PDA

View Full Version : There's a train a comin, she's comin round the bend....


baja
03-31-2013, 03:27 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VebOTc-7shU


Tell what is not true in this video.

W*GS
03-31-2013, 04:35 PM
Tell what is not true in this video.

"Directed by Alex Jones".

'Nuff said.

PS - Having Tim Ball as a "professor of climatology"? Bull****. Ball is a denier and crank.

W*GS
03-31-2013, 05:00 PM
baja, do you honestly believe that global warming is a giant hoax and fraud?

mhgaffney
03-31-2013, 06:00 PM
While you're at it -- don' miss Wayne Madsen's new book about Obama:

THE MANUFACTURING OF A PRESIDENT

http://www.amazon.com/Manufacturing-President-Insertion-Barack-Obama/dp/1478260645/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1364777980&sr=1-1&keywords=WAYNE+MADSEN

W*GS
03-31-2013, 06:07 PM
Wayne Madsen is in this BS Jones film.

There's definitely a small CJ of conspiracists that make lots of money from gullible idiots like gaffe, baja, et. al.

mhgaffney
03-31-2013, 06:13 PM
Hey W*gs -- why is the planet Mars also warming -- if humans are the sole cause of climate change here on earth?

MHG

W*GS
03-31-2013, 06:15 PM
Hey W*gs -- why is the planet Mars also warming -- if humans are the sole cause of climate change here on earth?

Mars is not warming - not globally.

http://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-on-mars-intermediate.htm

And humans aren't the "sole cause" of climate change.

Gads, you're ****ing ignorant.

PS - How much mass has Pan-STAARS gained?

mhgaffney
03-31-2013, 06:29 PM
Notice he starts the insulting language from the get go. Doesn't know any other way to be.

NASA confirmed the warming of Mars in 2007 --

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/research/2007/marswarming.html

W*GS
03-31-2013, 06:37 PM
Notice he starts the insulting language from the get go. Doesn't know any other way to be.

I call out stupid when I see stupid.

NASA confirmed the warming of Mars in 2007

After a global dust storm, Mars warms.

We know that.

You seem to think you're presenting hidden knowledge with all your spewage.

You're not. You're mindlessly and ignorantly repeating the obvious.

How much mass, as McCanney's theory insists, has Pan-STAARS gained, gaffe?

Do you even know what Pan-STAARS is?

baja
03-31-2013, 06:47 PM
baja, do you honestly believe that global warming is a giant hoax and fraud?

Since you asked me a question in civil manner I will answer.

I believe global warming, if it exists (which I doubt) is not caused by man's endeavors. But to be truthful I have not researched it issue very thoroughly. I have noticed it is discredited more and more by the scientific community

W*GS
03-31-2013, 06:51 PM
I believe global warming, if it exists (which I doubt) is not caused by man's endeavors. But to be truthful I have not researched it issue very thoroughly. I have noticed it is discredited more and more by the scientific community

Some starting points:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Newcomers-Start-Here.html

It has not been "discredited" by the "scientific community". Upon what do you base that claim?

baja
03-31-2013, 07:02 PM
Some starting points:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Newcomers-Start-Here.html

It has not been "discredited" by the "scientific community". Upon what do you base that claim?

I know you will find this incomprehensible but given the issues of the times this is an issue not high on my list of concerns.

W*GS
03-31-2013, 07:05 PM
I know you will find this incomprehensible but given the issues of the times this is an issue not high on my list of concerns.

Of course it's not. You're old and you've already given up on humanity, so WTF do you care about when the **** hits the fan in the next few decades?

baja
03-31-2013, 07:19 PM
Of course it's not. You're old and you've already given up on humanity, so WTF do you care about when the **** hits the fan in the next few decades?

If I really felt that way I'd saunter off to my bunker and eat some beans, never to post here again.

cutthemdown
03-31-2013, 08:08 PM
W*GS do you really think things like electric cars and carbon taxes could really cool the Earth, or even change anything? Or would that money be better spent on how to combat the effects of a warmer earth? IE growing food in a hotter climate, desalination plants in case of droughts, seawalls in vulnerable areas of sea rise etc?

I actually believe the Earth is warmer. I mean if scientists say its getting warmer I have to believe them. But I don't really 100% buy its all co2. Also if it is co2 I don't see us being able to stop it. Not with China, Brazil, Indonesia, India, Russia, USA, Germany etc all wanting to grow their economies still.

baja
03-31-2013, 08:19 PM
W*GS do you really think things like electric cars and carbon taxes could really cool the Earth, or even change anything? Or would that money be better spent on how to combat the effects of a warmer earth? IE growing food in a hotter climate, desalination plants in case of droughts, seawalls in vulnerable areas of sea rise etc?

I actually believe the Earth is warmer. I mean if scientists say its getting warmer I have to believe them. But I don't really 100% buy its all co2. Also if it is co2 I don't see us being able to stop it. Not with China, Brazil, Indonesia, India, Russia, USA, Germany etc all wanting to grow their economies still.

If we all stopped eating the animals that by it self would vastly lower the % of carbon emissions

baja
03-31-2013, 11:25 PM
Of course it's not. You're old and you've already given up on humanity, so WTF do you care about when the **** hits the fan in the next few decades?

CO2 is a vital nutrient for food crops

As it turns out, CO2 is desperately needed by food crops, and right now there is a severe shortage of CO2 on the planet compared to what would be optimum for plants. Greenhouse operators are actually buying carbon dioxide and injecting it into their greenhouses in order to maximize plant growth.

The science on this is irrefutable. As just one example, the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food says:

CO2 increases productivity through improved plant growth and vigour. Some ways in which productivity is increased by CO2 include earlier flowering, higher fruit yields, reduced bud abortion in roses, improved stem strength and flower size. Growers should regard CO2 as a nutrient.

If you want to understand why CO2 is an essential nutrient for food crop growth, check out this informative slide show. It explains that "CO2 may be repidly depleted during crop production" daylight hours, because the plants pull all the CO2 out of the air and use it in photosynthesis.

The CO2 found in modern-day atmosphere is 340ppm. But food crops would grow far faster if the concentration of CO2 were closer to 1000ppm, or roughly 300% higher than current levels. In fact, most greenhouse plant production causes a "CO2 depletion" to happen, shutting down photosynthesis and limiting food production. As the "Carbon Dioxide in Greenhouses" fact sheet explains:

Ambient CO2 level in outside air is about 340 ppm by volume. All plants grow well at this level but as CO2 levels are raised by 1,000 ppm photosynthesis increases proportionately resulting in more sugars and carbohydrates available for plant growth. Any actively growing crop in a tightly clad greenhouse with little or no ventilation can readily reduce the CO2 level during the day to as low as 200 ppm.

Thus, greenhouse plants are "running out" of CO2. They are starving for it. And when you add it to food crops, you get higher yields, improved taste, shorter flowering times, enhanced pest resistance and other benefits.

Why we should pump carbon dioxide into greenhouses

This brings up an obvious answer for what to do with all the CO2 produced by power plants, office buildings and even fitness centers where people exhale vast quantities of CO2. The answer is to build adjacent greenhouses and pump the CO2 into the greenhouses.

Every coal-fired power plant, in other words, should have a vast array of greenhouses surrounding it. Most of what you see emitted from power plant smokestacks is water vapor and CO2, both essential nutrients for rapid growth of food crops. By diverting carbon dioxide and water into greenhouses, the problem of emissions is instantly solved because the plants update the CO2 and use it for photosynthesis, thus "sequestering" the CO2 while rapidly growing food crops. It also happens to produce oxygen as a "waste product" which can be released into the atmosphere, (slightly) upping the oxygen level of the air we breathe.

This is a brilliant solution because humans want to live on a world with low CO2 that supports frozen ice caps in order to keep ocean water levels low, but they want to eat a volume of food that requires high CO2 for production. The answer is to concentrate CO2 into greenhouses where food production is multiplied by CO2 nutrition.

I'll bet you've never heard Al Gore talk about CO2 as "nutrition." He declares it a pollutant and wants to tax you for producing it. But CO2 is actually a key nutritive gas for food crops. Without carbon dioxide, we would all have starved to death by now.

Shutting down power plants to destroy America's power infrastructure

The U.S. government's solution to power plant emissions, however, is to just shut down coal-fired power plants, causing rolling blackouts across the USA, especially during hot summer days. The EPA has forced hundreds of power plants to shut down across the USA, achieving a loss of power infrastructure that vastly exceeds what would even be possible by an enemy invasion of high-altitude warplanes dropping bombs.

The EPA, under the excuse of "saving the planet," is destroying America's power infrastructure and leading our nation into a third-world scenario where power availability is dicey and unsustained. It seems to be just one part of the overall plan to gut America's economy, offshore millions of jobs, put everybody on welfare and destroy small businesses.

But what if we harnessed coal-fired power plants instead of shutting them down? What if we used them as "CO2 generators" that fed CO2 into vast greenhouse operations that produced organic, high-growth foods that could feed the nation? Coal-fired power plants can produce both electricity and food nutrition at the same time.

Better yet, if you combine this concept with aquaponics, you get simultaneous production of plants and fish while using no soil, no GMOs and one-tenth the water of conventional agriculture.

See, the solutions to all our problems already exist. The only reason we are suffering as a nation is because political puppets try to brainwash us into believing complete falsehoods like, "carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant" or "the people don't need healthy foods; they need medications and vaccines." When societies believe falsehoods, they crumble and collapse.

That's where America is headed, of course. And it's all being accelerated by deceptive bureaucrats who want to convince you that growing real food is bad and we should all be punished for exhaling carbon dioxide, an essential nutrient for food crops. Carbon dioxide is not the enemy it's been made out to be. It's actually plant nutrition that helps regrow rainforests, food crops and wetlands. In fact, higher CO2 levels in the atmosphere would make the planet more lush and abundant in terms of plant life, forests, trees and food crops.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/039720_carbon_dioxide_myths_plant_nutrition.html#i xzz2PBrRRfef

W*GS
04-01-2013, 05:34 AM
W*GS do you really think things like electric cars and carbon taxes could really cool the Earth, or even change anything?

Yes.

Or would that money be better spent on how to combat the effects of a warmer earth? IE growing food in a hotter climate, desalination plants in case of droughts, seawalls in vulnerable areas of sea rise etc?

Mitigation is cheaper than adaptation. We'll save by putting more money into lessening the impacts of increasing GHGs by reducing our creation of them, rather than by trying to adapt to climate change. Sorta like quitting smoking instead of waiting and paying for cancer treatment instead.

I actually believe the Earth is warmer. I mean if scientists say its getting warmer I have to believe them. But I don't really 100% buy its all co2. Also if it is co2 I don't see us being able to stop it. Not with China, Brazil, Indonesia, India, Russia, USA, Germany etc all wanting to grow their economies still.

We must come up with ways other than burning fossil fuels for our energy needs.

We've gone over this many times before.

W*GS
04-01-2013, 05:40 AM
That "Natural News" article is off. CO2 is currently at just under 400 ppm, not 340 ppm.

In the climate change debate, it appears to be agreed by everyone that excess CO2 will at least have the direct benefit of increasing photosynthesis, and subsequently growth rate and yield, in virtually any plant species: A common remark is that industrial greenhouse owners will raise CO2 levels far higher than normal in order to increase the yield of their crops, so therefore increasing atmospheric levels should show similar benefits. Unfortunately, a review of the literature shows that this belief is a drastic oversimplification of a topic of study that has rapidly evolved in recent years.

Climate control vs. climate change
The first and most obvious retort to this argument is that plants require more than just CO2 to live. Owners of industrial greenhouses who purchase excess CO2 also invest considerable effort in keeping their plants at optimum growing conditions, particularly with respect to temperature and moisture. As CO2 continues to change the global climate, both of these variables are subject to change in an unfavorable way for a certain species in a certain region (Lobell et al. 2008, Luo 2009, Zhao and Running 2010, Challinor et al. 2010, Lobell et al. 2011). More and more it is becoming clear that in many cases, the negatives of drought and heat stress may cancel out any benefits of increased CO2 predicted by even the most optimistic study.

But there is a more subtle point to be made here. The majority of scientific studies on enhanced CO2 to date have been performed in just these types of enclosed greenhouses, or even worse, individual growth chambers. Only recently have researchers begun to pull away from these controlled settings and turn their attention to outdoor experiments. Known as Free-Air CO2 Enrichment or “FACE”, these studies observe natural or agricultural plants in a typical outdoor setting while exposing them to a controlled release of CO2, which is continuously monitored in order to maintain whichever ambient concentration is of interest for the study (see Figure 1).

http://img202.imageshack.us/img202/4269/facegt.jpg
Figure 1 - Example FACE study in Wisconsin, USA with multiple CO2 injection plots; courtesy of David F Karnosky, obtained from Los Alamos National Laboratory.

