Ping Bil Slowman; The global warming hoax reveiled

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Wed, 25 Nov 2009 04:59:41 -0800 (PST)) it happened Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
<b8cfe9e0-a079-4bdd-8ed8-0cf93cc7d4a5@s15g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>:

Hey, if it was not for Exxon-Mobil and the other energy companies,
there would be no media, no energy, and no way to spread the ideas ori=
gin=
ating from your overheated globe.

BP and Shell both have the sense to acknowledge that anthropogenic
global warming is real and both have started diversifying into more
sustainable activities.

You don't seem to have realised the burning fossil carbon isn't the
only way to generate energy.

You really are beginning to sound like an idiot nut case.
After all the case I made here for nuclear power.

The French genenrate most of their electric power from nuclear
reactors and yet you claimed

Hey, if it was not for Exxon-Mobil and the other energy companies,
there would be no media, no energy,

Just admit you have no clue and are wrong.

Without the [fossile] energy companies there would be no media, no energy,
as your car does not run on electricity (yet).
Without those machines, used to build cities, roads, transport goods, there would be no civilisation
and not even internet, and no printing material, no paper, some paper manufacturers have their own power plants.
Been there.
Now wake up from your green dreams.
Or renounce it all, and go live on one of the last energy free little islands... atolls...

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Nov 25, 10:57 am, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 19:26:54 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman

bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

SNIP

Paranoid Bill, the Soros shill, you'll enjoy this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEiLgbBGKVk&feature=player_embedded

I wasn't sufficiently interested to turn up the audio.

And which of your daft conspiracy theories includes George Soros? And
why?

http://www.politicaltruthandfact.com/nbishop/2008/02/the-george-soro.html

does suggest that the demented right wing in the USA resents his
campaign contributions to at least one Democratic candidate, but I
hadn't noticed that you were out of touch wth reality along that axis
as well.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Nov 25, 12:12 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On a sunny day (Tue, 24 Nov 2009 20:03:18 -0800 (PST)) it happenedBill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote in
e8d9dfe9-9805-4503-bd9a-662f0098c...@v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>:





On Nov 24, 1:25 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On a sunny day (Tue, 24 Nov 2009 00:43:51 -0800 (PST)) it happenedBill Sl> >oman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote in
be3e96e1-68fd-4366-b23d-5c7f15549...@t18g2000vbj.googlegroups.com>:

The enthusiasm of Exxon-Mobil and similar fossil-carbon extraction
companies for filling the media with anti-scientific propaganda aimed
at blocking the changes to our civilisation that will be needed to
prevent it's collapse (and the consequent population implosion) does
imply that there are a lot of rich people around exhibiting a rather
dangerous form pf psychopathic short-term self-interest.

Hey, if it was not for Exxon-Mobil and the other energy companies,
there would be no media, no energy, and no way to spread the ideas origin> >> ating from your overheated globe.

BP and Shell both have the sense to acknowledge that anthropogenic
global warming is real and both have started diversifying into more
sustainable activities.

You don't seem to have realised the burning fossil carbon isn't the
only way to generate energy.

You really are beginning to sound like an idiot nut case.
After all the case I made here for nuclear power.

The French genenrate most of their electric power from nuclear
reactors and yet you claimed

Hey, if it was not for Exxon-Mobil and the other energy companies,
there would be no media, no energy,

Just admit you have no clue and are wrong.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

On Nov 24, 10:55 pm, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

On Nov 25, 1:03 am, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:



On Nov 24, 3:37 pm, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 20:30:00 +0000, Raveninghorde

raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

and this:

http://www.devilskitchen.me.uk/2009/11/data-horribilis-harryreadmetxt....

OMG, that's rich.  Try searching the HARRY_READ_ME.TXT file

   http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/HARRY_READ_ME.txt

 for "cloud."  (Clouds' influence on insolation is ~10^2 greater than
the AGW hypothesized from CO2.)

A few years ago I downloaded and read some of the FORTRAN code for one
of the models.

What trash.

This from a nitwit who doesn't know the difference between a weather
model - which is susceptible to the butterfly effect - and a climate
modoel - which isn't.

That sure came out of the blue. No one mentioned "weather"--we're
talking about precious, lovely, highly-touted G-lobal C-limate M-
odels. Or are you saying that cloud feedback doesn't affect climate?

Whatever.

Hey Bill, since you think people should be jailed for not buying
health insurance for themselves, what firing squad would you recommend
for "gross coding negligence and fraud jeopardizing the climate and
economy of the entire world?"

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[krw]

On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 07:16:41 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Nov 25, 8:50 am, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On a sunny day (Wed, 25 Nov 2009 04:59:41 -0800 (PST)) it happened Bill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote in
b8cfe9e0-a079-4bdd-8ed8-0cf93cc7d...@s15g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>:





Hey, if it was not for Exxon-Mobil and the other energy companies,
there would be no media, no energy, and no way to spread the ideas ori=
gin=
ating from your overheated globe.

BP and Shell both have the sense to acknowledge that anthropogenic
global warming is real and both have started diversifying into more
sustainable activities.

You don't seem to have realised the burning fossil carbon isn't the
only way to generate energy.

You really are beginning to sound like an idiot nut case.
After all the case I made here for nuclear power.

The French genenrate most of their electric power from nuclear
reactors and yet you claimed

Hey, if it was not for Exxon-Mobil and the other energy companies,
there would be no media, no energy,

Just admit you have no clue and are wrong.

Without the [fossile] energy companies there would be no media, no energy,
as your car does not run on electricity (yet).
Without those machines, used to build cities, roads, transport goods, there would be no civilisation
and not even internet, and no printing material, no paper, some paper manufacturers have their own power plants.
Been there.
Now wake up from your green dreams.

Green 2009 == Red.

Once green meant people who really were concerned about the
environment. Now it's just an entree, a pretext, a populist theme to
gain power; a backdoor. One of Alinsky's Rules.

Nothing has changed. The greenies have always been watermelons.

 

On Nov 25, 8:50 am, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On a sunny day (Wed, 25 Nov 2009 04:59:41 -0800 (PST)) it happened Bill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote in
b8cfe9e0-a079-4bdd-8ed8-0cf93cc7d...@s15g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>:





Hey, if it was not for Exxon-Mobil and the other energy companies,
there would be no media, no energy, and no way to spread the ideas ori> >gin> >> >> ating from your overheated globe.

BP and Shell both have the sense to acknowledge that anthropogenic
global warming is real and both have started diversifying into more
sustainable activities.

You don't seem to have realised the burning fossil carbon isn't the
only way to generate energy.

You really are beginning to sound like an idiot nut case.
After all the case I made here for nuclear power.

The French genenrate most of their electric power from nuclear
reactors and yet you claimed

Hey, if it was not for Exxon-Mobil and the other energy companies,
there would be no media, no energy,

Just admit you have no clue and are wrong.

Without the [fossile] energy companies there would be no media, no energy,
as your car does not run on electricity (yet).
Without those machines, used to build cities, roads, transport goods, there would be no civilisation
and not even internet, and no printing material, no paper, some paper manufacturers have their own power plants.
Been there.
Now wake up from your green dreams.

Green 2009 == Red.

Once green meant people who really were concerned about the
environment. Now it's just an entree, a pretext, a populist theme to
gain power; a backdoor. One of Alinsky's Rules.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[Rich Grise]

On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 16:51:24 -0800, Joerg wrote:

Bill Sloman wrote:
On Nov 24, 1:18 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On a sunny day (Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:02:34 -0800 (PST)) it happenedBill
Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote in
53439409-1c59-4180-846c-a5019132d...@j9g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>:

Sad, but not exactly a volcanic eruption. Since you have not
identified the city or found a URL to back up this story, I could
wonder whether it was the sort of urban legend that the Prussians
invent whenever they talk to people about the Bavarians.
Well, you could have googled:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Staufen_im_Breisgau

Gypsum, geothermal heating and damage does pick it up twice on the first
page, so Joerg should have been able to find it. It was his fact, not
mine, and his responsibility to validate it.

