Remember me
▼ Content

97% Consensis on AGW?



Page 2 of 2<12
21-02-2017 17:26
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
[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.
21-02-2017 18:08
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
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]


Funny how you would reference that without even reading it.

I read it, and there's no mention of Stephen Hawking. Nor is their any mention of Stephen Hawking in the other reference to the history of the development of the Standard Model that I gave earlier in the thread. You were either mistaken or bullshitting when when you claimed that Stephen Hawking developed the Standard Model.


Hawking is famous for making a bet that the Higgs boson could never be found. That must be because he never had anything to do with the development of the standard theory. Could you ever be more stupid? Or have you overreached even your own stupidity to gain a new plateau?

Seriously? Your evidence that Stephen Hawking developed that Standard Model is that he lost a bet on the discovery of the Higgs boson?

I lost a bet that my local football (soccer) team, Aston Villa, would win the English Premiership last year. I suppose that, in your eyes, this makes me the manager of Aston Villa.


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.
21-02-2017 20:07
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
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]


Funny how you would reference that without even reading it.

I read it, and there's no mention of Stephen Hawking. Nor is their any mention of Stephen Hawking in the other reference to the history of the development of the Standard Model that I gave earlier in the thread. You were either mistaken or bullshitting when when you claimed that Stephen Hawking developed the Standard Model.


Hawking is famous for making a bet that the Higgs boson could never be found. That must be because he never had anything to do with the development of the standard theory. Could you ever be more stupid? Or have you overreached even your own stupidity to gain a new plateau?

Seriously? Your evidence that Stephen Hawking developed that Standard Model is that he lost a bet on the discovery of the Higgs boson?

I lost a bet that my local football (soccer) team, Aston Villa, would win the English Premiership last year. I suppose that, in your eyes, this makes me the manager of Aston Villa.


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.

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.
21-02-2017 20:12
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
[b]Surface Detail wrote:
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.


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.
25-02-2017 02:48
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
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".
Page 2 of 2<12





Join the debate 97% Consensis on AGW?:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
If you believe in the AGW concept and want change but you8819-08-2019 22:09
Argument against AGW science314-08-2019 20:51
What exactly is the evidence that AGW is happening or1014-04-2019 13:33
Serious question, is there any data on how many people that believe in AGW106-01-2019 21:35
The Argument for AGW6415-01-2018 23:52
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact