Tallbloke’s Talkshop : Did you hear the one . . . .


Firstly, I’d like to take this opportunity to thank Tall Bloke for featuring a post from this blog (Did you hear the one . . . ) on his excellent website:

One of the hardest things to accomplish in all of science is to get a science groupy to take a stand on a substantive issue.  As you can see in the comments section of this post to Tall Bloke’s blog it was not until the 48th or 49th comment that one of the respondents, Hunter, took the bait:

Hunter say:

<irrelevancies snipped>

Water, being the most common chemical on Earth’s surface, is fairly well studied.


Not one word about your “monomolecular” clap-trap. So if you have any actual facts behind your ‘monomelcular’issue, please do share. Now the fact that H2O does form some structures at low temps has nothing to do with your weirdness about the boiling point. Just as your lack of understanding about vapor pressure, where gaseous molecules of water exist at an incredibly broad range of temperatures.

But you seem to have a new science and physics….one where that you do not bother to share. That you in your deranged ignorance simply assert without proof.

So your math, your reasoning, your writing, your rational thinking, offer nothing but a sad demonstration of a confused uninformed mind.

Thanks for the entertainnment value.


Solvingtornadoes responds:

I think it is interesting that your commitment to forming/maintaining conclusions based on zero evidence and deliberate avoidance of empirical methods that might challenge/dispute consensus-based conclusions is shared by many others, some of whom hold positions of high esteem in the field of tornadogenesis. Follow link below for details:



Jim McGinn (AKA Claudius Denk)
Solving Tornadoes

via Did you hear the one about the guy that goes to buy a suit? | Tallbloke’s Talkshop.

There is a lesson to be learned from all of this. Never take the word of a science-based groupy on face value. Always ask them to point you to the REPRODUCIBLE EXPERIMENTAL evidence. Expect them to sidestep that request and come back with all kinds irrelevancies and attempts to divert the discussion. Stay steadfast. Don’t take the bait. Keep asking for the REPRODUCIBLE EXPERIMENTAL evidence. Expect them to blather on, making statements like, “everybody knows,” “it is well known,” “it’s long been known,” “it’s long been accepted,” etc. There are thousands of ways to divert a discussion to some kind of brain-dead consensus-based conclusion. But there is only one way to arrive at the empirical truth of an issue, and that is through reproducible experimental evidence.

I will soon post the experimental methods that anybody can follow to arrive at the truth on this issue. Stay tuned.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: