Ping Bil Slowman; The global warming hoax reveiled

[Bill Sloman]

On Nov 26, 7:35 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On a sunny day (Thu, 26 Nov 2009 10:07:13 -0800 (PST)) it happenedBill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote in
6e3552a1-ae05-4a2c-835f-9f245f6d0...@m25g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>:

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, the> >re would be no civilisation
and not even internet, and no printing material, no paper, some paper man> >ufacturers have their own power plants.

And if we keep on digging up fossil carbon and burning it, all these
nice things will go away again.

Been there.
Now wake up from your green dreams.

An ironic appeal, since it comes from someone who clearly doesn't know
what he is talking about.

mm, why do you say that of everybody except your comic book scientists?

I don't say it about everybody, but there are a number of people who
post here on subjects that they know very little about, and they quite
often post total nonsense.

Or renounce it all, and go live on one of the last energy free little isl> >ands... atolls...

Not necessary. We can generate all the energy we need without burning
fossil carbon.

And if you had read your newspaper this morning you would have learned
that your electricity and gas bills are going to go up to help pay for
the capital investment that is going to make this happen in the
Netherlands over the next couple of decades.

Well, I read almost no paper newspapers, really, but I have a much faster internet
news feed, of a much broader spectrum from many different countries, and Netherlands
too.

It is a pity you don't seem to be equipped to make sesne of all this
information.

That energy prices will go up is no news, it is the way the system works.
That taxes will go up, exactly the same.
All that said, a good thing I did not sign on some years ago for a fixed (high) energy > price,
just got some Euros back on my yearly electricity bill, man was I right.
But it also helped that I have the computer control all energy here.
And I wrote the programs myself.
Capital investment, well there are windmills here up the road, and a lot more further > on.
Now they want to build some in the sea.

Get up to date. the Danes have been doing it for years.

http://www.dongenergy.com/EN/Media/Press%20releases/Pages/CisionDetails.aspx?cisionid=447507

Have you calculated how much percentage those will supply?

Not me, but it has been done by others

http://www.pnas.org/content/106/27/10933.full

They still have not got the strength to build some nuke plants here...
But this morning I was thinking that the best nuke plant location would probably be
Nijmegen.
A great place for CO2 storage too ;-)

Not really. Nobody ever found natural gas under Nijmegen.

So they build coal and natural gas plants... Fine with me, next they will
import the coal from China, where >100 miners die each year.
But those death are far away, do not weight on the political agenda I guess.
And I think the same is happening with uranium mining, I have seen movies where all
those
guys had was a paper face mask... here is our society,
taxes, profit, and lip service to reality.
We are still a devouring animal type, really.
Nature, we are part of it, and as we are part of it we need to accept the climate
cycles

I don't see any necessity to accept the climate cycles, and I'm
delighted that we have generated enough anthropogenic global warming
to prevent the the next ice age, which would have been due any
millenium now.

However, one can have too much of good thing, and persisting in
injecting CO2 into the atmosphere has the potential to make as big a
mess of our civilisation as would the start of a new ice age.

unless we develop technology like terra forming that _really_ can change the climate, > maybe it will happen one day.

If you had learned a bit more science when you were young, you'd be
aware that burning fossil carbon is an all-too-effective form of
terraforming.

But hiding CO2 under your bed won't work.

Not for any extended period, but it would help to bridge the gap while
we are still building the windmills and the solar power plants that we
will need to replace coal, oil and gas-powered energy sources that we
rely on at the moment.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Malcolm Moore]

On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 08:25:05 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Nov 25, 11:32 pm, Malcolm Moore <abor1953nee...@yahoodagger.co.nz
wrote:
On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 19:00:13 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com
wrote:



On Nov 25, 7:23 pm, Malcolm Moore <abor1953nee...@yahoodagger.co.nz
wrote:
On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 11:25:27 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...@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:

snip wasted calculations and earlier comment.

Let's dig through and re-create that conversation, shall we?

That's a good idea, but let's paste it in sequence;

<Begin quote>

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>:

<Bill wrote>

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.

<Jan wrote>

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.

<Bill wrote>

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.

<Jan wrote>

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

<Bill 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.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

<End quote>

Here's Bill, quoting Jan:

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,

To which Jan replied, reiterating his point that civilization was
founded and still largely dependent on fossil fuels:


"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."

But completely irrelevant to your "fact check" of the French nuclear
claims.

If you look at the subject for this thread you'll hopefully realise
your claim to have brought it back on point is complete nonsense. And
who appointed you thread controller of sed!

Oh I just meant to bring Bill back to Jan's immediate point, of our
dependence on fossil fuels. As much as I admire France's nuclear
power and think we should do more of that, it's not a panacea--even
France is still critically dependent on fossil fuel, and I wanted to
know how dependent. So I added it up. ~82% from fossil fuel.

No, you wanted to show Bill was wrong. That's why you wrote

"let's whip out the calculator and fact-check the authoritative Mr.
Bill"

So far we've heard you were fact checking, then it was bringing Bill
back on topic, and now it's "I wanted to know how dependent. So I
added it up." Hmmm.

But I'm not foolish enough to try keeping Bill on any sort of topic--
that's like herding fish.

Why didn't you attempt to bring Jan back on topic? He was the first in
the thread to move away from the subject line when he mentioned
proposals to store CO2 underground near where he lives.

The thread topic was about a bunch of AGW promoters being caught
lying, manipulating data, conspiring against competitors, and so
forth. Bill didn't like that topic, so he raised a fuss and a bunch
of strawmen so we'd all talk about something else. Standard operating
procedure.

No, Bill responded to Jan's concerns about living above a CO2 store.
Subsequently the thread diverged into the usual wide ranging stuff. If
you can't handle that you'll need to leave usenet

There's still the matter of why you claimed to be fact checking Bill's
nuclear claims when you were apparently really trying to bring him
back on topic. I guess you also have trouble comprehending your own
writing.

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.

Bill's post was specious, but thanks for checking. Hope you enjoyed
the herring!

The fishy smell is all emanating from your direction.


Probably true--I _wish_ I had some herring, but had to settle for
roasted sardines mixed in with steamed brown rice last night, and I
enjoyed it very much!

(Alas, the can's labeled "Product of Canada," and I fear it might've
been caught in non-nuclear powered boats, then transported thousands
of miles using more of the same fossil-fuel technology. The rice too,
for that matter.)

Bravo for your heart-felt defense of Bill--he's surrounded, out of
ammo, and sure could use the help.

I'm not defending Bill, I'm critiquing you.

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

 

[Malcolm Moore]

On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 11:37:02 GMT, Jan Panteltje
<pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

On a sunny day (Thu, 26 Nov 2009 17:32:44 +1300) it happened Malcolm Moore
abor1953needle@yahoodagger.co.nz> wrote in
1strg5da6c1m0aq0dmpdiefet7u9vngch5@4ax.com>:

That was all bogus, so I brought the thing back on point.

Nice try, but as I commented before, comprehension is not your best
skill.

Jan introduced nuclear energy when he stated

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

To which Bill replied

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

and then you lost the plot.


You, like Billy the Slowman, seem to be manipulting reality.
This is how the *real* conversation went:

Me:
*>> 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.

Slowman:
*>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.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Me again now:
To that I replied that I made the case for nuclear power several times here, nothing to do with climate.
Was just rectifying an other one of Billy Slowman's dreamstates, inaccuracies.

That's correct, you introduced nuclear energy, to which Bill replied
about the French proportion of nuclear electricity generation.

The only thing you could regard as an inaccuracy in your highlighted
quote is his claim
"You don't seem to have realised", but I don't think that was intended
to be taken literally.

"burning fossil carbon isn't the only way to generate energy." is
accurate, as was his claim about the French nuclear industry.

