Surely they must be the self-same enemy of science. Firstly how could this menace manage to still maintain his ability to be on the Randi site given his abuse of knowledgeable passers-by? Not of me so much. Because I like to get a kick in the throat early on. But the abuse of everyone else that goes against the most idiotic faux-science religions still extant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Plait
The other thing is how could two DIFFERENT people be that mindless and idiotic? That authoritarian and lacking in creativity when it comes to science.
No-one else is that stupid. Only Phil Plait fits the bill. Sol invictus IS Phil Plait. These two diots are the same person as surely as foolish fat fingers is Jackass Jarrah Job.
Phil I found you out.
A Better World: Graeme Bird For High Office 
Bird,
do you still think ………………….Ron Paul should be president?
By: Steve Edney on January 7, 2009
at 12:07 am
Yes of course. But he didn’t say anything about loving Hamas. You misread his attitude entirely. I wish he would have made an exception to his hardcore America-first attitude. But his real focus was the idea of George Washington’s farewell address. Where you do all you can not to get tangled up in other peoples business.
The American bureaucracy is not up to doing any good there. They are almost always counterproductive. Think of what the alleged friends of Israel are trying to do now? All that killing and Hamas barely touched. The State department always comes in and stops the payoff.
Ron’s a Doctor. His attitude is do no harm. Of course one wished he’d make an exception in this one case but he chose not to.
By: graemebird on January 7, 2009
at 12:14 am
By the way Edney. There is STILL no lying on this site.
By: graemebird on January 7, 2009
at 12:14 am
I listen to Ron maybe twenty times and I don’t like what he says maybe one in twenty. Its about going that little bit too far in the right direction. I wish Israel had made the right investments in mass-sackings and later the right investments in kickass so that less civilians had been killed. So what do you do? You expect a lot of people to get turned around when 5 little girls in one family get killed.
You lot were all a bit squeamish last time that Israel went to fight. And thats understandeable too. Israel had the ability to launch the technology that could neutralise those missiles so she could have hit at Damascus directly. So a lot of neutral Lebanese probably got killed that didn’t need to.
Always people get turned when the kids start dying and thats understandable and it isn’t necessarily bad. The American right would be hanging shit on Jack Murtha. He had a bit of a big mouth. But he would be going down to the veterans hospital every week visiting the lads when they came home but not all of them. They come home with less than what they left with. How do you think he’s going to feel?
Having said that, any Hamas leadership they don’t kill outright in Gaza is someone whose effects they will face in Israel proper. I’m not talking about some fellow who just joined Hamas a year ago because the pay coming out of Tehran is better than he could get elsewhere… But they ought not take prisoners with any of the bigshots. They’ve got to string them up on a rope. No deals down the track. No dead Israelis traded for live terrorists. They’ve got to kill any of the bigshots that can be pulled from their matresses. No trials. Any spokesman that has been seen on TV ought to die on TV. No more Arafats dying in their bed to the sound of leftist tributes. (I would have said French tributes but I like the new guy and by extension the people who voted the last prick out and someone decent in.)
And thats another thing. They probably won’t do that. They probably won’t kill many of the leadership. So all those civilians die and policy is not particularly effectual. They don’t know how to look after themselves. They should outsource policy to me.
By: graemebird on January 7, 2009
at 12:23 am
“I didn’t see anything in the video that particularily changed my view of the situation in the middle east or my view that Ron Paul is in general a good bloke. I would agree however that the situation in the middle east is mischaracterised on Ron Pauls part by some omissions. ”
Thats a fair comment from Terje. Ron emphasises only half the story of terrorism. Like Pat Buchanan. Pat summarised terrorism as the price of empire. Thats about half right. So you pull back but at the same time you destroy leadership.
For a Paul or Buchanan Presidency you are hoping for the rest of the party and the Congress to force things to the sensible far far right middle ground. And they would do it.
For such a big country as the US, with such a dysfunctional Washington bureaucracy, even pushing Presidential war-reticence to the Paul level (kind of right in general but going too far in the particular) confers an odd advantage. Since having the Congress declare war in defiance of a reticent President guarantees that when the Commander in chief acts he has this big unweildy and fickle country behind him.
And then he’ll win fast and get back to peace fast, with the foreigners so stupefied that matters are calm for many years.
The Americans can take Rons attitude. We here have to be somewhat harsher.
By: graemebird on January 7, 2009
at 2:54 am
It is unlikely that sol invictus is Phil Plait.
If you read the posts by sol invictus then you will see that he is well versed in the mathematics of physics, especially General Relativity, i.e. has a background in theoretical physics.
On the other hand Phil Plait is an astronomer, lecturer, and author, i.e. has a background in experimental physics.
By: Ian Fisk on January 7, 2009
at 8:47 am
Neither of them know shit from shinola.
Sol invictus is such an incredible idiot that he gave one answer for the Dingle refutation and then offered alledged evidence that contradicted his dishonest answer. His answer was dishonest since it contradicted the theory. It was a committee decision answer. And yet the dumb fuck offered evidence which said the opposite of what he said. Then the incredible fuckwit had yet another answer for the twins refutation. Even though its the exact same example but with humans substituted for clocks. Nothing essential changed.
So he’s a fuckwit. He’s a fuckng dim bulb. Exactly like his alter ego Phil.
By: graemebird on January 7, 2009
at 9:13 am
The Dingle refutation is actually easy: Both clocks run slow according to the other observer. This is a simple consequence of the methematics.
I really like your debating style. Lots of nice clear profanity. Luckily I am a Kiwi so I can be smug thinking that all Aussies speak like you write!
By: Ian Fisk on January 7, 2009
at 9:26 am
See you are lying. Thats not what the theory says. The theory says that the fast-moving clock runs slower. Your lie was a committee lie due to the fact that the conclusion that the fast clock runs slower was irrational and in violation of the principle and FACT of the relativity of velocity.
For fucksakes I even explained it to you are you still cannot comprehend it.
Invictus was then asked for evidence for this lie. The dumb bastard then came up with the idea that muons last longer if they are fast-moving. So his alleged evidence was in direct contradiction to the committee lie that he told.
By: graemebird on January 7, 2009
at 9:39 am
Ian
Graeme is actually a Kiwi too, a transplanted Kiwi. You are welcome to have him back
By: Jason Soon on January 7, 2009
at 9:50 am
I’m a dual citizen. A NewZealander also. I was born and educated in New Zealand. And the way I talk is due to the fact that you are an idiot and dishonest and has nothing to do with which country I live in.
By: graemebird on January 7, 2009
at 9:51 am
So Fisk. Do you now realise that you were lying about the two clocks.
The dumb relativity answer is that the fast clock runs slower and the fast-moving twin ages more slowly and that the faster muons have a longer life-span then their lazier cousins. Don’t ask me to justify this stupidity since its your theory and not mine.
By: graemebird on January 7, 2009
at 9:52 am
“His answer was dishonest since it contradicted the theory. It was a committee decision answer. And yet the dumb fuck offered evidence which said the opposite of what he said. ”
You seem to have missed the following logic from the “dumb fuck” (any children reading this please ask your parents what Graeme Bird is saying):
1. The answer to Dingle’s question is using the theory of Special Relativity to work out what happens.
2. The only way that the answer could be wrong if if the SR mathematics was wrong.
3. If SR is wrong then any theory that includes it is wrong.
4. Quantum electrodynamics is an SR theory (more technically it is a Lorenz invariant theory).
5. If Quantum electrodynamics is wrong then it will give incorrect predictions. The more precise the prediction the more it will not agree with experimental results.
6. But QED is one of the most precisely tested theories in physics.
The matches include (in decreasing precision from parts per billion to parts per million):
* The anomalous magnetic dipole moment.
* Atom-recoil measurements.
* Neutron Compton wavelength.
* Hyperfine splitting.
* Lamb shift.
* Positronium properties.
By: Ian Fisk on January 7, 2009
at 9:53 am
No the mathematics can be just fine and the theory is still wrong.
YOu are a fuckwit mate. You are getting mixed up between maths and reality. Stop fucking lying you dumb cunt.
YOu didn’t fucking listen you cunt. The theory says that the fast-moving clock runs slower.
Its a wrong theory. But thats what is says. So stop lying you cunt.
The fast clock runs slow. The fast twin stays young. And the fast muon lives longer.
Stop lying. We know that your lie was a committee decision after months of argument.
By: graemebird on January 7, 2009
at 9:57 am
Maths cannot change reality. Maths can be right or wrong but it has no effect on physical reality.
By: graemebird on January 7, 2009
at 9:57 am
Further to the subject of these comments, something that seems to have escaped Graeme anyway, I did note that the posting pattern timing for Sol Invictus at JREF, plus his spelling and grammar patter, tends to strongly indicate someone of British (nay, English) location and heritage. Not American.
Meanwhile, Dr. Plait is actually a resident of California, USA (and a serious Australian Mintie fan as well!). Not, as one might expect with JREF headquarters being in Florida, a Floridian resident. Plus he has a day job, and a young family, meaning it would be unusual for him to be posting outside normal waking hours there.
Which still leaves us with the distinct impression that this Sol Invictus chap is not actually Dr. Phil Plait after all. Hmmm… I’m guessing it’s more likely a UK university don or tutor – Cambridge, perhaps?
Anyway, it’s Reality 2, Graeme 0.
By: Zep on January 7, 2009
at 11:25 am
Right. But it could be quantum entanglement. And we might explain it in the same way that Neils Bohr tried to JIVE Einstein. If it helps (we might say paraphrasing Bohr) we might consider the two men as simply one big entangled cunt cunt.
There is just no end to the irrationality in physics I tell you. One time at my university a fellow was a guest at our hostel. And he comes in talking about the wonderment and creativity involved with thinking about the three-become-one nature of the son the father and the holy ghost. Like there they are three and they are one AT THE SAME TIME. I told him it was a contradiction. We started talking and it got to where he was saying that we have to be careful for if we reject the bible there goes our objectivity. I told him the righteous thing to do was to live with the fucking pain and build yourself back up from the ground.
In any case notice how foolish the jibber-jabber of Bohr was. It was quite literally theology (not that there is anything wrong with that) and had no place whatsoever in a scientific discussion. One of the old spiritual heavies I knew reckoned that God told him that the holy ghost was female in essence. And there was much wonderment and creativity about that JIve-Ass thesis and perhaps it means that these religious people ought to have trained as physicists.
Now in the general I suspect that Albert was a nice guy. But we can now retrace his sliminess in terms of the presentation of his thesis. Had Einstein presented and named his thesis in a way not JUST SO it would have been rejected. Since it would immediately have been pointed out that his thesis meant that the laws of physics were different under different conditions, that the law of relativity of velocity was entirely violated, and that his thesis ran in direct contradiction to Ockhams razor. Nice bloke that he was he skankily got around all of these authentic objections by his dishonest presentation. Remember that he was a poor boy on the make and do not be too harsh on him.
By: graemebird on January 7, 2009
at 8:49 pm
Actually I can remember sol invictus complaining about the amount of crackpot material that gets delivered to his physics department at the university that he works.
By: Ian Fisk on January 7, 2009
at 11:31 am
Don’t be an idiot mate. Sol Invictus is the crackpot. And any Joe that can see through his lying and obvious idiocy is yet going to think that these lunatics can be reasoned with. But they cannot. The best that can be done is to cut off all the funds. Then this reign of unreason will pass.
By: graemebird on January 7, 2009
at 8:37 pm
““The dumb relativity answer is that the fast clock runs slower and the fast-moving twin ages more slowly and that the faster muons have a longer life-span then their lazier cousins. Don’t ask me to justify this stupidity since its your theory and not mine.”
That is right. The dumb relativity answer is that there is time dilation. Thta is a simple consequence of the postualtes of SR and the resulting mathematics.”
Right. So you lied. The real answer is that the faster clock runs slower. Not in reality. But under this dumbass theory. The fast muons last longer, the fast twin stays younger, and the fast clock runs slower. That was a committee decision after a controversy, NOT the prediction of special relativity.
Now go again and this time don’t fucking lie you cunt. You told the exact same lie that Sol Invictus did and you agree with the alledged evidence. But the alledged evidence contradicts your lying ass and that of that other stupid cunt Sol Invictus.
So go again. And I want you to know that just to show you what stupid cunts special relativity devotees are I’m breaking my strict rules of wiping every fucking post that contains a lie in it. But that policy cannot last long.
So go again and this time don’t lie you fucking pathetic cunt cunt.
By: GMB on January 7, 2009
at 8:16 pm
One of my threads at Randi’s site starts with the claim that special relativity is dead from the neck up and only kept afloat by relentless lying. And we saw it at Randi’s and now we’ve seen an instant replay right here. Here you will not be able to swarm or spam me to hide these lies. I haven’t yet blocked anyone. But I do tend to edit out lies after the fact. Here it was necessary to keep the lies tarnishing my blog because that was the subject we are discussing.
By: GMB on January 7, 2009
at 8:20 pm
“Right. But it could be quantum entanglement. And we might explain it in the same way that Neils Bohr tried to JIVE Einstein. If it helps (we might say paraphrasing Bohr) we might consider the two men as simply one big entangled cunt cunt.”
What is this post about? Who are you replying to? What is the “cunt cunt”?
SOME CUNT SAID THAT SOL INVICTUS WAS LIKELY IN ENGLAND WHEREAS THAT OTHER MINDLESS DIM BULB WAS IN THE STATES WITH A YOUNG FAMILY. BUT I WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT JUST HOW STUPID ALL YOU STUPID CUNTS ARE BY CLAIMING THEY WERE STILL THE SAME PERSON ON ACCOUNT OF THAT MINDLESS NOTION OF QUANTUM ENTANGLEMENT. THINK ABOUT HOW STUPID WHAT BOHR TOLD EINSTEIN WAS. WHAT A STUPID FUCKING EXPLANATION.
By: Ian Fisk on January 8, 2009
at 4:28 am
Your comment on quantum entanglement just makes you look silly. Neither Phil Plait nor sol invictus are quantum particles.
They are 2 different people. We know that Phil Plait is an author living in California. Judging by sol’s language, posting pattern and comments he is in England at a university.
YOU STUPID CUNT. THEY ARE EQUIVALENTLY RIDICULOUS FUCKING IDEAS. TWO PARTICLES BEING ONE PARTICLE IS NO MORE OR LESS RIDICULOUS THAN TWO STUPID CUNTS REALLY BEING ONE STUPID STUPID CUNT CUNT.
By: Ian Fisk on January 8, 2009
at 5:02 am
“Your comment on quantum entanglement just makes you look silly. Neither Phil Plait nor sol invictus are quantum particles.
They are 2 different people. We know that Phil Plait is an author living in California. Judging by sol’s language, posting pattern and comments he is in England at a university.
YOU STUPID CUNT. THEY ARE EQUIVALENTLY RIDICULOUS FUCKING IDEAS. TWO PARTICLES BEING ONE PARTICLE IS NO MORE OR LESS RIDICULOUS THAN TWO STUPID CUNTS REALLY BEING ONE STUPID STUPID CUNT CUNT.”
I see that you are continuing with your calm and considerate language.
I also see your point – Phil Plait and sol invicus do not agree with you. Therefore they must be the same person (this “CUNT CUNT”?).
WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU. NOT ONLY DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND PHYSICS. YOU DON’T EVEN UNDERSTAND A JOKE. YOU KNOW. SET UP. PUNCH LINE.
Quantum entanglement does not state that 2 particles are the same. In fact it states that if you measure the property of one entangled particle then the other particle will have the opposite property. So you analogy is wrong.
YOU STUPID CUNT. I MADE NOW SUCH CLAIM FOR THIS STUPID FUCKING THEORY. ALL I DID WAS PARAPHRASE NIELS BOHR.
By: Ian Fisk on January 8, 2009
at 5:32 am
(site deity says:FUCKING HELL YOU ARE A DISHONEST CUNT!!!! WHY DON’T YOU JUST ADMIT THAT YOU LIED THE FIRST TIME AROUND???? BECAUSE YOU FUCKING LIED. THE FASTER CLOCK RUNS SLOWER. NOT IN REALITY BUT IN THIS FUCKING DUMB THEORY. YOUR CONSTANT LYING IS A FUCKING HASSLE FOR ME. I DON’T HAVE TIME TO STOP YOU FROM MISLEADING THE LAITY. I WILL GIVE YOU A CHANCE TO READ THIS AND THEN I’LL DISSALLOW IT UNTIL I HAVE THE TIME TO SHOW EVERYONE HOW SPECIAL RELATIVITY IS ONLY KEPT ALIVE BY CONSTANT LYING AS YOU ARE DEMONSTRATING HERE)
Reply to site diety: HI. I CAN SEE THAT YOU ARE A NICE PERSON. YOUR LANGUAGE REMINDS ME OF SHAKESPEARE AND HIS LOVE SONNETS.
Actually – do you really think that such a potty-mouth will make your statements better.
I did not lie the “THE FIRST TIME AROUND”.
YES YOU DID DON’T FUCKING LIE.
I stated what Special Realtivity says.
BULLSHIT. WHY WOULD YOU DO THAT? EVERYONE KNOWS THEORY ALREADY. MORE LIES.
It states that a fast moving clock runs slower in THEORY.
YES AND YOU LIED ABOUT THIS.
Experiments show that a fast moving clock runs slower in REALITY.
NOT THATS BULLSHIT.
Even (advanced) undergraduate students can do the experiment. See “A Compact Apparatus for Muon Lifetime Measurement and Time Dilation Demonstration in the Undergraduate Laboratory”
THE MUON EXPERIMENTS CONTRADICT WHAT YOU CLAIMED. SO YOU TELL A LIE AND THEN GIVE EVIDENCE THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIE YOU TOLD. IN OTHER WORDS YOU DID EXACTLY AS SOL INVI”EVIDENCE”. GET SOME REAL EVIDENCE YOU STUPID CUNT. AND DON’T TALK TO ME ABOUT JIVE WHERE YOU HAVE NO CLUE WHAT IS GOING ON.
(http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0502103v1).
By: Ian Fisk on January 8, 2009
at 7:28 am
A bit more: You may not know anything about the muon experiment so here is a clear explanation of it: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/muon.html
The short explanation
1. Put a muon flux instrument in a high altitude balloon and let it go.
2. Measure the muon flux at a height of 10km. For example you might measure a million muons per square meter. in a second.
3. Measure the muon flux on the ground below the balloon.
4. Either measure the muon half-life for muons at rest (to be more exact at very low velocities) or just use the textbook value.
SO WHY OFFER UP THIS AS EVIDENCE WHEN YOU TOOK THE LYING CONCLUSION? YOU DIDN’T SAY THAT THE FASTER CLOCK TICKS MORE SLOWLY. YOU SAID THAT THEY EACH DO IN RELATION TO THE OTHER. YOU LIED IN TERMS OF MISREPRESENTING THE THEORY JUST AS SOL INVICTUS DID. THEN YOU BROUGHT EVIDENCE (OF SHIT YOU CANNOT POSSIBLY KNOW WHATS GOING ON) WHICH CONTRADICTED YOUR LYING VERSION AND BACKED UP THE WRONG THEORY OF SPECIAL RELATIVITY. AND YOU HAVE REPEATEDLY LIED ABOUT THIS SEVERAL TIMES JUST AS SOL INVICTUS DID.
Now assume that Newtonian mechanics is correct and calculate how many muons get to the surface (for a million muons the result is 0.3 muons).
Now assume that SR mechanics is correct and calculate how many muons get to the surface (for a million muons the result is 49,000 muons).
When people actually did (and continue to do) this experiment the second result is found.
By: Ian Fisk on January 8, 2009
at 7:39 am
THIS IS WHAT WE HAVE PROVED HERE. SPECIAL RELATIVITY IS DEAD FROM THE KNECK UP AND ONLY KEPT IN THE AIR BY RELENTLESS LYING. FISK LIES WITH EVERY POST. HE LIES ABOUT WHAT THE ANSWER OUGHT TO BE TO THE TWIN CLOCKS. THEN HE BRINGS “EVIDENCE” BUT THE EVIDENCE DOESN’T SUPPORT HIS LIE. RATHER IT SUPPORTS SPECIAL RELATIVITY AS ORIGINALLY CONCEIVED. THEN HE LIES ABOUT WHAT HE SAID. THEN HE LIES ABOUT WHAT HIS ALLEGED EVIDENCE SAYS. SO ITS JUST A MERRY-GO-ROUND OF ENDLESS LYING WITH THESE PEOPLE UNTIL THE LAITY STARTS THINKING THAT ITS ALL TO HARD AND LETS LEAVE IT TO THE EXPERTS.
By: graemebird on January 8, 2009
at 11:25 am
PS. I’m not “the laity”, I’m a real live scientist. Would you like me to tell you what you are?
BULLSHIT. SCIENCE WORKERS ARE NOT SCIENTISTS. FIELD SCOUTS ARE NOT FIELD MARSHALLS.
By: Zep on January 8, 2009
at 11:30 am
“THIS IS WHAT WE HAVE PROVED HERE. SPECIAL RELATIVITY IS DEAD FROM THE KNECK UP AND ONLY KEPT IN THE AIR BY RELENTLESS LYING. FISK LIES WITH EVERY POST. HE LIES ABOUT WHAT THE ANSWER OUGHT TO BE TO THE TWIN CLOCKS. THEN HE BRINGS “EVIDENCE” BUT THE EVIDENCE DOESN’T SUPPORT HIS LIE. RATHER IT SUPPORTS SPECIAL RELATIVITY AS ORIGINALLY CONCEIVED. THEN HE LIES ABOUT WHAT HE SAID. THEN HE LIES ABOUT WHAT HIS ALLEGED EVIDENCE SAYS. SO ITS JUST A MERRY-GO-ROUND OF ENDLESS LYING WITH THESE PEOPLE UNTIL THE LAITY STARTS THINKING THAT ITS ALL TO HARD AND LETS LEAVE IT TO THE EXPERTS.”
