Expert: We must act fast on warming

Hahaha...best comedy skit i've read in years...

SoE wrote:

<quoted text>
I thought perhaps you had first hand information regarding cryo cooled detectors (worked in an area where the latest generation are being constructed and possessed information about the first stage amplification components.)
I'm not interested in google as a source of information.
Perhaps you have some knowledge of the Arecibo unit recently
constructed?
I will be graceful and regard the rest of your diatribe as largely
crap...that i will be running to the hills to deposit.
Thank you for your technical efforts....

Of course you think the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and actual measurements that PROVE the Fantasy "Greenhouse Effect" does not exist and your AGW CRAP "scientists" are FRAUDS, as diatribe crap.

That is how All Cult Members, throughout history, process the Truth in their Irrational Minds.

The very obvious fact that you have "Run For The Hills" as I predicted, is Proof that you are incapable of rational thought and choose to remain in your AGW Cult Stupor.

You need intensive treatment by a Cult De-programming Psychologist before you will be able to escape your delusional world.

Maybe you and the rest of your AGW Cult could get a Group Discount.

Yet another...

SoE wrote:

Yet another...

Here is the current results of a Topix Poll called:

Are AGW'ers Cult Members?
Yes...217...95%
No....10....4%
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/global-warmin...

SoE fits "The Cult Test Questions 1 to 10" like a glove.

Gord wrote:

<quoted text>
Here is the current results of a Topix Poll called:
Are AGW'ers Cult Members?
Yes...217...95%
No....10....4%
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/global-warmin...
SoE fits "The Cult Test Questions 1 to 10" like a glove.

A Topix poll ?...hahaha...how quaint
That i assume was thoroughly reviewed by your peers ?

SoE wrote:

<quoted text>
A Topix poll ?...hahaha...how quaint
That i assume was thoroughly reviewed by your peers ?

Don't you AGW Cult Members believe in a "Consensus"?

Any luck finding those Phantom AGW Laws of Science and Phantom AGW Measurements that your Cult has a "Consensus" on?

You know, where Cold Objects HEAT-UP Warm Objects?

Why don't you tell us why you AGW CULT IDIOTS cannot Post:

- Even ONE Law of Science that supports the Fantasy "Greenhouse Effect" ??
- Even ONE Measurement, EVER DONE, that shows that a Colder Atmosphere can HEAT UP a Warmer Earth ??

Now watch as SoE RUNS FOR THE HILLS....AGAIN confirming the Topix Poll:
--------
Are AGW'ers Cult Members?
Yes...217...95%
No....10....4%
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/global-warmin...

SoE fits "The Cult Test Questions 1 to 10" like a glove.

What a HOOT!

SoE wrote:

Hahaha...best comedy skit i've read in years...

Digicrap is a little twisted in its thinking...

red planet wrote:

<quoted text>Digicrap is a little twisted in its thinking...

It would appear so...
His presentation could use a bit of polish...?

Gord wrote:

<quoted text>

You know, where Cold Objects HEAT-UP Warm Objects?

???
I believe the energy transfer dynamics have been explained a number
of times before... at least sufficiently for this level of the subject.
There is little use in pursuing your constantly repeated view...

SoE wrote:

<quoted text>
???
I believe the energy transfer dynamics have been explained a number
of times before... at least sufficiently for this level of the subject.
There is little use in pursuing your constantly repeated view...

He is still stuck trying to apply 19th century knowledge to 21th century understanding.

Gord wrote:

<quoted text>
Here is the Law of Science that covers heat flow between bodies:
“Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is NOT POSSIBLE for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.”
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/th...
Let us know when you find ANY measurement where a Cold Body has EVER Heated-Up a Warmer Body.
You will be FAMOUS.

This is your major flaw. It does not state that NO heat can flow between a hotter and colder object. Only that the TOTAL flow will be from hotter to colder.

Take an iron rod and heat one end.

At some point at distance X, the temperature will be Y, and at X+dX it will be Y+dY. Now, according to your INTERPRETATION of the second law, the point X must be equivalent to absolute zero with NO flow to the warmer section. Totally implausible. The flow from X+dX to X will be larger than the flow from X to X+dX but that is ALL the law says. At every point, the TOTAL flow is going from hottest to coldest, but at every point, there is also 'A' flow in from the colder to the warmer point.

If you could just understand this point, but of course, you cannot seem to learn.

NobodyYouEverWantToKnow, alias:

LessFactMoreHype wrote:

This is your major flaw.

He's luck, you have lots of major flaws, Mr Undoubtably Spelt Fourty, and quite a few minor ones as well.

LessFactMoreHype wrote:

The Kruger-Dunning effect.

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/global-warmin...

LessFactMoreHype wrote:

I KNOW I don't know everything so I only post what I know

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/global-warmin...

LessFactMoreHype wrote:

CO2 levels are rising faster than the temperature can react.

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/global-warmin...

LessFactMoreHype wrote:

Deforestations is a consequence of AGW,....

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/global-warmin...

LessFactMoreHype wrote:

At no point did the IPCC forecast a reduction in the thermohaline circulation. It studied the report but made no forecast. And forecast is the term, not prediction. Predictions are for astrologers.

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/global-warmin...

LessFactMoreHype wrote:

There are no 'laws of science'. There is science theory and 'laws' which are consistent observations.

http://www.topix.com/forum/city/farmington-nm...

LessFactMoreHype wrote:

Most fruiting plants are [polinated] because those are the ones that have food values and thus something to give the bee an incentive to [polinate]. Weeds rarely have benefit to the bees.
This is a question that sounds intelligent only until you look closer..

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/global-warmin...

Earthling-1 wrote:

NobodyYouEverWantToKnow, alias:
<quoted text>He's luck[sic], you have lots of major flaws, Mr Undoubtably Spelt Fourty, and quite a few minor ones as well.<quoted text>
..

Voila. You posted "He's luck."

You are falling apart, smartless pants.

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:

<quoted text>
He is still stuck trying to apply 19th century knowledge to 21th century understanding.

...precisely so....

"Smartless pants."

ROFLMAO

SoB wrote:

...precisely so....

Rough translation:
"I can't think of anything worthwhile to write, so I'll agree with DumBozo."

SpaceBlues wrote:

<quoted text>Voila. You posted "He's luck."
You are falling apart, smartless pants.

Are you saying his Nina is about fourty feet from falling off the edge ?... ;-)

Did you mean Niña?

Earthling-1 wrote:

Did you mean Niña?

Rough translation:
"I can't think of anything worthwhile to write."

SoB wrote:

I can't think of anything original to write.

That's better.