FACE studies are therefore superior to greenhouse studies in their ability to predict how natural plants should respond to enhanced CO2 in the real world; unfortunately, the results of these studies are not nearly as promising as those of greenhouse studies, with final yield values averaging around 50% less in the free-air studies compared to greenhouse studies (Leaky et al. 2009, Long et al. 2006, Ainsworth 2005, Morgan et al. 2005). Reasons for this are numerous, but it is suspected that in a greenhouse, the isolation of individual plants, constrained root growth, restricted pest access, lack of buffer zones, and unrealistic atmospheric interactions all contribute to artificially boost growth and yield under enhanced CO2.

C3 & C4
Photosynthesis comes in a few different flavors, two of which are C3 and C4. Together C3 and C4 photosynthesis make up almost all of modern agriculture, with wheat and rice being examples of C3 crops while corn and sugarcane are C4. The distinction deals mainly with the specific enzyme that is used to collect CO2 for the process of photosynthesis, with C3 directly relying on the enzyme RuBisCO. C4 plants also use RuBisCO, but unlike C3 plants, they first collect CO2 with the enzyme PEP-carboxylase in the mesophyll cell prior to pumping it to RuBisCO (see Figure 2).

http://www.nature.com/scitable/content/ne0000/ne0000/ne0000/ne0000/13311179/taub_figure2_ksm.jpg
Figure 2 - A simplified diagram contrasting C3 vs. C4 plant photosynthesis. From Nature Magazine.

The relevance of this distinction to excess CO2 is that PEP-carboxylase has no natural affinity for oxygen, whereas RuBisCO does. RuBisCO will just as readily collect oxygen (which is useless) as it will CO2, and so increasing the ratio of CO2/O2 in the atmosphere increases the efficiency of C3 plants; the extra step in the C4 process eliminates this effect, since the mesophyll cell already serves to concentrate pure CO2 near RuBisCO. Therefore excess CO2 shows some benefit to C3 plants, but no significant benefit to C4 plants. Cure and Acock 1986 (a greenhouse study) showed excess CO2 gave a 35% photosynthesis boost to rice and a 32% boost to soybeans (both C3 plants), but only a 4% boost to C4 crops. More recently, Leaky et al. 2006 (a FACE study) did not find any statistically significant boost in photosynthesis or yield for corn (a C4 crop) under excess CO2.

Going a bit deeper, it has recently been found that in some C3 plants—such as cotton and many bean species—a further enzyme known as RuBisCO activase is required to convert RuBisCO into its “active” state, the only state in which it can be used for photosynthesis. The downside of this is that the activase enzyme is much more sensitive to high temperatures compared to RuBisCO itself, and also responds poorly to excess CO2: Heat can destroy the structure of the activase enzyme at temperatures as low as 89.6 F, while excess CO2 reduces the abundance of the cellular energy molecule ATP that is critical for RuBisCO activase to function properly (Crafts-Brandner & Salvucci, 2000, Salvucci et al. 2001). This effect may potentially nullify some of the gains expected from excess CO2 in these plants.

Chemical Responses & Nutrition
Even within a specific type of photosynthesis—indeed, even within a specific species—the positive responses to enhanced CO2 can vary widely. Nutrient availability in particular can greatly affect a plant’s response to excess CO2, with phosphorous and nitrogen being the most critical (Stöcklin and Körner 2002, Norby et al. 2010, Larson et al. 2010). The ability of plants to maintain sufficient nitrogen under excess CO2 conditions is also reduced for reasons not fully understood (Bloom et al. 2010, Taub and Wang 2008).

It has also been found that excess CO2 can make certain agricultural plants less nutritious for human and animal consumption. Zhu 2005, a three-year FACE study, concluded that a 10% decrease in the protein content of rice is expected at 550 ppm, with decreases in iron and zinc contents also found. Similarly, Högy et al. 2009, also a FACE study at 550 ppm, found a 7% drop in protein content for wheat, along with decreased amino acid and iron content. Somewhat ironically, this reduction in nutrient content is partially caused by the very increase in growth rates that CO2 encourages in C3 plants, since rapid growth leaves less time for nutrient accumulation.

Increased CO2 has been shown to lead to lower production of certain chemical defense mechanisms in soybeans, making them more vulnerable to pest attack and diseases (Zavala et al. 2008 and Eastburn et al. 2010). Other studies (e.g. Peñuelas and Estiarte 1999) have shown production of phenolics and tannins to increase under enhanced CO2 in some species, as well as many alkaloids (Ziska et al. 2005), all of which may have potential consequences on the health of primary consumers. The decreased nutritional value in combination with increased tannin and phenolic production has been linked to decreased growth rate and conversion efficiency of some herbivores, as well as an increase in their relative demand and consumption of plants (Stiling and Cornelissen 2007).

Furthermore, many “cyanogenic” species—plants which naturally produce cyanide, and which include 60% of all known plant species—have been found to increase their cyanide production in an enhanced CO2 world. This may have a benefit to the plants who use cyanide to inhibit overconsumption by pests and animals, but it may in turn reduce their safety as a food supply for both humans and animals (Gleadow et al., 2009a and Gleadow et al. 2009b).

Interactions with other species
Competing plant species have also been shown to drastically alter expected benefits from excess CO2: even in the best FACE studies, most research still involves artificial experimental plots consisting of fewer than five plant species, and often only one species is present. It has long been understood that due to increased growth of competitor species, benefits from isolated experiments cannot be scaled up to explain how a plant might respond in a monoculture plot (Navas et al. 1999). The distinction is even greater when comparing the behavior of isolated species to those of mixed plots (Poorter and Navas 2003). The lack of correlation (r2 = 0.00) between biomass enhancement (BER) of isolated plants and that of plants in mixed plots is presented in Figure 3.

http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/4877/plotv.jpg
Figure 3 – Isolated vs. mixed biomass enhancement ratios under excess CO2; From Figure 8 of Poorter and Navas 2003

That some plant species may benefit more fully and/or rapidly from excess CO2 also introduces the possibility that the abundance of certain species in an ecosystem will increase more than that of others, potentially forcing the transformation from one type of ecosystem to another (Poorter and Navas 2003). There is also some evidence suggesting that invasive species and many “weeds” may show relatively higher responses to elevated CO2 (Ziska and George 2004), and become more resistant to conventional herbicides (Ziska et al. 2004, Ziska and Teasdale 2000).

There is some evidence that interacting bacterial communities, particularly in the roots, will be affected through elevated CO2, leading to mixed results on overall plant health. Mutualistic fungal root communities (known as ‘mycorrhizae') are typically shown to increase under excess CO2, which facilitate nutrient transport to the roots (Treseder 2004), although infections of pathogenic species such as Fusarium (the agent of the disease known as ‘crown rot’) have been shown to become more severe under excess CO2 as well (Melloy et al. 2010).

Temperature
It has long been known that stomata (the pores through which plants take in CO2 and exhale oxygen and water) tend to be narrower and stay closed longer under enhanced CO2. This effect is often cited as a benefit in that it increases water efficiency in drought situations.

But there is another key piece to reduced stomatal conductance, considering that 90% of a plant’s water use is actually for cooling of the leaves and nothing more: heat from the sun is absorbed by the water in the leaf, then carried out as vapor in the form of latent heat. So while it is true that the plant may retain water better under enhanced CO2, doing so may cause it to retain more heat. This can potentially carry a plant to less optimal temperature ranges (Ball et al. 1988 and Idso et al. 1993). An image present in Long et al. 2006 (Figure 4) shows this effect quite clearly; while a 1.4 C increase is probably not enough to cause significant damage in most cases, global warming will only serve to exacerbate the effect. It is also of note that the study above represented a well-watered situation, and so during a drought condition the temperature increase would be even higher.

http://img832.imageshack.us/img832/6449/co2highertemps.png
Figure 4 - Increase in local temperature under enhanced CO2 due to reduced evapotranspiration. From Long et al. 2006

On the cold end, it has been found that for seedlings of some species of evergreen trees, excess CO2 can increase the ice formation temperature on the leaves, thereby increasing their sensitivity to frost damage (Roden et al. 1998).

Ozone
CO2 is not the only atmospheric gas that is on the rise: concentrations of ground-level ozone (O3) are expected to rise 23% by 2050 due to continuing anthropogenic emissions of precursor gases like methane and nitrous oxides. In addition, Monson et al. 1991 found that natural plant emissions of volatile organic compounds (another group of O3 precursors) increase under excess CO2 in many plant species, thereby introducing the potential that local O3 concentrations around plant communities may rise even higher than the baseline atmospheric level.

O3 has long been known to be toxic to plants: Morgan et al. 2006 found a 20% reduction of soybean yield in a FACE study of 23% excess O3. Similarly, Ainsworth 2008 showed a 14% decrease in rice yield at 62 ppb O3, and Feng et al. 2008 (a meta-analysis of 53 peer-reviewed studies) found on average a 18% decrease in wheat yield at 43 ppb O3. Ozone also appears to reduce the structural integrity of plants as well as make them more vulnerable to certain insect pest varieties such as aphids (Warrington 1988).

http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/3377/13192774.jpg
Figure 5 - Yield reduction for several crop species under excess ozone. From Wang and Mauzeral 2004

With respect to this effect, excess CO2 may actually prove beneficial in that it causes a narrowing of leaf stomata, thereby reducing the quantity of ozone that can enter the more sensitive internal tissues. Needless to say, the combined effect of excess CO2 and excess O3 is complex, and as it has only recently been given attention it is an area that requires much further research.

Conclusion
A specific plant’s response to excess CO2 is sensitive to a variety of factors, including but not limited to: age, genetic variations, functional types, time of year, atmospheric composition, competing plants, disease and pest opportunities, moisture content, nutrient availability, temperature, and sunlight availability. The continued increase of CO2 will represent a powerful forcing agent for a wide variety of changes critical to the success of many plants, affecting natural ecosystems and with large implications for global food production. The global increase of CO2 is thus a grand biological experiment, with countless complications that make the net effect of this increase very difficult to predict with any appreciable level of detail.

Meck77
04-01-2013, 09:54 AM
Wigs....We get you are passionate about global warming but do you really worry about it that much?

Does anyone?

I've been changing the way I view the world lately. As a former smoker smoking is one of my hot buttons.

People love to get real passionate about certain political hot buttons like guns or in your case global warming. Guns will kill! Global warming will doom us all! The reality is cigarettes/tobacco is one of our biggest killers on the planet yet our governments support it, tax it, make money it, and billions die from it.

There is somewhere around 7 billion people on the planet. SEVERAL BILLION people across the globe put cancer in their mouths via cigarettes every day! http://quitsmoking.about.com/cs/antismoking/a/statistics.htm

I'm not saying we shouldn't try and keep our planet as clean as possible but the reality is people just don't take care of themselves as individuals enough to really even attempt to consider keeping good care of our planet.

Wigs do you think you take care of yourself? Do you smoke?

As much as baja preaches about healthy living he admits to smoking a couple cigars per day. That's his choice and he's convinced that he's smoking quality which will help him. That's another thing about tobacco. It tricks the mind! All smokers will tell you "I will probably die from something else anyway". It's crazy but they rationalize it. Would anyone in their right mind inject the aides virus into their body knowing it will more than likely kill them? Hell NO! Cigarettes/Cigars. You bet they do!

W*GS
04-01-2013, 10:14 AM
Wigs....We get you are passionate about global warming but do you really worry about it that much?

Yes, I do.

Mostly for my kids.

Meck77
04-01-2013, 10:36 AM
Yes, I do.

Mostly for my kids.

Ah I see. So you must be a smoker otherwise you would have responded "no don't smoke".

Really I could care less if you smoke. It's just a point I'm trying to make. People get all worked up over theoretical stuff, about things with a very low probability of getting killed from (mass shooting), yet lob cancer into their systems 20-50 times per day.

Here's another one. Obesity. Epidemic problem in America. The reality is there is 1 or 2 fast food joints at every major intersection in America. Even worse people feed their children that ****! They are killing their own children!

Global warming. Sorry wags. Nobody really cares. If they did they certainly wouldn't be shoving big macs down their kids throats while lighting a smoke up in their car at the same time.

W*GS
04-01-2013, 01:22 PM
Global warming. Sorry wags. Nobody really cares. If they did they certainly wouldn't be shoving big macs down their kids throats while lighting a smoke up in their car at the same time.

I don't smoke.

That some folks are oblivious or choose to ignore it doesn't mean it's not a problem we as a species will have to deal with.

Nature doesn't care if we pay attention or not.

Fedaykin
04-01-2013, 01:42 PM
https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTwaPvIutCUYyelhUv6kYvagZFUPHVpm MrMkYAntZOsNEIrTkwZmQ

baja
04-01-2013, 01:59 PM
https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTwaPvIutCUYyelhUv6kYvagZFUPHVpm MrMkYAntZOsNEIrTkwZmQ

OK Gotta admit that's funny ;D

mhgaffney
04-01-2013, 04:26 PM
W*gs has a persistent habit of presenting hypotheses (that he favors) as proven fact. In this regard he is like the pope making pronouncements. Believe it or else.

Meanwhile, he ridicules other hypotheses that he has not even studied (example -- James McCanney's comet model).

W*gs is a born again atheist. His religion is global warming.

He denies that Mars is heating up -- along with earth. But check this out. Climate change may also be occurring on Jupiter.

http://www.space.com/2071-storm-jupiter-hints-climate-change.html

So that's three planets, earth, Mars and Jupiter, that may be heating up. This suggests that human behavior is not the only -- perhaps not even the biggest -- factor causing climate change.

But don't expect W*gs to own up to this possibility. Expect slander.

MHG

baja
04-01-2013, 04:55 PM
W*gs has a persistent habit of presenting hypotheses (that he favors) as proven fact. In this regard he is like the pope making pronouncements. Believe it or else.

Meanwhile, he ridicules other hypotheses that he has not even studied (example -- James McCanney's comet model).

W*gs is a born again atheist. His religion is global warming.

He denies that Mars is heating up -- along with earth. But check this out. Climate change may also be occurring on Jupiter.

http://www.space.com/2071-storm-jupiter-hints-climate-change.html

So that's three planets, earth, Mars and Jupiter, that may be heating up. This suggests that human behavior is not the only -- perhaps not even the biggest -- factor causing climate change.

But don't expect W*gs to own up to this possibility. Expect slander.

MHG

You must have missed the memo. We have been shipping cow flashance to mars for decades.

errand
04-01-2013, 05:24 PM
All I know is that in the 70's these same idiots that say the earth is warming claimed that we'd be in another Ice Age by the year 2000....and their plan to prevent it?

Basically melting the polar ice caps.....

Nothing but a bunch of bull****....these ****ers can't even predict the weather right, so why should anyone believe they can tell if the earth is gonna heat up or cool down. They just want government grant money.....

IHaveALight
04-01-2013, 05:39 PM
Science is dependent on perspective. There will always be opposing scientific beliefs and it is very ignorant and actually unscientific to attach a truth to a scientific observation or study that is completely built from and dependent on limited perspective (as all science is).

If you want to find science that says man is responsible for global warming, you will find that science you are looking for.

If you want to find science that says man is not responsible for global warming, you will find that science you are looking for.

Science has been and is being used as a weapon against humanity.

W*gs, what are your thoughts on flouride? Do you accept the scientific lie that human beings need fluoride (which is produced from industrial waste) added to water for proper teeth and bone health?

IHaveALight
04-01-2013, 05:52 PM
I know one thing, I don't trust anything that comes from a Rothchild, even if the message does sound legit.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/WRuBndJwIiw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

W*GS
04-01-2013, 08:40 PM
W*gs has a persistent habit of presenting hypotheses (that he favors) as proven fact. In this regard he is like the pope making pronouncements. Believe it or else.

No. I have data and evidence that backs my views. I don't expect others to agree with me because I've said something. You, on the other hand, expect us to believe something just because you state it as fact.

You're projecting your bull****.

Meanwhile, he ridicules other hypotheses that he has not even studied (example -- James McCanney's comet model).

I've already detailed, a few times, the fatal flaws in McCanney's comet model. His model is wrong not because I say so, but because the data and evidence don't support his claims.

The earth is more-or-less a sphere - not because I claim it is, but because all the observations we have leave us with no other choice. You see, gaffe, scientists go where the observations and reality tell them to go. You go where your dogma and fantasies demand that you go, reality be damned.

He denies that Mars is heating up -- along with earth. But check this out. Climate change may also be occurring on Jupiter.

What climate change is happening to other planets in the solar system (http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-other-planets-solar-system-intermediate.htm)

There are three fundamental flaws in the 'other planets are warming' argument. Not all planets in the solar system are warming. The sun has shown no long term trend since 1950 and in fact has shown a slight cooling trend in recent decades. There are explanations for why other planets are warming.

and

Martian climate is primarily driven by dust and albedo. Global dust storms increase the surface albedo by settling brighter dust on dark surfaces. Higher albedo leads to more sunlight being reflected which has a cooling effect. Snapshots of Mars' surface in 1977 and 1999 find that the surface was brighter in 1977 and darker in 1999. However, this doesn't necessarily point to a long term warming trend - the 1977 snapshot was made shortly after a global dust storm while the 1999 snapshot occured before a dust storm. Consequently, there is little empirical evidence that long term global warming on Mars is occuring (Richardson 2007). More on Mars...
Neptune's orbit is 164 years so observations (1950 to present day) span less than a third of a Neptunian year. Climate modelling of Neptune suggests its brightening is a seasonal response (Sromovsky 2003). Eg - Neptune's southern hemisphere is heading into summer. More on Neptune...
Neptune's largest moon, Triton, has warmed since the Voyager space probe visited it in 1989. The moon is approaching an extreme southern summer, a season that occurs every few hundred years. During this special time, the moon's southern hemisphere receives more direct sunlight (Elliot 1998).
Jupiter's storms are fueled by the planet's own internal heat (sunlight is 4% the level of solar energy at Earth). When several storms merge into one large storm (eg - Red Spot Jr), the planet loses its ability to mix heat, causing warming at the equator and cooling at the poles (Marcus 2006). More on Jupiter...
Pluto's warming is not clearly understood. Pluto's orbit is much more elliptical than that of the other planets, and its rotational axis is tipped by a large angle relative to its orbit. Both factors could contribute to drastic seasonal changes. As Pluto's orbit is equivalent to 248 Earth years and observed warming spans only 14 years, it is likely this is a seasonal response (Sromovsky 2003).

This suggests that human behavior is not the only -- perhaps not even the biggest -- factor causing climate change.

No-one says that we are the "only" causative factor in climate change. That's a strawman.

However, since it's clear you've done precious little research, if any, on the subject, I recommend you check the links I provided baja to give you a start.

W*GS
04-01-2013, 08:46 PM
Science is dependent on perspective. There will always be opposing scientific beliefs and it is very ignorant and actually unscientific to attach a truth to a scientific observation or study that is completely built from and dependent on limited perspective (as all science is).

Do an experiment for me.

If science (which is a tool to understand the reality in which we exist) is so malleable, then if you don't believe in gravity, no harm can come to you from stepping out a 30th floor window.

Please try doing so and report back.

If you want to find science that says man is responsible for global warming, you will find that science you are looking for.

If you want to find science that says man is not responsible for global warming, you will find that science you are looking for.

No. The science on the causes of the climate changes we have observed is quite clear. We are responsible. It is not possible to explain the facts, data and evidence (i.e., the science) without a very significant anthropogenic component. If you have some "science" that can better explain what we observed that has no, or very little, anthropogenic component, please provide it here:

Science has been and is being used as a weapon against humanity.

Science can be misused, just as (say) a knife can be. Doesn't mean that all uses of a knife, or science, are as a "weapon", designed to hurt, kill, or destroy.

Would you want a world completely without any science at all?

W*gs, what are your thoughts on flouride? Do you accept the scientific lie that human beings need fluoride (which is produced from industrial waste) added to water for proper teeth and bone health?

I'm not interested in discussing fluoride with someone of a "precious bodily fluids" mindset.

W*GS
04-01-2013, 08:48 PM
All I know is that in the 70's these same idiots that say the earth is warming claimed that we'd be in another Ice Age by the year 2000....and their plan to prevent it?

Basically melting the polar ice caps.....

Nothing but a bunch of bull****....these ****ers can't even predict the weather right, so why should anyone believe they can tell if the earth is gonna heat up or cool down. They just want government grant money.....

Thank you for the standard line of right-wing denier bull****.

IHaveALight
04-02-2013, 12:00 PM
Do an experiment for me.

If science (which is a tool to understand the reality in which we exist) is so malleable, then if you don't believe in gravity, no harm can come to you from stepping out a 30th floor window.

Please try doing so and report back. When did I ever say I don't believe in gravity?



No. The science on the causes of the climate changes we have observed is quite clear. We are responsible. It is not possible to explain the facts, data and evidence (i.e., the science) without a very significant anthropogenic component. If you have some "science" that can better explain what we observed that has no, or very little, anthropogenic component, please provide it here:

Again your science on the matter only exists from a limited perspective. There are infinite more possibilities that could be affecting the data. You're only operating from one.



Science can be misused, just as (say) a knife can be. Doesn't mean that all uses of a knife, or science, are as a "weapon", designed to hurt, kill, or destroy.

Would you want a world completely without any science at all?

I have no problem with trying to understand things through science, I love science. The problem is when people don't understand what the scientific process really is (limited perspective) and as such they form absolute beliefs with information that doesn't contain anywhere near the totality of the situation.


I'm not interested in discussing fluoride with someone of a "precious bodily fluids" mindset.

Please do tell me what this precious bodily fluids mindset is that I have? I have no idea what you even mean by that. But I am glad to see that you choose not to have a discussion with me about fluoride based off of your assumptions of who I am, that tells me all I need to know.

Obushma
04-02-2013, 12:17 PM
Please do tell me what this precious bodily fluids mindset is that I have? I have no idea what you even mean by that. But I am glad to see that you choose not to have a discussion with me about fluoride based off of your assumptions of who I am, that tells me all I need to know.

W*gs voted for Bush then Obama. He is also for carbon credits. He's a piece of ****, don't waste your time, he's been bought, paid for, and ridden dry.

errand
04-02-2013, 12:57 PM
Yes, I do.

Mostly for my kids.

it is odd that you are looking out for your kids because people like yourself and Al Gore have told us many times that those of us who have children, specifically American children are major contributors to global warming as their carbon footprint is much more noticeable than children born and raised in Africa and Asia and other third world countries.....

basically you compounded the problem because you decided to have children in the country that is just so guilty of causing global warming

errand
04-02-2013, 01:00 PM
Thank you for the standard line of right-wing denier bull****.

I'm not saying anything ....I'm just telling you what I saw on the cover of Time magazine when I was about 15 years old. the same morons that are claiming global warming were worried we would be headed to another ice age.... and guess what neither has happened yet.

IHaveALight
04-02-2013, 01:06 PM
I find it very interesting that Al Gore forgot to mention the number one cause of green house gas emissions (animal product production) and to this day he still lives his lavish high carbon footprint lifestyle, he seems very concerned.

W*GS
04-02-2013, 01:09 PM
I'm not saying anything ....I'm just telling you what I saw on the cover of Time magazine when I was about 15 years old. the same morons that are claiming global warming were worried we would be headed to another ice age.... and guess what neither has happened yet.

Time magazine isn't science.

The science at that time was overwhelmingly concerned about global warming, not global cooling.

The global cooling myth (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/the-global-cooling-myth/)

W*GS
04-02-2013, 01:10 PM
I find it very interesting that Al Gore forgot to mention the number one cause of green house gas emissions (animal product production) and to this day he still lives his lavish high carbon footprint lifestyle, he seems very concerned.

Yep, no Al Gore, no manmade climate change.

Right?

Rohirrim
04-02-2013, 01:10 PM
I find it very interesting that Al Gore forgot to mention the number one cause of green house gas emissions (animal product production) and to this day he still lives his lavish high carbon footprint lifestyle, he seems very concerned.

Just for the sake of argument, if you wanted to travel the planet and warn people about the dangers of global climate change, would you walk? Or swim, as the case may be? If he walks in leather shoes is he a hypocrite? Or if he eats pork, beef or chicken? How pure should he be before his message has any value?

Obushma
04-02-2013, 01:13 PM
Just for the sake of argument, if you wanted to travel the planet and warn people about the dangers of global climate change, would you walk? Or swim, as the case may be? If he walks in leather shoes is he a hypocrite? Or if he eats pork, beef or chicken? How pure should he be before his message has any value?

*slurp-slurp "Hey W*gs" slurp-slurp*

IHaveALight
04-02-2013, 01:15 PM
Just for the sake of argument, if you wanted to travel the planet and warn people about the dangers of global climate change, would you walk? Or swim, as the case may be? If he walks in leather shoes is he a hypocrite? Or if he eats pork, beef or chicken? How pure should he be before his message has any value?

We live in a brilliant world of information, we don't have to destroy the planet to save it.

IHaveALight
04-02-2013, 01:17 PM
Yep, no Al Gore, no manmade climate change.

Right?

Not true.

Rohirrim
04-02-2013, 01:19 PM
*slurp-slurp "Hey W*gs" slurp-slurp*

Another brilliant, well-thought out comment.

Fedaykin
04-02-2013, 01:19 PM
I'm not saying anything ....I'm just telling you what I saw on the cover of Time magazine when I was about 15 years old. the same morons that are claiming global warming were worried we would be headed to another ice age.... and guess what neither has happened yet.

No, it's no the same people. The article you cite went no where, whatsoever. It did not lead to the mass consensus that global climate change has. Why? Because ait didn't follow the evidence.

Comparing the two is just ignorant and dishonest.

Seriously, comparing articles in a non-scientific publications that didn't even understand the source study (which was talking about an ice age coming "soon" in a geological sense) to the body of work surrounding GCC? You have to be quite silly to do such a thing.

W*GS
04-02-2013, 01:20 PM
it is odd that you are looking out for your kids because people like yourself and Al Gore have told us many times that those of us who have children, specifically American children are major contributors to global warming as their carbon footprint is much more noticeable than children born and raised in Africa and Asia and other third world countries.....

basically you compounded the problem because you decided to have children in the country that is just so guilty of causing global warming

No.

Not all Americans have the same "carbon footprint".

IHaveALight
04-02-2013, 01:22 PM
Our country could have been energy independent through solar and wind technology with a fraction of the money that dems and reps have spent on oil wars. But lets just continue to put our faith in what they have to say on the matter.

W*GS
04-02-2013, 01:23 PM
W*gs voted for Bush then Obama. He is also for carbon credits. He's a piece of ****, don't waste your time, he's been bought, paid for, and ridden dry.

Never voted for Bush.

I prefer a revenue-neutral carbon tax.

Care to try for strike 3?

Gads, but you're a total asshole and idiot.

W*GS
04-02-2013, 01:25 PM
Not true.

So why mention Gore, and what he does or does not do, at all?

BroncoInferno
04-02-2013, 01:26 PM
Another brilliant, well-thought out comment.

Strange how he has the gall to make such juvenile homoerotic ad hominem attacks when he comes into every thread with the shriveled old weeny of Ron Paul (his personal Jesus) shoved up his ass.

W*GS
04-02-2013, 01:28 PM
Strange how he has the gall to make such juvenile homoerotic ad hominem attacks when he comes into every thread with the shriveled old weeny of Ron Paul (his personal Jesus) shoved up his ass.

Obushma burned out neurons with his latest repartee.

Obushma
04-02-2013, 01:29 PM
Never voted for Bush.

I prefer a revenue-neutral carbon tax.

Care to try for strike 3?

Gads, but you're a total a-hole and idiot.

That's funny, ill pull that post up from 06 where u were fighting with LABF on what a great president Bush was. You used to be a regular Bush Bacci boy around here. Now you've got kids, how did Adam and Steve manage that?

Obushma
04-02-2013, 01:30 PM
Strange how he has the gall to make such juvenile homoerotic ad hominem attacks when he comes into every thread with the shriveled old weeny of Ron Paul (his personal Jesus) shoved up his ass.

Funny how youra regular house bitch

IHaveALight
04-02-2013, 01:34 PM
So why mention Gore, and what he does or does not do, at all?

Because we need to stop trusting the people that got us here and start searching for the truth ourselves.

W*GS
04-02-2013, 01:36 PM
That's funny, ill pull that post up from 06 where u were fighting with LABF on what a great president Bush was.

Since you're wrong, go right ahead.

You used to be a regular Bush Bacci boy around here. Now you've got kids, how did Adam and Steve manage that?

What difference would it make to you if I was homosexual?

Do gays scare you?

Obushma
04-02-2013, 01:40 PM
What difference would it make to you if I was homosexual?

Do gays scare you?

Doesn't make any difference, I have no problem w/ the LBGC community. Your either a ****ty father, or a liar, you've been proven to lie before.

W*GS
04-02-2013, 01:41 PM
Because we need to stop trusting the people that got us here and start searching for the truth ourselves.

So go ahead:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Newcomers-Start-Here.html

You don't need to take my word for anything.

BroncoInferno
04-02-2013, 01:41 PM
Obushma is one of those pathetic simpletons you learn about in psych class who thinks he can he can mask his insecurity and ignorance on a given topic by deluging his (perceived) opponent with ad hominem attacks in an effort to feign certitude, as if folks listening in will think to themselves, "wow, that Obushma really must know what he's talking about, what with all the cursing and homophobic slurs," all the while failing to make any kind of content based argument. Every post he's made today has been a content-free exercise in small pecker syndrome.

Obushma
04-02-2013, 01:43 PM
Obushma is one of those pathetic simpletons you learn about in psych class who thinks he can he can mask his insecurity and ignorance on a given topic by deluging his (perceived) opponent with ad hominem attacks in an effort to feign certitude, as if folks listening in will think to themselves, "wow, that Obushma really must know what he's talking about, what with all the cursing and homophobic slurs," all the while failing to make any kind of content based argument. Every post he's made today has been a content-free exercise in small pecker syndrome.

Like I said, a Jim Crow house bitch.

W*GS
04-02-2013, 01:43 PM
Doesn't make any difference, I have no problem w/ the LBGC community. Your either a ****ty father, or a liar, you've been proven to lie before.

Such as?

How do you know I'm a ****ty father?

Because I show my kids your posts and we laugh at you?

BroncoInferno
04-02-2013, 01:43 PM
Like I said, a Jim Crow house b****.

Like I said, small pecker syndrome.

W*GS
04-02-2013, 01:43 PM
Obushma is one of those pathetic simpletons you learn about in psych class who thinks he can he can mask his insecurity and ignorance on a given topic by deluging his (perceived) opponent with ad hominem attacks in an effort to feign certitude, as if folks listening in will think to themselves, "wow, that Obushma really must know what he's talking about, what with all the cursing and homophobic slurs," all the while failing to make any kind of content based argument. Every post he's made today has been a content-free exercise in small pecker syndrome.

Yeah, he's a just a run-of-the-mill pathetic little turd.

Obushma
04-02-2013, 01:59 PM
Like I said, small pecker syndrome.

Just happy to get a room in the house huh, sellout snitch.

BroncoInferno
04-02-2013, 02:03 PM
Just happy to get a room in the house huh, sellout snitch.

LOL What the hell does that even mean? Are you huffing and posting again?

Requiem
04-02-2013, 02:08 PM
Obushma just rolling through with his usual, crazy self. Dude is sad.

Obushma
04-02-2013, 02:10 PM
LOL What the hell does that even mean? Are you huffing and posting again?

Of course you don't know, that's cause your a Jim Crow sellout.

BroncoInferno
04-02-2013, 02:14 PM
Of course you don't know, that's cause your a Jim Crow sellout.

Since I was born nearly two decades after Jim Crow, I guess you have me confused with someone else. But you know who is a real Jim Crow sell-out? Your lover Ron Paul. After all, there was no need for the Civil Rights Act that struck down most Jim Crow laws...at least not according to him.

Obushma
04-02-2013, 02:21 PM
Since I was born nearly two decades after Jim Crow, I guess you have me confused with someone else. But you know who is a real Jim Crow sell-out? Your lover Ron Paul. After all, there was no need for the Civil Rights Act that struck down most Jim Crow laws...at least not according to him.

That doesnt even make sense, are you educated? Ron Paul despises Jim Crow, to say that he sold out to Jim Crow is laughable, as is your apparent knowledge of politics....sellout

mhgaffney
04-02-2013, 02:52 PM
Never voted for Bush.

I prefer a revenue-neutral carbon tax.

Care to try for strike 3?

Gads, but you're a total a-hole and idiot.

Never voted for Bush? After you defended him on this board countless times -- and his insane war policies.

This is reason enough never to believe a word you say.

The other reason is your support for a carbon tax. The banksters will end up running it -- and will fleece the people again.

A carbon tax will not end the use of coal and oil -- just the opposite. It will lock us in to continuing use of coal/oil.

The way out of this mess is a paradigm shift in science - accompanied by technological breakthroughs. Dirt cheap electricity is the key to making the hydrogen economy feasible. We would already be there now if Tesla had not been screwed by JP Morgan.

I am not in denial about climate change. I support regulations to reduce emissions, alternative energies, and I oppose the Alberta pipeline.

MHG

mhgaffney
04-02-2013, 02:58 PM
Climate Maverick to Quit NASA

By JUSTIN GILLIS
Published: April 1, 2013

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/02/science/james-e-hansen-retiring-from-nasa-to-fight-global-warming.html?_r=0

James E. Hansen, the climate scientist who issued the clearest warning of the 20th century about the dangers of global warming, will retire from NASA this week, giving himself more freedom to pursue political and legal efforts to limit greenhouse gases.

His departure, after a 46-year career at the space agency’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in Manhattan, will deprive federally sponsored climate research of its best-known public figure.

At the same time, retirement will allow Dr. Hansen to press his cause in court. He plans to take a more active role in lawsuits challenging the federal and state governments over their failure to limit emissions, for instance, as well as in fighting the development in Canada of a particularly dirty form of oil extracted from tar sands.

“As a government employee, you can’t testify against the government,” he said in an interview.

Dr. Hansen had already become an activist in recent years, taking vacation time from NASA to appear at climate protests and allowing himself to be arrested or cited a half-dozen times.

But those activities, going well beyond the usual role of government scientists, had raised eyebrows at NASA headquarters in Washington. “It was becoming clear that there were people in NASA who would be much happier if the ‘sideshow’ would exit,” Dr. Hansen said in an e-mail.

At 72, he said, he feels a moral obligation to step up his activism in his remaining years.

“If we burn even a substantial fraction of the fossil fuels, we guarantee there’s going to be unstoppable changes” in the climate of the earth, he said. “We’re going to leave a situation for young people and future generations that they may have no way to deal with.”

Rohirrim
04-02-2013, 03:01 PM
That doesnt even make sense, are you educated? Ron Paul despises Jim Crow, to say that he sold out to Jim Crow is laughable, as is your apparent knowledge of politics....sellout

Well, gosh, I would have voted to abolish Jim Crow laws, but I still think a business can refuse to serve people based on their race. It's a big difference! :rofl:

Obushma
04-02-2013, 03:16 PM
Well, gosh, I would have voted to abolish Jim Crow laws, but I still think a business can refuse to serve people based on their race. It's a big difference! :rofl:

Do you honestly think any business would survive if it didn't serve minorities, maybe in your golden years, not in todays society.

Obushma
04-02-2013, 03:39 PM
Here is a clasic W*gs post, ripping liberals after Bush was re-elected

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=467522&postcount=1

I'll be pulling up more.

Another clasic picture of the many faces of W*gs

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showthread.php?t=21516

...and look, its W*gs the Libertarian

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showthread.php?t=31120

This one is W*gs top ten more influential people then Clinton, should read this whole thread.

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=844781&postcount=20

W*gs is a paid internet surfer.

W*GS
04-02-2013, 03:53 PM
Here is a clasic W*gs post, ripping liberals after Bush was re-elected

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=467522&postcount=1

I'll be pulling up more.

Another clasic picture of the many faces of W*gs

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showthread.php?t=21516

...and look, its W*gs the Libertarian

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showthread.php?t=31120

I have my very own stalker. How special.

You see, when the facts change, I change my opinions to accomodate them. What do you do?

A few things have taken place since the 2004-2005 timeframe of those posts. **** me for not being omniscient.

Obushma
04-02-2013, 03:54 PM
Since you're wrong, go right ahead.

What do you have to say now b****? Whats wrong, cock in the mouth got the toungue?

W*GS
04-02-2013, 03:57 PM
Never voted for Bush? After you defended him on this board countless times -- and his insane war policies.

This is reason enough never to believe a word you say.

I already explained myself back in mid-2011:

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=3258223&postcount=14

I gave Bush the benefit of the doubt, at first.

But then, as more facts came to light regarding the war against Iraq, and his administration's utter bungling of the whole thing, including screwing up the war in Afghanistan because of the war in Iraq, I came to distrust the Bush regime.

Once the financial crisis hit, and the utter inability of his lackies to deal with it in any substantive and credible way, I became extremely disillusioned with the whole anti-government mantra that's become so fashionable among so many Republicans and the 'bagger ninnies.

We're now seeing what happens when anti-gubmit folks gain real political power - they totally **** things up. Since the GOP is now riddled with ideologues using the fiscal future of the US as a bargaining chip, and are interested in eviscerating government, without making it better, I've become quite disgusted with the whole sordid dogma.

I don't think endlessly growing government is the answer, as some liberals want, but I don't think mindlessly shrinking government, especially as stupidly as the 'baggers and the GOP want to do, is the answer either.

I'm not enamored of Obama or the Democrats, but more because of their willingness to roll over to the 'baggers, instead of doing what we all know is right, which is to adjust (rather than demolish) SS/Medicare/Medicaid, cut the military down hugely, and raise revenue, primarily from those at the top who have benefitted tremendously since Reagan, whereas the rest of us have not - not even close.

Once you realize that median earnings, in constant dollars, over the last decade have increased a whopping 2%, you begin to understand that the government has become far too tilted to toadying to the mega-rich, and we need to make it more answerable to all of us, not just the elite.

A carbon tax will not end the use of coal and oil -- just the opposite. It will lock us in to continuing use of coal/oil.

How so?

Because it involves money?

And because the Jews control all the money?

The way out of this mess is a paradigm shift in science - accompanied by technological breakthroughs. Dirt cheap electricity is the key to making the hydrogen economy feasible. We would already be there now if Tesla had not been screwed by JP Morgan.

And off the rails you go...

W*GS
04-02-2013, 03:58 PM
What do you have to say now b****? Whats wrong, cock in the mouth got the toungue?

How drunk/stoned are you?

Calling me wrong, now, for stuff I said 8-9 years ago is just pathetic.

I'm not omniscient. 'Scuse-a-****ing-moi.

Obushma
04-02-2013, 04:01 PM
How drunk/stoned are you?

Calling me wrong, now, for stuff I said 8-9 years ago is just pathetic.

I'm not omniscient. 'Scuse-a-****ing-moi.

No, just proving what a two faced, paid, lying pussy looks like.

W*GS
04-02-2013, 04:03 PM
No, just proving what a two faced, paid, lying p***Y looks like.

In other words, you looked in the mirror, oh ye raged-filled boy with the wee weenie.

Requiem
04-02-2013, 04:09 PM
In other words, you looked in the mirror, oh ye raged-filled boy with the wee weenie.

Lol, good one. :spit:

Obushma
04-02-2013, 04:12 PM
In other words, you looked in the mirror, oh ye raged-filled boy with the wee weenie.

What is it with Liberals and cock size. No W*gs, you can't try and deflect.

You told me to post them, and I did. Now run back to your handlers, and let them know, you'be been outed. Chameleon

Funny how I cant edit my post, and it was changed **** SoCal

Rohirrim
04-02-2013, 04:55 PM
I have my very own stalker. How special.

You see, when the facts change, I change my opinions to accomodate them. What do you do?

A few things have taken place since the 2004-2005 timeframe of those posts. **** me for not being omniscient.

If you were a member of a cult, like Obushma, you wouldn't have to worry about thinking. You would just have to be able to recite. Like a parrot. ;D

Rohirrim
04-02-2013, 05:06 PM
No, just proving what a two faced, paid, lying p***Y looks like.

Do you agree with this statement of Ron Paul's?

Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals.

errand
04-02-2013, 05:17 PM
No.

Not all Americans have the same "carbon footprint".

No ****...but Al Gore and his cronies have stated this having kids increases global warming line of bull**** for years...

http://io9.com/5170350/your-child-causes-global-warming

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126994.200-children-come-with-a-high-carbon-cost.html

My question to you is now that you know that your kids are a big reason for global warming, what will you do to save the earth? Kill them? Tell them they can't have any kids themselves? What will you do to save the planet?

W*GS
04-02-2013, 05:25 PM
What is it with Liberals and cock size. No W*gs, you can't try and deflect.

You told me to post them, and I did. Now run back to your handlers, and let them know, you'be been outed. Chameleon

Like I said, **** me for not being omniscient about 2013 in 2004 and 2005.

IHaveALight
04-03-2013, 06:36 AM
So go ahead:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Newcomers-Start-Here.html

You don't need to take my word for anything.

Yet again, your science on the matter only exists from a limited perspective. There are infinite more possibilities that could be affecting the data. You're only operating from one.



The current scientific model that's in place is flawed, its like that on purpose. Just as religion oppresses spirituality, science oppresses knowledge. Why is it that most of the brilliant minds that emerge on this planet are self educated? Because they haven't been indoctrinated and their minds are free. If we want to find real truth we need to re-evaluate our methods of discovery, take out what's not working, not be afraid to throw out the whole system if necessary and find new sound methods. These methods are here and they are being used. The people who are really in control of this world have a much higher understanding of the inner workings of the universe then we do, and they use that understanding to control our minds and to stay in power.

IHaveALight
04-03-2013, 06:47 AM
As America, we have right now the man power, resources, technology and will to convert this country to 100% sustainable solar and wind energy. Right now. Why aren't we doing it? Because the only thing holding the value of the US dollar is oil.

W*GS
04-03-2013, 07:43 AM
Yet again, your science on the matter only exists from a limited perspective. There are infinite more possibilities that could be affecting the data. You're only operating from one.

Name me a few of these other "infinite more possibilities".

The current scientific model that's in place is flawed, its like that on purpose. Just as religion oppresses spirituality, science oppresses knowledge.

How so? What other tool to understand reality do you offer instead of science? Please explain.

Why is it that most of the brilliant minds that emerge on this planet are self educated? Because they haven't been indoctrinated and their minds are free.

Science is indoctrination? Go on...

If we want to find real truth we need to re-evaluate our methods of discovery, take out what's not working, not be afraid to throw out the whole system if necessary and find new sound methods. These methods are here and they are being used.

List some of these methods, please.

The people who are really in control of this world have a much higher understanding of the inner workings of the universe then we do, and they use that understanding to control our minds and to stay in power.

And off the rails you go...

IHaveALight
04-03-2013, 09:09 AM
The truth is out there. If you really want it you will find it. Until you uncondition your mind that was soley created by external influence you will never be able to see it.

errand
04-03-2013, 09:32 AM
Time magazine isn't science.

The science at that time was overwhelmingly concerned about global warming, not global cooling.

The global cooling myth (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/the-global-cooling-myth/)

You evidently forgot the several times where "global warming" speeches by Gore and other such rallies were cancelled due to cold snowy weather .....

W*GS
04-03-2013, 09:55 AM
You evidently forgot the several times where "global warming" speeches by Gore and other such rallies were cancelled due to cold snowy weather .....

Global warming does not mean it's hot everywhere all the time and every year is warmer than the previous year.

Obviously you've learned all you know about the science from Faux News and Rush.

W*GS
04-03-2013, 09:56 AM
The truth is out there. If you really want it you will find it. Until you uncondition your mind that was soley created by external influence you will never be able to see it.

Meaning what?

What's the truth about anthropogenic climate change, and, why do you think climate science is wrong and your opinions are not?

IHaveALight
04-03-2013, 10:39 AM
Meaning what?

What's the truth about anthropogenic climate change, and, why do you think climate science is wrong and your opinions are not?

I don't know the truth about climate change, I just know that there is far more to the truth then we could understand with the current system. I have speculations and opinions, but that's all I have.



Left brain, right brain. Left, right. Knowledge, spirit. Science, religion. It all stems from the same source. The further we explore left without right or right without left, the further we get from the truth. The earth doesn't exist as north pole and or south pole, the earth is north pole, south pole and everything in between. We could never understand the earth if we based all our beliefs from the poles. And actually if we tried, our understanding of the earth would be an uncontrollable, conflicting, chaotic mess. Sound familiar?

W*GS
04-03-2013, 10:46 AM
I don't know the truth about climate change, I just know that there is far more to the truth then we could understand with the current system.

How do you know? What's the "current system"?

What is "the truth", if not what we can apprehend with our senses (and extensions thereof) and use our brains to reason about?

Is a mirage just as real as something you see that isn't one?

Rohirrim
04-03-2013, 12:52 PM
I don't know the truth about climate change, I just know that there is far more to the truth then we could understand with the current system. I have speculations and opinions, but that's all I have.



Left brain, right brain. Left, right. Knowledge, spirituality. Science, religion. It all stems from the same source. The further we explore left without right or right without left, the further we get from the truth. The earth doesn't exist as north pole and or south pole, the earth is north pole, south pole and everything in between. We could never understand the earth if we based all our beliefs from the poles. And actually if we tried, our understanding of the earth would be an uncontrollable, conflicting, chaotic mess. Sound familiar?

If you're not going to trust what you see and hear you shouldn't trust everything you think either. The mind created scientific theory. It also created the idea of other dimensions and lizard beings. Obviously, not all that we can think can withstand the test of reality.

cutthemdown
04-03-2013, 01:09 PM
the can show us the earth is warming but the proof its mostly from humans is not proved. Also if it is proven the greenies still have not shown that Obamas or the lefts policies will help cool the Earth. All they do is help us lose to China faster.

Rohirrim
04-03-2013, 01:11 PM
the can show us the earth is warming but the proof its mostly from humans is not proved. Also if it is proven the greenies still have not shown that Obamas or the lefts policies will help cool the Earth. All they do is help us lose to China faster.

People believe that cyanobacteria created the oxygen that made our lives possible, but they won't believe that the industrial revolution changed the atmosphere?

???

W*GS
04-03-2013, 01:15 PM
the can show us the earth is warming but the proof its mostly from humans is not proved.

Science doesn't deal in proof, like courts do.

Start here:

The Big Picture (http://www.skepticalscience.com/big-picture.html)

Also if it is proven the greenies still have not shown that Obamas or the lefts policies will help cool the Earth. All they do is help us lose to China faster.

Sticking with fossil fuels is the losing choice.

IHaveALight
04-03-2013, 01:46 PM
If you're not going to trust what you see and hear you shouldn't trust everything you think either. The mind created scientific theory. It also created the idea of other dimensions and lizard beings. Obviously, not all that we can think can withstand the test of reality.

The thought is molded by the individuals beliefs of reality.
The beliefs are molded by the external influence.

W*GS
04-03-2013, 01:46 PM
The thought is molded by the individuals beliefs of reality.

And the final arbiter is what? One's beliefs, or reality?

Rohirrim
04-03-2013, 01:58 PM
The thought is molded by the individuals beliefs of reality.

I don't think our existence has much of an effect on the real world, regardless of what we think. It is what it is, whether we are here or not. When a man dies does the world change? Only his perception of it. And for those who knew him. So reality remains as it is. I once heard an old mahatma say, "People like to say that time changes. Time says that's it's the people who come and go. Not him. He's always here." The universe has been here for billions of years and will be here billions of years after we're gone.

IHaveALight
04-03-2013, 02:02 PM
The thought is molded by the individuals beliefs of reality.
The beliefs are molded by the external influence.

edited

snowspot66
04-03-2013, 02:44 PM
This thread is the perfect example of why nothing ever gets fixed until people are forced to address the problem.

W*GS
04-03-2013, 02:52 PM
This thread is the perfect example of why nothing ever gets fixed until people are forced to address the problem.

errand thinks it's all a Marxist plot.

cutthemdown wants to let the Chinese run the planet.

Obushma is a turd.

baja thinks it's all the fault of the reptilians.

IHaveALight is off in new-agey la-la land.

Meanwhile, the planet is cooking.

Rohirrim
04-03-2013, 03:06 PM
errand thinks it's all a Marxist plot.

cutthemdown wants to let the Chinese run the planet.

Obushma is a turd.

baja thinks it's all the fault of the reptilians.

IHaveALight is off in new-agey la-la land.

Meanwhile, the planet is cooking.

I want everybody in the first world countries to work hard at educating the third world (especially the women) so that we can seriously begin to lower global population. I think that's the best long-term fix.

errand
04-03-2013, 04:21 PM
errand thinks it's all a Marxist plot.



Really? where did I say it was a Marxist plot?

I said those who are claiming it don't know a damn thing and only want our government to fund their ****ed up research.......but feel free to spout lies like you always do.

errand
04-03-2013, 04:27 PM
Global warming does not mean it's hot everywhere all the time and every year is warmer than the previous year.

Obviously you've learned all you know about the science from Faux News and Rush.

Then that means it's not "global" now doesn't it?

your claiming this means you don't know what the **** you're talking about....you're like the scientist who said "This is the male seahorse....." and then when his assistant points out that the seahorse is having a baby seahorse, he claims "Oh, well the male seahorse has the babies...." just to make himself seem like he's smarter than everyone else, when the truth is he's too stupid to know he's just a stubborn jackass

mhgaffney
04-03-2013, 09:09 PM
I want everybody in the first world countries to work hard at educating the third world (especially the women) so that we can seriously begin to lower global population. I think that's the best long-term fix.

You could start by removing the CIA boot from their neck.

Then you could shut down most of the 700+ US military bases worldwide and bring the troops home.

Then you could effect regime change here at home -- though it might take a revolution.

These would be the best moves you could make. BTW it also wouldn't hurt to drop your elitist attitudes.

MHG

SoCalBronco
04-03-2013, 09:28 PM
Gaff calling someone elitist.....lol.

Fedaykin
04-03-2013, 09:38 PM
Then that means it's not "global" now doesn't it?


:rofl:

Wow, lovely display of your complete ignorance of the basic science of climate and weather nutjob.

Why do you types think that ignorance is equivalent to actual knowledge? Why do you think your complete lack of understanding of even the basics of climatology empowers you to 'refute it'?

For ****'s sake, try the intellectually honest route of at least attempting to learn about the topic before wading in.


your claiming this means you don't know what the **** you're talking about....you're like the scientist who said "This is the male seahorse....." and then when his assistant points out that the seahorse is having a baby seahorse, he claims "Oh, well the male seahorse has the babies...." just to make himself seem like he's smarter than everyone else, when the truth is he's too stupid to know he's just a stubborn jackass

Nice projection there nutter.

Rohirrim
04-04-2013, 05:56 AM
You could start by removing the CIA boot from their neck.

Then you could shut down most of the 700+ US military bases worldwide and bring the troops home.

Then you could effect regime change here at home -- though it might take a revolution.

These would be the best moves you could make. BTW it also wouldn't hurt to drop your elitist attitudes.

MHG

It's "elitist" to want to bring education to the world and equality to women?

Back in the bunker, der Gaffo.

W*GS
04-04-2013, 07:04 AM
Then that means it's not "global" now doesn't it?

Do you know the difference between "warming" and "warm"?

Find me a reference in a peer-reviewed journal, with evidence that backs it, that says that global warming means "everywhere is hot and temperatures are always increasing". Just one.

your claiming this means you don't know what the **** you're talking about....

That's your problem, not mine.

IHaveALight
04-04-2013, 07:07 AM
IHaveALight is off in new-agey la-la land.

Meanwhile, the planet is cooking.

You can call it whatever you like, but remove the conditioning and you will see it plane as day.

Again, if global warming is strictly caused by mans green house gas production and the elites of the world know all about it and how dire of a situation we are in then why aren't they acting right now? These people have the power. They tell us that global warming is coming, that it is a dire issue and that it is caused by our green house gas production. Yet they have the power, resources, technology and anything else they need to put the action into place to start converting the world to clean energy. But they are not doing a damn thing about it. It's right in front of you. My speculation is that climate change is real, man most definitely plays a role, there is a lot more information about the full spectrom of what is happening to the climate on this planet that they are keeping from us and they are going to use global warming and drought to their advantage to further control the human consciousness.

The evidence is everywhere, everything is backwards from progress. Why do you think it's called congress?

Just look at us. Everything is backwards. Everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, university's destroy knowledge, governments destroy freedom, the major media destroys information and religion destroys spirituality. - Micheal Ellner

The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous he can not believe it exists. - J Edgar Hoover

I really look with commiseration over the great body of my fellow citizens who, reading news papers, live and die in the belief that they have known something of what has been passing in their times. - Thomas Jefferson

The job of the president is not to weld power itself, but to lead attention away from it. - Douglas Adams

A general state education is a mere contrivance for molding people to be exactly like one another; and as the mold in which it casts them is that which pleases the predominate power in the government... It establishes a despotism over the mind. - John Stuart Mill

The past record of man is burdened with accounts of assassinations, secret combines, palace plots and betrayals in war. But in spite of this clear record, an amazing number of people have begun to scoff at the possibility of conspiracy at work today. They dismiss such an idea merely a conspiratorial point of view. - G Edgar Griffin

History is the lie commonly agreed upon. - Voltaire

Millionaires do not use astrology, billionaires do. - JP Morgan

Problems can not be solved with the same level intelligents that created them. - Albert Einstein

W*GS
04-04-2013, 07:20 AM
You can call it whatever you like, but remove the conditioning and you will see it plane as day.

Again, if global warming is strictly caused by mans green house gas production

Not true, but moving on...

and the elites of the world know all about it and how dire of a situation we are in then why aren't they acting right now? These people have the power. They tell us that global warming is coming, that it is a dire issue and that it is caused by our green house gas production. Yet they have the power, resources, technology and anything else they need to put the action into place to start converting the world to clean energy. But they are not doing a damn thing about it. It's right in front of you. My speculation is that climate change is real, man most definitely plays a role, there is a lot more information about the full spectrom of what is happening to the climate on this planet that they are keeping from us and they are going to use global warming and drought as a weapon to further control the human consciousness.

Yep, new-age-y la la land with a dose of conspiracism, paranoia, passivism, fatalism...

Requiem
04-04-2013, 09:07 AM
I hope some of you all realize how anthropogenic global warming has a lot more to do with things just getting "warmer." For Christ sakes. . . ever think about its impacts on sustainability and resources?

W*GS
04-04-2013, 09:52 AM
I hope some of you all realize how anthropogenic global warming has a lot more to do with things just getting "warmer." For Christ sakes. . . ever think about its impacts on sustainability and resources?

Yep. There's lots more going on than just land surface warming.

They won't accept even that small part.

Meck77
04-04-2013, 09:57 AM
What about Nukes Wags? Do you worry about those for your children?

I'd say a battle for the holy land will result in some nukes getting tossed around. Much greater threat then needing some sun block, a flood, or turning your AC down a couple degrees.

W*GS
04-04-2013, 10:04 AM
What about Nukes Wags? Do you worry about those for your children?

I'd say a battle for the holy land will result in some nukes getting tossed around. Much greater threat then needing some sun block, a flood, or turning your AC down a couple degrees.

Deflection isn't your strong point.

Do you have kids?

Meck77
04-04-2013, 10:15 AM
Deflection isn't your strong point.

Do you have kids?

Says the guy who won't comment on nuclear weapons and the capability of crazy nations to destroy the world several times over.

No kids. 38 years old. I don't feel the need to breed for the sake of breeding. That's another issue greater than global warming. Got married last year to a younger gal who is no rush either.

W*GS
04-04-2013, 10:21 AM
Says the guy who won't comment on nuclear weapons and the capability of crazy nations to destroy the world several times over.

You tried to change the subject, and failed.

No kids. 38 years old. I don't feel the need to breed for the sake of breeding. That's another issue greater than global warming. Got married last year to a younger gal who is no rush either.

Since you have no kids, and no apparent intention to have any, you're willing to **** the future for the present. Right?

Meck77
04-04-2013, 01:25 PM
You tried to change the subject, and failed.



Since you have no kids, and no apparent intention to have any, you're willing to **** the future for the present. Right?

I said I'm in no rush. I traded in my older girlfriend for a much nicer, better running, younger model. The old one was starting to make clunking sounds. Ha!


I think CHOOSING to not have kids is actually more responsible then people just having kids because they can. Sticking one's pecker in a female and getting her pregnant does not make someone more responsible to Mother Earth.

Besides the world is pressed for resources as it is. You breeders are part of the problem. ;D

Come W*gs. Welfare/food stamps is at an all time high. It's the government that is taking care of more and more of them now. You know that.

mhgaffney
04-04-2013, 04:47 PM
It's "elitist" to want to bring education to the world and equality to women?

Back in the bunker, der Gaffo.

The West has been raping the Third World for centuries --

You should start educating right here at home. A nation run by psychopaths in no position to lift up others.

cutthemdown
04-05-2013, 02:52 AM
Since we are running out of resources people who don't have kids are doing more for the future and global warming then people with kids.

Hell what is the carbon footprint of a kid? Since we have plenty of people the best thing you can do for the future of the Earth is stop having little brats who will just spew co2 and suck up water, food, and resources.

Rohirrim
04-05-2013, 08:15 AM
The West has been raping the Third World for centuries --

You should start educating right here at home. A nation run by psychopaths in no position to lift up others.

I'm sure you would prefer a world filled with ignorance and superstition. Then you could sell more books.

mhgaffney
04-06-2013, 01:13 PM
I'm sure you would prefer a world filled with ignorance and superstition. Then you could sell more books.

Start with your own irrationality.

Your liberalism is repugnant.

You rail against the moneyed interests and the widening gap between rich and poor here -- yet you countenance the insane wars and covert ops against many nations on behalf of those same interests.

You make absobloominutely no sense.

MHG

W*GS
04-06-2013, 02:45 PM
gaffe, how much mass did Pan-STAARS gain?

Check with McCanney.

mhgaffney
04-06-2013, 05:08 PM
W*gs, admit it. You never even read his comet paper -- yet presume to know what's in it.

Stupid moron.

W*GS
04-06-2013, 05:42 PM
W*gs, admit it. You never even read his comet paper -- yet presume to know what's in it.

I read his comet paper. It's baloney. Wrong from the get-go.

How much mass did Pan-STAARS gain, gaffe, in accordance with McCanney's theory?

Stupid moron.

Indeed. If you're such a an expert on McCanney's theory, you should be able to answer my question.

Chicken.

mhgaffney
04-08-2013, 12:08 PM
All I have ever said is -- let's design an experiment to test McCanney's model.

That's how science works.

Arrogant bastards like you presume to know better -- no need to test.

But you can't even explain where lightning comes from.

MHG

W*GS
04-08-2013, 01:59 PM
All I have ever said is -- let's design an experiment to test McCanney's model.

We don't even need to go that far. One of his claims is that comets gain mass. Plait showed that utterly false, just based on simple physics.

Arrogant bastards like you presume to know better -- no need to test.

If McCanney's model only works if virtually all physics is overturned, well, that's a mighty big order to fill.

Who's the arrogant one?

But you can't even explain where lightning comes from.

You can't explain how Hale-Bopp gained mass and yet wasn't destroyed in the process.

mhgaffney
04-09-2013, 01:47 PM
We don't even need to go that far. One of his claims is that comets gain mass. Plait showed that utterly false, just based on simple physics.



If McCanney's model only works if virtually all physics is overturned, well, that's a mighty big order to fill.

Who's the arrogant one?



You can't explain how Hale-Bopp gained mass and yet wasn't destroyed in the process.

Where exactly did Plait overturn McCanney?

W*GS
04-09-2013, 01:56 PM
Where exactly did Plait overturn McCanney?

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=3793204&postcount=49

mhgaffney
04-10-2013, 01:23 PM
OK. I read Plait's critique of McCanney's comet model. I got two sentences into it -- before I encountered his first error.

Plait mis states the model. He obviously does not understand what McCanney is saying.

According to Plait, McCanney is saying that large comets gain mass "by having small particles slam into it as it plows through the solar wind and other material."

Wrong. This is not McCanney's model. If it were I would agree with Plait. But it isn't.

This confirms my earlier conclusion that Plait never even bothered to read McCanney's paper.

Recall, I wrote Plait and asked him about this, but he never responded. I interpreted that non - response as a "no." What you have posted confirms to me that I was right to do so.

McCanney's model incorporates electromagnetism into a new model of the solar system.

The need for such a new model is apparent. After all, the present paradigm cannot explain lightning - which is a pretty serous anomaly considering that all of the planets with atmospheres are known to have lightning.

Even Mars -- with a very thin atmosphere -- may have it.

What is the source of this electricity? Well, considering that the outer part of the sun is a seething ocean of free electrons -- in other words -- an electrical furnace, this ought to lead us to wonder if electricity travels through space.

McCanney says yes. I agree.

There is hard evidence that gigantic electrical discharges have scoured various planetary surfaces in the past -- Mars and the moon show evidence of this.

Put this together -- and you ought to be led to ask -- is the sun an electrical generator? And does this electricity reach the planets --- and comets?

McCanney says yes. Again I agree -- it's totally plausible.

We need to test the model.

W*gs can crawl back into his dark hole.

MHG

W*GS
04-10-2013, 02:10 PM
OK. I read Plait's critique of McCanney's comet model. I got two sentences into it -- before I encountered his first error.

Plait mis states the model. He obviously does not understand what McCanney is saying.

According to Plait, McCanney is saying that large comets gain mass "by having small particles slam into it as it plows through the solar wind and other material."

Wrong. This is not McCanney's model. If it were I would agree with Plait. But it isn't.

McCanney's model is indeed that comets gain mass.

Until that error is fixed, everything else he says is wrong.

Do you have some sort of contractual agreement with McCanney?

http://www.redicecreations.com/specialreports/snowballinhell.html

and then

http://rense.com/general54/trueor.htm

from which:

In his article, "The Nature of and Origins of Comets and the Evolution of Celestial Bodies (Part 1), Kronos, Vol. 9, No. 1, Fall 1983, McCanney writes, "...a comet involved in the discharge of the solar capacitor will continue to grow in size and mass...."

"Curved tails, such as in Donati's comet, when it neared the Sun, are a result of the matter in the Zodiacal disk falling into the comet nucleus...."

"This causes a buildup of material on the asteroidal comet nucleus....Comets eventually evolve into planets...."

You're lying, gaffe. Lying through your teeth.

mhgaffney
04-10-2013, 03:16 PM
You are the modern equivalent of the medieval bishop who refused to look through Galileo's telescope.

The present science model is inadequate. You ought to be open to a new way of seeing and understanding -- but very predictably you are trapped in your itty bitty box.

You can't even explain lightning -- you ffffing moron.

MHG

W*GS
04-10-2013, 03:23 PM
You are the modern equivalent of the medieval bishop who refused to look through Galileo's telescope.

The present science model is inadequate. You ought to be open to a new way of seeing and understanding -- but very predictably you are trapped in your itty bitty box.

You can't even explain lightning -- you ffffing moron.

I've proven that you're a liar.

Again.

You (and McCanney) are not modern-day Galileos. You both are a couple of flakes. At least McCanney doesn't enrich himself profiting from the corpses of innocent victims, like you do.

mhgaffney
04-10-2013, 04:30 PM
Plait mis characterized the plasma discharge comet model.

If you are going to rebut a hypothesis you should first understand it. You can't rebut it (nor confirm it) if you don't understand it.

I believe it was Niels Bohr who said that scientific revolutions happen when the old guard -- those who refuse to give up the old model -- die off.

The next generation embraces the new model -- and takes it for granted.

W*gs represents the old guard -- too rigid in his thinking to make the urgently needed paradigm shift.

May they and he die off soon - so that we can move forward and save the planet. Good riddance. Sayonara.

MHG

W*GS
04-10-2013, 06:34 PM
Plait mis characterized the plasma discharge comet model.

McCanney himself said that comets gain mass.

Plait showed that to be impossible.

Game, set, match to Plait.

McCanney needs to start over.

And you're a liar, gaffe. A bald-faced liar.

mhgaffney
04-11-2013, 02:13 PM
Again, neither W*gs nor Plait understand what McCanney is saying. Let me attempt to explain why.

Check out this amazing 1997 UV photo (below) of Comet Hale-Bopp. At the center is the comet. But notice the surrounding cloud of hydrogen -- proton ions -- which was 60 million miles wide --

What is going on here?

This photo is hard evidence that the nucleus of Hale Bopp (hence all comets) was negatively charged.

The negatively charged comet nucleus has attracted the solar wind -- positively charged protons (hydrogen nuclei = positively charged proton ions)

This is proof that electromagnetism plays a powerful role in the solar system. W*gs denies this.

According to Plait, McCanney says the comet attracts the solar wind and gains mass. Nonsense. Yes, it attracts hydrogen but it cannot hold it. Hydrogen is the lightest element. Not even earth is massive enough to hold hydrogen -- which is constantly leaking from earth's atmosphere. Only the largest planets, Jupiter, Saturn etc., have enough gravity to hold hydrogen.

The mass gain in the comet nucleus happens in a different way -- which W*gs again does not understand.

MHG

W*GS
04-11-2013, 02:16 PM
According to Plait, McCanney says the comet attracts the solar wind and gains mass. Nonsense.

You're lying. Again.

Plait doesn't say that McCanney says.

McCanney says:

In his article, "The Nature of and Origins of Comets and the Evolution of Celestial Bodies (Part 1), Kronos, Vol. 9, No. 1, Fall 1983, McCanney writes, "...a comet involved in the discharge of the solar capacitor will continue to grow in size and mass...."

"Curved tails, such as in Donati's comet, when it neared the Sun, are a result of the matter in the Zodiacal disk falling into the comet nucleus...."

"This causes a buildup of material on the asteroidal comet nucleus....Comets eventually evolve into planets...."

mhgaffney
04-11-2013, 02:30 PM
Plait is an idiot, W*gs, and so are you.

My above post shows that cometary nuclei are negatively charged. You should be asking why? Answer this question and you would understand why cometary tails are not moving away from the nucleus but toward it. This is the key insight -- and is counter intuitive -- but I believe correct.

And if the nucleus is massive enough -- the comet will hold that material (dust and positive ions that are much heavier than hydrogen.).

But instead of asking the key question -- you do the only thing you know how to do -- launch a personal attack.

Pathetic.

W*GS
04-11-2013, 07:38 PM
Plait is an idiot, W*gs, and so are you.

Your standard response when you're in waaaaaay over your head. Never mind it's the kiddie pool end.

Even the simplest and most basic physics are far past your ability to comprehend.

And if the nucleus is massive enough -- the comet will hold that material (dust and positive ions that are much heavier than hydrogen.).

Here it is again:

Imagine McCanney's scenario: an asteroid the size of the Moon is moving through the solar system. It gains mass, so much so that in roughly one year (the time Hale-Bopp spent in the inner solar system) it gains enough mass to equal the mass of Mercury. It does this by having small particles slam into it as it plows through the solar wind and other material.

OK, so let's think about this. What happens when a particle hits the surface of that object? The particle is moving pretty fast, and that motion has energy (called kinetic energy). That energy has to go somehwere, and in a collision like this the energy is released as heat. Kinetic energy depends on the mass of the object and its velocity. The mass might be small for each particle, but there are a lot of particles; enough, according to McCanney, to more than quadruple the comet mass! Also, the velocities of collision are quite high. Near the Earth, such collisions are typically 40 or 50 kilometers per second. But let's be generous to McCanney, and say the velocities are much lower, say, 10 km/sec. You'll see why this is generous in just a minute.

The amount of energy released as heat is easy to calculate in this case; it's roughly 10<sup>38</sup> ergs. An erg is a small unit, but 10<sup>38</sup> is an awful lot of them. The total energy released by the Sun every second is only about 4 x 10<sup>33</sup> ergs, so the energy the comet "feels" from impact is more than 25,000 times the Sun's total energy output! Another way to think about it: a one megaton nuclear bomb (about 50 times the explosive energy of the bomb dropped on Nagasaki) releases about 4 x 10<sup>22</sup> ergs, so the amount of energy absorbed by the comet as it gains all that mass is the same as dropping 2,500,000,000,000,000 nuclear bombs on it. Since the mass is gained in less than a year, that's the same as exploding 80 million nuclear bombs per second on the comet.

Maybe it's just me, but I'm thinking a comet wouldn't do so well under such treatment.

Obviously, that's so much energy that it would easily vaporize the comet. The amount of energy it takes to totally destroy an object can be calculated in a number of ways. One way is to use what's called its gravitational binding energy. I won't go into details, but I'll point out a terrific page that describes it (using the Death Star from Star Wars as an example!). It turns out that to vaporize a comet of the Moon's mass, it would take about 10<sup>36</sup> ergs, or one-hundredth the heat released by the impacts. So, ironically, the heat caused by McCanney's mass gain is actually enough to destroy the comet itself!

I'll note that a comet is not held together by just gravity, but also by molecular bonds and other forces. This means it would take more energy to vaporize one. It could conceivably be a much closer contest between the amount of energy holding the comet together, and the amount trying to tear it apart. However, this amount of heat generated is still enormous (enough to make the comet shine as brightly as 80 million nuclear bombs per second, remember), and I already showed comets are not hot, but cold. And of course, the solar wind is neutral, and comets lose mass. Don't forget those! So McCanney is wrong on all these counts.

Remember too I was generous with the collision velocity. The higher the velocity, the higher the kinetic energy, and the more heat generated per impact. In reality, the velocities are much higher, resulting in a heat energy more than ten times what I calculated! So that's what I meant by being generous. The numbers are even worse for McCanney's theory than I calculated, making him even more wrong. If that's possible.

Conclusion: if Hale-Bopp had gained mass the way McCanney claimed, the heat of this would have torn it apart. And if they were as big as he claims, we'd know it. McCanney is wrong.

But instead of asking the key question -- you do the only thing you know how to do -- launch a personal attack.

The key question? It's how can:

n his article, "The Nature of and Origins of Comets and the Evolution of Celestial Bodies (Part 1), Kronos, Vol. 9, No. 1, Fall 1983, McCanney writes, "...a comet involved in the discharge of the solar capacitor will continue to grow in size and mass...."

"Curved tails, such as in Donati's comet, when it neared the Sun, are a result of the matter in the Zodiacal disk falling into the comet nucleus...."

"This causes a buildup of material on the asteroidal comet nucleus....Comets eventually evolve into planets...."

be reconciled with the very basic calculation Plait did?

Explain, liar.

Fedaykin
04-11-2013, 07:56 PM
Used to be kind of funny to watch gaff-o flail around in his vast ignorance of physics.

Now it's just terribly sad.

nyuk nyuk
04-11-2013, 08:09 PM
Your standard response when you're in waaaaaay over your head. Never mind it's the kiddie pool end.

Much like yourself. Maybe you're his example?

W*GS
04-11-2013, 09:12 PM
nyuk drowns in a thimble.

Rohirrim
04-12-2013, 06:13 AM
nyuk drowns in a thimble.

Well, she once fell for Marxism, so she's got that going for her.

IHaveALight
04-12-2013, 07:39 AM
As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain. As far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality-Einstein

In the absence of uncertainty there can be no creativity #CosmicConsciousness - Deepak Chopra

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/AmTyc6L2DC4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

W*GS
04-12-2013, 07:54 AM
As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain. As far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality-Einstein

That we are not omniscient does not mean we're completely ignorant.

Duh.

BroncoInferno
04-12-2013, 08:07 AM
Deepak Chopra....Hilarious!

baja
04-12-2013, 08:12 AM
As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain. As far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality-Einstein

In the absence of uncertainty there can be no creativity #CosmicConsciousness - Deepak Chopra

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/AmTyc6L2DC4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>


What a truly great statement.

rep for posting it.

baja
04-12-2013, 08:19 AM
Deepak Chopra....Hilarious!

Deepak Chopra is a great Spiritual teacher. I bet you have never read him.

Here check out this small book. If you do I'm betting you will change your mind about him. http://www.chopra.com/ssloshttp://www.chopra.com/sslos

IHaveALight
04-12-2013, 08:27 AM
That we are not omniscient does not mean we're completely ignorant.

Duh.

If you claim to know anything without omniscients, you are ignorant.

IHaveALight
04-12-2013, 08:33 AM
You can't fully know the part without fully knowing the whole.

baja
04-12-2013, 08:35 AM
and you can't fully know the whole when you are but a part of it.

BroncoInferno
04-12-2013, 08:39 AM
Deepak Chopra is a great Spiritual teacher.

Hilarious!

Chopra's a charlatan and a joke. Period.

baja
04-12-2013, 08:42 AM
Hilarious!

Chopra's a charlatan and a joke. Period.

I agree he likes the money but the value of his writing is solid. Read Seven Spiritual Laws

BroncoInferno
04-12-2013, 08:51 AM
I agree he likes the money but the value of his writing is solid. Read Seven Spiritual Laws

Any one who makes massive dollars as a "spiritual leader" is immediately suspect in my book. He is a religious entrepreneur selling repackaged New Age babel.

baja
04-12-2013, 08:55 AM
Any one who makes massive dollars as a "spiritual leader" is immediately suspect in my book. He is a religious entrepreneur selling repackaged New Age babel.

Normally I would agree with you in principal but in the case of Chopra his work is valid

Where is it written a Spiritual teacher must be poor?

BroncoInferno
04-12-2013, 09:01 AM
Normally I would agree with you in principal but in the case of Chopra his work is valid

Where is it written a Spiritual teacher must be poor?

Not poor, per se, but flaunting massive wealth seriously calls into question one's motivations. If the value of the message were the key to happiness/contentment, then that kind of excessive wealth would not be important to him. I don't agree much with Rick Warren, but it's easier to trust his sincerity since he tithes 90% of his earnings.

baja
04-12-2013, 09:03 AM
Not poor, per se, but flaunting massive wealth seriously calls into question one's motivations. If the value of the message were the key to happiness/contentment, then that kind of excessive wealth would not be important to him. I don't agree much with Rick Warren, but it's easier to trust his sincerity since he tithes 90% of his earnings.

I understand your point but the Truth is the Truth no matter where it comes from.

Requiem
04-12-2013, 09:08 AM
I'm on the fence with Chopra. I have several of his books and haven't gotten through all of them. Some good stuff, some crazy stuff. A lot of contradictions through his personal actions when you reflect on his works, but everyone is a little bit hypocritical. Depends on what angle you want to go through. A lot of people laugh at alternative healers / spirtual healing things in contrast to "modern medicine" -- and while some cynicism is certainly warranted and I understand skeptics, a lot of people just don't take the time to invest in those avenues to understand possible benefits to oneself.

Different strokes fo' different folks.

Requiem
04-12-2013, 09:11 AM
I understand your point but the Truth is the Truth no matter where it comes from.

Is there a universally accepted definition of what truth is? Universal truth?

baja
04-12-2013, 09:11 AM
I'm on the fence with Chopra. I have several of his books and haven't gotten through all of them. Some good stuff, some crazy stuff. A lot of contradictions through his personal actions when you reflect on his works, but everyone is a little bit hypocritical. Depends on what angle you want to go through. A lot of people laugh at alternative healers / spirtual healing things in contrast to "modern medicine" -- and while some cynicism is certainly warranted and I understand skeptics, a lot of people just don't take the time to invest in those avenues to understand possible benefits to oneself.

Different strokes fo' different folks.

I don't respect the man but some of the work is inspired

Requiem
04-12-2013, 09:13 AM
I don't respect the man but some of the work is inspired

His stuff makes me think and allows me to approach health and wellness from a more holistic perspective. I was given the first book as a gift from a friend and then I found a few of his works at a Salvation Army like store in mint condition for a couple of bucks. Just a part of my collection. I'll read whatever is interesting.

W*GS
04-12-2013, 10:30 AM
You can't fully know the part without fully knowing the whole.

Yeah, whatever.

Pure pablum.

IHaveALight
04-12-2013, 10:37 AM
What I love about Chopra and what he uniquely brings to the field is his scientific mind and how he uses that for exploration of consciousness.

IHaveALight
04-12-2013, 10:42 AM
Yeah, whatever.

Pure pablum.

The fundamentals of science will tell you that you can't know the truth, you can only devise theory's and experiments to get the best understanding possible given the perseption.

mhgaffney
04-12-2013, 11:20 AM
Used to be kind of funny to watch gaff-o flail around in his vast ignorance of physics.

Now it's just terribly sad.

No one has refuted my statement that the nucleus of Hale-Bopp was negatively charged.

W*gs cannot answer the question. Maybe you can. Why, Fed?

W*GS
04-12-2013, 12:02 PM
The fundamentals of science will tell you that you can't know the truth, you can only devise theory's and experiments to get the best understanding possible given the perseption.

Yeah, yeah.

W*GS
04-12-2013, 12:03 PM
No one has refuted my statement that the nucleus of Hale-Bopp was negatively charged.

How about you refute Plait's calculation that if McCanney is correct, then Hale-Bopp would have been completely vaporized?

Since it wasn't...

Fedaykin
04-12-2013, 01:09 PM
No one has refuted my statement that the nucleus of Hale-Bopp was negatively charged.

W*gs cannot answer the question. Maybe you can. Why, Fed?

I can make bald assertions to, doesn't mean they earn me the right to have someone spend their time refuting them.

Where's your actual evidence with appropriate citations?

mhgaffney
04-12-2013, 04:47 PM
How about you refute Plait's calculation that if McCanney is correct, then Hale-Bopp would have been completely vaporized?

Since it wasn't...

Nonsense. McCanney never said that.

As usual, Plait misunderstands what the model is about.

Being committed to a failed scientific model is like being trapped in a room with no doors or windows. There is no way to smoothly go from the obsolete model to the next one. You have to leap.

The mind can't hold both at the same time.

mhgaffney
04-12-2013, 04:56 PM
I can make bald assertions to, doesn't mean they earn me the right to have someone spend their time refuting them.

Where's your actual evidence with appropriate citations?

Here's the link to the Stanford site where the UV photo of Hale-Bopp was posted. Stanford credited the shot to SOHO/SWAN.

http://solar-center.stanford.edu/art/comet.html

Stanford was wedded to the ice model. They claimed that Hale-Bopp outgassed water vapor and solar energy caused the water to breakup into Oxygen and Hydrogen gas.

Not likely since Hale-Bopp is a rock. But also because this cloud of hydrogen was 60 million miles across. That's 7 times the diameter of the sun.

How to explain the Hydrogen?


My take - this is not an outgassing, but a case of attraction: the solar wind -- hydrogen nuclei -- positively charged protons being attracted to a negatively charged comet nucleus.

In other words -- with this photo -- we are looking at hard evidence of an electromagnetic phenomenon at macro scale- - something that mainstream science says does not happen.

No one has ever proved that comet tails are the result of outgassing.

I'll post the photo again. Truly amazing.

MHG

W*GS
04-12-2013, 05:11 PM
Nonsense. McCanney never said that.

As usual, Plait misunderstands what the model is about.

Plait understands exactly the claims of McCanney's model.

No matter how much you try to deflect, deny, lie, and obfuscate, McCanney's model simply cannot work. Period.

Being committed to a failed scientific model is like being trapped in a room with no doors or windows. There is no way to smoothly go from the obsolete model to the next one. You have to leap.

Throwing out all of science - physics, chemistry, astronomy, and so on - just so one can believe in McCanney's model is utter nonsense.

If McCanney's model cannot work with what we know and understand, then we don't pitch all that and start over from scratch. McCanney fixes his model.

He can start by trying to justify his "comets gain mass" view that doesn't result in the comet being completely vaporized in very short order.

Fedaykin
04-12-2013, 06:21 PM
Here's the link to the Stanford site where the UV photo of Hale-Bopp was posted. Stanford credited the shot to SOHO/SWAN.

http://solar-center.stanford.edu/art/comet.html

Stanford was wedded to the ice model. They claimed that Hale-Bopp outgassed water vapor and solar energy caused the water to breakup into Oxygen and Hydrogen gas.

Not likely since Hale-Bopp is a rock. But also because this cloud of hydrogen was 60 million miles across. That's 7 times the diameter of the sun.



This is neither surprising or problematic. Hale-Bopp is not a rock, it's a clump of various minerals bound, including a substantial amount of water ice. We've been over this ad naseum.


How to explain the Hydrogen?


Stanford (as well as a basic understanding of the physics involved) already does. It's not at all mysterious unless you're completely ignorant.


My take - this is not an outgassing, but a case of attraction: the solar wind -- hydrogen nuclei -- positively charged protons being attracted to a negatively charged comet nucleus.


Your take is worthless. You have no knowledge or credibility whatsoever.


In other words -- with this photo -- we are looking at hard evidence of an electromagnetic phenomenon at macro scale- - something that mainstream science says does not happen.


Again, your opinion is worthless as it's based on nothing more than fantasy.


No one has ever proved that comet tails are the result of outgassing.


:eyeroll: Yes it has been proven. Just because you refuse to accept the evidence in favor of your delusions doesn't mean it isn't there.

Fedaykin
04-12-2013, 06:23 PM
He can start by trying to justify his "comets gain mass" view that doesn't result in the comet being completely vaporized in very short order.

Not to mention his other big claim that his "theory" rests on -- that the solar wind has a net charge -- is also ridiculous (being measurably and theoretically incorrect).

Spider
04-12-2013, 06:25 PM
I see Ghaff is still bat**** crazy

mhgaffney
04-13-2013, 01:58 PM
Feydakin,

I searched the US Berkeley Physics-Astronomy library for over a year and never found any research proving that the material in cometary tails is outgassed from the nucleus. Not one paper.

For that matter I never found any research proving that the material in the coma of comets outgassed from the nucleus. In the absence of evidence -- you have to conclude that these are assumptions.

You clearly subscribe to the ice hypothesis. But you are giving too much credit to those who presume to know.

Please post the evidence -- or papers -- that back up your assertion -- and I'll look at it.
MHG

W*GS
04-13-2013, 02:12 PM
gaffe, you didn't look very hard.

Making a comet nucleus (http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1998A%26A...330..375G)

A comet model. I. The acceleration of Comet Encke (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/doi/10.1086/145272)

Atlas of Cometary Spectra (http://vela.astro.ulg.ac.be/themes/solar/Comets/atlas.html)

The Lone Bolt
04-13-2013, 05:13 PM
Feydakin,

I searched the US Berkeley Physics-Astronomy library for over a year and never found any research proving that the material in cometary tails is outgassed from the nucleus. Not one paper.

For that matter I never found any research proving that the material in the coma of comets outgassed from the nucleus. In the absence of evidence -- you have to conclude that these are assumptions.

You clearly subscribe to the ice hypothesis. But you are giving too much credit to those who presume to know.

Please post the evidence -- or papers -- that back up your assertion -- and I'll <strike>look at it</strike> dismiss it as untrustworthy.
MHG



Fixed it for ya.

Fedaykin
04-13-2013, 05:21 PM
Feydakin,

I searched the US Berkeley Physics-Astronomy library for over a year and never found any research proving that the material in cometary tails is outgassed from the nucleus. Not one paper.

For that matter I never found any research proving that the material in the coma of comets outgassed from the nucleus. In the absence of evidence -- you have to conclude that these are assumptions.

You clearly subscribe to the ice hypothesis. But you are giving too much credit to those who presume to know.

Please post the evidence -- or papers -- that back up your assertion -- and I'll look at it.
MHG

We've been over this before gaff-o. Just because you're too dishonest to accept it doesn't mean the evidence doesn't exist. Mountains of evidence exist about the composition of comets and their tails (including directly collected samples and nice pictures showing out-gassing occurring -- as well as the direct measurement data that demonstrates both the composition and dynamics of those jets).

I'd called you a moron, but clearly your issue is a deep seated, fundamental inability to engage the real world with even an iota of integrity.

W*GS
04-13-2013, 05:30 PM
I'd called you a moron, but clearly your issue is a deep seated, fundamental inability to engage the real world with even an iota of integrity.

Yep - he lies and then calls us all stupid and dupes and morons.

gaffe has issues with reality.

mhgaffney
04-15-2013, 03:24 PM
We've been over this before gaff-o. Just because you're too dishonest to accept it doesn't mean the evidence doesn't exist. Mountains of evidence exist about the composition of comets and their tails (including directly collected samples and nice pictures showing out-gassing occurring -- as well as the direct measurement data that demonstrates both the composition and dynamics of those jets).

I'd called you a moron, but clearly your issue is a deep seated, fundamental inability to engage the real world with even an iota of integrity.

No we have not been over this before.

The biggest problem with science is the arrogance and closed mindedness of the men doing it. This is you, Feydakin.

You make a colossal mistake -- when you interpret skepticism as dishonesty That's your ego talking.

BTW pictures of "so called" jets are not proof.

Give me a link to a paper with those measurements. I'll check

W*GS
04-15-2013, 03:28 PM
The biggest problem with science is the arrogance and closed mindedness of the men doing it.

This is you, gaffe. You demand acceptance based only on your say-so. You call skeptics of your opinions morons and worse.

McCanney needs to fix the foundational errors in his theories before there's a chance they'll be contemplated.

BTW pictures of "so called" jets are not proof.

You put up pictures all the time and call them proof.

Give me a link to a paper with those measurements. I'll check

Check out the comet spectra atlas link I gave. If you dare.

mhgaffney
04-15-2013, 03:35 PM
We are being told that the nucleus of comet Hale Bopp, an object too small even to show up in that photo -- outgassed a cloud of hydrogen gas 60 million miles across.

That's almost two thirds of the distance from the earth to the sun.

Is that plausible?

What is more, the outer layer of the largest object in the solar system, the sun, is a seething ocean of free electrons -- in other words, is electric. Yet we are told that the electromagnetic force plays no role in celestial events.

Incidentally, we are told these scientific truths by the same experts who cannot explain where lightning comes from.

If you believe these folks - -then I have some tropical real estate in Nome AK I'd like to show you.

MHG

W*GS
04-15-2013, 03:46 PM
We are being told that an itty bitty object (the nucleus of comet Hale Bopp), an object too small even to show up in that photo -- outgassed a cloud of hydrogen gas 60 million miles across.

What's the density of the interplanetary medium?

If you believe these folks - -then I have some tropical real estate in Nome AK I'd like to show you.

Can you explain how Hale-Bopp was not destroyed by the inflow of matter accumulating upon it?

Show me the flaws in Plait's calculation. Can you do the math?

mhgaffney
04-15-2013, 04:03 PM
Why would it be destroyed?

I am not a mathematician. However, Sir Fred Hoyle, a far more accomplished mathematician than Phil Plaitt, rejected Whipple's dirty snowball comet model at the time of Halley's last pass in 1986.

Hoyle concluded the ice model is absurd. You gonna ridicule him as well?

W*GS
04-15-2013, 05:18 PM
Why would it be destroyed?

Because the kinetic energy of the incoming mass would obliterate it.

Didn't you read either of my posts with Plait's calculation? Clearly you did not.

Ignoring things that you don't understand doesn't make them go away.

IHaveALight
05-09-2013, 12:00 PM
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/yWFCdnKCesA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Rohirrim
05-09-2013, 12:43 PM
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/yWFCdnKCesA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

That, and $3.56 will get you a tall latte. ;D