Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
> On Sunday, March 27, 2016 at 11:06:13 PM UTC-7,
> James 'Tardnado' McGinn wrote:
>> On Sunday, March 27, 2016 at 10:43:31 PM UTC-7,
>> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
>>>>> 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
>>> unintelligible gibberish.
>>> 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.
>>> Your choice.
>>>> 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
>>>> to say.
>>> 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
>>> delusions, James?
>>> 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?
No reply, James? Still running away from the fact that you're a
pathetic loser, 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:
>>> Message-ID: <***@dizum.com>
>>> > Retracted:
>>> > 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:
>>> Message-ID: <***@dizum.com>
>>> > 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
>>> suppositions, James.
>>> 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
>> So, can you provide details as to how these hyper-intelligent
>> people contacted you to inform you that you had been selected?
>> Did it in any way involve telepathy? You can tell us. We're
>> your friends.
Still trying to backpedal via non sequitur, James? I've got you
constantly back on your heels now. You're not even trying to discuss
or defend your moronic theory, you're just backing away as I land blow
after blow. You've lost, James. I won.
That's reality, James. _Deal_ _with_ _it_.
> I imagine they must have had some super secret method for revealing
> you had been selected that allowed them to maintain the secrecy of
> their identity. And I suppose you can't tell us about that, can you?
And now I've got James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn so defensive that
he's answering his own posts... likely a result of his Dissociative
Identity Disorder flaring up.
Why have the courts made you a ward of your mommy and daddy, with whom
you've lived your entire pathetic life, because you've legally been
deemed mentally incompetent, James?
Why did you *fail* *out* of an elective Basic Meteorology class, in
which they teach the very concepts you're blathering out your lack of
education about now, James?
Why do you so hate meteorologists, James? Is it because you failed out
of the elective Basic Meteorology class because you've legally been
deemed mentally incompetent, James?
Why can't you answer those questions, James?
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 (https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156) 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?