Thunderbolts Forum v3.0

Posted: **Fri Feb 12, 2021 6:17 pm**

cargo:

Three questions for you:

1. Do you agree with Richard Feynman's definition of science and scientific enquiry?

2. Do you believe the process that produced Michael Mann's hockey stick accords with Richard Feynman's definition?

3. Do you realize that any serious AGW mitigation efforts will land disproportionately on the poorest of the world's population?

Posted: **Fri Feb 12, 2021 6:33 pm**

cargo wrote:
Green policies are good. The science is good. Your logic is bad.

Or, to put it another way: "Four legs good, two legs bad".

Posted: **Fri Mar 12, 2021 6:53 pm**

crawler wrote: ↑Fri Feb 12, 2021 11:41 am
jackokie wrote: ↑Thu Feb 11, 2021 3:17 pm crawler:

I encourage you to read this article:

https://issuesinsights.com/2021/02/10/g ... sks-slips/

It might change your perspective on AGW.
Green policies are good. The science is good. Your logic is bad. Good logic says that if there is any possibility that the AGW science is good then we must act fast.

Here are some comments copied from the discussion section of the Issues and Insights site linked above:

James McGinn
February 11, 2021 at 11:52 am
The fact that the climate frauds don’t advertise is that there is zero reproducible experimental evidence that CO2 has any kind of thermal effect on the atmosphere. That’s zero, nada, zilch. Climate phonies are very careful to not reveal this fact to the public.

george227
February 10, 2021 at 5:17 pm
Okay, I’ll bite: What evidence do you have it is not happening?
Look up the ten hottest years in recorded history.

James McGinn
February 11, 2021 at 11:40 am
It is not possible to average temperatures over the globe over a year and produce anything meaningful. Many people in the public are statistically naïve and these climate frauds take full advantage of that. We can only measure temperature at a point and then assign that temperature to a polygon. The selection of the size and location of the polygon is completely and inextricably arbitrary/subjective. Accordingly, a fraudulent climate scientist (and let me assure you, there are many) can come to any conclusion they want by way of selection of “representative’ polygons. Global warming is blatant fraud.

george227
February 11, 2021 at 12:39 pm
No. It does not work that way.
And I take the word of scientists over internet folk.
Why don’t some of you start reading phys.org?

James McGinn
February 11, 2021 at 13:40 am
So, your argument is based on your expertise at reading?
LOL. You got nothing!!!
James McGinn / Genius

Posted: **Fri Mar 12, 2021 9:59 pm**

jimmcginn wrote: ↑Fri Mar 12, 2021 6:53 pm
crawler wrote: ↑Fri Feb 12, 2021 11:41 am
jackokie wrote: ↑Thu Feb 11, 2021 3:17 pm crawler:

I encourage you to read this article:

https://issuesinsights.com/2021/02/10/g ... sks-slips/

It might change your perspective on AGW.
Green policies are good. The science is good. Your logic is bad. Good logic says that if there is any possibility that the AGW science is good then we must act fast.
Here are some comments copied from the discussion section of the Issues and Insights site linked above:

James McGinn
February 11, 2021 at 11:52 am
The fact that the climate frauds don’t advertise is that there is zero reproducible experimental evidence that CO2 has any kind of thermal effect on the atmosphere. That’s zero, nada, zilch. Climate phonies are very careful to not reveal this fact to the public.

george227
February 10, 2021 at 5:17 pm
Okay, I’ll bite: What evidence do you have it is not happening?
Look up the ten hottest years in recorded history.

James McGinn
February 11, 2021 at 11:40 am
It is not possible to average temperatures over the globe over a year and produce anything meaningful. Many people in the public are statistically naïve and these climate frauds take full advantage of that. We can only measure temperature at a point and then assign that temperature to a polygon. The selection of the size and location of the polygon is completely and inextricably arbitrary/subjective. Accordingly, a fraudulent climate scientist (and let me assure you, there are many) can come to any conclusion they want by way of selection of “representative’ polygons. Global warming is blatant fraud.

george227
February 11, 2021 at 12:39 pm
No. It does not work that way.
And I take the word of scientists over internet folk.
Why don’t some of you start reading phys.org?

James McGinn
February 11, 2021 at 13:40 am
So, your argument is based on your expertise at reading?
LOL. You got nothing!!!
James McGinn / Genius

Green policies are good. The science is good. Your logic is bad. Good logic says that if there is any possibility that the AGW science is good then we must act fast.

Posted: **Fri Mar 12, 2021 10:26 pm**

crawler wrote: ↑Fri Mar 12, 2021 9:59 pm ... we must act fast.

You really need to watch Planet of the Humans.

Manufacturing for wind turbines, solar voltaics and electric batteries, to say nothing of the 'biofuel' conversion of many powerplants, produces far more CO2 emissions than coal, oil and gas combined. Bet the greenies never told you that, did they?

This kind of logic supposes that animal herds, one of the chief global carbon emitters, ought to be eliminated fast. And thus you condemn the majority world population who relies on them to abject misery and starvation. That is the "Green" agenda. Georgia Guidestone #1: Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.

I don't know where you intend on the other 7.3 billion of us to go, but I won't be part of it.

Posted: **Sat Mar 13, 2021 12:37 am**

JP Michael wrote: ↑Fri Mar 12, 2021 10:26 pm
crawler wrote: ↑Fri Mar 12, 2021 9:59 pm ... we must act fast.
You really need to watch Planet of the Humans.

Manufacturing for wind turbines, solar voltaics and electric batteries, to say nothing of the 'biofuel' conversion of many powerplants, produces far more CO2 emissions than coal, oil and gas combined. Bet the greenies never told you that, did they?

This kind of logic supposes that animal herds, one of the chief global carbon emitters, ought to be eliminated fast. And thus you condemn the majority world population who relies on them to abject misery and starvation. That is the "Green" agenda. Georgia Guidestone #1: Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.

I don't know where you intend on the other 7.3 billion of us to go, but I won't be part of it.

On another Forum a respondent asked me if I work for Exxon. Here is my response:
No. Thanks for asking. I'm an unemployed climate scientist--kind of a lonely genius. I would, however, gladly take a position with Exxon because, as an environmentalist and a genuine tree hugger, I recognize that the paucity of CO2 in earth's atmosphere does make it more difficult for plants and trees to thrive, and the products of oil companies do rectify the shortage--if only slightly--of this gas that plants and trees breath to survive. I am also an atmospheric physicists who has studied the thermodynamics of the gases of the atmosphere and, as such, I recognize that
the net thermal effect of CO2 is atmospheric cooling. And, as a humanitarian, I recognize that the greatest problem for mankind that clearly shows up in the fossil record is the glaciation of most of Europe and Asia and virtually all of North America.

Posted: **Sat Mar 13, 2021 8:22 pm**

JP Michael wrote: ↑Fri Mar 12, 2021 10:26 pm
crawler wrote: ↑Fri Mar 12, 2021 9:59 pm ... we must act fast.
You really need to watch Planet of the Humans.

Manufacturing for wind turbines, solar voltaics and electric batteries, to say nothing of the 'biofuel' conversion of many powerplants, produces far more CO2 emissions than coal, oil and gas combined. Bet the greenies never told you that, did they?

This kind of logic supposes that animal herds, one of the chief global carbon emitters, ought to be eliminated fast. And thus you condemn the majority world population who relies on them to abject misery and starvation. That is the "Green" agenda. Georgia Guidestone #1: Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.

I don't know where you intend on the other 7.3 billion of us to go, but I won't be part of it.

Yes 500,000,000 should be a target. The human herd is the problem.

Posted: **Tue Jul 06, 2021 4:50 pm**

Understanding the uplift and low pressure of a storm is the key to working out the mechanics of the atmosphere. Meteorology offers us a vague, dumbed down notion: convection. The slightest scrutiny reveals it as a meaningless word salad of pretend causes and pretend effects. The net effect of this pretentious rhetoric is to create cognitive dissonance that brings nitwits to misidentify their deep confusion as deep understanding. Their delusion is so deep that if they were to be put on the spot and forced to explain the details of what they claim to deeply understand they could not formulate even half of a sentence. Convection is just a word that can mean anything to anybody but that will never mean any one thing to everybody. It is just rhetorical candy for millions and millions of believer.

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

Posted: **Tue Jul 06, 2021 10:00 pm**

jimmcginn wrote: ↑Tue Jul 06, 2021 4:50 pm Understanding the uplift and low pressure of a storm is the key to working out the mechanics of the atmosphere. Meteorology offers us a vague, dumbed down notion: convection. The slightest scrutiny reveals it as a meaningless word salad of pretend causes and pretend effects. The net effect of this pretentious rhetoric is to create cognitive dissonance that brings nitwits to misidentify their deep confusion as deep understanding. Their delusion is so deep that if they were to be put on the spot and forced to explain the details of what they claim to deeply understand they could not formulate even half of a sentence. Convection is just a word that can mean anything to anybody but that will never mean any one thing to everybody. It is just rhetorical candy for millions and millions of believer.
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

Yes, tornadoes clouds wind weather are electric, but that brings us back to Gerald Pollacks 4th stage of water (or is it 5th), Exclusion Zone Water, which u dont agree with.

Posted: **Wed Jul 07, 2021 12:15 am**

crawler wrote: ↑Tue Jul 06, 2021 10:00 pm Yes, tornadoes clouds wind weather are electric, but that brings us back to Gerald Pollacks 4th stage of water (or is it 5th), Exclusion Zone Water, which u dont agree with.

Most humans are dumb and insular and only interested in simple explanations that confirm what they already believe. And, frankly, that is all I'm seeing in your statements here. Weather is electric in the same sense that everything is electric, so pointing it out is meaningless and doesn't get us any closer to understanding what is distinctive about weather. It would be like saying that all cars are electric cars and then pointing out that fossil fuel burning vehicles use electronic ignition and even pointing out that electric charges are what is involve in maintaining the potential energy of fossil fuels. As I've explained, my model of storms involves vortices that spin up on wind shear boundaries being the transport mechanism of the low pressure energy of storms. If you want to discuss electric weather or Pollacks vague notions please take it somewhere elsel

James McGinn / Genius
What You Never Suspected About Water in the Atmosphere
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... 10&t=16615

Posted: **Sun Jul 18, 2021 3:18 pm**

Meteorology: Science Dumbed Down for Popular Appeal

This is how meteorology describes the physics of storms:
From, Google search, "What powers thunderstorms"
https://www.google.com/search?q=What+po ... e&ie=UTF-8
"When warm moist air meets colder drier air, the warm air rises, the water vapor condenses in the air, and forms a cloud. As the water vapor condenses it releases heat, which is a form of energy. A large amount of the thunderstorm's energy comes from the condensation process that forms the thunderstorm clouds."

This explanation is moronic on many different levels. Not only does condensation of water produce no (zero) heat but it increases the capacity of H2O to absorb energy/heat. This is why rainstorms are not hot or warm, but cold. Also, the statement that, "heat is a form of energy," is naïve. Although this statement is true it is ignorant of the fact that heat is fully entropized and, therefore, cannot be harnessed to produce winds.

The physics of storms has to do with a plasma that forms on wind shear boundaries, without which we have no way to explain the mechanism of high wind speeds seen in severe weather. The existence of this plasma is hidden from science by bad thinking from physicists in regard to understanding H2O.

Meteorology is a discipline that has dedicated itself to misleading the public about the physics of storms:
The 'Missing Link' of Meteorology's Theory of Storms
https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/php ... 10&t=16329

James McGinn / Genius

Thunderbolts Forum v3.0

The Roof Leaks at the Top: Conversation with Edwin Berry Phd.

Re: The Roof Leaks at the Top: Conversation with Edwin Berry Phd.

Re: The Roof Leaks at the Top: Conversation with Edwin Berry Phd.

Re: The Roof Leaks at the Top: Conversation with Edwin Berry Phd.

Re: The Roof Leaks at the Top: Conversation with Edwin Berry Phd.

Re: The Roof Leaks at the Top: Conversation with Edwin Berry Phd.

Re: The Roof Leaks at the Top: Conversation with Edwin Berry Phd.

Re: The Roof Leaks at the Top: Conversation with Edwin Berry Phd.

Re: The Roof Leaks at the Top: Conversation with Edwin Berry Phd.

Re: The Roof Leaks at the Top: Conversation with Edwin Berry Phd.

Re: The Roof Leaks at the Top: Conversation with Edwin Berry Phd.

Re: The Roof Leaks at the Top: Conversation with Edwin Berry Phd.