[b]Wake wrote: Reading the paper produced by ARTHUR B. ROBINSON, NOAH E. ROBINSON, AND WILLIE SOON Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, 2251 Dick George Road, Cave Junction, Or egon 97523 very closely agrees with my own study of the subject.
Of course, it does because:
From Peter Sinclair quoting the Seattle Times, "Robinson acknowledged that little attempt was done to verify credentials of those who responded." That is a lie in itself. No one did any attempt at verification.
Yeah! That is why your study agrees with Robinson. You can't do math & you lie to get the results you do.
Surface Detail wrote:Wake wrote:Surface Detail wrote:Wake wrote:[b]Surface Detail wrote: url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model]Standard Model[/url]
Each step you make shows you to be still more moronic - you could say that the Standard Model started with Enrico Fermi. The fact that one of the world's greatest theoretical physicist and mathematicians was deeply involved enough to bet other physicists that certain particles could not be found certainly means that he never contributed to it.
And as it turns out he MAY have been right about the Higgs Boson since the particle detected while in the general area and energy of the particle Higgs predicted is not THAT close. So as usual Hawking may have been a little too rapid to claim defeat.
Wake wrote:Surface Detail wrote:Wake wrote:Surface Detail wrote:Wake wrote:[b]Surface Detail wrote: url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model]Standard Model[/url]
This may come as a surprise to you, but you don't have to be that closely involved in something to bet on it. I don't doubt that Stephen Hawking is interested in particle physics, but that doesn't mean that he developed the Standard Model. He didn't. That's a simple fact of history.
[b]Surface Detail wrote:
Believe me - after watching you flailing around like a fool perhaps you THINK that a theoretical physicist doesn't have to be that involved but that is nothing more than your usual blather.
Wake wrote: Believe me -
Can't believe someone named "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up".
|If you believe in the AGW concept and want change but you||88||19-08-2019 22:09|
|Argument against AGW science||3||14-08-2019 20:51|
|What exactly is the evidence that AGW is happening or||10||14-04-2019 13:33|
|Serious question, is there any data on how many people that believe in AGW||1||06-01-2019 21:35|
|The Argument for AGW||64||15-01-2018 23:52|