Letters to the Editor
droogoy
Published Letters: 590 Editor's Choice: 9
-
More gibberish
[Read the article: Desperate times, desperate scientists]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]sisyphus returns wrote:
have no doubt, Droogoy, that you have some scientific background, but you also do a LOT of scientific posturing.
How so? Care to elaborate? What exactly do you mean by "posturing?" Sharing experience, knowledge? Referencing something? Explain yourself.
I'm not exactly impressed that you are familiar with one of Maxwell's equations and an elementary equation from hydrostatics.
First, off, junior, the equation
curl B = alpha (B)
is not one of the four Maxwell equations, but a modification of an equation to incorporate the force-free parameter (alpha). It was also not given to "impress" anyone - but as an embodiment and reference gestalt for the type and form of solar flare models I was working on - should anyone on this illustrious blog register it.
Second, the other equation was not an "elementary equation" from hydrostatics but rather one of the most critical differential equations applicable to the interiors of stars, describing hydrostatic equilibrium between two stellar layers.
If anyone is 'posturing' here, it is you.
The greatest crime of the AGW crowd is their perversion of the scientific method--where scientific truths are now discovered by consensus and vote and all skepticism is derided.
What total codswallop and horse manure! Have you read in detail ANY of th3e papers published in any of the major climate science journals? If you have, then kindly provide me with a sound basis for your claim - being as specific as you can - that there is a "perversion of science".
The sad truth is that none of you anti-global warming flacks, hacks or shills know what the hell you are talking about.
If you send me your e-mail I will provide you with my global warming qualification test in thermodynamics. Let's see if you can pass it. Then maybe, just maybe ...you merit having your opinions heard.
-
I said so!
[Read the article: King Kaufman's Sports Daily]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Well, on page one of the comments I said the best chance the phins had to win was against a depleted Ravens' team - and so it has come to pass:
Phins 22 Ravens 16
Didn't I also say in one of King's blogs that it would be easier to see a Phins first win, than a Pats first loss? Yes I did.
I believe I have attained a kind of semi-prognosticator status.
My next prediction - for the playoffs:
NE gets ramrodded by the Jacksonville Jags and Fred Taylor: 24 - 16/