So much for the "consensus" myth....

[SSDD]

John Cook of skeptical (cough, cough, laugh) science has been working on a paper in an attempt to prove....something. I can't wait to see how he actually spins wat he thinks he learned in the final product.

From his press release he says:

From the 11 994 papers, 32.6 per cent endorsed AGW, 66.4 per cent stated no position on AGW, 0.7 per cent rejected AGW and in 0.3 per cent of papers, the authors said the cause of global warming was uncertain.

Nearly 12,000 papers and a whopping 32.6% endorse AGW. So much for the consensus. 32% doesn't constitute much more than a fringe. Then he goes on to say that 66.4% stated no position. I suppose that will be where he turns his distortion/spin machine to. 66% state no position because there is no evidence of AGW there...and the clear majority aren't playing chicken little seeing AGW under every rock. If it isn't there, then there is no point in even mentioning it.

in his press release he goes on to say:

“Our findings prove that there is a strong scientific agreement about the cause of climate change, despite public perceptions to the contrary.”

From his own numbers, the strong scientific agreement clearly lies in the postion that AGW is not a factor that even merits mention in the majority of papers. It would be damned interesting to see how many of those that comprise the 32% endorsing AGW actually reported finding evidence of AGW or simply mentioned AGW so as to breeze through pal review and get published.

Clearly, the vast majority of scientific work being done does not support the AGW position and this from your very own John Cook. Maybe he is starting to view his own exit from the sinking ship AGW.

A pretty good description of how cook's claim went from 97% concensus on AGW to a 32% fringe can be seen HERE:




Now let the circumstantial ad hominems begin...complaining about the source rather than addressing the actual issue.

 

[polarbear]

John Cook of skeptical (cough, cough, laugh) science has been working on a paper in an attempt to prove....something. I can't wait to see how he actually spins wat he thinks he learned in the final product.

From his press release he says:

From the 11 994 papers, 32.6 per cent endorsed AGW, 66.4 per cent stated no position on AGW, 0.7 per cent rejected AGW and in 0.3 per cent of papers, the authors said the cause of global warming was uncertain.

Nearly 12,000 papers and a whopping 32.6% endorse AGW. So much for the consensus. 32% doesn't constitute much more than a fringe. Then he goes on to say that 66.4% stated no position. I suppose that will be where he turns his distortion/spin machine to. 66% state no position because there is no evidence of AGW there...and the clear majority aren't playing chicken little seeing AGW under every rock. If it isn't there, then there is no point in even mentioning it.

in his press release he goes on to say:

“Our findings prove that there is a strong scientific agreement about the cause of climate change, despite public perceptions to the contrary.”

From his own numbers, the strong scientific agreement clearly lies in the postion that AGW is not a factor that even merits mention in the majority of papers.

Clearly, the vast majority of scientific work being done does not support the AGW position and this from your very own John Cook. Maybe he is starting to view his own exit from the sinking ship AGW.

A pretty good description of how cook's claim went from 97% concensus on AGW to a 32% fringe can be seen HERE:




Now let the circumstantial ad hominems begin...complaining about the source rather than addressing the actual issue.

Every major main stream European news paper has been building back doors as it became evident (publicly) that we have been cooling off for more than a decade now..and these 66% you mention are doing it for the same reason...to save face.

 

[skookerasbil]

 

[polarbear]

My neighbor in my old home town sent me this picture:

That`s Guenther, a retired engineer and eternal tinkerer. His wife died and all his kids moved to sunny Italy.
For a couple of months nobody seen Guenther or his dog. So Siegfried got worried and checked up on Guenther....just in time because Guenther just finished building his chariot, loaded up his dog and fucked off to Italy where it`s warmer.
Notice the electric hub motor in the front wheel and the battery pack where the dog sits.
Guenther is no dummy and knows how retarded the electric auto-motion idea is...it would never get him from Bavaria over the mountains to a warm beach in Italy. So he is using that hub motor just to get him rolling and to start that little gas engine.
It`s not as if Guenther can`t afford a car..he`s got a Porsche...but he is driving that contraption to an auction in Italy to sell it for a small fortune.

