Climate change could cause mass exodus by mid century

On Tuesday, May 10, 2016 at 9:53:45 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:

Okay, sock puppet it is.

The phrase "sock puppet" had not been used on this newsgroup for almost three years prior to my using it a couple of days ago. Now here is the peterson wetware 'bot using it. The theory that peterson is some sort of a 'bot would go a long way towards explaining the poor quality of his arguments.

On Tue, 10 May 2016 07:06:53 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Tuesday, May 10, 2016 at 9:54:29 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Tue, 10 May 2016 03:54:51 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

On Sunday, May 8, 2016 at 6:28:24 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sun, 8 May 2016 14:00:33 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
wrote:

On Saturday, May 7, 2016 at 6:11:57 PM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:

What claim? NG appears to be a perfect theory. It can be derived from
GR as the limiting case for a non-accelerated frame and zero velocity.

But actual moving bodies do not have zero velocity, and acceleration is a real
phenomenon - and Newtonian mechanics purports to describe the behavior of
accelerated bodies.

No, but a limiting case can still be a perfect representation of
reality.

NG doesn't even explain Mercury's orbit.

Who said it did?

If NG can't explain Mercury's orbit, then it can hardly be a perfect theory.

Like I said, you have no concept at all about what's under discussion.

On Tuesday, May 10, 2016 at 2:41:50 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:

Like I said, you have no concept at all about what's under discussion.

You wrote:

"NG appears to be a perfect theory."

I wrote:

"If NG can't explain Mercury's orbit, then it can hardly be a perfect theory."

It appears that you don't know what you are talking about, peterson.

Try to avoid those "empty insults" and concentrate on "engaged discussion," if you can.

On Tue, 10 May 2016 12:50:17 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Tuesday, May 10, 2016 at 2:41:50 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:

Like I said, you have no concept at all about what's under discussion.

You wrote:

"NG appears to be a perfect theory."

I wrote:

"If NG can't explain Mercury's orbit, then it can hardly be a perfect theory."

It appears that you don't know what you are talking about, peterson.

Try to avoid those "empty insults" and concentrate on "engaged discussion," if you can.

Clueless.

On Tuesday, May 10, 2016 at 4:54:59 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Tue, 10 May 2016 12:50:17 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

On Tuesday, May 10, 2016 at 2:41:50 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:

Like I said, you have no concept at all about what's under discussion.

You wrote:

"NG appears to be a perfect theory."

I wrote:

"If NG can't explain Mercury's orbit, then it can hardly be a perfect theory."

It appears that you don't know what you are talking about, peterson.

Try to avoid those "empty insults" and concentrate on "engaged discussion," if you can.

Clueless.

What part of

"If NG can't explain Mercury's orbit, then it can hardly be a perfect theory"

do you disagree with, peterson?

On Tue, 10 May 2016 15:03:39 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Tuesday, May 10, 2016 at 4:54:59 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Tue, 10 May 2016 12:50:17 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

On Tuesday, May 10, 2016 at 2:41:50 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:

Like I said, you have no concept at all about what's under discussion.

You wrote:

"NG appears to be a perfect theory."

I wrote:

"If NG can't explain Mercury's orbit, then it can hardly be a perfect theory."

It appears that you don't know what you are talking about, peterson.

Try to avoid those "empty insults" and concentrate on "engaged discussion," if you can.

Clueless.

What part of

"If NG can't explain Mercury's orbit, then it can hardly be a perfect theory"

do you disagree with, peterson?

You've made no effort to address what I said.

On Wednesday, May 11, 2016 at 12:50:21 AM UTC-4, peterson wrote:
On Tue, 10 May 2016 15:03:39 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

On Tuesday, May 10, 2016 at 4:54:59 PM UTC-4, peterson wrote:
On Tue, 10 May 2016 12:50:17 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

On Tuesday, May 10, 2016 at 2:41:50 PM UTC-4, peterson wrote:

Like I said, you have no concept at all about what's under discussion.

You wrote:

"NG appears to be a perfect theory."

I wrote:

"If NG can't explain Mercury's orbit, then it can hardly be a perfect theory."

It appears that you don't know what you are talking about, peterson.

Try to avoid those "empty insults" and concentrate on "engaged discussion," if you can.

Clueless.

What part of

"If NG can't explain Mercury's orbit, then it can hardly be a perfect theory"

do you disagree with, peterson?

You've made no effort to address what I said.

You wrote

"NG appears to be a perfect theory."

I addressed that by writing

"If NG can't explain Mercury's orbit, then it can hardly be a perfect theory."

Problem?

On Wed, 11 May 2016 01:05:07 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

You've made no effort to address what I said.

You wrote

"NG appears to be a perfect theory."

I addressed that by writing

"If NG can't explain Mercury's orbit, then it can hardly be a perfect theory."

Problem?

Yes. You aren't addressing my comments. Once again, you're simply
focusing on a word and insisting that only your definition is valid.
You're ignoring what I actually said. And I don't expect that to
change.

On Wednesday, May 11, 2016 at 10:14:38 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 11 May 2016 01:05:07 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

You've made no effort to address what I said.

You wrote

"NG appears to be a perfect theory."

I addressed that by writing

"If NG can't explain Mercury's orbit, then it can hardly be a perfect theory."

Problem?

Yes. You aren't addressing my comments. Once again, you're simply
focusing on a word and insisting that only your definition is valid.
You're ignoring what I actually said.

You wrote "NG appears to be a perfect theory."

Does NG appear to be a "perfect theory" to you, peterson?

On Wed, 11 May 2016 07:33:44 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Wednesday, May 11, 2016 at 10:14:38 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 11 May 2016 01:05:07 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

Drivel snipped...