postby jimmcginn » Mon Sep 05, 2016 9:10 am
>
> CharlesChandler wrote:
> @jimmcginn: please use the forum's quoting mechanism to clearly identify who said what. Don't just copy the text, insert your comments, and post it back, without clearly identifying which statements are yours and which statements were made by someone else. It adds unnecessary confusion when other people have to compare your posts to previous posts, to figure out which statements were yours.
>
>

> One of the things If deal with all the time is blowback from people who upon being informed (by me) that their intuition has been misleading them want to lash out at me. It's not my fault, dude. You believed what you believed because you weren't careful enough, skeptical enough, cynical enough. Don't get mad at me because I followed the scientific method while you ignored the scientific method and followed your intuition. Don't get mad at me because you took people's word on it while I sought empirical verification. Don't get mad at me because I worked hard to verify first and believe second while you lazily accepted the consensus.
>
> James McGinn

> Solving Tornadoes
>
> These are my books currently available on Amazon:

James McGinn

unread,

Jan 18, 2017, 2:09:47 PM1/18/17

to

On Sunday, December 11, 2016 at 6:27:11 AM UTC-8, Yuri Kreaton wrote:

It's like a nightmare. Huh Yuri?

James McGinn

unread,

Jan 19, 2017, 9:45:53 PM1/19/17

to

On Monday, November 21, 2016 at 2:39:02 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, November 21, 2016 at 1:20:17 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:

> > On Monday, November 21, 2016 at 12:42:57 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:

> > > On Monday, November 21, 2016 at 12:25:50 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> > > > On Monday, November 21, 2016 at 10:58:50 AM UTC-8, edpr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, November 19, 2016 at 6:40:25 PM UTC-5, James McGinn wrote:
> > > > > []
> > > > > >

> > > > > > [] It's not my fault, dude. You believed what you believed because you

> > > > > > weren't careful enough, skeptical enough, cynical enough. Don't get mad
> > > > > > at me because I followed the scientific method
> > > > >

> > > > > You are SO FUNNY.
> > > > >
> > > > > Show ONE experiment you conducted.
> > > > >
> > > > > Show ONE mathematical calculation and specific prediction.
> > > > >
> > > > > Still shilling books and replying with
> > > > > insults when we point out your errors.
> > > > >
> > > > > Well, thanks for the laugh anyway.
> > >
> > > >

> > > > I can't even imagine how frustrating it must be to be so sure you are right and so completely unable to say how or why.
> > >
> > > I was just going to say the exact same thing to you! After all, you have zero observations and/or experiments to support your own positions...
> >
> > LOL. Well, if that is what you think then feel free to make substantive argument to that effect. Keep in mind the inernet doesn't provide us access to your imagination.
>
> ... says the guy who has no evidence for his theories other than his own fertile imagination.
>
> I'm not the guy making wild claims,

Excuse me for not being boring.

Feel free to formulate a point and present an argument, dumbass.

Claudius Denk

unread,

Jan 20, 2017, 11:10:45 AM1/20/17

to

On Sunday, December 11, 2016 at 6:27:11 AM UTC-8, Yuri Kreaton wrote:

So, . . . uh, you don't dispute steam table, uh, . . . er.

Why are you here?

You can't even use a spell checker.

James McGinn

unread,

Jan 20, 2017, 3:48:38 PM1/20/17

to

Don't confuse him. He gets snippy.

Claudius Denk

unread,

Jan 20, 2017, 6:59:24 PM1/20/17

to

Maybe it's worms

CD

James McGinn

unread,

Jan 20, 2017, 8:11:25 PM1/20/17

to

On Friday, January 20, 2017 at 3:59:24 PM UTC-8, Claudius Denk wrote:

> > > You can't even use a spell checker.
> >
> > Don't confuse him. He gets snippy.
>
> Maybe it's worms

Diaper rash.

James McGinn

unread,

Jan 30, 2017, 1:58:42 AM1/30/17

to

On Monday, November 21, 2016 at 5:35:23 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:

> > > I'm not the guy making wild claims, so I'm not the guy who needs to prove anything at all. That is how science works; if you have a theory, then you provide the observations and experiments to support your position. If you have neither, then you have nothing. You have nothing.
> >
> > LOL. Uh, you essentially just admitted you have no substantive dispute with my hypothesis. I think that demonstrates one of two things. Either my hypothesis is correct or you are an idiot. I'm guessing both are true.
>
> Like I said, you don't have a clue as to how science works.
>
> Jim, uh, you remain being a dumbfuck. I admitted no such thing. Am I suspicious of your theories? You bet I am! Do I need to prove you wrong? No fuckin' way! Do you need to prove your own position? Abso-fuckin'-lutely!

You are my proof.

James McGinn

unread,

Jan 30, 2017, 1:59:49 AM1/30/17

to

James McGinn

unread,

Feb 11, 2017, 11:27:22 AM2/11/17

to

Double-A

unread,

Feb 12, 2017, 5:24:31 PM2/12/17

to

You sure do post a lot, McGinn. Nothing else to do with your life?

Double-A

James McGinn

unread,

Apr 26, 2017, 1:51:24 PM4/26/17

to

James McGinn

unread,

May 2, 2017, 12:02:27 PM5/2/17

to

James McGinn

unread,

May 29, 2017, 9:11:09 PM5/29/17

to

James McGinn

unread,

Jul 24, 2017, 10:28:27 PM7/24/17

to

James McGinn

unread,

Jul 27, 2017, 11:48:08 AM7/27/17

to

James McGinn

unread,

Sep 7, 2017, 11:49:50 PM9/7/17

to

James McGinn

unread,

Oct 25, 2017, 3:57:31 PM10/25/17

to

pnal...@gmail.com

unread,

Oct 25, 2017, 4:12:12 PM10/25/17

to

On Wednesday, October 25, 2017 at 12:57:31 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:

> > > > > These are my books currently available on Amazon:
> > > > > Vortex Phase: http://goo.gl/JFbXQr
> > > > > What Goes Up: http://goo.gl/R6798E

Top customer reviews
1.0 out of 5 starsinsane rambling
ByK. Parkeron 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
Byhunteron 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

unread,

Oct 25, 2017, 5:25:59 PM10/25/17

to

You've become Sergio!!!

Serg io

unread,

Oct 25, 2017, 7:19:27 PM10/25/17

to

proof that James McGinn hasn't changed in 3 1/2 years, still espousing
misleading fictional misthought from the shallow depth of his limited
imagination from his inner child.

James McGinn

unread,

Nov 1, 2017, 7:39:30 PM11/1/17

to

Wahh

James McGinn

unread,

Mar 5, 2018, 11:02:45 PM3/5/18

to

James McGinn

unread,

Mar 10, 2018, 2:52:19 PM3/10/18

to