Well, I did. But anyhow, all I wanted to show was how easy it is for homo
sapiens to do something really, really stupid in order to "solve" some
environmental concern quickly. So I fully understand Jan when he says he
doesn't want to live on top of a gigantic CO2 bubble. I most certainly
would not want to either.

What is it that causes people to completely dismiss the elementary fact

that plants absorb CO2 out of the atmosphere and turn it into food,
building materials, and flower gardens?

Thanks,
Rich

 

[krw]

On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 08:48:29 -0800, Rich Grise <richgrise@example.net>
wrote:

On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 16:51:24 -0800, Joerg wrote:
Bill Sloman wrote:
On Nov 24, 1:18 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On a sunny day (Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:02:34 -0800 (PST)) it happenedBill
Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote in
53439409-1c59-4180-846c-a5019132d...@j9g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>:

Sad, but not exactly a volcanic eruption. Since you have not
identified the city or found a URL to back up this story, I could
wonder whether it was the sort of urban legend that the Prussians
invent whenever they talk to people about the Bavarians.
Well, you could have googled:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Staufen_im_Breisgau

Gypsum, geothermal heating and damage does pick it up twice on the first
page, so Joerg should have been able to find it. It was his fact, not
mine, and his responsibility to validate it.

Well, I did. But anyhow, all I wanted to show was how easy it is for homo
sapiens to do something really, really stupid in order to "solve" some
environmental concern quickly. So I fully understand Jan when he says he
doesn't want to live on top of a gigantic CO2 bubble. I most certainly
would not want to either.

What is it that causes people to completely dismiss the elementary fact
that plants absorb CO2 out of the atmosphere and turn it into food,
building materials, and flower gardens?

Leftist weenies don't like others to have food and shelter, and love
ugly.

 

[Joerg]

Bill Sloman wrote:

On Nov 25, 1:51 am, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Bill Slomanwrote:
On Nov 24, 1:18 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On a sunny day (Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:02:34 -0800 (PST)) it happenedBill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote in
53439409-1c59-4180-846c-a5019132d...@j9g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>:
Sad, but not exactly a volcanic eruption. Since you have not
identified the city or found a URL to back up this story, I could
wonder whether it was the sort of urban legend that the Prussians
invent whenever they talk to people about the Bavarians.
Well, you could have googled:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Staufen_im_Breisgau
Gypsum, geothermal heating and damage does pick it up twice on the
first page, so Joerg should have been able to find it. It was his
fact, not mine, and his responsibility to validate it.
Well, I did. But anyhow, all I wanted to show was how easy it is for
homo sapiens to do something really, really stupid in order to "solve"
some environmental concern quickly. So I fully understand Jan when he
says he doesn't want to live on top of a gigantic CO2 bubble. I most
certainly would not want to either.

You live in Oregon. Here is a web site that gives the locations of
potentially active volcanoes in your state.

http://www.nationalatlas.gov/dynamic/dyn_vol-or.html

I'd suggest that if you are worried by potential sources of danger
under your feet, you should pack up and move to Barendrecht
immediately.

http://scienceray.com/earth-sciences/five-worst-volcanic-disasters-in-history/

I live in Northern California, about 35 miles east of Sacramento. And I
am rather unafraid of volcanos, earthquakes and fires versus some
"grand" ideas of man to "solve" a perceived crisis.

In the same way that I support the rigorous clinical testing and
validation of stuff in my field of medical electronics. Where's the
_thorough_ testing and validation of CO2 storage in old gas fields
documented? Got any links?

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.

 

[Rich Grise]

On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 13:44:14 +0000, Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Wed, 25 Nov 2009 04:31:12 -0800 (PST)) it happened Bill
Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
On Nov 25, 12:00 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On a sunny day (Tue, 24 Nov 2009 16:36:08 -0800 (PST)) it happenedBill
Sl=
oman

I'm not per se interested in changing the climate cycles, I'm
interested in getting people to think, which - if it worked - might
get them to think sensibly about anthropogenic global warming, amongst
other topics.

Sensibly thinking about it leads to the insight that the anthropogenic
co=
mponent is insignificant in the view of the big climate cycles.

Sorry. That is insensible non-thinking, otherwise known as wishful
thinking. I think you'd better think it out again, after you've learned a
bit more about greenhouse gases and how they work.

There is no proof whatsover that CO2 levels have caused warming in the
past. And even if you assumed CO2 levels did, where did the CO2 come from?
It is much more simple (Occam's) to think CO2 levels went up because the
warmer climate had more animals populate the earth.... But even that may
not be so.

Not to mention that the warming cycles PRECEDE the elevations in CO2
levels. This is pretty obvious, when you consider that cold water can hold
more CO2 in solution than warm water can.

But Bill has faith, which trumps facts, like this inconvenient one:
http://www.infowars.com/al-gore-admits-co2-does-not-cause-majority-of-global-warming/

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Joerg]

Bill Sloman wrote:

On Nov 25, 12:09 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:

[...]

But the glaciers, those will further retreat from Europe, and north of America,
only to come back then later, in thousands of years cycles.

Since we've messed up the positive feedback that drove that cycle and
added more than enough CO2 and methane to the atmosphere, the glacier
aren't going to be coming back any time soon.

The shapes and locations ofof the continents will still be pretty much
the same. I doubt if the world will look that different.

Ahm, the glacier north of us on Mt.Shasta is growing ...

Maybe it hasn't heard of AGW and someone should tell it

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.

 

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 00:56:10 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Nov 24, 4:04 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 00:43:51 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman





bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Nov 24, 2:42 am, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 16:31:49 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman

bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Nov 23, 5:43 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 04:12:23 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman

bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Nov 23, 12:06 pm, ChrisQ <m...@devnull.com> wrote:
John Larkin wrote:

snip

So now you are using local weather events as proof of climate change.
So what do you make of the recent record-setting cold snaps across the
USA?

One of the regular predictions of the effects of global warming is a
higher frequency of extreme weather. The logic is that global warming
means more water vapour in the atmosphere, and the engine that drives
weather is the energy released when water vapour condenses.

Extreme weather can be hot or cold, wet or dry, which does put
proponents of anthropogenic global warming in the catbird seat when
some extreme weather shows up.

Like, for instance, when it rains for 40 days and 40 nights?

That doesn't seem to have happened recently.

Exactly. Bad weather has been happening for thousands of years.

The records are funny. When they say "coldest November in 80 years" I
think "then it was even colder 80 years ago."







Geez, I'm sure glad you don't design electronics. Stick to obsessing
about climate; that will keep you from doing much real harm.

And if you concentrated on electronics, which you do know something
about, rather than potificating about climate change, where you
ignorance makes you a total sucker for the most fatuaous denialist
rubbish, you'd be less of a menance.

I do concentrate on electronics... a lot. I have about 11 or so
interesting projects at various stages of development, and a bunch
more we're thinking about.

But why does being skeptical of some nonlinear/chaotic computer models
constitute "menace"? The science must be very, very fragile if it
can't bear my humble skepticism in an obscure newsgroup.

Your scepticism is nether humble nor yours. You pick up neatly
packaged chunks of scepticism from your frieindly neighbourhood
denialist propaganda machine and regurgitate them here.

I suppose that's another reason they hide their raw data and cook the peer
reviews.

Since they "hide" their raw data because it is incomprehensible and
"cook" their peer reviews - to the limited extent that they can
influence editors - by preferentially citing the work of people known
to produce constructive reviews, this is just another piece of
evidence that you know very little about the way science works. You
may sell remarkable scientific measuring instruments to scientific
research laboratories, but you clearly don't often get to drink coffee
with the people who use your gear.

Well, the AGW fad has peaked. What anti-civilization paranoia will be
next, do you think?

The enthusiasm of Exxon-Mobil and similar fossil-carbon extraction
companies for filling the media with anti-scientific propaganda aimed
at blocking the changes to our civilisation that will be needed to
prevent it's collapse (and the consequent population implosion) does
imply that there are a lot of rich people around exhibiting a rather
dangerous form pf psychopathic short-term self-interest.

One might hope that they might grow out of it, but Jahred Diamond's
book "Collapse" makes it pretty clear that the leaders of a failing
society will have their attention firmly fixed on maintaining their
status within that society - in your case, your status as a successful
businessman - right up to the point where it starts collapsing around
their ears.

I am not a businessman; I'm a circuit designer.

Whenever you get on th defensive you boast about running a successful
business.

I'm never seriously on the defensive here, because it doesn't matter.
And what I do 98% of the time is design electronics. Other people run
the business, which I have little talent for and less interest. The
combination is fairly successful.

We had a great month in October, multiples of the average monthly
sales in mid-year, which was frankly terrifying. November looks almost
as good, when in past years November was generally bad. I think the
earlier spending fear is mostly over, and there's pent-up demand
emerging now.

Too bad we have the Thanksgiving holiday over here. Nothing happens
this week.

Time is never going to have a Circuit Designer of the Year on its
front cover - the "successful businessman" aspect of your work is what
gives you get your social status.

I hate social status. Ceremonies embarass me. I want to be rich, but I
don't want to be famous. I do like it when I design something really
good and serious people say it's good, and buy some to emphasize the
point.

And Time Magazine has become a brainless parody of itself, like much
of print journalism. They haven't the sense to realize that their
target audience is people who *read*.

Are you into the 2012 cult?

Just far enough to know that nitwits like Rice Grise take it
seriously, that it depends on some imagined feature of the Inca
calender, and there are suggestions that 2012 isn't the magic year
that it is claimed to be. It's just another form of astrology and
appeals to the same kinds of fruitcakes.

Like most disaster scenarios; AGW comes to mind.

The serious disaster scenario is an asteroid or comet hit. The ISS
could be used as a detection/tracking platform and a staging area for
deflector missiles. We'd have serious international cooperation and
the ISS would finally have a use.

You should know me well enough to have been able to predict that
answer, or something very like it.

I have no useful mental model for sour, grim, useless, and hostile
people like you. Earth is too wonderful a planet, and our visit here
too short, to waste it.

That said, I'm off for a hike on the Pacific Crest Trail. Next trip
up, it will probably be snowed in. That's OK, that means we can ski.

John

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Wed, 25 Nov 2009 08:59:29 -0800) it happened Rich Grise
<richgrise@example.net> wrote in <pan.2009.11.25.16.59.25.64076@example.net>:

Not to mention that the warming cycles PRECEDE the elevations in CO2
levels. This is pretty obvious, when you consider that cold water can hold
more CO2 in solution than warm water can.

But Bill has faith, which trumps facts, like this inconvenient one:
http://www.infowars.com/al-gore-admits-co2-does-not-cause-majority-of-global-warming/

Cheers!
Rich

Gore should be locked up.

 

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 17:13:35 GMT, Jan Panteltje
<pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

On a sunny day (Wed, 25 Nov 2009 08:59:29 -0800) it happened Rich Grise
richgrise@example.net> wrote in <pan.2009.11.25.16.59.25.64076@example.net>:

Not to mention that the warming cycles PRECEDE the elevations in CO2
levels. This is pretty obvious, when you consider that cold water can hold
more CO2 in solution than warm water can.

But Bill has faith, which trumps facts, like this inconvenient one:
http://www.infowars.com/al-gore-admits-co2-does-not-cause-majority-of-global-warming/

Cheers!
Rich

Gore should be locked up.

He's done an excellent job of turning off Sloman's mind.

John

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

John Larkin wrote:

On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 17:13:35 GMT, Jan Panteltje
pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

On a sunny day (Wed, 25 Nov 2009 08:59:29 -0800) it happened Rich Grise
richgrise@example.net> wrote in <pan.2009.11.25.16.59.25.64076@example.net>:

Not to mention that the warming cycles PRECEDE the elevations in CO2
levels. This is pretty obvious, when you consider that cold water can hold
more CO2 in solution than warm water can.

But Bill has faith, which trumps facts, like this inconvenient one:
http://www.infowars.com/al-gore-admits-co2-does-not-cause-majority-of-global-warming/

Cheers!
Rich

Gore should be locked up.

He's done an excellent job of turning off Sloman's mind.

That was a 30 second job. What else has he done?


--
The movie 'Deliverance' isn't a documentary!

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 10:51:52 -0600, krw <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 08:48:29 -0800, Rich Grise <richgrise@example.net
wrote:

On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 16:51:24 -0800, Joerg wrote:
Bill Sloman wrote:
On Nov 24, 1:18 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On a sunny day (Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:02:34 -0800 (PST)) it happenedBill
Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote in
53439409-1c59-4180-846c-a5019132d...@j9g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>:

Sad, but not exactly a volcanic eruption. Since you have not
identified the city or found a URL to back up this story, I could
wonder whether it was the sort of urban legend that the Prussians
invent whenever they talk to people about the Bavarians.
Well, you could have googled:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Staufen_im_Breisgau

Gypsum, geothermal heating and damage does pick it up twice on the first
page, so Joerg should have been able to find it. It was his fact, not
mine, and his responsibility to validate it.

Well, I did. But anyhow, all I wanted to show was how easy it is for homo
sapiens to do something really, really stupid in order to "solve" some
environmental concern quickly. So I fully understand Jan when he says he
doesn't want to live on top of a gigantic CO2 bubble. I most certainly
would not want to either.

What is it that causes people to completely dismiss the elementary fact
that plants absorb CO2 out of the atmosphere and turn it into food,
building materials, and flower gardens?

Leftist weenies don't like others to have food and shelter, and love
ugly.

I'm certifiably ugly ;-)

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

 

[krw]

On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 15:18:19 -0700, Jim Thompson
<To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 10:51:52 -0600, krw <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 08:48:29 -0800, Rich Grise <richgrise@example.net
wrote:

On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 16:51:24 -0800, Joerg wrote:
Bill Sloman wrote:
On Nov 24, 1:18 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On a sunny day (Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:02:34 -0800 (PST)) it happenedBill
Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote in
53439409-1c59-4180-846c-a5019132d...@j9g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>:

Sad, but not exactly a volcanic eruption. Since you have not
identified the city or found a URL to back up this story, I could
wonder whether it was the sort of urban legend that the Prussians
invent whenever they talk to people about the Bavarians.
Well, you could have googled:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Staufen_im_Breisgau

Gypsum, geothermal heating and damage does pick it up twice on the first
page, so Joerg should have been able to find it. It was his fact, not
mine, and his responsibility to validate it.

Well, I did. But anyhow, all I wanted to show was how easy it is for homo
sapiens to do something really, really stupid in order to "solve" some
environmental concern quickly. So I fully understand Jan when he says he
doesn't want to live on top of a gigantic CO2 bubble. I most certainly
would not want to either.

What is it that causes people to completely dismiss the elementary fact
that plants absorb CO2 out of the atmosphere and turn it into food,
building materials, and flower gardens?

Leftist weenies don't like others to have food and shelter, and love
ugly.

I'm certifiably ugly ;-)

....and leftist weenies just love you. ;-)

 

[Malcolm Moore]

On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 11:25:27 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Nov 25, 7:59 am, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

The French genenrate most of their electric power from nuclear
reactors and yet you claimed

Hey, if it was not for Exxon-Mobil and the other energy companies,
there would be no media, no energy,

Just admit you have no clue and are wrong.


Okay boys and girls, FWIW let's whip out the calculator and fact-check
the authoritative Mr. Bill:

France produces
447e12 watt-hours of electricity annually, and consumes
1.99 x 10e6 bbl of petroleum (37MJ/L) per day, plus
49.27e9 m^3 of natural gas (36.4 MJ/m^3)
(CIA factbook)

How much energy is in that oil?