I cant stop laughing over this either:
Wall of ice destroys Manitoba homes, cottages - News - MSN CA

Wall of ice destroys Manitoba homes, cottages

That`s @ the south shore of Lake Dauphin, not far from where I live.
These are new cottages that big city retards built at that end of the lake where the wind has been piling up the ice every year.
These are mostly overpaid "New Democratic Party" gay civil servants that show up with "enviro cars", same sex couples that dress in designer cloths and brow beat you if you show up at that lake with a global warming-V8 pickup truck pulling a trailer with an Evinrude outboard motor boat on it.
They were complaining about "shrinking ice" now they got plenty...delivered right to their back door, courtesy of mother nature which shows no mercy for the stupid.
They wanted an ice age...now they got one.
My wife`s relatives have lived on these lakes for centuries but built their dwellings on the North and West shore lines because of these ice pile ups.
But these "erudite numans" knew better than "illiterate Indians" and the insurance companies.
Yesterday the winds picked up again and the ice buried what was left of these lesbian/fag civil servant weekend-love nests.

 

[mamooth]

Notice the electric hub motor in the front wheel

I've had a hub motor for 10 years now. Get with the times. It was fairly easy to hook into my mountain bike.

Nice thing is, it's invisible and silent. So I can pretend to pedal while actually kicking in the motor, and nonchalantly cruise by the young guys on their racing bikes.

Oh, a small lithium battery pack could give a 50 mile range, should I want to spring for one. Not needed though, since the old lead acid batteries can get me 20 miles, and I'd usually just rather pedal anyways. I tend to only kick in the motor for hill climbing.

These are mostly overpaid "New Democratic Party" gay civil servants that show up with "enviro cars", same sex couples that dress in designer cloths

Yesterday the winds picked up again and the ice buried what was left of these lesbian/fag civil servant weekend-love nests.

Do you not understand how your sick gay-hatred is considered to be disgusting by most decent people nowadays?

 

[Old Rocks]

Still waiting for someone to post a Scientific Society, National Academy of Science, or major University with a policy statement that says they disagree with AGW.

 

[SSDD]

It is unfortunate that you are in a position where you find that you must pick someone to beleve rather than depend on your own intellect and even more unfortunate that you based your choice on such a rediculous factor as your political position

Surely by now, you must be getting a clue that the AGW hypothesis is headed for the dustbin of scientific history with all the other failed hypotheses. How far from, and how long must the predictions diverge from reality before you wake up?

Or is it your intention to ride the crazy train to the bitter end and become one of the poor conspiracy theorists who mill around the decaying remains for years to come?

 

[skookerasbil]

Notice the electric hub motor in the front wheel

I've had a hub motor for 10 years now. Get with the times. It was fairly easy to hook into my mountain bike.

Nice thing is, it's invisible and silent. So I can pretend to pedal while actually kicking in the motor, and nonchalantly cruise by the young guys on their racing bikes.

Oh, a small lithium battery pack could give a 50 mile range, should I want to spring for one. Not needed though, since the old lead acid batteries can get me 20 miles, and I'd usually just rather pedal anyways. I tend to only kick in the motor for hill climbing.

These are mostly overpaid "New Democratic Party" gay civil servants that show up with "enviro cars", same sex couples that dress in designer cloths

Yesterday the winds picked up again and the ice buried what was left of these lesbian/fag civil servant weekend-love nests.

Do you not understand how your sick gay-hatred is considered to be disgusting by most decent people nowadays?

Well honey.........we're all real proud of ya!!!



I have a neighbor who goes out riding his 10 speed bike about 4 times/week.......come by my house fucking flying. Dressed up on all the pseudo-pro riding gear. Thing is.......almost invariably, he is coasting as he flys by!!! Guy is like 50+ years old wearing his gay little tight shorties.......coasts around the neighborhood. I love this shit.......here I am trying to wake up in the morning and drinking my coffee and I suddenly see him, "Oh FUCK.....here comes Steve!!!" I give him the big thumbs up.......he flies by.....coasting of course......and Im damn near spitting my coffee across the driveway from laughing so hard. He's all proud of himself.......its fucking hysterical!!


He'd get along great with Mammooth........a motor for hills!!!


What would we do in this world without oddballs?

 

[skookerasbil]

Yeah......tsunamis of ice just north of the border and its almost June!!!


We're all real sure that people at home seeing those vids are saying, "HOLY SHIT.......we gotta get moving to stop this global warming!!!"

 

[idb]

John Cook of skeptical (cough, cough, laugh) science has been working on a paper in an attempt to prove....something. I can't wait to see how he actually spins wat he thinks he learned in the final product.

From his press release he says:

From the 11 994 papers, 32.6 per cent endorsed AGW, 66.4 per cent stated no position on AGW, 0.7 per cent rejected AGW and in 0.3 per cent of papers, the authors said the cause of global warming was uncertain.

Nearly 12,000 papers and a whopping 32.6% endorse AGW. So much for the consensus. 32% doesn't constitute much more than a fringe. Then he goes on to say that 66.4% stated no position. I suppose that will be where he turns his distortion/spin machine to. 66% state no position because there is no evidence of AGW there...and the clear majority aren't playing chicken little seeing AGW under every rock. If it isn't there, then there is no point in even mentioning it.

in his press release he goes on to say:

“Our findings prove that there is a strong scientific agreement about the cause of climate change, despite public perceptions to the contrary.”

From his own numbers, the strong scientific agreement clearly lies in the postion that AGW is not a factor that even merits mention in the majority of papers. It would be damned interesting to see how many of those that comprise the 32% endorsing AGW actually reported finding evidence of AGW or simply mentioned AGW so as to breeze through pal review and get published.

Clearly, the vast majority of scientific work being done does not support the AGW position and this from your very own John Cook. Maybe he is starting to view his own exit from the sinking ship AGW.

A pretty good description of how cook's claim went from 97% concensus on AGW to a 32% fringe can be seen HERE:




Now let the circumstantial ad hominems begin...complaining about the source rather than addressing the actual issue.

Sorry, you've misread the paper.

The 12,000 papers had their abstract summaries examined for rejection, no opinion or explicit/implicit endorsements of AGW.
Unless the summaries actually used language that made the author's position on this specific matter clear then they were marked down as 'no opinion'.
His explanation for this is;

We found that about two-thirds of papers didn't express a position on the subject in the abstract, which confirms that we were conservative in our initial abstract ratings. This result isn't surprising for two reasons: 1) most journals have strict word limits for their abstracts, and 2) frankly, every scientist doing climate research knows humans are causing global warming. There's no longer a need to state something so obvious. For example, would you expect every geological paper to note in its abstract that the Earth is a spherical body that orbits the sun?

This result was also predicted by Oreskes (2007), which noted that scientists

"...generally focus their discussions on questions that are still disputed or unanswered rather than on matters about which everyone agrees"

http://www.skepticalscience.com/97-percent-consensus-cook-et-al-2013.html

Do you understand what this is saying?
It means that, if I wrote a paper detailing Jesus' rise from the dead I would assume that everyone that read my paper already agreed that the event occurred...I wouldn't feel the need to state in my summary that I believed in the resurrection.

 

[idb]

It is unfortunate that you are in a position where you find that you must pick someone to beleve rather than depend on your own intellect and even more unfortunate that you based your choice on such a rediculous factor as your political position

Surely by now, you must be getting a clue that the AGW hypothesis is headed for the dustbin of scientific history with all the other failed hypotheses. How far from, and how long must the predictions diverge from reality before you wake up?

Or is it your intention to ride the crazy train to the bitter end and become one of the poor conspiracy theorists who mill around the decaying remains for years to come?

You're basic misunderstanding of the paper that you refer to does nothing to support your position.
Try to find something else.

 

[skookerasbil]

It is unfortunate that you are in a position where you find that you must pick someone to beleve rather than depend on your own intellect and even more unfortunate that you based your choice on such a rediculous factor as your political position

Surely by now, you must be getting a clue that the AGW hypothesis is headed for the dustbin of scientific history with all the other failed hypotheses. How far from, and how long must the predictions diverge from reality before you wake up?

Or is it your intention to ride the crazy train to the bitter end and become one of the poor conspiracy theorists who mill around the decaying remains for years to come?

You're basic misunderstanding of the paper that you refer to does nothing to support your position.
Try to find something else.

LOL.....the berserkers live in this internet bubble-land. As Ive been saying, its a connect the dots issue for these people. They think its all about the science.


Meanwhile, here we are in 2013, and all the "conspiracy theorists" are winning!!! The bomb throwing warmist contingent has been falling all over themselves for two decades and havent moved the goalposts a single inch.


As we shall see when climate change legislation comes up later this year in congress!!!









Bubble-land is gay s0n!!!

