On 11/23/2014 1:29 AM, Solving Tornadoes wrote:
James McGinn or Solvent Tornadtoes solvingtornadoes, or Julius Denk or
Claudius Denk is Troll of the Meth clan. A troll since 2006 in
sci.environment, he now out of office technician work he suffers
from advanced simia cogitans.
Do Not bother repling to this guy,
**ALL** his marbles are loose, and he is only here to argue.
HE IS ONLY HERE TO ARGUE.
Jim McGinn in his Book “Solving Tornadoes: Mastering the Mystery of the
Vortex” represents ‘the beginning of the end’ of what little
rationality mankind was capable of applying to any given
subject. McGinn represents an unusually high order of the Dunning-Kruger
effect seldom seen in ‘modern’ internet work; What other
authors are to Chemtrails and HAARP mind control Jim McGinn is to
understanding (or mis-understanding) tornadoes … To cite Jim McGinn as
an idiot or a moron is to slight idiots and morons.
from wiki: Dunning and Kruger proposed that, for a given skill,
incompetent people will:
fail to recognize their own lack of skill;
fail to recognize genuine skill in others;
fail to recognize the extremity of their inadequacy;
recognize and acknowledge their own previous lack of skill, if they
are exposed to training for that skill.
***James McGinn RETRACTION OF HIS TROLL BOOK !! He is proved a
plagiarist, and the book is gobblygook
nonsense **by his own admission **
Well, let's just say that it ain't no textbook.
The confusion you are feeling is by design. And it's not so
simple as me having an objection to pandering to my audience.
It's more like I recognize that most consumers of science are
looking for an excuse not to think. I wrote it with with the
intention of giving you no avenue of escape.
You can try to dispute it if you want. But, let's face it,
you're already entangled. If you struggle you'll just become
more entangled. And there's no way out -- without thinking.
My only advice is that if you haven't gotten to the third
chapter yet stop now. But it sounds like it's too late for
that. Oh well. You had a good run. And it's not like me
making you think is some kind of violation of your civil
rights or something.
Book review1 1.0 out of 5 stars insane rambling July 3, 2014 By K.
Parker - The author believes that elementary concepts,
which have been taught to and understood by first year Chemistry and
Physics students for many decades, are some kind of meteorological
conspiracy. The author also does not understand the very
basic physics that drive convective updrafts (the positive buoyancy due
to warm temperature anomalies that result from latent heat release).
Instead, apparently based largely on reading websites, he proposes a
mechanism that makes no physical sense and is totally unobserved and
unobservable. This text violates even basic tenets of logic. Totally
Book Review2 1.0 out of 5 stars Waste of time, a non-funny joke July
16, 2014 By hunter - This book misleads the reader on basic physical
concepts like density, the basics of weather dynamics,and offers a silly
idea that confuses metaphors about how the jet stream operates with
reality. It solves nothing but does offer away to waste time and money
buying and reading it. This book is an example of the risks posed in the
age of inexpensive self publishing.
***Here are more of James McGinn or Soilent Potatoes troll posts as follows;
I am diamond.
Address the issue in the subject heading or kindly go away.
Try to imagine how our audience might view this conversation.
They are going to be left wondering why it is you don't just
supply the evidence that you claim to be so prevalent.
When believers can't find confirming evidence they just
You can't get any more basic than comprehending the difference between a
boiling point and evaporation. If you are confused
on that issue there isn't much anybody can do for you.
So, why do you think they are hiding this data from us?
Why do you think it is that you are the only person on earth that knows
Okay . . . present your argument.
Or, you could just make a retraction.
I'm not a mind reader, if that is what you mean.
I believe I am right. But I don't claim I know I am right. Nor do I
lie and claim that the experiment has already been done, or
that it can be found in a textbook or that it was done by over 200 years
Most people believe whatever is easiest or most convenient to believe.
And, as you have demonstrated vividly, once they believe
it it's just about impossible to get them to stop believing it.
Thank you for helping me perfectly exemplify the point of this thread:
Humans are Stupid, Lazy, and Intellectually Dishonest . . .
. . . When it Comes to Challenges to Their Science Based Beliefs
I hope that if you should ever come across this, "easily obtainable"
background information that you don't hesitate to spoonfeed
it to the rest of us.
So, why do you think it is that only you can see this "easily
obtainable" background information?
( Now folks, do you see that METH IS BAD ? )
Don't feel bad, you are only human.
You mean alleged resources. Remember, the resources you are
accusing me of not finding are resources for which you
failed to provide a reference. Right?
If you can't distinguish between "basics" and superstitions
you are worthless as a scientist.
Remember, humans are fundamentally incapable of distinguishing
between what they believe and what they know. This is the
reason scientific methods (which you ignore) were developed
for the sciences and why rules of evidence were developed for
our legal system.
On 11/23/2014 12:22 AM, Solving Tornadoes pooped:
Just think. If I had actual evidence of your magical cold steam
then I wouldn't have any need at all to resort to stories about
horses and crank indexes.
Maybe if I spent less time trying to distract my audience from the
fact that I have failed to support my assertion I'd have time
to, well, find my mysteriously missing evidence.
Also, while your are at it, keep an eye out for the holy grail. A
lot of people are looking for that.
I haven't dropped any claims. Don't confuse you with a character in my
book. And you goons haven't provided any references.
HORSE (is horse James McGinn et al ? hell yes.)
A man had a horse that wasn't very bright. The horse also wasn't very
productive, even though it seemed to think very highly of itself.
One day the horse looked very dehydrated, so the man filled a nearby
water trough. The horse did not move but looked more thirsty than ever.
The man led the horse to the water, even though he knew the saying. The
horse looked down at the trough, then turned away from the trough,
looking at the man instead.
The horse then brayed "The world is full of people like you that can't
distinguish water they know is there and water they believe is there,"
and then "If you believed that there is water in the trough,then one
would think you'd make a cogent argument to that effect," and then "You
are nothing but a grain of sand. I am a diamond."
The man, though astounded that a horse that stupid could talk, turned
and walked away, leaving the horse to fend for itself.
What experimental assertions? The ones in some textbook that you can't
Passive-aggressive games are boring, Mr. McGinn. You are boring.
Does it not concern you that you cannot explain the quotation
from Avogadro on any of this speculation?