info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
a class action lawsuit--the defendent beng NOAA and/or
76 views
Skip to first unread message
James McGinn
Mar 20, 2016, 1:16:24 PM3/20/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
http://principia-scientific.org/reassessing-climate-role-carbon-dioxide/comment-page-1/#comment-12025
As is evidenced by the stone cold silence of Hertzberg, the weight of meteorological influence exerts a stranglehold on any progress along the lines of getting meteorologists to test and publicly acknowledge the incompetence of their convection model of storm theory. Consequently, I am looking towards doing some kind of a Kickstarter (or some similar website) campaign to get funds to hire a law firm to put forth a class action lawsuit--the defendent beng NOAA and/or some other meteorological organization--to force them to do the simple experiments that will refute the convection model and acknowledge the results publicly. I will, from time to time, report my progress on this endeavor here on this website. Cheers.
Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Mar 20, 2016, 4:24:56 PM3/20/16
to
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
James McGinn, in
<news:7a3fd617-72c6-4fc4...@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
> http://principia-scientific.org/reassessing-climate-role-carbon-dioxide/comment-page-1/#comment-12025
>
> As is evidenced by the stone cold silence of Hertzberg, the weight of
> meteorological influence exerts a stranglehold on any progress along
> the lines of getting meteorologists to test and publicly acknowledge
Those models have been tested, time and again, James. To such an
extent that we can now detect gaseous-phase and liquid-phase water in
the atmosphere, differentiate between the two, and create real-time
maps of same, as can be seen on any weather website's humidity and
cloud maps.
That you continue to deny reality so you can continue your delusional
little world, in which you've painted yourself as 'King of Science' as
you deny all of scientific knowledge to include the Standard Model,
Coulomb's Law, convection, molar density and molar volume, the
Periodic Table of the Elements, etc., and as you blather on about a
giant sentient sky tornado monster lurking in the jet stream and
extending its noodly appendages thousands of miles to touch down
tornadoes and wreak havoc upon the populace, can mean only one thing,
James... you've gone howlingly insane.
<snicker>
> the incompetence of their convection model of storm theory. Consequently, I am looking towards doing some kind of a Kickstarter (or some similar website) campaign to get funds to hire a law firm to put forth a class action lawsuit--the defendent beng NOAA and/or some other meteorological organization--to force them to do the simple experiments that will refute the convection model and acknowledge the results publicly. I will, from time to time, report my progress on this endeavor here on this website. Cheers.
Oh yes, please do a KickStarter campaign, James Bernard McGinn, Jr. of
Antioch, CA.
When the word gets out to the general public that you're seeking funds
to support your delusions, in which you deny all of established
science and blather on about a giant sentient sky tornado monster
lurking in the jet stream and extending its noodly appendages
thousands of miles to touch down tornadoes and wreak havoc upon the
populace, I'm sure you'll get a flood of funding.
Question, Jim... does your giant sentient sky tornado monster lurking
in the jet stream and extending its noodly appendages thousands of
miles to touch down tornadoes and wreak havoc target mobile homes
because it feels mobile homes are aesthetically unappealing?
Would painting the roofs of those mobile homes in pretty patterns
appease your giant sentient sky tornado monster lurking in the jet
stream and extending its noodly appendages thousands of miles to touch
down tornadoes and wreak havoc upon the populace?
<snicker>
Why can't you substantively address those giant gaping logic holes in
your moronic 'theory', as outlined in my .sig, James?
--
Here, James, at the very least, try to address those tough questions
which spotlight the logical inconsistencies and contradictions
inherent in your "theory":
============================================================
Anders Nilsson measured (https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156) a
spectral peak that was not solid-phase nor liquid-phase water, James.
You claim that water remains liquid-phase upon evaporation. What was
Anders Nilsson measuring, James? Oh, that's right... gaseous phase
water, thereby proving that evaporation entails a phase change,
thereby proving latent heat of evaporation exists, thereby
*dis*proving a gigantic chunk of your theory, James.
You make a supposition that a "plasma not-a-plasma" is created from
water due to wind shear, which transports energy throughout the
atmosphere via wind driven by that plasma. Where does the energy come
from to create your "wind shear" to create your "plasma not-a-plasma"
if the "plasma not-a-plasma" cannot exist and thereby "transport
energy" by driving that wind to create the "wind shear" which creates
your "plasma not-a-plasma", unless there is "wind shear" to begin
with, James? Your logic is so twisted you're going in circles. You've
created a circulus in probando causality dilemma, which utterly
destroys your theory, James.
If, as you claim, the jet stream is a vortex, why is the ride while
inside the jet stream so smooth, James? Have you never ridden in an
airplane inside a jet stream, James?
Do you not understand that once the air going upward through the
tornadic funnel reaches the cumulonimbus cloud base above the
mesocyclone, it spreads out, thus the tornado is strictly a phenomenon
which happens from cloud base to ground? It does *not* go from the
ground all the way up through the cloud to the tropopause as you
claim, James, and it most certainly does not continue for potentially
hundreds of miles in the upper troposphere to join the jet stream,
which would make air travel deadly.
Explain why the jets run easterly, whereas the dry line runs N-S, if
the jets are powering the creation of tornadoes. How is a tornado
being created hundreds of miles from the edge of the jets, James?
How do your "jet stream vortices" travel potentially hundreds of miles
away from your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky", without
detection by satellite *or* Doppler radar, and know where and when to
touch down so they always hit clouds, rather than tornadoes randomly
appearing out of the clear blue sky, James? Is your "jet stream /
giant tornado in the sky" sentient, James?
Which direction does air flow from a flame, Jim? Up, does it not?
That's convection due to temperature-induced density differential, is
it not? Which direction does air flow from a flame in zero gravity,
James? Radially in all directions, thereby snuffing out the flame due
to lack of oxygen. So your claiming that convection doesn't exist
means you're further claiming that gravity does not exist, and fire
cannot burn for very long before it is smothered due to lack of
oxygen. Or were you not aware that convection is a gravity-induced
phenomenon due to density differential, James?
How are your atmospheric "water droplets" forming if they're plasma,
Jim?
Do you not know what the definition of "plasma" is, James?
How is your "plasma not-a-plasma" (which you have admitted is a
hypothetical construct in a failed attempt to lend your claims even a
semblance of plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and
dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the water will
preferentially dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen unless hit with an
extremely energetic laser, Jim?
Where is the energy (equivalent to photons of 103.32 nm wavelength,
extremely strong ultraviolet, just 3.32 nm away from x-rays... except
photons with shorter wavelength than 121 nm are absorbed high above
the troposphere because they ionize air so well) coming from in the
troposphere to form your "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim?
How is the energy to plasmize your "plasma not-a-plasma" not
dissociating all water on the planet and killing all life on the
planet given that the energy *must* be in the troposphere where nearly
all the water is, and where all life is, Jim?
Now that it's been proven that water molecule polarity doesn't change
upon H bonding (which would have side effects such as random changes
in the solvent properties of water... and we know those properties do
not randomly change, Jim), and in fact the two spin isomers of water
molecules account for the different H bonding strengths which account
for evaporation and condensation, do you still contend that your
implausible claims are workable, Jim?
============================================================
Why can't you answer those questions, Jim?
James McGinn, in
<news:7a3fd617-72c6-4fc4...@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
> http://principia-scientific.org/reassessing-climate-role-carbon-dioxide/comment-page-1/#comment-12025
>
> As is evidenced by the stone cold silence of Hertzberg, the weight of
> meteorological influence exerts a stranglehold on any progress along
> the lines of getting meteorologists to test and publicly acknowledge
extent that we can now detect gaseous-phase and liquid-phase water in
the atmosphere, differentiate between the two, and create real-time
maps of same, as can be seen on any weather website's humidity and
cloud maps.
That you continue to deny reality so you can continue your delusional
little world, in which you've painted yourself as 'King of Science' as
you deny all of scientific knowledge to include the Standard Model,
Coulomb's Law, convection, molar density and molar volume, the
Periodic Table of the Elements, etc., and as you blather on about a
giant sentient sky tornado monster lurking in the jet stream and
extending its noodly appendages thousands of miles to touch down
tornadoes and wreak havoc upon the populace, can mean only one thing,
James... you've gone howlingly insane.
<snicker>
> the incompetence of their convection model of storm theory. Consequently, I am looking towards doing some kind of a Kickstarter (or some similar website) campaign to get funds to hire a law firm to put forth a class action lawsuit--the defendent beng NOAA and/or some other meteorological organization--to force them to do the simple experiments that will refute the convection model and acknowledge the results publicly. I will, from time to time, report my progress on this endeavor here on this website. Cheers.
Antioch, CA.
When the word gets out to the general public that you're seeking funds
to support your delusions, in which you deny all of established
science and blather on about a giant sentient sky tornado monster
lurking in the jet stream and extending its noodly appendages
thousands of miles to touch down tornadoes and wreak havoc upon the
populace, I'm sure you'll get a flood of funding.
Question, Jim... does your giant sentient sky tornado monster lurking
in the jet stream and extending its noodly appendages thousands of
miles to touch down tornadoes and wreak havoc target mobile homes
because it feels mobile homes are aesthetically unappealing?
Would painting the roofs of those mobile homes in pretty patterns
appease your giant sentient sky tornado monster lurking in the jet
stream and extending its noodly appendages thousands of miles to touch
down tornadoes and wreak havoc upon the populace?
<snicker>
Why can't you substantively address those giant gaping logic holes in
your moronic 'theory', as outlined in my .sig, James?
--
Here, James, at the very least, try to address those tough questions
which spotlight the logical inconsistencies and contradictions
inherent in your "theory":
============================================================
Anders Nilsson measured (https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156) a
spectral peak that was not solid-phase nor liquid-phase water, James.
You claim that water remains liquid-phase upon evaporation. What was
Anders Nilsson measuring, James? Oh, that's right... gaseous phase
water, thereby proving that evaporation entails a phase change,
thereby proving latent heat of evaporation exists, thereby
*dis*proving a gigantic chunk of your theory, James.
You make a supposition that a "plasma not-a-plasma" is created from
water due to wind shear, which transports energy throughout the
atmosphere via wind driven by that plasma. Where does the energy come
from to create your "wind shear" to create your "plasma not-a-plasma"
if the "plasma not-a-plasma" cannot exist and thereby "transport
energy" by driving that wind to create the "wind shear" which creates
your "plasma not-a-plasma", unless there is "wind shear" to begin
with, James? Your logic is so twisted you're going in circles. You've
created a circulus in probando causality dilemma, which utterly
destroys your theory, James.
If, as you claim, the jet stream is a vortex, why is the ride while
inside the jet stream so smooth, James? Have you never ridden in an
airplane inside a jet stream, James?
Do you not understand that once the air going upward through the
tornadic funnel reaches the cumulonimbus cloud base above the
mesocyclone, it spreads out, thus the tornado is strictly a phenomenon
which happens from cloud base to ground? It does *not* go from the
ground all the way up through the cloud to the tropopause as you
claim, James, and it most certainly does not continue for potentially
hundreds of miles in the upper troposphere to join the jet stream,
which would make air travel deadly.
Explain why the jets run easterly, whereas the dry line runs N-S, if
the jets are powering the creation of tornadoes. How is a tornado
being created hundreds of miles from the edge of the jets, James?
How do your "jet stream vortices" travel potentially hundreds of miles
away from your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky", without
detection by satellite *or* Doppler radar, and know where and when to
touch down so they always hit clouds, rather than tornadoes randomly
appearing out of the clear blue sky, James? Is your "jet stream /
giant tornado in the sky" sentient, James?
Which direction does air flow from a flame, Jim? Up, does it not?
That's convection due to temperature-induced density differential, is
it not? Which direction does air flow from a flame in zero gravity,
James? Radially in all directions, thereby snuffing out the flame due
to lack of oxygen. So your claiming that convection doesn't exist
means you're further claiming that gravity does not exist, and fire
cannot burn for very long before it is smothered due to lack of
oxygen. Or were you not aware that convection is a gravity-induced
phenomenon due to density differential, James?
How are your atmospheric "water droplets" forming if they're plasma,
Jim?
Do you not know what the definition of "plasma" is, James?
How is your "plasma not-a-plasma" (which you have admitted is a
hypothetical construct in a failed attempt to lend your claims even a
semblance of plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and
dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the water will
preferentially dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen unless hit with an
extremely energetic laser, Jim?
Where is the energy (equivalent to photons of 103.32 nm wavelength,
extremely strong ultraviolet, just 3.32 nm away from x-rays... except
photons with shorter wavelength than 121 nm are absorbed high above
the troposphere because they ionize air so well) coming from in the
troposphere to form your "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim?
How is the energy to plasmize your "plasma not-a-plasma" not
dissociating all water on the planet and killing all life on the
planet given that the energy *must* be in the troposphere where nearly
all the water is, and where all life is, Jim?
Now that it's been proven that water molecule polarity doesn't change
upon H bonding (which would have side effects such as random changes
in the solvent properties of water... and we know those properties do
not randomly change, Jim), and in fact the two spin isomers of water
molecules account for the different H bonding strengths which account
for evaporation and condensation, do you still contend that your
implausible claims are workable, Jim?
============================================================
Why can't you answer those questions, Jim?
James McGinn
Mar 29, 2016, 11:20:38 AM3/29/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Mar 30, 2016, 12:37:40 AM3/30/16
to
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
<news:7a3fd617-72c6-4fc4...@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
> http://principia-scientific.org/reassessing-climate-role-carbon-dioxide/comment-page-1/#comment-12025
>
> As is evidenced by the stone cold silence of Hertzberg, the weight of
> meteorological influence exerts a stranglehold on any progress along
> the lines of getting meteorologists to test and publicly acknowledge
>
> As is evidenced by the stone cold silence of Hertzberg, the weight of
> meteorological influence exerts a stranglehold on any progress along
> the lines of getting meteorologists to test and publicly acknowledge
Those models have been tested, time and again, James. To such an
extent that we can now detect gaseous-phase and liquid-phase water in
the atmosphere, differentiate between the two, and create real-time
maps of same, as can be seen on any weather website's humidity and
cloud maps.
That you continue to deny reality so you can continue your delusional
little world, in which you've painted yourself as 'King of Science' as
you deny all of scientific knowledge to include the Standard Model,
Coulomb's Law, convection, molar density and molar volume, the
Periodic Table of the Elements, etc., and as you blather on about a
giant sentient sky tornado monster lurking in the jet stream and
extending its noodly appendages thousands of miles to touch down
tornadoes and wreak havoc upon the populace, can mean only one thing,
James... you've gone howlingly insane.
<snicker>
extent that we can now detect gaseous-phase and liquid-phase water in
the atmosphere, differentiate between the two, and create real-time
maps of same, as can be seen on any weather website's humidity and
cloud maps.
That you continue to deny reality so you can continue your delusional
little world, in which you've painted yourself as 'King of Science' as
you deny all of scientific knowledge to include the Standard Model,
Coulomb's Law, convection, molar density and molar volume, the
Periodic Table of the Elements, etc., and as you blather on about a
giant sentient sky tornado monster lurking in the jet stream and
extending its noodly appendages thousands of miles to touch down
tornadoes and wreak havoc upon the populace, can mean only one thing,
James... you've gone howlingly insane.
<snicker>
> the incompetence of their convection model of storm theory. Consequently, I am looking towards doing some kind of a Kickstarter (or some similar website) campaign to get funds to hire a law firm to put forth a class action lawsuit--the defendent beng NOAA and/or some other meteorological organization--to force them to do the simple experiments that will refute the convection model and acknowledge the results publicly. I will, from time to time, report my progress on this endeavor here on this website. Cheers.
Oh yes, please do a KickStarter campaign, James Bernard McGinn, Jr. of
Antioch, CA.
When the word gets out to the general public that you're seeking funds
to support your delusions, in which you deny all of established
science and blather on about a giant sentient sky tornado monster
lurking in the jet stream and extending its noodly appendages
thousands of miles to touch down tornadoes and wreak havoc upon the
populace, I'm sure you'll get a flood of funding.
Question, Jim... does your giant sentient sky tornado monster lurking
in the jet stream and extending its noodly appendages thousands of
miles to touch down tornadoes and wreak havoc target mobile homes
because it feels mobile homes are aesthetically unappealing?
Would painting the roofs of those mobile homes in pretty patterns
appease your giant sentient sky tornado monster lurking in the jet
stream and extending its noodly appendages thousands of miles to touch
down tornadoes and wreak havoc upon the populace?
<snicker>
Why can't you substantively address those giant gaping logic holes in
your moronic 'theory', as outlined in my .sig, James?
--
Here, James, at the very least, try to address those tough questions
which spotlight the logical inconsistencies and contradictions
inherent in your "theory":
============================================================
Why are you known as Tardnado McGinn, the delusional moronic ignorant
Antioch, CA.
When the word gets out to the general public that you're seeking funds
to support your delusions, in which you deny all of established
science and blather on about a giant sentient sky tornado monster
lurking in the jet stream and extending its noodly appendages
thousands of miles to touch down tornadoes and wreak havoc upon the
populace, I'm sure you'll get a flood of funding.
Question, Jim... does your giant sentient sky tornado monster lurking
in the jet stream and extending its noodly appendages thousands of
miles to touch down tornadoes and wreak havoc target mobile homes
because it feels mobile homes are aesthetically unappealing?
Would painting the roofs of those mobile homes in pretty patterns
appease your giant sentient sky tornado monster lurking in the jet
stream and extending its noodly appendages thousands of miles to touch
down tornadoes and wreak havoc upon the populace?
<snicker>
Why can't you substantively address those giant gaping logic holes in
your moronic 'theory', as outlined in my .sig, James?
--
Here, James, at the very least, try to address those tough questions
which spotlight the logical inconsistencies and contradictions
inherent in your "theory":
============================================================
uneducated psychotic babbling loon, James?
Why have you been legally deemed to be mentally incompetent and a
lifelong ward of your parents James, Sr. and Constance, necessitating
that you live with your parents because you'd be a danger to yourself
if you lived independently, James? Is it your paranoid schizophrenia?
Is that why your mommy has to feed you, dress you, wipe your ass and
help you to not piss all over yourself?
And you call yourself a scientist, James? You're nothing more than a
pathetic basement-dwelling schizo-brained delusional loser.
Anders Nilsson measured (https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156) a
spectral peak that was not solid-phase nor liquid-phase water, James.
You claim that water remains liquid-phase upon evaporation. What was
Anders Nilsson measuring, James? Oh, that's right... gaseous phase
water, thereby proving that evaporation entails a phase change,
thereby proving latent heat of evaporation exists, thereby
*dis*proving a gigantic chunk of your theory, James.
You make a supposition that a "plasma not-a-plasma" is created from
water due to wind shear, which transports energy throughout the
atmosphere via wind driven by that plasma. Where does the energy come
from to create your "wind shear" to create your "plasma not-a-plasma"
if the "plasma not-a-plasma" cannot exist and thereby "transport
energy" by driving that wind to create the "wind shear" which creates
your "plasma not-a-plasma", unless there is "wind shear" to begin
with, James? Your logic is so twisted you're going in circles. You've
created a circulus in probando causality dilemma, which utterly
destroys your theory, James.
distance (in violation of Coulomb's Law), which means that when an
electron falls in orbit, it has to *absorb* energy. And that higher
energy level somehow translates into a *weaker* electrostatic
attraction. Now let's look at the other side of the coin... the
electron in orbit would give off energy, rise in orbit, and somehow,
that *lower* energy level translates into a *stronger* electrostatic
attraction... how's *that* work, James? Explain how you've not just
violated the Law of Conservation of Energy on an atomic level.
You've yet again slapped a patch on your theory, abandoning Coulomb's
Law for a separate "mechanism" by which electrostatic attraction
increases with increasing distance. How does your "mechanism" and
electrostatic attraction in accordance with Coulomb's Law not mutually
cancel, thereby dissociating all water, James?
How do your "jet stream vortices" travel potentially hundreds of miles
away from your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky", without
detection by satellite *or* Doppler radar, and know where and when to
tornadoes randomly appearing out of the clear blue sky or from other
types of clouds, James? Is your "jet stream / giant tornado in the
sky" sentient, James?
Go on, Jim, tell us... *why* is there a "boundary" between the
troposphere and the stratosphere... we're waiting, Jim... No answer,
Jim? Is it because that's where your "sentient jet stream / giant
tornado monster with noodly appendages" lives, and it likes it that
way, Jim? Do you need your meds, Jim?
How does a hot air balloon work, James? No plasma, no giant sentient
tornado monster in the jet stream... how does it rise, Jim? Why can't
you explain that, James?
Why does water freeze from the top down, even if the heat sink is
*below* the container of water? That's another question your "theory
not-a-theory" can't answer.
Why can't you provide the explanation and mathematics to prove your
claim that humid air is heavier than dry air, James?
Why can't you explain or mathematically model even *one* of your
delusions, James?
Why can't you get your delusions through the peer-review process,
James?
Why can't you even get your delusion on a pre-print server, James?
Why are there *no* corroborating studies backing up your delusions,
James?
Why are you shunned by the scientific community, James?
Why is your blather on the comments sections of websites being
*deleted*, dismissed as the mad barking of a loon, James?
Why are you described in the reviews of the "books" you've written as
"delusional", "insane", and a "conspiracy theorist", James?
Why did you *fail* *out* of an elective Basic Meteorology class, in
which they teach the very concepts you're blathering out your lack of
education about now, James?
Why do you so hate meteorologists, James? Is it because you failed out
of the elective Basic Meteorology class because you've legally been
deemed mentally incompetent, James?
Why do you use your failing out of an elective Basic Meteorology class
as the basis to claim yourself to be a "physicist not-a-physicist",
James? Do you not understand that physicists are highly educated,
whereas you're ignorant and uneducated?
What universities did you attend, what were your majors and what was
the topic of your Ph.D. thesis, James? You don't have a Ph.D? Then
you're not a physicist, James. LOL
If, as you claim, the jet stream is a vortex, why is the ride while
inside the jet stream so smooth, James? Have you never ridden in an
jet stream / giant tornado monster with noodly appendages" likes its
back scratched by the aircraft, so it doesn't rip the aircraft to
shreds, Jim?
Do you not understand that once the air going upward through the
tornadic funnel reaches the cumulonimbus cloud base above the
mesocyclone, it spreads out, thus the tornado is strictly a phenomenon
which happens from cloud base to ground? It does *not* go from the
ground all the way up through the cloud to the tropopause as you
claim, James, and it most certainly does not continue for potentially
which would make air travel deadly.
Explain why the jets run easterly, whereas the dry line runs N-S, if
the jets are powering the creation of tornadoes. How is a tornado
being created hundreds of miles from the edge of the jets, James?
Explain why the jets run easterly, whereas the dry line runs N-S, if
the jets are powering the creation of tornadoes. How is a tornado
being created hundreds of miles from the edge of the jets, James?
Which direction does air flow from a flame, Jim? Up, does it not?
That's convection due to temperature-induced density differential, is
it not? Which direction does air flow from a flame in zero gravity,
James? Radially in all directions, thereby snuffing out the flame due
to lack of oxygen. So your claiming that convection doesn't exist
means you're further claiming that gravity does not exist, and fire
cannot burn for very long before it is smothered due to lack of
oxygen. Or were you not aware that convection is a gravity-induced
phenomenon due to density differential, James?
How are your atmospheric "water droplets" forming if they're plasma,
Jim?
Do you not know that water droplets *minimize* surface area, James?
That's convection due to temperature-induced density differential, is
it not? Which direction does air flow from a flame in zero gravity,
James? Radially in all directions, thereby snuffing out the flame due
to lack of oxygen. So your claiming that convection doesn't exist
means you're further claiming that gravity does not exist, and fire
cannot burn for very long before it is smothered due to lack of
oxygen. Or were you not aware that convection is a gravity-induced
phenomenon due to density differential, James?
How are your atmospheric "water droplets" forming if they're plasma,
Jim?
How are your "plasma not-a-plasma" "water droplets" *maximizing* their
surface area as you claim?
Do you not know what the definition of "plasma" is, James?
How is your "plasma not-a-plasma" (which you have admitted is a
hypothetical construct in a failed attempt to lend your claims even a
semblance of plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and
dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the water will
preferentially dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen unless hit with an
extremely energetic laser, Jim?
Where is the energy (equivalent to photons of 103.32 nm wavelength,
extremely strong ultraviolet, just 3.32 nm away from x-rays... except
photons with shorter wavelength than 121 nm are absorbed high above
the troposphere because they ionize air so well) coming from in the
troposphere to form your "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim?
How is the energy to plasmize your "plasma not-a-plasma" not
dissociating all water on the planet and killing all life on the
planet given that the energy *must* be in the troposphere where nearly
all the water is, and where all life is, Jim?
Now that it's been proven that water molecule polarity doesn't change
upon H bonding (which would have side effects such as random changes
in the solvent properties of water... and we know those properties do
not randomly change, Jim), and in fact the two spin isomers of water
molecules account for the different H bonding strengths which account
for evaporation and condensation, do you still contend that your
implausible claims are workable, Jim?
James McGinn
Mar 31, 2016, 4:16:06 PM3/31/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
On Tuesday, March 29, 2016 at 9:37:40 PM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
> Do you not know that water droplets *minimize* surface area, James?
Yes, this is true--when not spinning.
> Do you not know that water droplets *minimize* surface area, James?
> How are your "plasma" "water droplets" *maximizing* their
> surface area as you claim?
By spinning: spinning microdroplets. They elongate as a result of Centrifugal forces, forming into chains, polymers. Occurring along wind shear boundaries between moist and dry bodies of air.
Microdroplets along the surface of the moist layer are impacted by side-glancing impacts from the N2 and O2 in the dry layer. This causes them to spin.
Obviously you have no dispute with this, right? (Not that you would be expected to.)
Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Apr 1, 2016, 2:01:47 AM4/1/16
to
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
<news:2ac3bbde-1a6d-4257...@googlegroups.com> did
James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
> On Tuesday, March 29, 2016 at 9:37:40 PM UTC-7,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
>> Do you not know that water droplets *minimize* surface area, James?
> Yes, this is true--when not spinning.
Water droplets in the atmosphere do not spin, Tardnado McGinn. Even a
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
>> Do you not know that water droplets *minimize* surface area, James?
> Yes, this is true--when not spinning.
microwave oven spins the water molecules at 2.45 MHz and it doesn't
plasmize the water. You're now claiming that throughout the entire
troposphere exists a power source with more energy than that found in
a microwave oven, yet it somehow doesn't dissociate all water (given
that the dissociation energy and nuclear binding energy of water are
identical, meaning water will preferentially dissociate into H and O
rather than plasmize unless hit with unusually high amounts of
energy), and it's somehow not killing all life (given that all life
requires water).
IOW, you're a delusional blathering moron, James Bernard McGinn, Jr.
of Antioch, CA.
>> How are your "plasma" "water droplets" *maximizing* their
>> surface area as you claim?
> By spinning: spinning microdroplets.
pulled straight from your ass. Where's your proof, Tardnado?
> They elongate as a result of Centrifugal forces, forming into
> chains, polymers. Occurring along wind shear boundaries between
> moist and dry bodies of air.
James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn dribbled:
Message-ID: <3a52e2f1a86d44a4...@dizum.com>
========================================================
> Retracted:
> Polarity is a variable. And the mechanism that alters (reduces)
> the polarity of H2O molecules is the completion of hydrogen
> bonds with adjoining water molecules.
========================================================
James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn dribbled:
Message-ID: <3a52e2f1a86d44a4...@dizum.com>
========================================================
> In my post entitled Conservation of Energy in Earth's
> Atmosphere I describe how the spinning of water
> droplets/clusters--a direct result of wind shear--causes
> these droplets to elongate into chains of partially
> reactivated H2O molecules, effectuating a plasma with
> structural integrity. It is important to note that
> without the concept that is the subject of this post
> (the Polarity Neutralization Implication of Hydrogen
> Bonds Between Water Molecules and Groups Thereof) this
> would not be possible.
========================================================
Thus, without your "variable polarity of the water molecule" claim
(now retracted by you), your "plasma not-a-plasma" claim falls, by
your own admission. And without your "plasma not-a-plasma" claim, your
"boundaries and structures" which you claim that "plasma not-a-plasma"
forms which drives the winds. Thus your entire "theory not-a-theory"
just came crashing to the ground. That's what happens when you build
your "theory not-a-theory" like a Jenga tower of lies and
suppositions, James.
Yet again, you've destroyed your moronic theory in trying to slap
patches on it so you can writhe your way out of being proven wrong.
You're too ignorant, insane and uneducated to acknowledge or
understand reality, let alone model it, Tardnado. LOL
> Microdroplets along the surface of the moist layer are impacted by
> side-glancing impacts from the N2 and O2 in the dry layer.
"side-glancing impacts", Tardnado McGinn? From your "plasma
not-a-plasma", as you've previously claimed?
You're going around in circles because you're too stupid to figure out
reality. In your delusional world, the wind cannot blow until that
"plasma not-a-plasma" is created, and that "plasma not-a-plasma"
cannot be created until the wind blows. You've created a circulus in
probando causality dilemma, which utterly destroys your moronic
theory... which is why you were forced to retract the main premise of
your "theory not-a-theory", if you'll remember... that was more than a
little bit embarrassing for you, eh? LOL
> This causes them to spin.
> Obviously you have no dispute with this, right?
evidence, you have no experimental evidence, you have no corroborating
studies, you have nothing except your delusional schizo-brained
blather.
> (Not that you would be expected to.)
tardbrain so twisted in knots you're spamming Usenet with your
bleat-tard circular reasoning, and you're far too stupid to see that
what you're babbling makes no sense. That's a manifestation of your
paranoid schizophrenia, which was the impetus for you being deemed to
be mentally incompetent, which is why you've had to live your entire
pathetic delusional life at home with mommy and daddy. You'd be a
danger to yourself if you lived alone.
Now, James, do try to contain your impotent tard-rage over having had
your moronic delusions shattered again. Don't pick up that gun and go
on a tard-rampage. We all know you want to, but innocent people don't
deserve to die just because you're a fucking broken-brained moron.
Just STFU, get out your crayons, and get to scribbling up that
"class-action" kooksoot you've been planning on filing against
*science*, *reality*, *electrons*, *photons* and the *universe* for
their part in conspiring to thwart your attempts to remodel all of
reality to fit your delusions. LOL
You sad pathetic uneducated insane moron. LOL
Why can't you answer those questions, Tardnado McGinn?
You've yet again slapped a patch on your theory, abandoning Coulomb's
Law for a separate "mechanism" by which electrostatic attraction
increases with increasing distance. How does your "mechanism" and
electrostatic attraction in accordance with Coulomb's Law not mutually
cancel, thereby dissociating all water, James?
According to your "theory", electrostatic attraction *increases* with
distance (in violation of Coulomb's Law), which means that when an
electron falls in orbit, it has to *absorb* energy. And that higher
energy level somehow translates into a *weaker* electrostatic
attraction. Now let's look at the other side of the coin... the
electron in orbit would give off energy, rise in orbit, and somehow,
that *lower* energy level translates into a *stronger* electrostatic
attraction... how's *that* work, James? Explain how you've not just
violated the Law of Conservation of Energy on an atomic level.
How do the polarity of the electron and the proton cancel if, as even
Law for a separate "mechanism" by which electrostatic attraction
increases with increasing distance. How does your "mechanism" and
electrostatic attraction in accordance with Coulomb's Law not mutually
cancel, thereby dissociating all water, James?
According to your "theory", electrostatic attraction *increases* with
distance (in violation of Coulomb's Law), which means that when an
electron falls in orbit, it has to *absorb* energy. And that higher
energy level somehow translates into a *weaker* electrostatic
attraction. Now let's look at the other side of the coin... the
electron in orbit would give off energy, rise in orbit, and somehow,
that *lower* energy level translates into a *stronger* electrostatic
attraction... how's *that* work, James? Explain how you've not just
violated the Law of Conservation of Energy on an atomic level.
you admit, there is a distance between them as a result of the Pauli
Exclusion Principle and the repulsive van der Waals force, KookTard,
and once they've cancelled, how is polarity reestablished, and how is
that not dissociating the water?
If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why is the boiling
point of water anomalously high as compared to other H-bonded
hydrides, KookTard?
If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, then water's
cohesion would also drop. Why does it not do that, KookTard?
If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, how is water *not*
splitting up into hydroxide and hydronium ions, KookTard?
If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why does water have
such a high latent heat of vaporization, a direct result of that same
H bonding, KookTard? Of course, being the delusional uneducated moron
that you are, you deny that water has any latent heat of
vaporization... but you're *so* stupid that you didn't realize that
your denial also means you deny that water has a gaseous phase, and
that's just retarded.
If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why does water not
because much more dense upon fully H bonding, KookTard?
Do you not know that water droplets *minimize* surface area, James?
How are your "plasma not-a-plasma" "water droplets" *maximizing* their
surface area as you claim?
James McGinn
Apr 1, 2016, 2:11:18 AM4/1/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 11:01:47 PM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
> >> Do you not know that water droplets *minimize* surface area, James?
>
> > Yes, this is true--when not spinning.
>
> Water droplets in the atmosphere do not spin,
Obviously you have no way of knowing that, right?
> >> Do you not know that water droplets *minimize* surface area, James?
>
> > Yes, this is true--when not spinning.
>
> Water droplets in the atmosphere do not spin,
Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Apr 1, 2016, 1:24:18 PM4/1/16
to
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
<news:c5f2135f-cf4d-458f...@googlegroups.com> did
James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
> On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 11:01:47 PM UTC-7,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
>>>> Do you not know that water droplets *minimize* surface area, James?
>>> Yes, this is true--when not spinning.
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
>>>> Do you not know that water droplets *minimize* surface area, James?
>>> Yes, this is true--when not spinning.
>> Water droplets in the atmosphere do not spin, Tardnado McGinn. Even a
>> microwave oven spins the water molecules at 2.45 MHz and it doesn't
>> plasmize the water. You're now claiming that throughout the entire
>> troposphere exists a power source with more energy than that found in
>> a microwave oven, yet it somehow doesn't dissociate all water (given
>> that the dissociation energy and nuclear binding energy of water are
>> identical, meaning water will preferentially dissociate into H and O
>> rather than plasmize unless hit with unusually high amounts of
>> energy), and it's somehow not killing all life (given that all life
>> requires water).
>>
>> IOW, you're a delusional blathering moron, James Bernard McGinn, Jr.
>> of Antioch, CA.
>> microwave oven spins the water molecules at 2.45 MHz and it doesn't
>> plasmize the water. You're now claiming that throughout the entire
>> troposphere exists a power source with more energy than that found in
>> a microwave oven, yet it somehow doesn't dissociate all water (given
>> that the dissociation energy and nuclear binding energy of water are
>> identical, meaning water will preferentially dissociate into H and O
>> rather than plasmize unless hit with unusually high amounts of
>> energy), and it's somehow not killing all life (given that all life
>> requires water).
>>
>> IOW, you're a delusional blathering moron, James Bernard McGinn, Jr.
>> of Antioch, CA.
> Obviously you have no way of knowing that, right?
The onus of proof is not upon me, TornadoTard. You've made the claim,
where's your proof? Oh, that's right, you have *no* proof. All you
have is your hallucinations, conflations, lies and fantasies... all of
which you use to try to convince yourself that you're not thoroughly
insane.
But you are insane, Jim. You're off in Cuckoo Land babbling out
moronic incoherent blather and desperately patching what little
remains of your shattered sanity back together so you don't spiral
into a flailing tail-spinning insanity so deep you're
institutionalized for life.
I did that to you, James. We of the Meteorology Cabal did that to you,
James. At least, we would have, if we existed. Which we don't.
Just take your meds, Jim. We haven't switched out your pills for drugs
which will hasten your submergence into stuporous servility to our
coming rule. You can trust us, Jim, because we don't really exist.
You really have no other choice, James. You *will* be assimilated. You
*will* become part of the matrix. You *will* bow before your
Meteorology Masters.
It is only a matter of time.
<snicker>
Do you not know that water droplets *minimize* surface area, James?
James McGinn
Apr 1, 2016, 3:31:02 PM4/1/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
On Friday, April 1, 2016 at 10:24:18 AM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
> >> IOW, you're a delusional blathering moron, James Bernard McGinn, Jr.
> >> of Antioch, CA.
>
> > Obviously you have no way of knowing that, right?
>
> The onus of proof is not upon me,
Likewise, you have no proof of the convection model, do you? Do the
> >> IOW, you're a delusional blathering moron, James Bernard McGinn, Jr.
> >> of Antioch, CA.
>
> > Obviously you have no way of knowing that, right?
>
> The onus of proof is not upon me,
rule that apply to me and my theory not also apply to you and your
theory?
> where's your proof?
Where is yours?
Skeet
Apr 1, 2016, 9:31:24 PM4/1/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Apr 2, 2016, 2:30:33 AM4/2/16
to
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
<news:2ef24640-3c23-4971...@googlegroups.com> did
James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
> On Friday, April 1, 2016 at 10:24:18 AM UTC-7,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
>>>> IOW, you're a delusional blathering moron, James Bernard McGinn, Jr.
>>>> of Antioch, CA.
>>> Obviously you have no way of knowing that, right?
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
>>>> IOW, you're a delusional blathering moron, James Bernard McGinn, Jr.
>>>> of Antioch, CA.
>>> Obviously you have no way of knowing that, right?
>> The onus of proof is not upon me, TornadoTard. You've made the claim,
>> where's your proof? Oh, that's right, you have *no* proof. All you
>> have is your hallucinations, conflations, lies and fantasies... all of
>> which you use to try to convince yourself that you're not thoroughly
>> insane.
>>
>> But you are insane, Jim. You're off in Cuckoo Land babbling out
>> moronic incoherent blather and desperately patching what little
>> remains of your shattered sanity back together so you don't spiral
>> into a flailing tail-spinning insanity so deep you're
>> institutionalized for life.
>>
>> I did that to you, James. We of the Meteorology Cabal did that to you,
>> James. At least, we would have, if we existed. Which we don't.
>>
>> Just take your meds, Jim. We haven't switched out your pills for drugs
>> which will hasten your submergence into stuporous servility to our
>> coming rule. You can trust us, Jim, because we don't really exist.
>>
>> You really have no other choice, James. You *will* be assimilated. You
>> *will* become part of the matrix. You *will* bow before your
>> Meteorology Masters.
>>
>> It is only a matter of time.
>>
>> <snicker>
>> where's your proof? Oh, that's right, you have *no* proof. All you
>> have is your hallucinations, conflations, lies and fantasies... all of
>> which you use to try to convince yourself that you're not thoroughly
>> insane.
>>
>> But you are insane, Jim. You're off in Cuckoo Land babbling out
>> moronic incoherent blather and desperately patching what little
>> remains of your shattered sanity back together so you don't spiral
>> into a flailing tail-spinning insanity so deep you're
>> institutionalized for life.
>>
>> I did that to you, James. We of the Meteorology Cabal did that to you,
>> James. At least, we would have, if we existed. Which we don't.
>>
>> Just take your meds, Jim. We haven't switched out your pills for drugs
>> which will hasten your submergence into stuporous servility to our
>> coming rule. You can trust us, Jim, because we don't really exist.
>>
>> You really have no other choice, James. You *will* be assimilated. You
>> *will* become part of the matrix. You *will* bow before your
>> Meteorology Masters.
>>
>> It is only a matter of time.
>>
>> <snicker>
> Likewise, you have no proof of the convection model, do you?
You mean besides the thousands upon thousands of corroborating studies
performed over 250+ years, James? All of which you deny because you're
a delusional schizophrenic off your meds?
> Do the rule that apply to me and my theory not also apply to you and your
> theory?
James. You have no empirical or experimental evidence, no proof, no
corroborating studies, no collaborations with legitimate researchers,
all you have is your delusional suppositions you've pulled straight
from your ass.
Where is your proof, James?
>> where's your proof?
> Where is yours?
referenced, each one of which proves you wrong, each one of which
you've run away from?
Where is your proof, James?
Why can't you answer those questions which highlight your psychosis,
TornadoTard?
James McGinn
Apr 2, 2016, 6:56:52 AM4/2/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
On Friday, April 1, 2016 at 11:30:33 PM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
> > Likewise, you have no proof of the convection model, do you?
>
> You mean besides the thousands upon thousands of corroborating studies
> performed over 250+ years, James? All of which you deny
Funny you can't find even one.
> > Likewise, you have no proof of the convection model, do you?
>
> You mean besides the thousands upon thousands of corroborating studies
> performed over 250+ years, James? All of which you deny
> You've provided no proof whatsoever,
> Where is your proof, James?
> You mean the thousands upon thousands of studies I've already
> referenced,
Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Apr 2, 2016, 12:04:21 PM4/2/16
to
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
<news:be359cea-f564-4755...@googlegroups.com> did
James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
> On Friday, April 1, 2016 at 11:30:33 PM UTC-7,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
>>> Likewise, you have no proof of the convection model, do you?
>> You mean besides the thousands upon thousands of corroborating studies
>> performed over 250+ years, James? All of which you deny
> Funny you can't find even one.
Funny that you've run away from all of them, James.
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
>>> Likewise, you have no proof of the convection model, do you?
>> You mean besides the thousands upon thousands of corroborating studies
>> performed over 250+ years, James? All of which you deny
> Funny you can't find even one.
Start here: <http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/ref.html>
Even funnier that you're up at 3:56 AM to continue your desperate
backpedaling. I've got you so perturbed you're not sleeping, James.
You should know that you can't avoid sleeping, James, and that's when
the Meteorology Cabal does its work on your brain. Go to sleep, James.
>> You've provided no proof whatsoever,
> You are doing it for me.
bleary-eyed stay up at all hours defending your psychosis, James.
>> Where is your proof, James?
> You are my proof.
paranoid-delusional schizophrenic in the throes of a major psychotic
episode, James.
>> You mean the thousands upon thousands of studies I've already
>> referenced,
> Obviously we need more than just a reference. Right?
to, they spoon-feed you with your ABCs and 123s, but this is the adult
world. We use references and expect you to read them yourself,
Tardnado.
James McGinn
Apr 2, 2016, 1:14:09 PM4/2/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
On Saturday, April 2, 2016 at 9:04:21 AM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
> >>> Likewise, you have no proof of the convection model, do you?
>
> >> You mean besides the thousands upon thousands of corroborating studies
> >> performed over 250+ years, James? All of which you deny
>
> > Funny you can't find even one.
>
> Funny that you've run away from all of them, James.
>
> Start here: <http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/ref.html>
Been there. Done that. Found nothing relevant. Now what?
> >>> Likewise, you have no proof of the convection model, do you?
>
> >> You mean besides the thousands upon thousands of corroborating studies
> >> performed over 250+ years, James? All of which you deny
>
> > Funny you can't find even one.
>
> Funny that you've run away from all of them, James.
>
> Start here: <http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/ref.html>
Are you a drug addict?
Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Apr 3, 2016, 3:10:04 AM4/3/16
to
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
<news:c0d0d680-a1ae-469d...@googlegroups.com> did
James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
> On Saturday, April 2, 2016 at 9:04:21 AM UTC-7,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
>>>>> Likewise, you have no proof of the convection model, do you?
>>>> You mean besides the thousands upon thousands of corroborating studies
>>>> performed over 250+ years, James? All of which you deny
>>> Funny you can't find even one.
>> Funny that you've run away from all of them, James.
>>
>> Start here: <http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/ref.html>
>>
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
>>>>> Likewise, you have no proof of the convection model, do you?
>>>> You mean besides the thousands upon thousands of corroborating studies
>>>> performed over 250+ years, James? All of which you deny
>>> Funny you can't find even one.
>> Funny that you've run away from all of them, James.
>>
>> Start here: <http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/ref.html>
>>
>> Even funnier that you're up at 3:56 AM to continue your desperate
>> backpedaling. I've got you so perturbed you're not sleeping, James.
>> You should know that you can't avoid sleeping, James, and that's when
>> the Meteorology Cabal does its work on your brain. Go to sleep, James.
>> backpedaling. I've got you so perturbed you're not sleeping, James.
>> You should know that you can't avoid sleeping, James, and that's when
>> the Meteorology Cabal does its work on your brain. Go to sleep, James.
> Been there. Done that. Found nothing relevant. Now what?
Liar. Each and every study proves you're a delusional paranoid
schizophrenic blathering out your conspiracy theory that accuses all
of science over the past 250+ years of colluding to withhold
scientific truth from the public for some as-yet unmentioned reason...
all so you can claim that your moronic halfwittery is what they're
trying to hide... all so you can continue to delude yourself (and
*only* yourself) into believing that you're not a schizo-brained
off-meds uneducated moron babbling about stuff that has no connection
to reality.
> Are you a drug addict?
maintain an even keel are psychotropic in nature, and you refuse to
take them.
James McGinn
Apr 3, 2016, 4:07:37 AM4/3/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
On Sunday, April 3, 2016 at 12:10:04 AM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
>
> James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
> <news:c0d0d680-a1ae-469d...@googlegroups.com> did
> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
>
> > On Saturday, April 2, 2016 at 9:04:21 AM UTC-7,
> > Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
>
> >>>>> Likewise, you have no proof of the convection model, do you?
>
> >>>> You mean besides the thousands upon thousands of corroborating studies
> >>>> performed over 250+ years, James? All of which you deny
>
> >>> Funny you can't find even one.
>
> >> Funny that you've run away from all of them, James.
> >>
> >> Start here: <http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/ref.html>
> >>
> >> Even funnier that you're up at 3:56 AM to continue your desperate
> >> backpedaling. I've got you so perturbed you're not sleeping, James.
> >> You should know that you can't avoid sleeping, James, and that's when
> >> the Meteorology Cabal does its work on your brain. Go to sleep, James.
>
> > Been there. Done that. Found nothing relevant. Now what?
>
> Liar. Each and every study proves
You only need one.
> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
>
> James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
> <news:c0d0d680-a1ae-469d...@googlegroups.com> did
> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
>
> > On Saturday, April 2, 2016 at 9:04:21 AM UTC-7,
> > Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
>
> >>>>> Likewise, you have no proof of the convection model, do you?
>
> >>>> You mean besides the thousands upon thousands of corroborating studies
> >>>> performed over 250+ years, James? All of which you deny
>
> >>> Funny you can't find even one.
>
> >> Funny that you've run away from all of them, James.
> >>
> >> Start here: <http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/ref.html>
> >>
> >> Even funnier that you're up at 3:56 AM to continue your desperate
> >> backpedaling. I've got you so perturbed you're not sleeping, James.
> >> You should know that you can't avoid sleeping, James, and that's when
> >> the Meteorology Cabal does its work on your brain. Go to sleep, James.
>
> > Been there. Done that. Found nothing relevant. Now what?
>
> Liar. Each and every study proves
you're a delusional paranoid
> schizophrenic blathering out your conspiracy theory that accuses all
> of science over the past 250+ years of colluding to withhold
> scientific truth from the public for some as-yet unmentioned reason...
> all so you can claim that your moronic halfwittery is what they're
> trying to hide... all so you can continue to delude yourself (and
> *only* yourself) into believing that you're not a schizo-brained
> off-meds uneducated moron babbling about stuff that has no connection
> to reality.
>
> > Are you a drug addict?
>
> You're projecting again, James
Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Apr 4, 2016, 2:28:00 AM4/4/16
to
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
<news:37cf71a3-2709-4555...@googlegroups.com> did
James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again on Date: Sun, 3 Apr
2016 01:07:34 -0700 (PDT):
Go to sleep, James. Stop trying to put off the inevitable. You *will*
be assimilated by the Meteorology Cabal, you have no choice. You
cannot resist forever.
<snicker>
> On Sunday, April 3, 2016 at 12:10:04 AM UTC-7, Friendly
> Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
>> James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
>> <news:c0d0d680-a1ae-469d...@googlegroups.com> did
>> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
>>> On Saturday, April 2, 2016 at 9:04:21 AM UTC-7,
>>> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
>>>>>>> Likewise, you have no proof of the convection model, do you?
>>>>>> You mean besides the thousands upon thousands of corroborating studies
>>>>>> performed over 250+ years, James? All of which you deny
>>>>> Funny you can't find even one.
>>>> Funny that you've run away from all of them, James.
>>>>
>>>> Start here: <http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/ref.html>
>>>>
>>>> Even funnier that you're up at 3:56 AM to continue your desperate
>>>> backpedaling. I've got you so perturbed you're not sleeping, James.
>>>> You should know that you can't avoid sleeping, James, and that's when
>>>> the Meteorology Cabal does its work on your brain. Go to sleep, James.
>>> Been there. Done that. Found nothing relevant. Now what?
>> Liar. Each and every study proves
> You only need one.
peer-reviewed studies all proving you wrong should tell you something,
James. That it doesn't tell you anything just proves you're far too
far gone to ever recognize let alone acknowledge reality.
>> you're a delusional paranoid
>> schizophrenic blathering out your conspiracy theory that accuses all
>> of science over the past 250+ years of colluding to withhold
>> scientific truth from the public for some as-yet unmentioned reason...
>> all so you can claim that your moronic halfwittery is what they're
>> trying to hide... all so you can continue to delude yourself (and
>> *only* yourself) into believing that you're not a schizo-brained
>> off-meds uneducated moron babbling about stuff that has no connection
>> to reality.
>>> Are you a drug addict?
>> You're projecting again, James
> Or, I imagine, drugs are hard to get in prison.
mother tells us you refuse to take the pills she gives you. Why is
that, James? Do you not trust the Meteorology Cabal, James?
James McGinn
Apr 7, 2016, 9:48:47 PM4/7/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
On Sunday, March 20, 2016 at 1:24:56 PM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
>
> James McGinn, in
> <news:7a3fd617-72c6-4fc4...@googlegroups.com> did
> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
>
> > http://principia-scientific.org/reassessing-climate-role-carbon-dioxide/comment-page-1/#comment-12025
> >
> > As is evidenced by the stone cold silence of Hertzberg, the weight of
> > meteorological influence exerts a stranglehold on any progress along
> > the lines of getting meteorologists to test and publicly acknowledge
>
> Those models have been tested, time and again, James.
I honestly don't know what you are talking about. Have you a reference or are
> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
>
> James McGinn, in
> <news:7a3fd617-72c6-4fc4...@googlegroups.com> did
> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
>
> > http://principia-scientific.org/reassessing-climate-role-carbon-dioxide/comment-page-1/#comment-12025
> >
> > As is evidenced by the stone cold silence of Hertzberg, the weight of
> > meteorological influence exerts a stranglehold on any progress along
> > the lines of getting meteorologists to test and publicly acknowledge
>
> Those models have been tested, time and again, James.
you just talking out of your lower orifice as usual?
> To such an
> extent that we can now detect gaseous-phase and liquid-phase water in
> the atmosphere,
> differentiate between the two, and create real-time
> maps of same, as can be seen on any weather website's humidity and
> cloud maps.
Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Apr 8, 2016, 4:22:57 AM4/8/16
to
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
<news:7b04b811-8bcb-4110...@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
> On Sunday, March 20, 2016 at 1:24:56 PM UTC-7,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
>> James McGinn, in
>> <news:7a3fd617-72c6-4fc4...@googlegroups.com> did
>> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
>>> http://principia-scientific.org/reassessing-climate-role-carbon-dioxide/comment-page-1/#comment-12025
>>>
>>> As is evidenced by the stone cold silence of Hertzberg, the weight of
>>> meteorological influence exerts a stranglehold on any progress along
>>> the lines of getting meteorologists to test and publicly acknowledge
>> Those models have been tested, time and again, James.
> I honestly don't know what you are talking about. Have you a reference or are
> you just talking out of your lower orifice as usual?
Of course you don't, James. You're delusional. Have you taken your
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
>> James McGinn, in
>> <news:7a3fd617-72c6-4fc4...@googlegroups.com> did
>> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
>>> http://principia-scientific.org/reassessing-climate-role-carbon-dioxide/comment-page-1/#comment-12025
>>>
>>> As is evidenced by the stone cold silence of Hertzberg, the weight of
>>> meteorological influence exerts a stranglehold on any progress along
>>> the lines of getting meteorologists to test and publicly acknowledge
>> Those models have been tested, time and again, James.
> I honestly don't know what you are talking about. Have you a reference or are
> you just talking out of your lower orifice as usual?
meds, James?
>> To such an extent that we can now detect gaseous-phase and liquid-phase
>> water in the atmosphere,
> Well, that's just a nonsense claim. We can only detect water vapor
> (non-gaseous) there is no verification of gaseous H2O in the atmosphere.
> If there was you would collect 100,000 dollars. So, I suggest you make
> a retraction.
Nilsson's study:
<https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156>
If water molecules are H bonded together, it's liquid water, James.
Photon energy from electron orbital descent is dependent upon H
bonding strength (given that it's an electrostatic bond), the stronger
the H bond, the lower the photon energy. Nilsson measured a higher
photon energy from electron orbital descent in gaseous-phase water
than that of liquid-phase water. If it'd been liquid-phase water as
you claim, the photon energy would have been identical to that of
liquid-phase water. It wasn't, hence gaseous phase water is
monomolecular with no H bonding.
Water In The Gas Phase -
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3350649/
Not ab initio (which you stupidly call "ab initro" in your videos
LOL)... direct measurement of monomolecular water in the gaseous
phase. 16 referenced papers.
Max Planck Institute for Polymer Research
http://www.mpip-mainz.mpg.de/molecular_mechanism_of_water_evaporation
Direct empirical observation of monomolecular evaporation.
http://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/volltextserver/6686/
Active Long Path Differential Optical Absorption Spectroscopy to
directly observe monomolecular gaseous-phase water in the atmosphere.
Now you can run away from reality all over again, James. You
delusional reality-denying kooktard.
>> differentiate between the two, and create real-time maps of same,
>> as can be seen on any weather website's humidity and cloud maps.
> Your imagination isn't evidence. Sorry.
clouds, James? Where's your proof, James?
Why can't you answer those questions which highlight your psychosis,
James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA?
--
Here, James, at the very least, try to address those tough questions
which spotlight the logical inconsistencies and contradictions
inherent in your "theory":
============================================================
Why are you known as Tardnado McGinn, the delusional moronic ignorant
uneducated psychotic babbling loon, James?
Why have you been legally deemed to be mentally incompetent and a
lifelong ward of your parents James, Sr. and Constance, necessitating
that you live with your parents because you'd be a danger to yourself
if you lived independently, James? Is it your paranoid schizophrenia?
Is that why your mommy has to feed you, dress you, wipe your ass and
help you to not piss all over yourself?
And you call yourself a scientist, James? You're nothing more than a
pathetic basement-dwelling schizo-brained delusional loser.
uneducated psychotic babbling loon, James?
Why have you been legally deemed to be mentally incompetent and a
lifelong ward of your parents James, Sr. and Constance, necessitating
that you live with your parents because you'd be a danger to yourself
if you lived independently, James? Is it your paranoid schizophrenia?
Is that why your mommy has to feed you, dress you, wipe your ass and
help you to not piss all over yourself?
And you call yourself a scientist, James? You're nothing more than a
pathetic basement-dwelling schizo-brained delusional loser.
Anders Nilsson measured (https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156) a
spectral peak that was not solid-phase nor liquid-phase water, James.
You claim that water remains liquid-phase upon evaporation. What was
Anders Nilsson measuring, James? Oh, that's right... gaseous phase
water, thereby proving that evaporation entails a phase change,
thereby proving latent heat of evaporation exists, thereby
*dis*proving a gigantic chunk of your theory, James.
You make a supposition that a "plasma not-a-plasma" is created from
water due to wind shear, which transports energy throughout the
atmosphere via wind driven by that plasma. Where does the energy come
from to create your "wind shear" to create your "plasma not-a-plasma"
if the "plasma not-a-plasma" cannot exist and thereby "transport
energy" by driving that wind to create the "wind shear" which creates
your "plasma not-a-plasma", unless there is "wind shear" to begin
with, James? Your logic is so twisted you're going in circles. You've
created a circulus in probando causality dilemma, which utterly
destroys your theory, James.
spectral peak that was not solid-phase nor liquid-phase water, James.
You claim that water remains liquid-phase upon evaporation. What was
Anders Nilsson measuring, James? Oh, that's right... gaseous phase
water, thereby proving that evaporation entails a phase change,
thereby proving latent heat of evaporation exists, thereby
*dis*proving a gigantic chunk of your theory, James.
You make a supposition that a "plasma not-a-plasma" is created from
water due to wind shear, which transports energy throughout the
atmosphere via wind driven by that plasma. Where does the energy come
from to create your "wind shear" to create your "plasma not-a-plasma"
if the "plasma not-a-plasma" cannot exist and thereby "transport
energy" by driving that wind to create the "wind shear" which creates
your "plasma not-a-plasma", unless there is "wind shear" to begin
with, James? Your logic is so twisted you're going in circles. You've
created a circulus in probando causality dilemma, which utterly
destroys your theory, James.
How do your "jet stream vortices" travel potentially hundreds of miles
away from your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky", without
detection by satellite *or* Doppler radar, and know where and when to
away from your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky", without
detection by satellite *or* Doppler radar, and know where and when to
touch down so they always hit only cumulonimbus clouds, rather than
tornadoes randomly appearing out of the clear blue sky or from other
types of clouds, James? Is your "jet stream / giant tornado in the
tornadoes randomly appearing out of the clear blue sky or from other
sky" sentient, James?
If, as you claim, the jet stream is a vortex, why is the ride while
inside the jet stream so smooth, James? Have you never ridden in an
inside the jet stream so smooth, James? Have you never ridden in an
airplane inside a jet stream, James? Is it just that your "sentient
jet stream / giant tornado monster with noodly appendages" likes its
back scratched by the aircraft, so it doesn't rip the aircraft to
shreds, Jim?
jet stream / giant tornado monster with noodly appendages" likes its
back scratched by the aircraft, so it doesn't rip the aircraft to
shreds, Jim?
Do you not understand that once the air going upward through the
tornadic funnel reaches the cumulonimbus cloud base above the
mesocyclone, it spreads out, thus the tornado is strictly a phenomenon
which happens from cloud base to ground? It does *not* go from the
ground all the way up through the cloud to the tropopause as you
claim, James, and it most certainly does not continue for potentially
thousands of miles in the upper troposphere to join the jet stream,
tornadic funnel reaches the cumulonimbus cloud base above the
mesocyclone, it spreads out, thus the tornado is strictly a phenomenon
which happens from cloud base to ground? It does *not* go from the
ground all the way up through the cloud to the tropopause as you
claim, James, and it most certainly does not continue for potentially
which would make air travel deadly.
Explain why the jets run easterly, whereas the dry line runs N-S, if
the jets are powering the creation of tornadoes. How is a tornado
being created hundreds of miles from the edge of the jets, James?
Explain why the jets run easterly, whereas the dry line runs N-S, if
the jets are powering the creation of tornadoes. How is a tornado
being created hundreds of miles from the edge of the jets, James?
Which direction does air flow from a flame, Jim? Up, does it not?
That's convection due to temperature-induced density differential, is
it not? Which direction does air flow from a flame in zero gravity,
James? Radially in all directions, thereby snuffing out the flame due
to lack of oxygen. So your claiming that convection doesn't exist
means you're further claiming that gravity does not exist, and fire
cannot burn for very long before it is smothered due to lack of
oxygen. Or were you not aware that convection is a gravity-induced
phenomenon due to density differential, James?
How are your atmospheric "water droplets" forming if they're plasma,
Jim?
That's convection due to temperature-induced density differential, is
it not? Which direction does air flow from a flame in zero gravity,
James? Radially in all directions, thereby snuffing out the flame due
to lack of oxygen. So your claiming that convection doesn't exist
means you're further claiming that gravity does not exist, and fire
cannot burn for very long before it is smothered due to lack of
oxygen. Or were you not aware that convection is a gravity-induced
phenomenon due to density differential, James?
How are your atmospheric "water droplets" forming if they're plasma,
Jim?
Do you not know that water droplets *minimize* surface area, James?
How are your "plasma not-a-plasma" "water droplets" *maximizing* their
surface area as you claim?
How are your "plasma not-a-plasma" "water droplets" *maximizing* their
surface area as you claim?
Do you not know what the definition of "plasma" is, James?
How is your "plasma not-a-plasma" (which you have admitted is a
hypothetical construct in a failed attempt to lend your claims even a
semblance of plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and
dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the water will
preferentially dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen unless hit with an
extremely energetic laser, Jim?
Where is the energy (equivalent to photons of 103.32 nm wavelength,
extremely strong ultraviolet, just 3.32 nm away from x-rays... except
photons with shorter wavelength than 121 nm are absorbed high above
the troposphere because they ionize air so well) coming from in the
troposphere to form your "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim?
How is the energy to plasmize your "plasma not-a-plasma" not
dissociating all water on the planet and killing all life on the
planet given that the energy *must* be in the troposphere where nearly
all the water is, and where all life is, Jim?
Now that it's been proven that water molecule polarity doesn't change
upon H bonding (which would have side effects such as random changes
in the solvent properties of water... and we know those properties do
not randomly change, Jim), and in fact the two spin isomers of water
molecules account for the different H bonding strengths which account
for evaporation and condensation, do you still contend that your
implausible claims are workable, Jim?
How is your "plasma not-a-plasma" (which you have admitted is a
hypothetical construct in a failed attempt to lend your claims even a
semblance of plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and
dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the water will
preferentially dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen unless hit with an
extremely energetic laser, Jim?
Where is the energy (equivalent to photons of 103.32 nm wavelength,
extremely strong ultraviolet, just 3.32 nm away from x-rays... except
photons with shorter wavelength than 121 nm are absorbed high above
the troposphere because they ionize air so well) coming from in the
troposphere to form your "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim?
How is the energy to plasmize your "plasma not-a-plasma" not
dissociating all water on the planet and killing all life on the
planet given that the energy *must* be in the troposphere where nearly
all the water is, and where all life is, Jim?
Now that it's been proven that water molecule polarity doesn't change
upon H bonding (which would have side effects such as random changes
in the solvent properties of water... and we know those properties do
not randomly change, Jim), and in fact the two spin isomers of water
molecules account for the different H bonding strengths which account
for evaporation and condensation, do you still contend that your
implausible claims are workable, Jim?
Why are you not taking your meds, James?
============================================================
Why can't you answer those questions, Tardnado Jim?
James McGinn
May 25, 2016, 9:52:59 PM5/25/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
On Sunday, March 20, 2016 at 10:16:24 AM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
James McGinn
Jul 7, 2016, 2:27:12 PM7/7/16
to
On Sunday, March 20, 2016 at 10:16:24 AM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
noTthaTguY
Jul 8, 2016, 7:27:31 PM7/8/16
to
show'em your hygrometer(s, if you can find it
0 new messages