 

[editec]

My next door neighbor has build (and sold) many motorized (50cc) bikes.

They are in my opinion, fun but NOT a very good solution.

A motorized bike needs be designed from the ground up to deal with even a small motor like that.

Conversions of pedal driven bikes to mortorized, while they do work, demand an enormous amount of repairs because the bike, the nuts, the metal itself is not designed for the kind of stress.

I owned on of those.

Traded it for a superior pedal driven bike after one season.

Too much repair for too little time on the road.

 

[skookerasbil]

Trust me.....if the environmental nutters had it their way, we'd all be driving to work riding one of these gay things.........

 

[gslack]

John Cook of skeptical (cough, cough, laugh) science has been working on a paper in an attempt to prove....something. I can't wait to see how he actually spins wat he thinks he learned in the final product.

From his press release he says:

From the 11 994 papers, 32.6 per cent endorsed AGW, 66.4 per cent stated no position on AGW, 0.7 per cent rejected AGW and in 0.3 per cent of papers, the authors said the cause of global warming was uncertain.

Nearly 12,000 papers and a whopping 32.6% endorse AGW. So much for the consensus. 32% doesn't constitute much more than a fringe. Then he goes on to say that 66.4% stated no position. I suppose that will be where he turns his distortion/spin machine to. 66% state no position because there is no evidence of AGW there...and the clear majority aren't playing chicken little seeing AGW under every rock. If it isn't there, then there is no point in even mentioning it.

in his press release he goes on to say:



From his own numbers, the strong scientific agreement clearly lies in the postion that AGW is not a factor that even merits mention in the majority of papers. It would be damned interesting to see how many of those that comprise the 32% endorsing AGW actually reported finding evidence of AGW or simply mentioned AGW so as to breeze through pal review and get published.

Clearly, the vast majority of scientific work being done does not support the AGW position and this from your very own John Cook. Maybe he is starting to view his own exit from the sinking ship AGW.

A pretty good description of how cook's claim went from 97% concensus on AGW to a 32% fringe can be seen HERE:




Now let the circumstantial ad hominems begin...complaining about the source rather than addressing the actual issue.

Sorry, you've misread the paper.

The 12,000 papers had their abstract summaries examined for rejection, no opinion or explicit/implicit endorsements of AGW.
Unless the summaries actually used language that made the author's position on this specific matter clear then they were marked down as 'no opinion'.
His explanation for this is;

We found that about two-thirds of papers didn't express a position on the subject in the abstract, which confirms that we were conservative in our initial abstract ratings. This result isn't surprising for two reasons: 1) most journals have strict word limits for their abstracts, and 2) frankly, every scientist doing climate research knows humans are causing global warming. There's no longer a need to state something so obvious. For example, would you expect every geological paper to note in its abstract that the Earth is a spherical body that orbits the sun?

This result was also predicted by Oreskes (2007), which noted that scientists

"...generally focus their discussions on questions that are still disputed or unanswered rather than on matters about which everyone agrees"

Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature

Do you understand what this is saying?
It means that, if I wrote a paper detailing Jesus' rise from the dead I would assume that everyone that read my paper already agreed that the event occurred...I wouldn't feel the need to state in my summary that I believed in the resurrection.

Sorry but I'm afraid you misread and are misrepresenting the article by cherry picking..

They took 12,000 papers on climate science, and all but nearly 2000 of them made no pro or con AGW claim in the abstract.Of that 2000 left he claimed it was 97% supported AGW.

The ridiculous part is the excuse for the papers left out because they didn't express a pro or con in the abstract.. Your words from a cherry picked statement in the article..

"frankly, every scientist doing climate research knows humans are causing global warming. There's no longer a need to state something so obvious."

So then why did he have 2,000 papers which did make the statement???

And the last line which really summarizes the whole thing nicely...

"For example, would you expect every geological paper to note in its abstract that the Earth is a spherical body that orbits the sun?"

Really? and the fact the paper may be trying to prove this very thing has no bearing at all? You know... Kind of like this paper is trying to do... And let's not forget there were 2000 who DID say it in the abstract as crazy as it may seem..

Thats called BS logic, and fuzzy math...

 

[skookerasbil]

Dont forget though.....the climate OC's are expert at cherry picking the data.

 

[SSDD]

John Cook of skeptical (cough, cough, laugh) science has been working on a paper in an attempt to prove....something. I can't wait to see how he actually spins wat he thinks he learned in the final product.

