|
Post by Andrew on Oct 27, 2013 19:15:02 GMT
Even if you repeat a million times i am a liar reality is not going to change. The reality is being more apparent by the minute that you can't handle the "school boy physics" that you claim your thoughts on this matter are based. That means you probably absorbed it from a Trenberth cartoon or other such nonsense. Do you have a memory problem? I already showed that Trenberth has a few screws loose. Nobody is going to be able to successfully challenge the greenhouse effect, as described in exhaustive detail by me already, without getting a nobel prize. No rational educated knowledgeable person is ever going to dispute the basic principle of the green house effect. The rational thing for you to do is to use the hyperphysics calculator to show my detailed calculations are wrong, or prove the hyperphysics calculator has an error in it or alternatively apologise for your obnoxious behaviour and tell me you honestly cannot remember that i have already produced detailed calculations and ask me if I might possibly kindly tell you where they are on the board, and do this without hint or trace that you just being disgusting towards me all over again. I also expect you to tell me why you are calling it my molecular screen model when you appear to be the originator of the model that has a one molecule thick screen. And i expect you to to be able to tell me why to my satisfaction without hint or trace that you are just being obnoxious towards me for no purpose at all just as you have been doing for the last 18 months, where the only time you did not do this was when i provided the calculations for your molecular screen model.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Oct 27, 2013 21:46:23 GMT
Nobody is going to be able to successfully challenge the greenhouse effect, as described in exhaustive detail by me already, without getting a nobel prize. No rational educated knowledgeable person is ever going to dispute the basic principle of the green house effect. The rational thing for you to do is to use the hyperphysics calculator to show my detailed calculations are wrong. What detailed calculations? Do you need for somebody to show you "school boy physics"? Its now up to 12 obfuscating posts!
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Oct 28, 2013 5:27:18 GMT
Nobody is going to be able to successfully challenge the greenhouse effect, as described in exhaustive detail by me already, without getting a nobel prize. No rational educated knowledgeable person is ever going to dispute the basic principle of the green house effect. The rational thing for you to do is to use the hyperphysics calculator to show my detailed calculations are wrong. What detailed calculations? Do you need for somebody to show you "school boy physics"? Its now up to 12 obfuscating posts! Yes you keep calling me a liar, and you began calling me a liar at least 18 months ago. You were also calling Steve a liar at least 19 months ago. But what do you expect to achieve with such strange behaviour?
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Oct 28, 2013 20:54:26 GMT
What detailed calculations? Do you need for somebody to show you "school boy physics"? Its now up to 12 obfuscating posts! Yes you keep calling me a liar, and you began calling me a liar at least 18 months ago. You were also calling Steve a liar at least 19 months ago. But what do you expect to achieve with such strange behaviour? You are the only liar I know on this board Andrew. Why rely on a fallacy to argue that you are not a liar when if you weren't you could easily prove it? All you have to do is document the school boy physics you claimed you used! Obviously you can't so that proves you are in fact a liar.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Oct 29, 2013 4:33:21 GMT
The only things being proven so far are:
1. Neither Steve, Socold or myself are able to teach you even the most simplest scientific concept
2. You are able to continue being foolish for years
Nobody is going to be able to successfully challenge the greenhouse effect, as described in exhaustive detail by me already, without getting a Nobel prize. No rational educated knowledgeable person is ever going to dispute the basic principle of the green house effect.
The rational thing for you to do is to use the hyperphysics calculator to show my detailed calculations are wrong, or prove the hyperphysics calculator has an error in it or alternatively apologise for your obnoxious behaviour and tell me you honestly cannot remember that i have already produced detailed calculations and ask me if I might possibly kindly tell you where they are on the board, and do this without hint or trace that you just being disgusting towards me all over again.
I also expect you to tell me why you are calling it my molecular screen model when you appear to be the originator of the model that has a one molecule thick screen. And i expect you to to be able to tell me why to my satisfaction without hint or trace that you are just being obnoxious towards me for no purpose at all just as you have been doing for the last 18 months, where the only time you did not do this was when i provided the calculations for your molecular screen model.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Oct 29, 2013 7:42:36 GMT
The only things being proven so far are: 1. Neither Steve, Socold or myself are able to teach you even the most simplest scientific concept 2. You are able to continue being foolish for years Nobody is going to be able to successfully challenge the greenhouse effect, as described in exhaustive detail by me already, without getting a Nobel prize. No rational educated knowledgeable person is ever going to dispute the basic principle of the green house effect. The rational thing for you to do is to use the hyperphysics calculator to show my detailed calculations are wrong, or prove the hyperphysics calculator has an error in it or alternatively apologise for your obnoxious behaviour and tell me you honestly cannot remember that i have already produced detailed calculations and ask me if I might possibly kindly tell you where they are on the board, and do this without hint or trace that you just being disgusting towards me all over again. I also expect you to tell me why you are calling it my molecular screen model when you appear to be the originator of the model that has a one molecule thick screen. And i expect you to to be able to tell me why to my satisfaction without hint or trace that you are just being obnoxious towards me for no purpose at all just as you have been doing for the last 18 months, where the only time you did not do this was when i provided the calculations for your molecular screen model. If you can't handle school boy physics how can you possibly teach anybody anything? You just continue to lie. All you need to do is document your work, its so simple, you won't because it will reveal you are lying.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Oct 29, 2013 19:49:12 GMT
The only things being proven so far are: 1. Neither Steve, Socold or myself are able to teach you even the most simplest scientific concept 2. You are able to continue being foolish for years Nobody is going to be able to successfully challenge the greenhouse effect, as described in exhaustive detail by me already, without getting a Nobel prize. No rational educated knowledgeable person is ever going to dispute the basic principle of the green house effect. The rational thing for you to do is to use the hyperphysics calculator to show my detailed calculations are wrong, or prove the hyperphysics calculator has an error in it or alternatively apologise for your obnoxious behaviour and tell me you honestly cannot remember that i have already produced detailed calculations and ask me if I might possibly kindly tell you where they are on the board, and do this without hint or trace that you just being disgusting towards me all over again. I also expect you to tell me why you are calling it my molecular screen model when you appear to be the originator of the model that has a one molecule thick screen. And i expect you to to be able to tell me why to my satisfaction without hint or trace that you are just being obnoxious towards me for no purpose at all just as you have been doing for the last 18 months, where the only time you did not do this was when i provided the calculations for your molecular screen model. If you can't handle school boy physics how can you possibly teach anybody anything? You just continue to lie. All you need to do is document your work, its so simple, you won't because it will reveal you are lying. My work is already documented and it would only take you about two hours to find it.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Oct 30, 2013 5:43:49 GMT
If you can't handle school boy physics how can you possibly teach anybody anything? You just continue to lie. All you need to do is document your work, its so simple, you won't because it will reveal you are lying. My work is already documented and it would only take you about two hours to find it. Another lie! And another challenge where you will fail miserably!
