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..

On Dec 25, 9:13*am, Kurt Lochner
wrote:
"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..- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Only problem is you dweebs are autistic, dyslexic, mathematically
inept and far too prone to believe your own lies. Kurt is convinced my
typo was my belief, although in the same post I noted that the
hydrogen molecule must move faster than the CO2 molecule in order to
have the same kinetic energy.. Then when I supply the formula for the
exact velocity of the molecules at specific temperatures, you
psychologically degenerate and phobic twits, degenerate back into your
generalities where you can evade reality.

The square root of 44,, 6.63,, 1.84 / 6.63 is .27E3 m/s.
So when 1 liter of CO2 is mixed with 1 liter of hydrogen gas at 0C,
the hydrogen molecules have an average velocity of 1.84E3 m/s and the
CO2 molecules have the average velocity of .27E3 m/s. Therefore when
they collide with the surface of a container, they impart the same
kinetic energy. Therefore in their partial pressure, they contribute
exactly the same pressure, which is accorded only to their
concentration by volume of the mixture only.

Since the pressure of the gas is well defined within the kinetic
theory of gases, the energy of the molecular motions of the molecules
is understood. Therefore the simple experiment of the N2 gas and the
energy it transfers at different temperatures PROVES the basic concept
of grenhouse gases invalid, and the proponents of this theoretical
application entirely incapable of the basics of physics and chemistry,
and prone only to perversion of physical laws and facts of science in
order to support their fanatical belief that the earth is doomed from
grenhouse gases.

If the Boltzman Stefan equation quantifies the energy leaving the
surface of a thermal body, it does so by the density of this radiation
energy traveling through the plane of 1sq cm, at the velocity of
light. This energy, if absorbed, collects according to this quantity
unless it again leaves the vicinity at the velocity of light.

See you in court, Kurt the turd sucker.
Here is one of your 'quotations', turd sucker'
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.g...720e1692a68 2

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

ts ""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"""

Just think, the ocean releases 821 million tons of CO2 per day into
the atmosphere. In the atmosphere exists 3 TRILLION TONS OF CO2
ALREADY. Man that should make a phobiac like you really start
suffocating. According to the British Royal Society, the CO2 released
from the burning of the rain forest is more than ALL of the CO2
released from humans due to transportation. WE'RE ALL GONNA
DIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So what would be the acceptable level of emissions Kurt the turd
sucker??? 50, million tons?
20 million tons? How much reductions are required to control the
temperature? The only suggestions you have, is complete elimination of
society and our economy, or mere symbolic and ineffective reductions
that only have value for the profiteers and academic fraudists.

KDeatherage
CO2Phobia is a psychological disease.

"death_rage" writhed in denials:

Only problem is you dweebs are autistic, dyslexic,
mathematically inept [...]

*LOL!* You're projecting again, Kent..

Examples 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."

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..

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

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..

Then when I supply the formula for the exact velocity of
the molecules at specific temperatures,[..]

Translation: When you couldn't even get the name of that
equation right, and I had to correct your silly word-droppings..

Example follows..

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..

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

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

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

On Dec 25, 3:01*pm, Kurt Lochner
wrote:
"death_rage" writhed in denials:

Only problem is you dweebs are autistic, dyslexic,
mathematically inept [...]

*LOL!* *You're projecting again, Kent..

Examples 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."

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..

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

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..

Then when I supply the formula for the exact velocity of
the molecules at specific temperatures,[..]

Translation: When you couldn't even get the name of that
equation right, and I had to correct your silly word-droppings..

Example follows..

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..

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

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

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

Turd sucker sucking turds in public. Your definition says that a Watt
is a 'rate' of energy usage. Perhaps in your autistic mind this is a
synonym for 'quantity'?

Anything to make your cookie crumble, and then the debate is over, and
the court proceedings begin.
HAHAHAHAHAHhahahahahahHAHAHAHAHhahaha

Old Arnie out in California is surely a gambling man. Putting his name
on federal lawsuits with advisors like you. So who will face greater
liability for the false and fraudulent statements presented in US
court? The rinky dink idiots of theoretical climatology, or the
duffuses that bet their entire life upon the rinky dink idiots ability
to factually support and define EVERY word they submit into US law?
That phrase, '99% of scientists believe', might just fail the lawyers
and politicians at a most crucial moment.

HAHAHAHAHAhahahahahahHAHAHAHAHAHhHAHAHAH

KD