Ping Bil Slowman; The global warming hoax reveiled

[Bill Sloman]

On Nov 29, 5:53 am, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 17:55:50 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman

bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Nov 28, 3:58 am, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 00:38:11 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman

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

---
He wasn't making a joke, he was being humorous in his presentation, you
wretch.

But, whether he was making a joke or not is immaterial, since I _proved_
my point by experimentation and presented the data and method for anyone
who cared to replicate the experiment to do so.

Few people are so lacking in a sense of proportion that they'd bother.

You really are no scientist are you?

And I'd suddenly become a "scientist" if I started wasting my time on
experiments that told me nothing I didn't already know, about a
subject in which I wasn't interested?

If you want to waste your time playing silly games, nobody is going to
stand in your way - in so far as it keeps you out of our hair, I'd
actively welcome it. Getting other people to take you seriously is
rather more demanding.

<snipped the rest of the tantrum>

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Martin Brown]

Jim Thompson wrote:

On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 13:45:51 -0800,
"JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 09:41:07 +0000, Martin Brown
|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

Jan Panteltje wrote:

Good, then we can forget all that Gore stuff about farting cows and pigs that are bad for the world,
and need to be more taxed.

He has a point at least where methane emissions are concerned.

CH4 though short lived is a more potent GHG in the atmosphere than CO2.
And it could be a real menace if we release the huge volumes trapped in
permafrost and oceanic seabed clathrates.

And it would improve the health of the US population to eat a bit less
meat. Japans high life expectancy is in part due to a much better diet.

Regards,
Martin Brown

Someone should convey to Martin Brown to go away and eat shit.

...Jim Thompson

Shit for brains Neocons like you obviously find that diet appetising!

"Fat Ugly Americans for a Dead Planet" should be your tag line.

Regards,
Martin Brown

 

[John Larkin]

On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 09:10:51 -0800, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

Bill Sloman wrote:
On Nov 28, 4:25 pm, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Bill Slomanwrote:
On Nov 28, 12:54 pm, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Bill Slomanwrote:
On Nov 27, 5:46 pm, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Bill Slomanwrote:
On Nov 27, 2:17 pm, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Jon Kirwan wrote:
On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 10:43:33 -0800, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid
wrote:
Jon Kirwan wrote:
On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 09:03:28 -0800, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid
wrote:
Bill Slomanwrote:
On Nov 25, 12:09 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[...]
As you said, climate is averages, but we must look much, much farther
than just 50, 100 or 150 years. As has been discussed here before, there
has for example been homesteading and farming in areas of Greenland that
are now under a thick layer of ice.

Except that they aren't.

And neither the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period were
particularly dramatic temperature excursions. Denialists do claim that
the existence of these small and local excursions proves that the
warming that we are seeing at the moment isn't anthropogenic, but the
logic doesn't really hold up.

To make the argument work you have to claim - and prove - that CO2
isn't a greenhouse gas, or that the measured concentrations in the
atmosphere aren't higher than they have been for 650,000 years (as
recorded in the ice core data) and probably for the last 20 million
years (if you trust the geological data).


No, warmingists have to prove that CO2 _is_ causing trouble for us.

The human cost of serious CO2 reduction would be immense, especially
in the poorest countries. Climate researchers have an overpowering
moral obligation to be honest and keep an open mind.

John

 

[John Fields]

On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 08:27:20 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Nov 29, 5:53 am, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 17:55:50 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman

bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Nov 28, 3:58 am, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 00:38:11 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman

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

---
He wasn't making a joke, he was being humorous in his presentation, you
wretch.

But, whether he was making a joke or not is immaterial, since I _proved_
my point by experimentation and presented the data and method for anyone
who cared to replicate the experiment to do so.

Few people are so lacking in a sense of proportion that they'd bother.

You really are no scientist are you?

And I'd suddenly become a "scientist" if I started wasting my time on
experiments that told me nothing I didn't already know, about a
subject in which I wasn't interested?