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Oct 30, 2013 6:58:59 GMT
My work is already documented and it would only take you about two hours to find it. Another lie! And another challenge where you will fail miserably! What challenge? How can there be challenges if no educated knowledgeable person thinks they can get a Nobel prize and the topic is so simple??
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Oct 30, 2013 8:04:25 GMT
it appears he is defining a "cooling force" as a force that does not cool. To which I would conclude if the downward cooling force does not cool the molecular screen still has 400 watts to dump and it will dump that to space. It does not matter that I am calling the force released a cooling force. A heating force is being applied and something has to balance that force or the object gets hotter and hotter. If you provide a heating force to a tungsten light bulb filament then a balancing force is produced which stabilises the temperature. If you then place supposedly unheated objects near the bulb the filament will become hotter as the 'unheated' objects become hotter. Even if you did this in outerspace the same thing is going to happen.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Oct 30, 2013 14:58:31 GMT
Another lie! And another challenge where you will fail miserably! What challenge? How can there be challenges if no educated knowledgeable person thinks they can get a Nobel prize and the topic is so simple?? I realize you are a little more than slow so I will go very slowly. You claim you didn't lie and that you fully documented the physics for the greenhouse effect buried somewhere in this forum. You challenged me to prove you did not. I realize you are a bit too thick to realize that one cannot prove such a thing and that the challenge is squarely in your court to bring up a reference for it. Except that you continue to compound your lies with more lies about the existence of such proof. As I said you are a pathological liar! Its clear you are. You are all talk and no go.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Oct 30, 2013 16:08:33 GMT
What challenge? How can there be challenges if no educated knowledgeable person thinks they can get a Nobel prize and the topic is so simple?? I realize you are a little more than slow so I will go very slowly. You claim you didn't lie and that you fully documented the physics for the greenhouse effect buried somewhere in this forum. You challenged me to prove you did not. I realize you are a bit too thick to realize that one cannot prove such a thing and that the challenge is squarely in your court to bring up a reference for it. Except that you continue to compound your lies with more lies about the existence of such proof. As I said you are a pathological liar! Its clear you are. You are all talk and no go. I said i had fully documented the working method used to calculate the strong effect shown by your model. I also said i had exhaustively described the principles involved in the greenhouse effect which was simple science no rational educated person would dispute. All I was wanting to point out 19 months ago was that the Green house effect was mainstream science rather than the insane belief of a few climate nutters.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Oct 30, 2013 16:22:09 GMT
it appears he is defining a "cooling force" as a force that does not cool. To which I would conclude if the downward cooling force does not cool the molecular screen still has 400 watts to dump and it will dump that to space. It does not matter that I am calling the force released a cooling force. A heating force is being applied and something has to balance that force or the object gets hotter and hotter. If you provide a heating force to a tungsten light bulb filament then a balancing force is produced which stabilises the temperature. If you then place supposedly unheated objects near the bulb the filament will become hotter as the 'unheated' objects become hotter. Even if you did this in outerspace the same thing is going to happen. Why constantly yammer on like a typical braindead climate scientist as opposed to simply referring to the alleged calculations you claim to have done? Why? Because you are a liar.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Oct 30, 2013 17:13:38 GMT
It does not matter that I am calling the force released a cooling force. A heating force is being applied and something has to balance that force or the object gets hotter and hotter. If you provide a heating force to a tungsten light bulb filament then a balancing force is produced which stabilises the temperature. If you then place supposedly unheated objects near the bulb the filament will become hotter as the 'unheated' objects become hotter. Even if you did this in outerspace the same thing is going to happen. Why constantly yammer on like a typical braindead climate scientist as opposed to simply referring to the alleged calculations you claim to have done? Why? Because you are a liar. My work for your molecular screen model that you created to falsify the greenhouse effect is already documented and it would only have taken you about 5 minutes to find it. solarcycle24com.proboards.com/board/2/global-warming-weather-discussion?page=2
|
|