I don't see why you claim I'm manipulating reality with regard to the
quoted posts? As I mentioned in my reply to dagwhatever, you were the
first to move the thread from the subject matter. That's fine, that
happens on usenet. However, he then "fact checked" a claim that was
never made, and you're supporting him. Weird.

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

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Nov 26, 5:25 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Nov 25, 11:32 pm, Malcolm Moore <abor1953nee...@yahoodagger.co.nz
wrote:

On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 19:00:13 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Nov 25, 7:23 pm, Malcolm Moore <abor1953nee...@yahoodagger.co.nz
wrote:
On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 11:25:27 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com
wrote:

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

<snip>

Let's dig through and re-create that conversation, shall we?

<snipped his total failure to do anything of the sort>

If you look at the subject for this thread you'll hopefully realise
your claim to have brought it back on point is complete nonsense. And
who appointed you thread controller of sed!

Oh I just meant to bring Bill back to Jan's immediate point, of our
dependence on fossil fuels.  As much as I admire France's nuclear
power and think we should do more of that, it's not a panacea--even
France is still critically dependent on fossil fuel, and I wanted to
know how dependent.  So I added it up.  ~82% from fossil fuel.

Sure, But you conveniently - and dishonestly - ignored the fact that I
was making a point about electricity.

But I'm not foolish enough to try keeping Bill on any sort of topic--
that's like herding fish.

Considering that your debating tactics of necessity have to involve
distracting people from the fatuous claims you make and subsequently
can't support, this is delicious.

The thread topic was about a bunch of AGW promoters being caught
lying, manipulating data, conspiring against competitors, and so
forth.

In fact the read is about a bunch of denialist nitsits trying to claim
that bunch of hacked e-amils contain evidence of lying, manipulating
data, conspiring against competitors, and so forth.

You have to be a seriously demented ehthusiasm for conspiracy theories
to read that into any of the e-mails I've seen, and nobody who has any
credibility to preserve has endorsed any such claim.

 Bill didn't like that topic -

Of course not, it is nonsense.

so he raised a fuss and a bunch
of strawmen so we'd all talk about something else.  

This is a little transparent. James Arthur was silly enough to reveal
that his "inside information" on global warming fraud was somebody in
the business telling him that global climate models break down if
asked to predict further ahead than a fornight, this revealing that he
doesn't know the difference between a global weather model - which is
subject to the butterfly effect - and a global climate model which
isn't.

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

http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev28_2/text/cli.htm

This revealed that his claim to know anything about anthropogenic
global warming was a total fraud, and he has been trying to distract
attention from ths ever since.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Nov 25, 6:09 pm, John Larkin
<jjSNIPlar...@highTHISlandtechnology.com> wrote:

On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 00:56:10 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman

bill.slo...@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>

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.

It comes to your mind, but you know remarkably little about science.

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.

Asteroids and comet impacts do lend themselves to dramatic film
scenarios.

John Barnes did use AWG in his end-of-the-world SF novel "Mother of
Storms"

http://www.amazon.com/Mother-Storms-John-Barnes/dp/0812533453

but nobody has made a film of it, for fairly obvious reasons.

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.

Everybody who jeers at your nonsense posts is sour, grim and hostile?
You are being a little transparent here.

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.

Have fun.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Nov 26, 8:48 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 10:26:45 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman

bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
I must say he's wasted quite a lot of time and bandwidth demonstating
that he doesn't bother to engage his brain before applying his fingers
to the keyboard.

---
PKB, Mr. "I can extract energy from the variable magnetic field
surrounding a conductor carrying an alternating current by wrapping a
solenoid around it."

That was Joel Koltner's claim and he stuck a smilely after it.

Try not to be quite so transparently stupid.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Nov 26, 12:26 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On a sunny day (Thu, 26 Nov 2009 13:23:12 +1300) it happened Malcolm Moore
abor1953nee...@yahoodagger.co.nz> wrote in
cphrg5d3en3gdci010svovfv5l83p6h...@4ax.com>:

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

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

<snip>

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

Billie's post was a reply to mine, and was total bull.

Jan Panteltje has strange ideas about what constituties total bull.

Billy seems to think storing CO2 under your bed will stop natural climate cycles.

Quite wrong. I know that not "storing CO2 under your bed" has stopped
one natural climate cycle. The next ice age, due to happen any
millenium now, has been put on hold by the anthropogenic global
warming that we have managed so far.

I also know that we can't store enough CO2 under our collective beds
to avoid more serious anthropogenic global warming if we continue to
dig up and burn fossil carbon at the current rate, but we may be able
to store enough to prevent serious warming before we build enough
windmills and sloar power plants to replace most of our current energy
sources.

Billy is a very confused, mislead by Al Gore, human being.

Given the strange and irrational ideas that Jan Panteltje endorses,
I'd be quite worried if he didn't think that I was confused. One of
his silly ideas is that I get my ideas about global warming from Al
Gore. I've had enough scientific training to be able to get my ideas
about anthropogenic global warming from rather closer to the
scientific sources.

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/

Quoting out of context from one of his text may mentally hurt you.

Finding out that you have been talking nonsense can be damaging to the
ego. Jan Panteltje's ego seems to have been protecting itself from
this damaging revelation for quite some time now.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[John Fields]

On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 14:26:03 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

James Arthur thinks that climate models can't predict any more than a
fortnight ahead before they blow up. Oddly enough they can, but
weather models can't.

---
Climate's slow, weather's fast.

Tell me what the weather's going to be like a year or 10 from now and,
if you nail it, I'll agree that you're right about climate change.

In the meantime, I'll assert that you and your ilk don't know what the
fuck you're talking about.
---

And he still thinks that he is in a position to tell us that the
evidence for anthropogenic global warming is a fraud?

---
Why not, since you don't have any definitive evidence to prove that it
isn't?

JF

 

[John Fields]

On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 15:18:18 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Nov 26, 7:35 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On a sunny day (Thu, 26 Nov 2009 10:07:13 -0800 (PST)) it happenedBill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote in
6e3552a1-ae05-4a2c-835f-9f245f6d0...@m25g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>:

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, the=
re would be no civilisation
and not even internet, and no printing material, no paper, some paper man=
ufacturers have their own power plants.

And if we keep on digging up fossil carbon and burning it, all these
nice things will go away again.

Been there.
Now wake up from your green dreams.

An ironic appeal, since it comes from someone who clearly doesn't know
what he is talking about.

mm, why do you say that of everybody except your comic book scientists?

I don't say it about everybody, but there are a number of people who
post here on subjects that they know very little about, and they quite
often post total nonsense.

---
Like about being able to extract energy from a varying magnetic field
surrounding a conductor by wrapping a solenoid around the conductor?

JF

 

[Malcolm Moore]

On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 09:47:17 +0000, Raveninghorde
<raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 09:03:48 -0800, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

Bill Sloman wrote:
On Nov 24, 3:28 am, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

SNIP


Sourcewatch gets its data from Exxon-Mobil's published accounts, which
provide rather better evidence than the kinds of conspiracy theories
with which Ravinghorde regales us.


Got a link the _proves_ that Exxon tries to fudge science here? Similar
to those embarrassing email?

Here's a link to more AGW, academic global warming:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/25/uh-oh-raw-data-in-new-zealand-tells-a-different-story-than-the-official-one/#more-13215

/quote

But analysis of the raw climate data from the same temperature
stations has just turned up a very different result:

Gone is the relentless rising temperature trend, and instead there
appears to have been a much smaller growth in warming, consistent with
the warming up of the planet after the end of the Little Ice Age in
1850.

/end quote

For a bit of balance

http://hot-topic.co.nz/nz-sceptics-lie-about-temp-records-try-to-smear-top-scientist/

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

 

[John Larkin]

On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 14:58:48 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Nov 24, 4:00 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 06:37:56 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com
wrote:





On Nov 23, 9:43 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Nov 23, 1:10 pm, krw <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Nov 22, 8:44 pm,Bill Sloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Nov 22, 8:07 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

These guys want to replace confirmation by experiment with proof by
correlation.  Which they're in a unique position to ensure.

Astronomy has had to struggle with exactly the same problem. I presume
you also are going to rip down all the observatories and insist that
the sun really does go around the earth.

Astronomy is easily confirmed, repeatably, to high accuracy, by
multiple observers around the world.

Climatrology can't predict a decade-long cooling trend even once it's
begun, nor can it explain it.

Climatology can't "predict" history, yet some idiots want to use it to
control everyone.  Politicians (are) like that.

Climatology predicts history fine with a little bit of curve-fitting.
Climatrology, like astrology (or maybe let's call it climatrollogy),
looks into the future.

Oooo, "climastrology"--even better.

That's a keeper.

A genuine James Arthur pratfall. Not a collectible as all that - he
makes a fool of himself a little too often, and the market is getting
saturated.

I've known James for years, well before any encounters on SED. He's
funny, cheerful, an excellent electronics designer, a good cook, and
has a great singing voice. I have never known him to be a fool about
anything. But I ski faster than he does. Lots faster.

You are the group buffoon/churl/pain slut. I can't imagine why you
post here.

John

ps- the mashed potatoes cooked in *five minutes* at 6400 feet in the
pressure cooker that S sent us.

 

On Nov 26, 12:36 pm, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

On Nov 26, 5:41 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:



On Nov 26, 6:26 am, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On a sunny day (Wed, 25 Nov 2009 17:46:50 -0800) it happened John Larkin
jjSNIPlar...@highTHISlandtechnology.com> wrote in
0cnrg5h8si41lusotsgkcr6uv5s1dtu...@4ax.com>:

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

Bill Slomanwrote:

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...

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

Yes, exactly, that is real science.

I also strongly insist that Joerg lives in Oregon, therefore, not only
is it a peer-reviewed fact, but there's also a consensus.

It is a pity that I got it wrong. Peer review would probably have
prevented this.

James Arthur happens to be wrong - his concurrence doesn't create a
concensus, which in practice is confined to the opinions of people who
know what they are talking about.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

I am not wrong. After applying the appropriate proprietary,
undocumented corrections to Joerg's lat/lon, I have yet another
irrefutable proof--which I just deleted off my hard drive--that Joerg
lives _in_ Oregon, and in the very cone of a volcano.

Joerg, be afraid, very afraid.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

 

On Nov 26, 1:26 pm, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

On Nov 25, 8:25 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:


(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.

But the claim was "The French generate most of their electric power
from nuclear
reactors" so the the relevant part of the clown's calculation is

Bill, you make this too easy!

Jan rightly said modern civilization was founded on fossil fuel.
Which it was, and still is, and which I tallied.

Here, I'll fetch Jan's quote for your continued amusement--

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.

You responded:

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

Okay, fine, you stated the obvious--we all knew fossil fuels aren't
the only way to make power. But it doesn't answer Jan's point at all,
does it?

So you brought up France's nuclear ability as either diversion or
proof of I-don't-know-what, and I just tallied the numbers to show
that France does indeed depend heavily on fossil fuels, and it would
likely be a cold, hungry, internet-free place without them. Which is
what Jan said to start with.

(Oh, and of course we could always point to the "and the other energy
companies" clause of Jan's statement, but that starts getting as
silly, doesn't it?)

ELECTRICAL

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

1.29 is 80% of 1.61, so Mr. Bill remains authoritative amd Mr. James
remains a clown.

Bill, you're a goof! 1.29 is exactly 80% of 1.61 because that's how I
got 1.29--by guesstimating 80% of the 1.61 as nuke[1], then
multiplying!

[1] I think I even got that 80% figure from you!


--
Cheers,
James Arthur

 

On Nov 26, 1:18 pm, John Larkin
<jjSNIPlar...@highTHISlandtechnology.com> wrote:

On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 08:41:26 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com
wrote:



On Nov 26, 6:26 am, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On a sunny day (Wed, 25 Nov 2009 17:46:50 -0800) it happened John Larkin
jjSNIPlar...@highTHISlandtechnology.com> wrote in
0cnrg5h8si41lusotsgkcr6uv5s1dtu...@4ax.com>:

On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 08:59:25 -0800, Joerg <inva...@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...

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

Yes, exactly, that is real science.

I also strongly insist that Joerg lives in Oregon, therefore, not only
is it a peer-reviewed fact, but there's also a consensus.

I have just run a simulation that proves that Joerg lives in Oregon.

There can be no more doubt.

John

After applying the appropriate correction factors, I too find that
Joerg lives in Oregon.

So, now we have independent confirmation.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

 

On Nov 26, 5:26 pm, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

James Arthur thinks that climate models can't predict any more than a
fortnight ahead before they blow up. Oddly enough they can, but
weather models can't.

If I ever wrote that, it was a mistake. But I don't believe I ever
did. (But since you keep saying it, and Joerg lives in Oregon, it
must be true.)

I'd have to ask the person who writes them exactly how far in the
future GCMs go these days before diverging uselessly into chaos, but
IIRC they gave some useful, broad indications as much as a few months
in advance. Not accurate, but enough.

And it was the same expert GCM worker who said GCMs were completely
useless beyond a few months, because they diverge, and specifically,
are completely inapplicable and unreliable over even a year, much less
the decades-to-centuries they're being used for.

Of course you can see that easily, independently, if you just look at
the models, see how incomplete they are, how rudimentary our
understanding of critical processes is, how loose the parameters are,
how many arbitrary and unexplained factors they apply, and so forth.

Or look at how well the climate models predicted the current cooling
transient--they didn't. In fact they predicted more and more heat and
hurricanes, didn't they? And we were supposed to brace ourselves for
those, to spend money and prepare, but they never came. The models
were wrong.

Or just do an error-budget analysis. The AGW contribution alleged
from CO2 is, well, not even clear. A range of estimates from ~0.25 to
1 W/m^2 out of roughly 300W/m^2 has been offered. (That wide an
uncertainty band is pretty pathetic on its face, isn't it?) The
uncertainty over the contribution of clouds alone swamps even the
highest figure by nearly two orders of magnitude.

And yet you'd tell me you know for a fact that man-made CO2 is beyond
any doubt the one, most important, overriding factor?

Yes, you would.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[John Larkin]

On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 21:18:03 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Nov 26, 5:26 pm, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

James Arthur thinks that climate models can't predict any more than a
fortnight ahead before they blow up. Oddly enough they can, but
weather models can't.

If I ever wrote that, it was a mistake. But I don't believe I ever
did. (But since you keep saying it, and Joerg lives in Oregon, it
must be true.)

I'd have to ask the person who writes them exactly how far in the
future GCMs go these days before diverging uselessly into chaos, but
IIRC they gave some useful, broad indications as much as a few months
in advance. Not accurate, but enough.

And it was the same expert GCM worker who said GCMs were completely
useless beyond a few months, because they diverge, and specifically,
are completely inapplicable and unreliable over even a year, much less
the decades-to-centuries they're being used for.

The only way one can predict the desired dire consequences of CO2 is
to conjecture a number of positive feedback mechanisms. Those same
positive feedbacks make the models unstable.

John

 

[Don Klipstein]

In article <99mtg5h3a7dcpuiedse8icd12qb0gdumg6@4ax.com>, Raveninghorde wrote:

On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 18:32:43 +0000 (UTC), don@manx.misty.com (Don
Klipstein) wrote:

In article <rk2tg59mtlmlbjmrhp1fr7e2gn1dcpfejm@4ax.com>, Raveninghorde wrote:
On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 06:55:21 -0600, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 17:35:16 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:


SNIP

---
The question isn't whether warmer sea surface temperatures result in
more, and more violent hurricanes, the question is whether AGW is
playing a significant role in the warming.

People like you tend to gloss over that distinction and, unless you're
taken to task for it, pretend that it's all due to AGW.

JF

And another question is how much of the AGW is down to CO2, rather
than deforestation, changes in land use, growing urban areas, other
gases, etc.

If only we could get the total...

However, there are figures of some sort for CO2 and for other GHGs:

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

W/m^2 (presumably out of 492 W/m^2 Kiehl-Trenberth energy budget)
change due to increase of GHGs since the Industrial Revolution:

CO2: 1.46
Methane: .48
CFC-12: .17
N2O: .15
CFC-11: .07
CFC-113: .03
HCFC-22: .03
Carbon Tet: .01

It appears to me that of these, only CO2 and N2O are on the increase.
Methane is stabilized for now, but I am not sure it will remain so. The
carbon-chlorine compounds all look to me to be stabilized to being
slightly reduced now.

It looks to me like the total from increase of GHGs is 2.4 W/m^2, of
which .79 W/m^2 is from GHGs currently no longer increasing,

and of that .79, .31 W/m^2 is from carbon-chlorine compounds whose
increase is known to be fairly permanently turned back.

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

The wikipedia article quotes IPCC numbers. Unfortunately anything from
the IPCC is suspect given that Mann/Jones et al seem to have acted as
bouncers for the consensus.

For an alternative, for only one GHG, a lower side figure for CO2 is
1.7-1.8 W/m^2 for a doubling of CO2, which I have found in IPCC material
and also supported in drroyspencer.com.

Assuming that effect of CO2 is reasonably close to logarhythmic (linear
would be worse for an increase), and recent roughly 385 PPMV is 37.5%
increase over 280 PPMV "best-determination" of pre-industrial-revolution
baseline:

37.5% increase is 46% of a doubling on a log scale, and times 1.75 W/m^2
low-side is .8-.81 W/m^2 as opposed to 1.46.

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

 

On Nov 26, 7:32 pm, Malcolm Moore wrote:

On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 08:25:05 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb... wrote:
On Nov 25, 11:32 pm, Malcolm Moore wrote:
On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 19:00:13 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb... wrote:

<snip>

Here's Bill, quoting Jan:

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,

To which Jan replied, reiterating his point that civilization was
founded and still largely dependent on fossil fuels:

"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."

But completely irrelevant to your "fact check" of the French nuclear
claims.

You have to grant me some leeway here because Bill's a fuzzy writer.
He works by implication and innuendo, so I had to infer that

a) when Bill cited the impressive French nuclear capability as a
retort to Jan's statement, that
b) he meant it as some sort of rebuttal to Jan's statement.

Otherwise it's hard to see why he would've offered that as a response
to what Jan said.

So, I was not fact-checking French nuclear claims, but the importance
of "...the [fossile] energy companies..." to modern civilization,
taking France as the example.

If you look at the subject for this thread you'll hopefully realise
your claim to have brought it back on point is complete nonsense. And
who appointed you thread controller of sed!

Oh I just meant to bring Bill back to Jan's immediate point, of our
dependence on fossil fuels.  As much as I admire France's nuclear
power and think we should do more of that, it's not a panacea--even
France is still critically dependent on fossil fuel, and I wanted to
know how dependent.  So I added it up.  ~82% from fossil fuel.

No, you wanted to show Bill was wrong. That's why you wrote

"let's whip out the calculator and fact-check the authoritative Mr.
Bill"

Naturally both are true: I understood Bill to be asserting, in his
ambiguous, ill-formed way, that power-generation needn't release
carbon, and, further, that France was an example of how civilization
could use nuclear power instead of fossil fuels.

Jan took it the same way, if you read his follow-ups.

So far we've heard you were fact checking, then it was bringing Bill
back on topic, and now it's "I wanted to know how dependent.  So I
added it up." Hmmm.

One flows from the other, obviously. To see whether France
exemplifies fossil-fuel independence requires adding up their fossil
fuel use, and comparing it to non-fossil fuel energy sources.

But I'm not foolish enough to try keeping Bill on any sort of topic--
that's like herding fish.

Why didn't you attempt to bring Jan back on topic? He was the first in
the thread to move away from the subject line when he mentioned
proposals to store CO2 underground near where he lives.

Because Jan and Bill are both free to talk about whatever they want,
naturally. And I have no interest in or opinion on CO2 stores.

If you look at the subject for this thread you'll hopefully realise
your claim to have brought it back on point is complete nonsense. And
who appointed you thread controller of sed!

The thread topic was about a bunch of AGW promoters being caught
lying, manipulating data, conspiring against competitors, and so
forth.  Bill didn't like that topic, so he raised a fuss and a bunch
of strawmen so we'd all talk about something else.  Standard operating
procedure.

No, Bill responded to Jan's concerns about living above a CO2 store.
Subsequently the thread diverged into the usual wide ranging stuff. If
you can't handle that you'll need to leave usenet  

You snipped the comment you made which I was responding to. I've re-
inserted it.

I stand by my description.

As far as being thread controller, that's silly. Obviously anyone in
a conversation makes points, and sometimes presses those points when
they've not been answered.

There's still the matter of why you claimed to be fact checking Bill's
nuclear claims when you were apparently really trying to bring him
back on topic. I guess you also have trouble comprehending your own
writing.

I was fact-checking whether France could exist without fossil fuels,
since Jan said civilization depends on them, and Bill brought up
France as a counter-example.

Alternatively, Bill's just blabbering incoherently about something
that's irrelevant, and which has no bearing on what Jan said. So I
gave Bill the benefit of the doubt.

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.

<snip>

Bravo for your heart-felt defense of Bill--he's surrounded, out of
ammo, and sure could use the help.

I'm not defending Bill, I'm critiquing you.

I think you've just understood and taken Bill's statement-of-fact (on
France having nukes) as being a true statement all by itself.

Obviously it's true--we all know France has nukes.

But Jan and I took it as a wrong answer to Jan's claim, that the very
infrastructure we're using was built on fossil fuel.


--
Cheers,
James Arthur

 

On Nov 26, 10:11 pm, John Larkin
<jjSNIPlar...@highTHISlandtechnology.com> wrote:

ps- the mashed potatoes cooked in *five minutes* at 6400 feet in the
pressure cooker that S sent us.

I love pressure cookers. I'm glad you like yours. I thunk it up, and
S stole me thunder!

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Nov 27, 2:44 am, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 15:18:18 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman



bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Nov 26, 7:35 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On a sunny day (Thu, 26 Nov 2009 10:07:13 -0800 (PST)) it happenedBill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote in
6e3552a1-ae05-4a2c-835f-9f245f6d0...@m25g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>:

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, the> >> >re would be no civilisation
and not even internet, and no printing material, no paper, some paper man> >> >ufacturers have their own power plants.

And if we keep on digging up fossil carbon and burning it, all these
nice things will go away again.

Been there.
Now wake up from your green dreams.

An ironic appeal, since it comes from someone who clearly doesn't know
what he is talking about.

mm, why do you say that of everybody except your comic book scientists?

I don't say it about everybody, but there are a number of people who
post here on subjects that they know very little about, and they quite
often post total nonsense.

---
Like about being able to extract energy from a varying magnetic field
surrounding a conductor by wrapping a solenoid around the conductor?

Joel Koltner was making a joke. The smiley should have told you that.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen