REMINDER: Siteowner has no obligation to monitor the Forums. However, Siteowner reserves the right to review the Materials submitted to or posted on the Forums, and remove, delete, redact or otherwise modify such Materials, in its sole discretion and for any reason whatsoever, at any time and from time to time, without notice or further obligation to you. Siteowner has no obligation to display or post any Materials provided by you. Siteowner reserves the right to disclose, at any time and from time to time, any information or Materials that Siteowner deems necessary or appropriate to satisfy any applicable law, regulation, contract obligation, legal or dispute process or government request. To further read the rules and terms of agreement of this Forum, click here.
hallucinogenic_toreador
Phil Edwards status
Reged: 03/31/06
Posts: 5955
Loc: socal beachbreak barrels
|
Re: El Niņo
06/08/09 05:49 PM
|
|
|
Quote:
This Gary Novak???
http://moonflake.wordpress.com/2006/11/10/midweek-cuckoogary-novak/
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA 
You guys have ALL the great sources don't you?
Take care.
yes, he's got some pretty 'out there' perspectives, but also raises some interesting points about quite a few things which have been considered accepted scientific dogma.
in any case, ad hominem attacks do nothing to refute his specific arguments, and only point to your own shortcomings.
unlike you, i try to deal with the argument, and not the person making the argument. there are some absolute nutjobs out there working in the various fields of scientific exploration, but quite often, the nutjobs whose brains function quite differently from the norm are the ones who make the breakthroughs, or crumble accepted notions with simple elegance.
in any case, please tell me, how much kinetic energy is produced when a quanta of IR radiation is absorbed by a co2 molecule?
pretty sure that for the narrow bandwidths in play, the bohr theory still holds!
please show me the experimental results which support the assumption that the absorption of IR quanta by co2 raises the kinetic energy of the molecule by any fraction of the amount claimed by AGW.
the models are laughable. again, how is it that the planet's troposphere is cooling so rapidly, contrary to model predictions?
must've got it wrong.
--------------------
"...we woke up to perfect lefts, and that was our mission."
|
|
14 registered and 81 anonymous users are browsing this forum.
Moderator: Groundswell, Administrator, Nameless60, tenover, r32
|
Forum Permissions
You cannot start new topics
You cannot reply to topics
HTML is enabled
UBBCode is enabled
|
Rating:
Thread views: 26107
|
|
|
|
|
|
Powered by UBB.threads™ 6.5.4
Previous
Index
Next
Flat
Edit
Reply
Quote