---
At this point, what with the deceit you practice, I don't think you
could get back to where you once belonged and become a scientist again,
at all. A politician more likely, but a scientist? Not likely.

The truth of the matter is that you didn't know then what you do now,
but because of my experiment and comments from some other posters you
realized I was right and you're now pretending to have known that you
can't extract energy from a solenoid wound axially around a conductor
carrying an alternating current, all along.

Go back and read your posts and you'll find what a clumsy job you did of
calling me wrong and then seeming to, miraculously, have known the
"trick" all along.

Earlier you stated that you weren't a fraud and you asked for an example
to prove you were. I can think of no better example than the post I'm
replying to.
---

If you want to waste your time playing silly games, nobody is going to
stand in your way - in so far as it keeps you out of our hair, I'd
actively welcome it.

---
Out of _our_ hair???

Stick it up your ass, Sloman, since when do you have permission to speak
for anyone in the group but yourself?

So you think that doing an experiment to determine the validity of a
hypothesis is a waste of time?

Why am I not surprised?

Because you don't like to be confronted with the truth if it's in
opposition to the tenets of the fantasy world in which you live, and
you'll do whatever it takes to convince yourself that you're right, even
if it involves lying and cheating and attempts at character
assassination.

That way, if you can convince yourself that someone is worthless, how
could they possibly be right?
---

Getting other people to take you seriously is rather more demanding.

---
Geez, Bill,

This is an electronics group and, unlike you, I design circuits that
work for people who need solutions for problems, and I think _they_ take
me seriously enough.

My designs usually comprise a schematic and a BOM if the values of the
components aren't on the schematic or are special, a circuit description
if the circuit isn't trivial and, sometimes, a simulation.

Now let's look at what you do here:

Designs? No
Schematics? No
Circuit descriptions? No
Simulations? Once, I think


Off topic crap? Yes, and about 95% of what you post is off-topic,
opinionated, argumentative bullshit.
---

snipped the rest of the tantrum

---
Insult and ignore what you can't counter?

Typical.

JF

 

[John Fields]

On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 08:44:43 -0800, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 20:31:39 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

It's been some time since you posted anything interesting or useful
about electronic design. Last thing I remember is your perplexity that
a simple oscillator simulation refused to squegg.

That seems to reflect a weakness of the Gummel-Poon model. I'm working
on it.

But you used mosfets.

---
Priceless!!!

JF

 

[John Fields]

On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 10:32:54 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Nov 29, 5:08 am, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:

You living in the Netherlands so long, I would have expected you to speak Dutch too.

I do. I passed NT2 (Dutch as a second language) in reading, listening
and speaking someyears ago. I didn't pass on my written Dutch - nobody
has ever wanted me to write Dutch so I've never had enough practice to
get rid of the minor grammatical errors.

---
Then you didn't pass on your written English, either, I surmise.

JF

 

[Jamie]

Bill Sloman wrote:

On Nov 28, 4:35 am, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 00:43:51 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman

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


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.
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.

---
Seems to me that your accusation that Larkin here regurgitates
propaganda he's picked up elsewhere is PKB.


John, you really don't have to remind us that you can't tell the
difference between peer-reviewed scientific publications and the kind
of rubbish that denialist web-sites spread around. Get yourself a
scientific education and you might be able to do better.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Hmm, I think I can smell fire and brimstone.

 

[John Larkin]

On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 12:44:05 -0600, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 08:44:43 -0800, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 20:31:39 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

It's been some time since you posted anything interesting or useful
about electronic design. Last thing I remember is your perplexity that
a simple oscillator simulation refused to squegg.

That seems to reflect a weakness of the Gummel-Poon model. I'm working
on it.

But you used mosfets.

---
Priceless!!!

JF

Sloman is clearly confused. I was of the impression that he was a
sour, mean-spirited old git, but it's likely that he is actually
delusional. As such, it's neither kind nor productive to argue with
him.

I can't imagine him finding "a weakness of the Gummel-Poon model",
much less using that to explain why a simulated mosfet Royer
oscillator doesn't squegg. So something is very weird here.

John

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Sun, 29 Nov 2009 10:32:54 -0800 (PST)) it happened Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
<4f60819e-9ee3-4ec2-8e4e-2068d5c3af35@c34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>:

And I have learned other languages - French, German, and a little
Russian. I've never used any of them enough to be truly fluent, and
learning Dutch compleltely destroyed my capacity to speak German,
though I now understand it a bit better than I used to.

Now all you need is to understand climate cycles a bit betetr.

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Sun, 29 Nov 2009 10:37:35 -0800 (PST)) it happened Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
<53c4e7ef-9900-4e47-a015-18d519be7df3@u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>:

On Nov 27, 2:46 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Here you go Bill:

There you go Jan.

Posting denialist propaganda may be a nice way of showing your
gratitude to Exxon-Mobil, but it is a complete waste of bandwidth.

You need to read this document

http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf

I do not read that sort of stuff, obviously a greenies anti plot

As to the bigger picture, the though that came into my mind about all this,
is that those emails were made public the same day (almost) the global climate meeting flopped.
So, in the white house, 'mmmm let's do some any AGW stuff now.'
Some phone calls, some papers print it, *especially* in the US.
Here they probably want to hang on to it more because of tax revenue. Making the public opinion.
You have been assimilated (either way), resistance is futile.

Q

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Nov 29, 5:08 am, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On a sunny day (Sat, 28 Nov 2009 21:00:10 -0800 (PST)) it happenedBill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote in
79cb352b-afb2-456a-bf0d-3c38393e5...@b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>:

Windmills are an unreliable energy source, no wind for some time and no
energy AT ALL.

Any single windmill is unrliable in this sense. Build enough of them
over a sufficiently large geographical area and hook them up to grid,
and the statistics are a lot more attractive.

You need an energy storage system, several experiments are being done,
but an energy storage system that can bridge weeks for example, is not
currently possible. in an economic way.

Weeks?

Yes weeks.

This isn't an answer.

If a country was to rely on windmills alone for its energy, you might
need several days worth of storage to keep the country running. A
period of tatl calm extending over an enture country - even one as
smal as the Netherlands - is remarkably improbable.

It's also irrelevant to any discussion of the way we'd get our energy
if we were to stop burning fossil carbon, because we wouldn't rely on
windmills alone, but on a mix of windpower, solar power,
hydrolelectric power and probably the osmotic pressure generator that
are now showing up as prototypes, as well as the occasional nuclear
power station and probably a few residual fossil-carbon-fueled power
stations that sequestered their CO2 output into under-ground or
undersea storage

Our current grid could survive without storage with up to 20% of our
power coming from windmills.

There are small-scale installations - on islands for example - where a
day's worth of storage is enough to let the system tolerate a much
higher windmill contribution

http://www.energypulse.net/centers/article/article_display.cfm?a_id=1164

And every clean kilojoule that we generate from wnd at the moment is
saves us the CO2 emission from the fossil-carbon we didn't have to
burn.

And the same green nut cases that vote for 'clean' energy vote against wi> >ndmills because of 'horizon pollution',
and because those kill birds, and .. and .. ?

Too true. And they get upset about CO2 being sequestered under thier
beds.

Personally I never voted against windmills, I quit the political party the moment they did that.
But I also know windmills will not provide all our power needs.
They are also noisy, I know, I can hear them here, other then you in Nijmegen hidden deep in the city.
Chomp, chomp, chomp, chomp, all night long.

Solar power in the Netherlands is a big joke, as it has now been raining > >and cloudy for weeks,
so nothing would work.

Direct sunlight is a lot better scattered light, but you still get
useful power if the sun is up.

Define 'Useful power', lemme guess: 1W / m^2?

I tried a solar panel myself, and you are lucky if it can power a transis> >tor radio, at low volume that is.
It would not even charge my nicads (long time ago).

A larger solar panel with a better dc-to-dc inverter might have done
better.

Yea, like a whole football field, and a converter designed by Bill Slowman.

Rather more than you'd need to charge a NiCad.

There is a plan for solar power in the Sahara desert, but that is future > >talk,
political instability makes it sort of difficult to guarantee the electri> >city will make it all the way here
that is not counting transport losses.

Happily, the Germans are more enthusiastic about the idea than you
are.

Actually it is an international project, but enthusiasm alone does not really do anything.

It translates into money, and high voltage DC transmission liks.

And *STILL* that does not run your cars, your building machines, ships,
what not. So that is bull.

It wouldn't run the car I've got at the moment, but it can run a car
and a building machine. Ships are trickier, and aircraft very tricky
indeed. But we do need to keep on emitting some carbon dioxide to
stave off the next ice age, so we may be able to work something out.

See, here you do it again, and show your big misconception:
 'stave off the next ice age'.
Forget it, it will come!

Or so your masculine intuition tells you. Science would tell you
different if you understood it.

No matter what you do.
 http://www.world-mysteries.com/alignments/mpl_al3b.htm
 http://www.sci.ccny.cuny.edu/~stan/d_clim.pdf

Useful web-sites. It is a pity that you lack the knowledge necessary
to understand them.

Shoot it into the sun, and store it under Nijmegen of course.
Make nice small RTGs with it, everybody one for in the car and in the hou> >se.

Shooting it into the sun might not be a good idea - we've only got one
sun, and an unexpected interactions could make life difficult or
impossible.

Next loony concept revealed:
 Do you know the mass of the sun?

Ever heard of poisoning or catalysis?

You clearly suffer from a lack of grasp of the size of nature, and nature's forces!

You clearly suffer from a lack of grasp of nature's capacity to make
life complicated.

Really Bill, you make no longer sense, and are here for the sake of the discussion only.

Really Jan, from you that is truly comical.

That does explain why you cannot change viewpoint, as it would end all reactions of people
pointing out your errors.

And you think you have found one?

Let's talk about other things OK?

BTW thank you for praising my language abilities, calling me 'bilingual',
in fact I speak German, French, Dutch, English, and a little Portuguese.
And learning some more.

I should have said multilingual

You living in the Netherlands so long, I would have expected you to speak Dutch too.

I do. I passed NT2 (Dutch as a second language) in reading, listening
and speaking someyears ago. I didn't pass on my written Dutch - nobody
has ever wanted me to write Dutch so I've never had enough practice to
get rid of the minor grammatical errors.

Many Dutch also speak English.

Almost everybody. This meant that everybody could read my reports, and
minutes of meetings (in Dutch) in English, while many of the customers
didn't speak or read Dutch. Had I written my reports in Dutch, they
would have had to be translated back into English for all the overseas
customers who don't know Dutch and don't have any compelling reason to
learn it.

And I have learned other languages - French, German, and a little
Russian. I've never used any of them enough to be truly fluent, and
learning Dutch compleltely destroyed my capacity to speak German,
though I now understand it a bit better than I used to.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Nov 27, 2:46 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Here you go Bill:

There you go Jan.

Posting denialist propaganda may be a nice way of showing your
gratitude to Exxon-Mobil, but it is a complete waste of bandwidth.

You need to read this document

http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Jamie wrote:

Bill Sloman wrote:

On Nov 28, 4:35 am, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 00:43:51 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman

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


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.
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.

---
Seems to me that your accusation that Larkin here regurgitates
propaganda he's picked up elsewhere is PKB.


John, you really don't have to remind us that you can't tell the
difference between peer-reviewed scientific publications and the kind
of rubbish that denialist web-sites spread around. Get yourself a
scientific education and you might be able to do better.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Hmm, I think I can smell fire and brimstone.

Then it's time for your yearly bath.


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

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Nov 27, 9:29 am, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Nov 27, 4:33 am,Bill Sloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

On Nov 27, 5:34 am, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

But with the implication that we shouldn't work on reducing our
dependence on fossil fuels. Jan has earlier claimed that people who
took anthropogenic global warming seriously wanted us all to reduce
our energy consumption to zero and  live in unheated grass huts, which
is flat-out wrong, as evidenced by George Monbiot's book "Heat" and
Thomas L. Friedman's book "Hot, Flat and Crowded".

I read Friedman's book.  My word but he's an illogical, histrionic
fool.  Not sure if I finished it--once I saw his rationale assembled,
it grew too tedious to watch him extrapolate ever more fantastical
consequences.  I rate Friedman "Nobel Peace Prize worthy" x 1.05.

Perhaps. But he isn't talking about us reducing our energy consumption
to zero and moving us into unheated grass huts.

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 and 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!

The correct figure is 78.8% - I checked it at the time - which is
closed enough to the 80% that I didn't see any point in complicating
the argument by introducing new data.

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

Many thanks for the revelation about the way you put together your
"evidence". I'd be tempted to salt my arguments with the occasional
obviously absurd claim - granting your fatuous ignorance and
unrealistic self-confidence I'd have a very good chance of sucking you
in - but it isn't really necessary, because you can be relied on to
make a fool of yourself.

I thought it was more than good enough of an approximation for a back-
of-the-envelope estimate of a ~20% factor.  Engineers do stuff like
that.

But good engineers check their sources.

And, I got within 1.5%, for an overall error contribution of < 0.3%.

Or did you mean it was a mistake for me to depend on something I
thought I might've heard from you?

Granting how royally you screwed up in your 22nd November post, the
answer seems pretty obvious. You really can't rely on your memory, any
more than I could rely on my memory that Jeorg lived in Oregon, rather
than in Northern California, close to the border with Oregon.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Nov 29, 5:28 am, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On a sunny day (Sat, 28 Nov 2009 21:05:35 -0800 (PST)) it happenedBill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote in
dc44176d-0d2d-43b4-b9b5-a498b93c3...@e27g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>:

John, you really don't have to remind us that you can't tell the
difference between peer-reviewed scientific publications and the kind
of rubbish that denialist web-sites spread around. Get yourself a
scientific education and you might be able to do better.

I will take John's understanding of science anytime over yours.

And, on top of that, just found in a Usenet newsgroup:

<snipped the usual denialist rubbish>

What Jan doesn't seem to understand is the Exxon-Mobil has bought a
bunch of US politicians - Senator James Imhofe is the most prominent
example - who make it their business to harass high-profile climate
scientists - of which Michael Mann is the archetype.

It is all smoke and mirrors, but they can conjure up enough smoke to
give other parts of the denialist propaganda machine "critical
reports" to witter on about.

http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Nov 29, 5:10 am, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On a sunny day (Sat, 28 Nov 2009 21:05:35 -0800 (PST)) it happenedBill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote in
dc44176d-0d2d-43b4-b9b5-a498b93c3...@e27g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>:

John, you really don't have to remind us that you can't tell the
difference between peer-reviewed scientific publications and the kind
of rubbish that denialist web-sites spread around. Get yourself a
scientific education and you might be able to do better.

I will take John's understanding of science anytime over yours.

Sure. We've noticed. What you may not have noticed is that his set of
silly ideas doesn't have all that much in common with your set of
silly ideas.

People who understand science do have the advantage of defending the
same coherent set of ideas.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Nov 29, 9:21 am, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

Bill Slomanwrote:
On Nov 24, 6:03 pm, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Bill Slomanwrote:
On Nov 24, 3:28 am, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Bill Slomanwrote:
On Nov 22, 11:04 pm, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Bill Slomanwrote:
On Nov 22, 5:14 am, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 18:14:04 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Nov 22, 12:00 am, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
[...]
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/com...
Presumably this kind of evidence is a little too hard to fake.
All one has to do is look at Al Gore, his mansions and all. Living
green. Yeah, right.

He was rich long before he was active against global warming, even
though his book "Earth in the Balance" dates back to 1992.

A preacher that doesn't live by his teachings? We oughta, coulda,
shoulda, but not me?

There you go, thinking that anthropogenic global warming is a
religion, rather than a well-established scientific theory.

Presumably Al Gore has done the rational calculation that says his
energy slurping life-style allows him to persuade more people that
anthropogenic global warming is real than he could reach if he
confined himself to lectuing only to venues that he could reach on a
bicycle, and that his influence on this larger audiece will more than
compensate for the extra CO2 emissions that he has generated in
getting to them.

It makes sense to me.

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?

This is the usual reference

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/sep/20/oilandpetrol.business

which reports the British Royal Society's letter to Exxon-Mobil

So? Quote "In a letter earlier this month to Esso, the UK arm of
ExxonMobil, the Royal Society cites its own survey which found that
ExxonMobil last year distributed $2.9m to 39 groups that the society
says misrepresent the science of climate change"

That is propaganda in my eyes. If the IPCC says that others
"misrepresent" the science that doesn't mean a thing to me anymore. At
least not right now.

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

Quote "... sent letters that "attack the UN's panel as 'resistant to
reasonable criticism and dissent and prone to summary conclusions that
are poorly supported by the analytical work'"

Remember the recently leaked emails? If that isn't enough proof of
"resistant to reasonable criticism" of scientists to you then I can't
help you.

If you knew a little bit more about the subject you'd be aware that
the resistance wasn't to "reasonable criticism" but to politically
motivated harassment. The fuss about the recent e-mails is essentially
another steaming heap of denialist propaganda, designed to appeal to
lunatic conspiracy theory fans like Ravinghorde.

We hear a great deal about how the editor of Climate Research got the
boot for publishing a scandalously bad paper that the denialsists
happen to like. We don't hear that Lindzen was publishing his rather
better, if evnetually falsified, sceptical papers in other journals at
the same time without generating any kind of fuss.

is more comprehensive, and

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/global_warmi...

points to a very comprehensive report by the Union of Concerned
Scientists (UCS).

Ah yes, the usual witch hunt. By a "union of concerned scientists".

The quality is a lot better than "the usual witch hunt". They cite
their sources, and Exxon-Mobil hasn't bothered to try to sue them or
even smear them. You don't seem to have noticed that some of the
people who are now telling you that the case for anthropogenic global
warming isn't as strong as the scientific community claims, were
telling you - a decade or so ago - that smoking wasn't as damaging to
your health as those medical alarmists were telling you back then.

It is all a little transparent when you take the time to look.

I've asked for _proof_ where Exxon _fudged_ science. Sorry, but you did
not deliver that.

I did. You couldn't be bothered to understand it.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[John Fields]

On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 11:00:30 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Nov 29, 5:10 am, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On a sunny day (Sat, 28 Nov 2009 21:05:35 -0800 (PST)) it happenedBill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote in
dc44176d-0d2d-43b4-b9b5-a498b93c3...@e27g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>:

John, you really don't have to remind us that you can't tell the
difference between peer-reviewed scientific publications and the kind
of rubbish that denialist web-sites spread around. Get yourself a
scientific education and you might be able to do better.

I will take John's understanding of science anytime over yours.

Sure. We've noticed. What you may not have noticed is that his set of
silly ideas doesn't have all that much in common with your set of
silly ideas.

People who understand science do have the advantage of defending the
same coherent set of ideas.

---
I'm sure that Jan and the rest of us here who actually _do_ science
defend the coherent set of ideas which includes experimentation as part
of the scientific method.

You, on the other hand, seem to pooh-pooh it as an unnecessary exercise
best left to churls and pretend to practice science by mounting endless
tirades where nothing matters but _your_ opinion.

JF

 

[John Fields]

On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 14:45:22 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

Jamie wrote:

Bill Sloman wrote:

On Nov 28, 4:35 am, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 00:43:51 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman

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


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.
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.

---
Seems to me that your accusation that Larkin here regurgitates
propaganda he's picked up elsewhere is PKB.


John, you really don't have to remind us that you can't tell the
difference between peer-reviewed scientific publications and the kind
of rubbish that denialist web-sites spread around. Get yourself a
scientific education and you might be able to do better.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Hmm, I think I can smell fire and brimstone.

---
Funny!

JF

 

[John Larkin]

Try this!

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


John