1.99e6 bbl/day * 365 days = 726e6 bbl/year,
x 159L/bbl = 115e9 L/year
x 37MJ / L = 4.27e18 J/year.

Doing the same for natural gas, we get:

(view table in fixed font)
FOSSIL FUELS
natural gas: 1.79 x 10^18 J
petroleum: 4.27 x 10^18 J
--------------
Subtotal: 6.06 x 10^18 J

ELECTRICAL
Total
electricity: 1.61 x 10^18 J
(nuclear): 1.29 x 10^18 J

TOTAL FOSSIL+NUCLEAR
7.35 x 10^18 J


So, France gets 18% of its energy from nukes, 82% from FOSSIL fuels.

Comprehension has obviously never been your best skill!

Bill clearly stated;

"The French genenrate most of their electric power from nuclear
reactors and yet you claimed"

Note the words ELECTRIC power.

You've used the CIA figures for total fossil fuels, which includes
that used for transportation, heating, industrial processes etc.

The Wikipedia page for Nuclear Power in France states;

"In France, as of 2002[update], Électricité de France (EDF) — the
country's main electricity generation and distribution company —
manages the country's 58 nuclear power plants. As of 2008[update],
these plants produce 90% of both EDF's and France's electrical power
production (of which much is exported),[1] making EDF the world leader
in production of nuclear power by percentage. In 2004, 425.8 TWh out
of the country's total production of 540.6 TWh was from nuclear power
(78.8%)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France

Shame about all those wasted calculations you went through.
Bill's post was authoritative.

--
Regards
Malcolm
Remove sharp objects to get a valid e-mail address

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 18:21:48 -0600, krw <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 15:18:19 -0700, Jim Thompson
To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 10:51:52 -0600, krw <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 08:48:29 -0800, Rich Grise <richgrise@example.net
wrote:

On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 16:51:24 -0800, Joerg wrote:
Bill Sloman wrote:
On Nov 24, 1:18 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On a sunny day (Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:02:34 -0800 (PST)) it happenedBill
Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote in
53439409-1c59-4180-846c-a5019132d...@j9g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>:

Sad, but not exactly a volcanic eruption. Since you have not
identified the city or found a URL to back up this story, I could
wonder whether it was the sort of urban legend that the Prussians
invent whenever they talk to people about the Bavarians.
Well, you could have googled:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Staufen_im_Breisgau

Gypsum, geothermal heating and damage does pick it up twice on the first
page, so Joerg should have been able to find it. It was his fact, not
mine, and his responsibility to validate it.

Well, I did. But anyhow, all I wanted to show was how easy it is for homo
sapiens to do something really, really stupid in order to "solve" some
environmental concern quickly. So I fully understand Jan when he says he
doesn't want to live on top of a gigantic CO2 bubble. I most certainly
would not want to either.

What is it that causes people to completely dismiss the elementary fact
that plants absorb CO2 out of the atmosphere and turn it into food,
building materials, and flower gardens?

Leftist weenies don't like others to have food and shelter, and love
ugly.

I'm certifiably ugly ;-)

...and leftist weenies just love you. ;-)

Sure! Can't you tell from all the adulation ?

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

 

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 08:59:25 -0800, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

Bill Sloman wrote:

You live in Oregon. Here is a web site that gives the locations of
potentially active volcanoes in your state.

http://www.nationalatlas.gov/dynamic/dyn_vol-or.html

I'd suggest that if you are worried by potential sources of danger
under your feet, you should pack up and move to Barendrecht
immediately.

http://scienceray.com/earth-sciences/five-worst-volcanic-disasters-in-history/


I live in Northern California, about 35 miles east of Sacramento. And I
am rather unafraid of volcanos, earthquakes and fires versus some
"grand" ideas of man to "solve" a perceived crisis.

Listen up, Joerg. If Sloman says you live in Oregon, you live in
Oregon. It's a peer-reviewed fact.

John