From his press release he says:



Nearly 12,000 papers and a whopping 32.6% endorse AGW. So much for the consensus. 32% doesn't constitute much more than a fringe. Then he goes on to say that 66.4% stated no position. I suppose that will be where he turns his distortion/spin machine to. 66% state no position because there is no evidence of AGW there...and the clear majority aren't playing chicken little seeing AGW under every rock. If it isn't there, then there is no point in even mentioning it.

in his press release he goes on to say:



From his own numbers, the strong scientific agreement clearly lies in the postion that AGW is not a factor that even merits mention in the majority of papers. It would be damned interesting to see how many of those that comprise the 32% endorsing AGW actually reported finding evidence of AGW or simply mentioned AGW so as to breeze through pal review and get published.

Clearly, the vast majority of scientific work being done does not support the AGW position and this from your very own John Cook. Maybe he is starting to view his own exit from the sinking ship AGW.

A pretty good description of how cook's claim went from 97% concensus on AGW to a 32% fringe can be seen HERE:




Now let the circumstantial ad hominems begin...complaining about the source rather than addressing the actual issue.

Sorry, you've misread the paper.

The 12,000 papers had their abstract summaries examined for rejection, no opinion or explicit/implicit endorsements of AGW.
Unless the summaries actually used language that made the author's position on this specific matter clear then they were marked down as 'no opinion'.
His explanation for this is;

We found that about two-thirds of papers didn't express a position on the subject in the abstract, which confirms that we were conservative in our initial abstract ratings. This result isn't surprising for two reasons: 1) most journals have strict word limits for their abstracts, and 2) frankly, every scientist doing climate research knows humans are causing global warming. There's no longer a need to state something so obvious. For example, would you expect every geological paper to note in its abstract that the Earth is a spherical body that orbits the sun?

This result was also predicted by Oreskes (2007), which noted that scientists

"...generally focus their discussions on questions that are still disputed or unanswered rather than on matters about which everyone agrees"

Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature

Do you understand what this is saying?
It means that, if I wrote a paper detailing Jesus' rise from the dead I would assume that everyone that read my paper already agreed that the event occurred...I wouldn't feel the need to state in my summary that I believed in the resurrection.

Sorry but I'm afraid you misread and are misrepresenting the article by cherry picking..

They took 12,000 papers on climate science, and all but nearly 2000 of them made no pro or con AGW claim in the abstract.Of that 2000 left he claimed it was 97% supported AGW.

The ridiculous part is the excuse for the papers left out because they didn't express a pro or con in the abstract.. Your words from a cherry picked statement in the article..

"frankly, every scientist doing climate research knows humans are causing global warming. There's no longer a need to state something so obvious."

So then why did he have 2,000 papers which did make the statement???

And the last line which really summarizes the whole thing nicely...

"For example, would you expect every geological paper to note in its abstract that the Earth is a spherical body that orbits the sun?"

Really? and the fact the paper may be trying to prove this very thing has no bearing at all? You know... Kind of like this paper is trying to do... And let's not forget there were 2000 who DID say it in the abstract as crazy as it may seem..

Thats called BS logic, and fuzzy math...

They get nuttier all the time don't they

 

[gslack]

Sorry, you've misread the paper.

The 12,000 papers had their abstract summaries examined for rejection, no opinion or explicit/implicit endorsements of AGW.
Unless the summaries actually used language that made the author's position on this specific matter clear then they were marked down as 'no opinion'.
His explanation for this is;

Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature

Do you understand what this is saying?
It means that, if I wrote a paper detailing Jesus' rise from the dead I would assume that everyone that read my paper already agreed that the event occurred...I wouldn't feel the need to state in my summary that I believed in the resurrection.

Sorry but I'm afraid you misread and are misrepresenting the article by cherry picking..

They took 12,000 papers on climate science, and all but nearly 2000 of them made no pro or con AGW claim in the abstract.Of that 2000 left he claimed it was 97% supported AGW.

The ridiculous part is the excuse for the papers left out because they didn't express a pro or con in the abstract.. Your words from a cherry picked statement in the article..

"frankly, every scientist doing climate research knows humans are causing global warming. There's no longer a need to state something so obvious."

So then why did he have 2,000 papers which did make the statement???

And the last line which really summarizes the whole thing nicely...

