Ping Bil Slowman; The global warming hoax reveiled

[Bill Sloman]

On Nov 29, 5:44 pm, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 20:31:39 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman

bill.slo...@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.

The circuit that squegged in real life used bipolar transistors.

The LTSpice model with MOSFETs didn't squeq either, but I'll get
worried about that when I've got around to building an real example.
It's taking longer than it should.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[John Larkin]

On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 19:53:53 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Nov 29, 5:44 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 20:31:39 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman

bill.slo...@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.

The circuit that squegged in real life used bipolar transistors.

Exactly. The RC base bias network was a key part of the squegging
loop.

The LTSpice model with MOSFETs didn't squeq either, but I'll get
worried about that when I've got around to building an real example.
It's taking longer than it should.

Hint: Fets don't have base current.

John

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Nov 29, 7:58 pm, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 12:44:05 -0600, John Fields





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

On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 20:31:39 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
bill.slo...@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.

The weaknesses of the Gummel-Poon model are well known - thats why the
VBIC model was developed. My current suspicion is that failure of the
Gummel-Poon model to replicate the avalanch break-down of the reversed
biased base-emitter junction may have something to do with it.

It isn't a Royer oscillator, but a Baxandall Class-D oscillator - the
Royer inverter produces a square wave, the Baxandall a tolerably good
sine wave. And the real circuit that squegged used bipolar
transistors.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Nov 25, 5:38 am, Greegor <greego...@gmail.com> wrote:

Did you see where that British climatologist
challenged Al Gore to debate global warming?

Al hasn't taken him up on it yet.

Presumably you mean Viscount Christoher Monckton, despite the fact
that he isn't a climatologist

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley

He does fancy himself as a climatologist, but he isn't all tha
convincing in the role

http://altenergyaction.org/Monckton.html

He's actually an enthusiastic self-publicist, which probably explains
why he made the challenge.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Don Klipstein]

In <4f60819e-9ee3-4ec2-8e4e-2068d5c3af35@c34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
Bill Sloman wrote:

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
small as the Netherlands - is remarkably improbable.

I would give consideration to how Philadelphia, PA, USA and a notable
small city close to the center of the USA "state" of PA fare in
wintertime, at latitudes of merely 40-41 degrees north.

I find it merely roughly once-per-decade-or-two bad for Philadelphia to
encounter a January having 18-20 days of a cloudy stretch letting in a
mere 8 hours or so of sunlight during such a stretch. This is at 40
degrees N latitude.

The small city of "State College" PA USA at about 41 degrees north
latitude is much cloudier still in winter, although mostly due to a
regional "lake effect".

Seattle WA USA is much worse still, with maybe a majority of winters
having their cloudiest 30-day periods having something like merely 12-15
hours of sunlight in a 30-day period. That is at about 48 degrees N
latitude. Worst winter in an average decade for "least sunny 30 day
stretch" may have a mere 5-6 hours of "good sunlight".

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

Do I sense a bias against nuclear power?

Should I mention (again) how I know how the obstacles to long term waste
disposal are political and not technical?

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

It appears to me that such is an awfully grand scheme, considering NIMBY
forces opposing windmills even when considering them more favorable than
nuclear power plants. I would hope for NIMBY-type forces to be beaten
down to extent of windmills being planted everywhere possible within 50 km
outside Chicago IL USA ("Windy City") supplying merely 9% of
Chicago-metro-area's electricity demand in worst case with storage good
for merely 3 days! (I hope you know what American weather does in wacky
ways, besides in its wacky ways somewhat typical for latitude being wacky
enough to account for the eastern roughly 70% of the "48 state contiguous"
accounting for about 45% of tornadoes and about 75-80% of tornado damage
worldwide!)

<I snip from here, including mention of where windmills do better or are
likely expected to do better on some islands>

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Sun, 29 Nov 2009 15:40:50 -0800 (PST)) it happened Bill Sloman
&lt;bill.sloman@ieee.org&gt; wrote in
&lt;94c41e51-38cf-4801-8cb2-a63c18819fee@r5g2000yqb.googlegroups.com&gt;:

I am so sorry, SO SORRY SOOOOOOOOOO I did not realize that this is your *=
religion*.

Would you like to identify the particular element of text that brought
on this epiphany?

AGW *is* your religion.

and it doesn't seem to contain an reference to moving us all into
unheated grass huts. Did you have some other greenies in mind, or was
that piece of information delivered to you by personal revelation?

Did yo uknwo that greenpeace' (greenpiss?) just stated last week that they will more target
'religious fanatic greenpiecers?'

You, and your grass shack?

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Sun, 29 Nov 2009 16:05:30 -0800 (PST)) it happened Bill Sloman
&lt;bill.sloman@ieee.org&gt; wrote in
&lt;8ec639f4-b3ad-4e04-8ddc-00163a2e85a6@o10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com&gt;:

On Nov 29, 11:24 am, Jan Panteltje &lt;pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com&gt; wrote:
On a sunny day (Sun, 29 Nov 2009 10:32:54 -0800 (PST)) it happenedBill Sl=
oman
bill.slo...@ieee.org&gt; wrote in
4f60819e-9ee3-4ec2-8e4e-2068d5c3a...@c34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com&gt;:

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 better.

This is pretty much my understanding of the climate cycles up to now

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

Since our injecting loads of CO2 into the atmosphere - enough to cause
enough heating already to substatially decrease the ice-cover within
the Arctic Circle - seems to be over-riding the positive feedbacks
that amplifed the the small forcing from the Milankovitch Effect
enough to let it explain the ice age to interglacial oscillation, this
is of strictly historical interest.

I can't really see the necessity to understand something that isn't
happening any more.

