'bitch' deleted and bleated at:

Kurt Lochner restored the previous bitch-slappings of:

"death_rage" continued whining at:

Kurt Lochner was laughing at the intentional ignorance exhibited by:

"death_rage" was still writhing in denials:

John M. replied to:

On Dec 22, 6:05 pm, Kurt Lochner was laughing at:

"death_rage" writhed in denials:

Blah-blah-blah..

The same force applied to heavy truck as a small car, will cause the
vehicles to absorb the same kinetic energy. The truck will be moving
faster than the lighter car,

Nope.. You suck pretty bad at physics, still..

--Why do you continue to embarrass yourself like this?

One suspects he doesn't realise it.

My how you can deduce that [..]

Yeah, just from your usual mistakes in judgment, owing to
your abject lack of any formal education in science..

Example follow..

A Watt is not a unit of energy [..]

Oh yes it is..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watt

"The watt (symbol: W) is the SI derived unit of power,
equal to one joule of energy per second."

the concept of 'power' also does not refer to a
quantity of energy [..]

Oh yes it does..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_%28physics%29

"In physics, power (symbol: P) is the rate at which work
is performed or energy is transmitted, or the amount of
energy required or expended for a given unit of time."

Even by your definition,[..]

It's not "my definition" you blundering idiot..

Boltzman Stefan equation refers to a density of energy.

You don't know enough about physics to even begin to quote
the Stefan-Boltzman equation, much less get the name correct!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan-Boltzmann_law

"The Stefan-Boltzmann law, also known as Stefan's law,
states that the total energy radiated per unit surface
area of a black body in unit time (known variously as
the black-body irradiance, energy flux density, radiant
flux, or the emissive power), j*, is directly proportional
to the fourth power of the black body's thermodynamic
temperature T (also called absolute temperature)"

That's "energy radiated per unit surface area", dipwad..

the charalatans of AGW, who also do not theoretically
abide within the Law of the Conservation of Energy in
their postulation.

Nope, that would be your 'global warming denialists' who
try to ignore the thermodynamic effects of dumping waste
heat and carbon emissions into the lower atmosphere at the
rate of 70 million tons a day, with no consequences..

Now that is funny, fartated out[..]

I see that you have similar difficulties with English,
as well as general scientific principles and physics..

You're 0 for 3 here, dipwad dundee..

Well as one who claims proficiency in physics [..]

That certainly couldn't be yourself.. *LOL!*

It's somewhat disturbing that Kurt's main reference
seems to be Wikipedia.

Aww, and here I was trying to be charitable about how your
intentional ignorance might be cured by easy to read quotes
from a fairly reliable source of physics definitions..

It's not like you right-wingers can accurately quote
anything past your usual grade-school comprehensions..

Yeah, never mind that Kent Dethridge repeatedly fscked-up
his own 'scientific terms' about "energy" and "power", much
less the reference to the Stefan Boltzman equation..

And here's the first mistake Kent was trying to run away from..

"The same force applied to heavy truck as a small car,
will cause the vehicles to absorb the same kinetic
energy. The truck will be moving faster than the
lighter car"

Yeah, some 'typo' that was..

--See subject header for details..

Kurt Lochner wrote:
'bitch' deleted and bleated at:

Kurt shows his credentials in identity politics. Nice job.

It's somewhat disturbing that Kurt's main reference
seems to be Wikipedia.

Aww, and here I was trying to be charitable about how your
intentional ignorance might be cured by easy to read quotes
from a fairly reliable source of physics definitions..

The reliability of wikipedia is pretty well established nowadays,
some colleges now refuse to accept it as source material.

There are better sources for this kind of stuff anyway,
wolfram is a good place to start.

It's not like you right-wingers can accurately quote
anything past your usual grade-school comprehensions..

I've not seen an AGW believer who can accurately quote.
What do you do when the truth won't serve? Making something
up seems to be the AGW policy.

Happy Holidaze,

Rich

'bitch' deleted and bleated at:

Kurt Lochner restored the hilarious bitch-slappings of:

'bitch' deleted and bleated at:

Kurt Lochner restored the previous bitch-slappings of:

"death_rage" continued whining at:

Kurt Lochner was laughing at the intentional ignorance exhibited by:

"death_rage" was still writhing in denials:

John M. replied to:

On Dec 22, 6:05 pm, Kurt Lochner was laughing at:

"death_rage" writhed in denials:

Blah-blah-blah..