"For example, would you expect every geological paper to note in its abstract that the Earth is a spherical body that orbits the sun?"

Really? and the fact the paper may be trying to prove this very thing has no bearing at all? You know... Kind of like this paper is trying to do... And let's not forget there were 2000 who DID say it in the abstract as crazy as it may seem..

Thats called BS logic, and fuzzy math...

They get nuttier all the time don't they

It's like some kind of mass stupidity. Earlier mamooth tried to argue that 2 heat lamps operating at 150 F can heat one another beyond 150 F.. The fact they are both 150 F seems to beyond his comprehension. I posed the thought experiment just to see how many people would miss the fact both are 150 F and sure enough, not one of the numan fan base could grasp it. And the funniest part, Ian, rather than admit that his god Roy Spencer has been lying to him, decides he no longer understands the english language and pretended to not understand it..

Imagine a whole world where probably 2 out of every 5 people are that damn willfully ignorant. They would rather be a fool than confront their chosen messiahs.. I said it before it was like a religious cult, and all these has just confirmed it to me.

 

[mamooth]

It's like some kind of mass stupidity. Earlier mamooth tried to argue that 2 heat lamps operating at 150 F can heat one another beyond 150 F

Gslack, your pyschostalking routine is getting creepy. You're now ranting about me on every thread you visit, threads where I don't even appear. You're obsessed with me to an unhealthy degree. I realize you're buttsore over all the spankings, but try to deal with it like a grownup.

By the way, can you tell us exactly what a "heat lamp operating at 150F" is? Which part of it is 150F? The filament? Not much of heat lamp there. The object being heated? Does it get heated to 150F if it's a mile away?

Out in the real world, it's not possible to buy a "150F heatlamp". That's a magical gslack invention, only used in his unicorns and rainbows world of fantasy physics. In the real world, you buy a heat lamp based on wattage. The resulting temperature depends on distance, substance, ambient temperature and other factors. And if you wrap it in a blanket, any heat lamp will quickly get way hotter than 150F and start a fire, despite gslack's claim that some form of unnamed magic will always prevent temperature from rising over a set number.

Hey gslack, why don't you verify your theory at home? A standard incandescent bulb will do fine. Wrap a 150 watt bulb thickly with a blanket, turn it on, and leave it running. After all, your peculiar brand of physics says the bulb won't run any hotter, so it should be perfectly safe. After the fire department leaves, let us know how your theory worked out.

 

[gslack]

It's like some kind of mass stupidity. Earlier mamooth tried to argue that 2 heat lamps operating at 150 F can heat one another beyond 150 F

Gslack, your pyschostalking routine is getting creepy. You're now ranting about me on every thread you visit, threads where I don't even appear. You're obsessed with me to an unhealthy degree. I realize you're buttsore over all the spankings, but try to deal with it like a grownup.

By the way, can you tell us exactly what a "heat lamp operating at 150F" is? Which part of it is 150F? The filament? Not much of heat lamp there. The object being heated? Does it get heated to 150F if it's a mile away?

Out in the real world, it's not possible to buy a "150F heatlamp". That's a magical gslack invention, only used in his unicorns and rainbows world of fantasy physics. In the real world, you buy a heat lamp based on wattage. The resulting temperature depends on distance, substance, ambient temperature and other factors. And if you wrap it in a blanket, any heat lamp will quickly get way hotter than 150F and start a fire, despite gslack's claim that some form of unnamed magic will always prevent temperature from rising over a set number.

Hey gslack, why don't you verify your theory at home? A standard incandescent bulb will do fine. Wrap a 150 watt bulb thickly with a blanket, turn it on, and leave it running. After all, your peculiar brand of physics says the bulb won't run any hotter, so it should be perfectly safe. After the fire department leaves, let us know how your theory worked out.

Nah, don't have to. You think two objects at the same temperature can heat one another beyond that temperature, that's all we need to know admiral..

Well that bunch of ignorance,plus your incessant trolling and the whole "nuke" and then suddenly an officer no less..Oh and the priceless DD214 you just had to post or you would bust, which came from some webpage somewhere. And then the dramatic re-post of the same pic edited... Then you insult my son and then edit it and then admit doing it on my visitor messages..

You really are on a roll admiral. A liar, a fake, a weasel, and a coward, and on top of all of that incredibly stupid as well...

Nice work admiral!