ALL CAPS MAKES IT TRUE! 1 = 2!
Site diety: No A is A dickhead. 1+1=2, And if you can be prevailed upon to answer the Dingle refutation you will go through the exact same cycle of lying over again. The cycle of lying can ALSO be tracked down at Randi’s site by googling Dingle Refutation.
Step 1: Lie about what the theory says by claiming both clocks go slower than eachother rather than what is correct under the theory ie that the fast moving clock goes slower.
Step 2: Present contrary evidence to the lie you just told. Indirect and tendentious evidence. But evidence for the original theory and not for the misrepresentation.
Step 3: Give a totally different answer for the twins refutation.
So lets go over the Sol Invictus, Ian Fisk lie again. The Dingle refutation is outright. There is no getting around it. So the special relativity sheeple performs a diversion. He lies about what the theory is supposed to say, then he goes subatomic when he is pressed for evidence. But the subatomic evidence, such that it is, directly contradicts the previous lie, then he gives a different answer for the twins paradox. Which in no way differs from the two clocks argument.
Hence we have shown that special relativity can only be kept alive through relentless lying. Its just a spoonbenders stage show act.
By: Ian Fisk on January 8, 2009
at 6:45 pm
Site deity: “BULLSHIT. SCIENCE WORKERS ARE NOT SCIENTISTS. FIELD SCOUTS ARE NOT FIELD MARSHALLS.”
Nor are they field mice. Nor fields of dreams. 🙂 So far you aren’t convincing me that Sol Invictus is Phil Plait, nor vice versa. Mainly because you seem to be prattling on about Special Relativity. Again.
By: Zep on January 9, 2009
at 12:51 am
No he’s not Phil Plait. You were successful in clearing up that idea.
They are both unscientific types however. Both symbolic of how the stupid are upwardly mobile and wind up getting in the way under public financing of research and education.
By: graemebird on January 9, 2009
at 12:54 am
Mr Bird
Is this unmitigated vulgarity really necessary considering the low intellectual calibre of your opponents?
I would have liked my grandson to peruse your blog more frequently and hance gain an impression of what Renaissance men used to be like but the Quartermain brood are also taught to be impeccable in their manners and this boorish aspect of your speech makes this site unsuitable for my pedagogical purposes.
By: Winchester Quartermain on January 9, 2009
at 2:14 am
Hmmmm. Yeah good point Winchester. It is a shame I know. Its a hard call. I think it IS necessary on account of their constant lying. But I can see how people would differ and respect their opinion.
By: graemebird on January 9, 2009
at 5:34 am
Mr Bird
It appears that your old adversary fatfingers has turned on a new leaf
http://jarrahjob.net/?p=182#more-182
By: Winchester Quartermain on January 9, 2009
at 5:46 am
Yes there is some progress one supposes. But bear in mind that down the bottom he’s still advocating a carbon tax. Which would be OK for the laity, but he knows damn well that he’s never seen or come up with evidence for more-than-beneficial warming.
Still thats a sound observation you’ve made. And one doesn’t want to let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
By: graemebird on January 9, 2009
at 6:24 am
“THIS IS WHAT WE HAVE PROVED HERE. SPECIAL RELATIVITY IS DEAD FROM THE KNECK UP AND ONLY KEPT IN THE AIR BY RELENTLESS LYING.”
WHERE’S YOUR PROOF?
I told you where my proof is. Read what you quoted again. Clearly, in plain English, I’m saying that the proof is there for you to see if you simply scroll up.
At least thats what I think I’m saying. If I scroll up and its not there, I’m assuming that the proof will be on the thread wherein I’m arguing with a mindless idiot calling himself Sol Invictus. Thats over on the Randi blog. Sol Invictus is not Phil Plait as far as I’m concerned, despite the thread heading. I remember that people on this thread managed to convince me that these were two separate dummies.
By: Avian Cerebrum on October 21, 2009
at 7:55 pm
site deity: Don’t get excited. This thread was a triumph for the bully-boy consensus nitwits. They were actually able to prove to my satisfaction that Phil Plait and Sol Invictus, were actually two different idiots, rather than just one big one.
By: Archbishop Desmond Froufrou on April 7, 2010
at 6:06 pm