Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
On Saturday, March 26, 2016 at 9:46:32 AM UTC-7,
Post by Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
You're pathetic, Jim. You must know you've made yourself the
laughingstock of the entire scientific world. Those hyper-intelligent
people are all laughing at your stupidity.
So you'll never be taken seriously, James. You'll always be that
halfwit living at home with mommy and daddy because you're too
feeble-minded to live independently. You've been off-meds for 25
years, and your ever-encroaching paranoid schizophrenia gets worse by
the day. You blather on about fictional fabrications that make no
sense because your badly broken brain cannot process reality... you're
the internet version of the street corner crackpot screaming out
It's over, Jim. The jig is up, you've been proven to be delusional.
You can either dig deep and do the hard research to suss out the
truth, or you can continue driving yourself deeper into psychosis.
let me get this straight the "hyper-intelligent" people of the
world have chosen you to speak for them. And this is what you have
No, Jim. I chose to drop-kick a moronic anti-science
conspiracy-spewing reality-denying halfwit of my own accord because
while you denigrate the AGW morons, you're even worse than they are.
At least the Klimate Katastrophe Kooks attempt to stick to reality,
whereas you're off in La-La Land blathering on about impossible
physical processes as you deny scientific proof and reality.
Those hyper-intelligent people of the sciences need no defending,
they're right, and they've proven it via rigorously-controlled
experimentation, whereas all you've got is stupid suppositions that
make no sense, which you pulled straight from your ass.
Why can't you explain or mathematically model even *one* of your
Why can't you get your delusions through the peer-review process,
Why are there *no* corroborating studies backing up your delusions,
Why are you described in the reviews of the "books" you've written as
"delusional", "insane", and a "conspiracy theorist", James?
So, uh, was there an interview process before these hyper-intelligent
people selected you?
Or did they swear you to secrecy?
You're still backpedaling, James.
Remember, James, you were stupid enough to let yourself get trapped by
your own illogic, and in attempting to evade your having been proven
wrong, you stupidly publicly retracted the main premise of your
"theory not-a-theory", and thus your entire fabrication came crashing
down around you.
I did that to you, James. I predicted it'd happen, then I made it
happen. You're far too stupid, uneducated and insane to even
understand or acknowledge reality, let alone try to model it.
James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn dribbled:
Polarity is a variable. And the mechanism that alters (reduces)
the polarity of H2O molecules is the completion of hydrogen
bonds with adjoining water molecules.
James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn dribbled:
In my post entitled Conservation of Energy in Earth's
Atmosphere I describe how the spinning of water
droplets/clusters--a direct result of wind shear--causes
these droplets to elongate into chains of partially
reactivated H2O molecules, effectuating a plasma with
structural integrity. It is important to note that
without the concept that is the subject of this post
(the Polarity Neutralization Implication of Hydrogen
Bonds Between Water Molecules and Groups Thereof) this
would not be possible.
Thus, without your "variable polarity of the water molecule" claim
(now retracted by you), your "plasma not-a-plasma" claim falls, by
your own admission. And without your "plasma not-a-plasma" claim, your
"boundaries and structures" which you claim that "plasma not-a-plasma"
forms which drives the winds. Thus your entire "theory not-a-theory"
just came crashing to the ground. That's what happens when you build
your "theory not-a-theory" like a Jenga tower of lies and
Yet again, you've destroyed your moronic theory in trying to slap
patches on it so you can writhe your way out of being proven wrong.
You're too ignorant, insane and uneducated to acknowledge or
understand reality, let alone model it, Tardnado. LOL
Thanks for playing, but you lose.
That's reality, James. Deal with it. Tardnado. LOL
Here, James, at the very least, try to address those tough questions
which spotlight the logical inconsistencies and contradictions
inherent in your "theory":
Anders Nilsson measured http://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw a
spectral peak that was not solid-phase nor liquid-phase water, James.
You claim that water remains liquid-phase upon evaporation. What was
Anders Nilsson measuring, James? Oh, that's right... gaseous phase
water, thereby proving that evaporation entails a phase change,
thereby proving latent heat of evaporation exists, thereby
*dis*proving a gigantic chunk of your theory, James.
You make a supposition that a "plasma not-a-plasma" is created from
water due to wind shear, which transports energy throughout the
atmosphere via wind driven by that plasma. Where does the energy come
from to create your "wind shear" to create your "plasma not-a-plasma"
if the "plasma not-a-plasma" cannot exist and thereby "transport
energy" by driving that wind to create the "wind shear" which creates
your "plasma not-a-plasma", unless there is "wind shear" to begin
with, James? Your logic is so twisted you're going in circles. You've
created a circulus in probando causality dilemma, which utterly
destroys your theory, James.
According to your "theory", electrostatic attraction *increases* with
distance (in violation of Coulomb's Law), which means that when an
electron falls in orbit, it has to *absorb* energy. And that higher
energy level somehow translates into a *weaker* electrostatic
attraction. Now let's look at the other side of the coin... the
electron in orbit would give off energy, rise in orbit, and somehow,
that *lower* energy level translates into a *stronger* electrostatic
attraction... how's *that* work, James? Explain how you've not just
violated the Law of Conservation of Energy on an atomic level.
How do your "jet stream vortices" travel potentially hundreds of miles
away from your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky", without
detection by satellite *or* Doppler radar, and know where and when to
touch down so they always hit only cumulonimbus clouds, rather than
tornadoes randomly appearing out of the clear blue sky or from other
types of clouds, James? Is your "jet stream / giant tornado in the
sky" sentient, James?
Go on, Jim, tell us... *why* is there a "boundary" between the
troposphere and the stratosphere... we're waiting, Jim... No answer,
Jim? Is it because that's where your "sentient jet stream / giant
tornado monster with noodly appendages" lives, and it likes it that
way, Jim? Do you need your meds, Jim?
If, as you claim, the jet stream is a vortex, why is the ride while
inside the jet stream so smooth, James? Have you never ridden in an
airplane inside a jet stream, James? Is it just that your "sentient
jet stream / giant tornado monster with noodly appendages" likes its
back scratched by the aircraft, so it doesn't rip the aircraft to
Do you not understand that once the air going upward through the
tornadic funnel reaches the cumulonimbus cloud base above the
mesocyclone, it spreads out, thus the tornado is strictly a phenomenon
which happens from cloud base to ground? It does *not* go from the
ground all the way up through the cloud to the tropopause as you
claim, James, and it most certainly does not continue for potentially
hundreds of miles in the upper troposphere to join the jet stream,
which would make air travel deadly.
Explain why the jets run easterly, whereas the dry line runs N-S, if
the jets are powering the creation of tornadoes. How is a tornado
being created hundreds of miles from the edge of the jets, James?
Which direction does air flow from a flame, Jim? Up, does it not?
That's convection due to temperature-induced density differential, is
it not? Which direction does air flow from a flame in zero gravity,
James? Radially in all directions, thereby snuffing out the flame due
to lack of oxygen. So your claiming that convection doesn't exist
means you're further claiming that gravity does not exist, and fire
cannot burn for very long before it is smothered due to lack of
oxygen. Or were you not aware that convection is a gravity-induced
phenomenon due to density differential, James?
How does a hot air balloon rise, Jim? That's due to air density
differential due to temperature differential, is it not? That
less-dense air is convecting upward. Do you deny this, Jim? Is your
giant sentient sky tornado monster stretching one of its noodly
appendages down and gently lifting the hot air balloon, Jim?
How are your atmospheric "water droplets" forming if they're plasma,
Do you not know what the definition of "plasma" is, James?
How is your "plasma not-a-plasma" (which you have admitted is a
hypothetical construct in a failed attempt to lend your claims even a
semblance of plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and
dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the water will
preferentially dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen unless hit with an
extremely energetic laser, Jim?
Where is the energy (equivalent to photons of 103.32 nm wavelength,
extremely strong ultraviolet, just 3.32 nm away from x-rays... except
photons with shorter wavelength than 121 nm are absorbed high above
the troposphere because they ionize air so well) coming from in the
troposphere to form your "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim?
How is the energy to plasmize your "plasma not-a-plasma" not
dissociating all water on the planet and killing all life on the
planet given that the energy *must* be in the troposphere where nearly
all the water is, and where all life is, Jim?
Now that it's been proven that water molecule polarity doesn't change
upon H bonding (which would have side effects such as random changes
in the solvent properties of water... and we know those properties do
not randomly change, Jim), and in fact the two spin isomers of water
molecules account for the different H bonding strengths which account
for evaporation and condensation, do you still contend that your
implausible claims are workable, Jim?
Why can't you answer those questions, Jim?