The same force applied to heavy truck as a small car, will cause the
vehicles to absorb the same kinetic energy. The truck will be moving
faster than the lighter car,

Nope.. You suck pretty bad at physics, still..

--Why do you continue to embarrass yourself like this?

One suspects he doesn't realise it.

My how you can deduce that [..]

Yeah, just from your usual mistakes in judgment, owing to
your abject lack of any formal education in science..

Example follow..

A Watt is not a unit of energy [..]

Oh yes it is..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watt

"The watt (symbol: W) is the SI derived unit of power,
equal to one joule of energy per second."

the concept of 'power' also does not refer to a
quantity of energy [..]

Oh yes it does..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_%28physics%29

"In physics, power (symbol: P) is the rate at which work
is performed or energy is transmitted, or the amount of
energy required or expended for a given unit of time."

Even by your definition,[..]

It's not "my definition" you blundering idiot..

Boltzman Stefan equation refers to a density of energy.

You don't know enough about physics to even begin to quote
the Stefan-Boltzman equation, much less get the name correct!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan-Boltzmann_law

"The Stefan-Boltzmann law, also known as Stefan's law,
states that the total energy radiated per unit surface
area of a black body in unit time (known variously as
the black-body irradiance, energy flux density, radiant
flux, or the emissive power), j*, is directly proportional
to the fourth power of the black body's thermodynamic
temperature T (also called absolute temperature)"

That's "energy radiated per unit surface area", dipwad..

the charalatans of AGW, who also do not theoretically
abide within the Law of the Conservation of Energy in
their postulation.

Nope, that would be your 'global warming denialists' who
try to ignore the thermodynamic effects of dumping waste
heat and carbon emissions into the lower atmosphere at the
rate of 70 million tons a day, with no consequences..

Now that is funny, fartated out[..]

I see that you have similar difficulties with English,
as well as general scientific principles and physics..

You're 0 for 3 here, dipwad dundee..

Well as one who claims proficiency in physics [..]

That certainly couldn't be yourself.. *LOL!*

It's somewhat disturbing that Kurt's main reference
seems to be Wikipedia.

Aww, and here I was trying to be charitable about how your
intentional ignorance might be cured by easy to read quotes
from a fairly reliable source of physics definitions..

The reliability of wikipedia is pretty well established nowadays,
some colleges now refuse to accept it as source material.

Henh! Well, it's not like I think of right-wingers as literate
enough for anything more than a quick wiki reference. Other than
than your reference to wolfram, I see no need to meticulously
quote higher educational sources for you right-wing denialists..

It's not like you right-wingers can accurately quote
anything past your usual grade-school comprehensions..

Yeah, never mind that Kent Dethridge repeatedly fscked-up
his own 'scientific terms' about "energy" and "power", much
less the reference to the Stefan Boltzman equation..

And here's the first mistake Kent was trying to run away from..

"The same force applied to heavy truck as a small car,
will cause the vehicles to absorb the same kinetic
energy. The truck will be moving faster than the
lighter car"

Yeah, some 'typo' that was..

I've not seen an AGW believer who can accurately qu[..]

Maybe you need to pull your head out, and smell the textbooks..

--See subject header for details..

Kurt Lochner wrote:
'bitch' deleted and bleated at:

[... dead text cut ]

Do you spammers get paid by the word or what?

The reliability of wikipedia is pretty well established nowadays,
some colleges now refuse to accept it as source material.

Henh! Well, it's not like I think of right-wingers as literate
enough for anything more than a quick wiki reference.

The reflection is on you, not some unspecified 'they'.

Other than
than your reference to wolfram, I see no need to meticulously
quote higher educational sources for you right-wing denialists..

Clearly you can't use your own words.

It's not like you right-wingers can accurately quote
anything past your usual grade-school comprehensions..

Yeah, never mind that Kent Dethridge repeatedly fscked-up
his own 'scientific terms' about "energy" and "power", much
less the reference to the Stefan Boltzman equation..

And here's the first mistake Kent was trying to run away from..

"The same force applied to heavy truck as a small car,
will cause the vehicles to absorb the same kinetic
energy. The truck will be moving faster than the
lighter car"

Yeah, some 'typo' that was..
I've not seen an AGW believer who can accurately qu[..]

Maybe you need to pull your head out, and smell the textbooks..

It did not work for that, that's clear.

Cheers,

Rich

--See subject header for details..

'bitch' deleted and bleated at:

Kurt Lochner restored the hilarious bitch-slappings of:

'bitch' deleted and bleated at:

Kurt Lochner restored the hilarious bitch-slappings of:

'bitch' deleted and bleated at:

Kurt Lochner restored the previous bitch-slappings of:

"death_rage" continued whining at:

Kurt Lochner was laughing at the intentional ignorance exhibited by:

"death_rage" was still writhing in denials:

John M. replied to:

On Dec 22, 6:05 pm, Kurt Lochner was laughing at:

"death_rage" writhed in denials:

Blah-blah-blah..

The same force applied to heavy truck as a small car, will cause the
vehicles to absorb the same kinetic energy. The truck will be moving
faster than the lighter car,

Nope.. You suck pretty bad at physics, still..

--Why do you continue to embarrass yourself like this?

One suspects he doesn't realise it.

My how you can deduce that [..]

Yeah, just from your usual mistakes in judgment, owing to
your abject lack of any formal education in science..

Example follow..

A Watt is not a unit of energy [..]

Oh yes it is..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watt

"The watt (symbol: W) is the SI derived unit of power,
equal to one joule of energy per second."

the concept of 'power' also does not refer to a
quantity of energy [..]

Oh yes it does..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_%28physics%29

"In physics, power (symbol: P) is the rate at which work
is performed or energy is transmitted, or the amount of
energy required or expended for a given unit of time."

Even by your definition,[..]

It's not "my definition" you blundering idiot..

Boltzman Stefan equation refers to a density of energy.

You don't know enough about physics to even begin to quote
the Stefan-Boltzman equation, much less get the name correct!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan-Boltzmann_law

"The Stefan-Boltzmann law, also known as Stefan's law,
states that the total energy radiated per unit surface
area of a black body in unit time (known variously as
the black-body irradiance, energy flux density, radiant
flux, or the emissive power), j*, is directly proportional
to the fourth power of the black body's thermodynamic
temperature T (also called absolute temperature)"

That's "energy radiated per unit surface area", dipwad..

[... dead text cut ]

Evasions noted.. Example follows..

Do you spammers get paid by the word or what?

*LOL!* Your evasions speak volumes about you, bitch..

Examples follow..

the charalatans of AGW, who also do not theoretically
abide within the Law of the Conservation of Energy in
their postulation.

Nope, that would be your 'global warming denialists' who
try to ignore the thermodynamic effects of dumping waste
heat and carbon emissions into the lower atmosphere at the
rate of 70 million tons a day, with no consequences..

Now that is funny, fartated out[..]

I see that you have similar difficulties with English,
as well as general scientific principles and physics..

You're 0 for 3 here, dipwad dundee..

Well as one who claims proficiency in physics [..]

That certainly couldn't be yourself.. *LOL!*

It's somewhat disturbing that Kurt's main reference
seems to be Wikipedia.

Aww, and here I was trying to be charitable about how your
intentional ignorance might be cured by easy to read quotes
from a fairly reliable source of physics definitions..

The reliability of wikipedia is pretty well established nowadays,
some colleges now refuse to accept it as source material.

Henh! Well, it's not like I think of right-wingers as literate
enough for anything more than a quick wiki reference. Other than
than your reference to wolfram, I see no need to meticulously
quote higher educational sources for you right-wing denialists..

The reflection is on you, not some unspecified 'they'.

No "unspecified they" to it, bitch. I think of you as being
inarticulate and unlearned of science and physics. You can
pretend all you want to to the contrary, it will not change
my assessment of your pseudo-intellectual prowess.. *LOL!*

Clearly you can't use your own words.

Clearly you have a lot of cognitive difficulties accepting the
fact that I do not share your intentional ignorance of science
and physics.. To paraphrase, I can put numbers to the subject
and you obviously will not..

It's not like you right-wingers can accurately quote
anything past your usual grade-school comprehensions..

Yeah, never mind that Kent Dethridge repeatedly fscked-up
his own 'scientific terms' about "energy" and "power", much
less the reference to the Stefan Boltzman equation..

And here's the first mistake Kent was trying to run away from..

"The same force applied to heavy truck as a small car,
will cause the vehicles to absorb the same kinetic
energy. The truck will be moving faster than the
lighter car"

Yeah, some 'typo' that was..

I've not seen an AGW believer who can accurately qu[..]

Maybe you need to pull your head out, and smell the textbooks..

It did not work [..]

Okay, then you're just going to have to live with the fact
that someone else may have studied science and physics for
a great deal longer than you have..

And as a result, I don't believe anything you've said about science.
"global warming" or physics to be accurate, or even close to the
facts. Please pretend that your assumptions are unquestionable
with someone else. I'm not buying into your silly lies and
evasions, and I'm certain that you could do better if you'd
quit that pompous primate reaction of your to ideas that don't
agree with your feeble, uninformed and uneducated opinions about
global warming and science in general..

--Merry Christmas, by the way..

On Dec 25, 1:20 am, Kurt Lochner
wrote:
'bitch' deleted and bleated at:





Kurt Lochner restored the hilarious bitch-slappings of:

'bitch' deleted and bleated at:

Kurt Lochner restored the hilarious bitch-slappings of:

'bitch' deleted and bleated at:

Kurt Lochner restored the previous bitch-slappings of:

"death_rage" continued whining at:

Kurt Lochner was laughing at the intentional ignorance exhibited by:

"death_rage" was still writhing in denials:

John M. replied to:

On Dec 22, 6:05 pm, Kurt Lochner was laughing at:

"death_rage" writhed in denials:

Blah-blah-blah..

The same force applied to heavy truck as a small car, will cause the
vehicles to absorb the same kinetic energy. The truck will be moving
faster than the lighter car,

Nope.. You suck pretty bad at physics, still..

--Why do you continue to embarrass yourself like this?

One suspects he doesn't realise it.

My how you can deduce that [..]

Yeah, just from your usual mistakes in judgment, owing to
your abject lack of any formal education in science..

Example follow..

A Watt is not a unit of energy [..]

Oh yes it is..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watt

"The watt (symbol: W) is the SI derived unit of power,
equal to one joule of energy per second."

the concept of 'power' also does not refer to a
quantity of energy [..]

Oh yes it does..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_%28physics%29

"In physics, power (symbol: P) is the rate at which work
is performed or energy is transmitted, or the amount of
energy required or expended for a given unit of time."

Even by your definition,[..]

It's not "my definition" you blundering idiot..

Boltzman Stefan equation refers to a density of energy.

You don't know enough about physics to even begin to quote
the Stefan-Boltzman equation, much less get the name correct!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan-Boltzmann_law

"The Stefan-Boltzmann law, also known as Stefan's law,
states that the total energy radiated per unit surface
area of a black body in unit time (known variously as
the black-body irradiance, energy flux density, radiant
flux, or the emissive power), j*, is directly proportional
to the fourth power of the black body's thermodynamic
temperature T (also called absolute temperature)"

That's "energy radiated per unit surface area", dipwad..

[... dead text cut ]

Evasions noted.. Example follows..

Do you spammers get paid by the word or what?

*LOL!* Your evasions speak volumes about you, bitch..

Examples follow..



the charalatans of AGW, who also do not theoretically
abide within the Law of the Conservation of Energy in
their postulation.

Nope, that would be your 'global warming denialists' who
try to ignore the thermodynamic effects of dumping waste
heat and carbon emissions into the lower atmosphere at the
rate of 70 million tons a day, with no consequences..

Now that is funny, fartated out[..]

I see that you have similar difficulties with English,
as well as general scientific principles and physics..

You're 0 for 3 here, dipwad dundee..

Well as one who claims proficiency in physics [..]

That certainly couldn't be yourself.. *LOL!*

It's somewhat disturbing that Kurt's main reference
seems to be Wikipedia.

Aww, and here I was trying to be charitable about how your
intentional ignorance might be cured by easy to read quotes
from a fairly reliable source of physics definitions..

The reliability of wikipedia is pretty well established nowadays,
some colleges now refuse to accept it as source material.

Henh! Well, it's not like I think of right-wingers as literate
enough for anything more than a quick wiki reference. Other than
than your reference to wolfram, I see no need to meticulously
quote higher educational sources for you right-wing denialists..

The reflection is on you, not some unspecified 'they'.

No "unspecified they" to it, bitch. I think of you as being
inarticulate and unlearned of science and physics. You can
pretend all you want to to the contrary, it will not change
my assessment of your pseudo-intellectual prowess.. *LOL!*

Clearly you can't use your own words.

Clearly you have a lot of cognitive difficulties accepting the
fact that I do not share your intentional ignorance of science
and physics.. To paraphrase, I can put numbers to the subject
and you obviously will not..



It's not like you right-wingers can accurately quote
anything past your usual grade-school comprehensions..

Yeah, never mind that Kent Dethridge repeatedly fscked-up
his own 'scientific terms' about "energy" and "power", much
less the reference to the Stefan Boltzman equation..

And here's the first mistake Kent was trying to run away from..

"The same force applied to heavy truck as a small car,
will cause the vehicles to absorb the same kinetic
energy. The truck will be moving faster than the
lighter car"

Yeah, some 'typo' that was..

I've not seen an AGW believer who can accurately qu[..]

Maybe you need to pull your head out, and smell the textbooks..

It did not work [..]

Okay, then you're just going to have to live with the fact
that someone else may have studied science and physics for
a great deal longer than you have..

And as a result, I don't believe anything you've said about science.
"global warming" or physics to be accurate, or even close to the
facts. Please pretend that your assumptions are unquestionable
with someone else. I'm not buying into your silly lies and
evasions, and I'm certain that you could do better if you'd
quit that pompous primate reaction of your to ideas that don't
agree with your feeble, uninformed and uneducated opinions about
global warming and science in general..

--Merry Christmas, by the way..

You can spank this twit till he's smarting all over, Kurt, but he
still comes back for more. It's great. I just love reading the idiotic
twaddle the deniers wriggle around in. This one is well down the list
though. Much better is kdetherage who has to be #1 and
tombolger(chemist) who's #2. There are some quite good runners up -
whatafool, bonzo, talk-n-dog, but these are usually more cautious
about making clear, testable statements.

What's your assessment? Perhaps if I can get enough replies we could
run a pillocks league table.

"John M." wrote:

Kurt Lochner was amused by the pathology exhibited by:

'bitch' deleted and bleated at:

Kurt Lochner restored the hilarious bitch-slappings of:

'bitch' deleted and bleated at:

Kurt Lochner restored the hilarious bitch-slappings of:
__________
It's not like you right-wingers can accurately quote
anything past your usual grade-school comprehensions..

Yeah, never mind that Kent Dethridge repeatedly fscked-up
his own 'scientific terms' about "energy" and "power", much
less the reference to the Stefan Boltzman equation..

And here's the first mistake Kent was trying to run away from..

"The same force applied to heavy truck as a small car,
will cause the vehicles to absorb the same kinetic
energy. The truck will be moving faster than the
lighter car"

Yeah, some 'typo' that was..

I've not seen an AGW believer who can accurately qu[..]

Maybe you need to pull your head out, and smell the textbooks..

It did not work [..]

Okay, then you're just going to have to live with the fact
that someone else may have studied science and physics for
a great deal longer than you have..

And as a result, I don't believe anything you've said about science.
"global warming" or physics to be accurate, or even close to the
facts. Please pretend that your assumptions are unquestionable
with someone else. I'm not buying into your silly lies and
evasions, and I'm certain that you could do better if you'd
quit that pompous primate reaction of your to ideas that don't
agree with your feeble, uninformed and uneducated opinions about
global warming and science in general..

--Merry Christmas, by the way..

You can spank this twit till he's smarting all over, Kurt,
but he still comes back for more. It's great. I just love
reading the idiotic twaddle the deniers wriggle around in.

The overly simplistic rationalizations for what they believe
in strikes more often as a pathology, though it might be
better described as a knee-jerk reaction..

This one is well down the list though. Much better is kdetherage
who has to be #1 and tombolger(chemist) who's #2. There are some
quite good runners up - whatafool, bonzo, talk-n-dog, but these
are usually more cautious about making clear, testable statements.

Perhaps there's still yet hope for them? Nah..

What's your assessment? Perhaps if I can get enough replies
we could run a pillocks league table.

Ha!.. I think that dwarf tossing would be more humane..

--And somewhat more challenging, but if you insist..