Idiot conservatives do keep on acting as if the world hasn't changed
right up to the moment that the change overwhelms them, so it probably
wouldn't be a good idea to acquire you "understanding" of natural
cycles, or your total ignorance of the physics that drove them.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

I think you are just repeating yourself.
Well, ice ages will come, ice ages will go.
And *unless* we change earth's orbit etc etc (terra forming), it will repeat.
You and the CO2 storage under your bed in your green grass hut,
will NEVER make any difference.
But if it gets really cold, or bleeding hot, and you have only windmills and solar cells...
Too bad for the children's children.
So.. forget about all the AGW stuff, build power plants.
And be prepared to accept that nature will change the face of the earth, where people live.
That is the reality, AGW dreams is just talk, sales talk at that.

 

[John Fields]

On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 15:47:51 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
&lt;bill.sloman@ieee.org&gt; wrote:

On Nov 29, 10:41 am, John Fields &lt;jfie...@austininstruments.com
wrote:
On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 08:27:20 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman

bill.slo...@ieee.org&gt; wrote:
On Nov 29, 5:53 am, John Fields &lt;jfie...@austininstruments.com&gt; wrote:
On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 17:55:50 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman

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

bill.slo...@ieee.org&gt; wrote:
On Nov 27, 2:44 am, John Fields &lt;jfie...@austininstruments.com&gt; wrote:
On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 15:18:18 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman

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

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 ...

The deceit I practice? Perhaps you'd like to identify a specific
deceit. I've certainly told you things that you don't believe, but it
would have been deceitful to tell you what you wanted to hear.

snipped the rest, whatever it was

---
That snippage was deceitful because what you snipped identified the
deceit you asked for.

Of course you pretend that the snip was made without your knowing what
you snipped, but we both know better than that, don't we?

JF

 

[John Fields]

On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 16:05:30 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
&lt;bill.sloman@ieee.org&gt; wrote:

I can't really see the necessity to understand something that isn't
happening any more.
---

Here; read a little Santayana:

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

JF

 

[John Fields]

On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 19:34:39 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
&lt;bill.sloman@ieee.org&gt; wrote:

Jim Thompson and John Fields both think that I'm a fraud.

---
Actually, Bill, we _know_ you're a fraud.

Sure, and you KNOW that the moon is made of green cheese.

---
Now, now, Bill...

You're going from the ridiculous to the pathetic.
---

And we're just the tip of the iceberg,

More like the dregs of the usenet'svast collection of kooks.

---
Now, now, Bill...

Is that the best you can do?
---

I'm sure, so the longer you keep
on posting to USENET and your posts are examined by more and more
critical eyes and minds, the more obvious the fact that you're a fraud
will become.

Fine. I've been posting for more than decade now, so I really ought to
be a by-word.

---
You are: "fraudulent loon".
---

This is - of course - a devastating blow to my self-esteem, since I've always had
such a high opinion of their judgement, but somehow I guess I'll learn
to live with this public humiliation.

---
You reap what you sow.
---

But I guess I'll stick around until they get around to telling us
which of my hypothetical  frauds they have discovered.

This may take a while.

---
Just off the top of my head, the most recent was the power line and
solenoid debacle

snipped the rest of John Fields deluded babble. He didn't realise
that Joel Koltner was making a joke, got all excited and did an
EXPERIMENT and has been trying to convert this pratfall into something
less embarassing ever since

---
Hardly, since the experiment was done in order to show you (I even
emailed it to you, remember, since for some reason you can't access
abse?) that you were wrong about being able to extract energy from the
varying magnetic field surrounding a conductor by wrapping a solenoid
around it.

You keep stating that Joel was making a joke, which is another
fabrication, (and irrelevant) since when he made the statement and I
questioned it he asked why instead of saying that he was joking.

I then replied to him with the reason why and then you just _had_ to
slime into the thread stating that energy _could_ be had from a solenoid
wrapped around a conductor. I then devised and performed the experiment
to provide incontrovertible evidence that _you_ were the one who was
wrong.

That evidence still stands, and you can't refute it, so you pull out
your little bag of cheater's tricks and try to pretend that the pratfall
was mine when, in actuality, you're the one with the bruised ass, you
loathsome liar.

JF

 

[John Fields]

On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 16:18:33 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
&lt;bill.sloman@ieee.org&gt; wrote:

On Nov 29, 12:31 pm, John Fields &lt;jfie...@austininstruments.com
wrote:
On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 11:00:30 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman





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

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.

I think you are confusing experimentation - which involves findng out
something you don't know already - and theatrical gestures.

---
Experimentation isn't used to find out something you don't know, it's
used to confirm whether what you think you know is either right or
wrong.

So you really aren't a scientist, just an actor?
---

You need to find a more gullible audience.

---
You mean like the one that believes _your_ crap?

JF

 

[Uwe Hercksen]

Joerg schrieb:

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

Hello,

but 96 % of all studied glaciers are shrinking. What is the use of
argumenting only with a very small minority?

Bye

 

[Uwe Hercksen]

Joerg schrieb:

Here in Northern California people look at their water bills, they see
drought rates being charged more and more often. Warmingists predicted
we'd be swamped with precipitation by now. Didn't happen.

Hello,

the snow falling on the glacier of Mt. Shasta to keep it growing couldnt
fall as rain somewhere else.

Bye

 

[John Fields]

On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 16:29:00 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
&lt;bill.sloman@ieee.org&gt; wrote:

On Nov 29, 2:28 pm, John Fields &lt;jfie...@austininstruments.com&gt; wrote:

Since the "science" of predicting anthropogenic global warming seems to
be bogged down by the tug-of-war between you alarmists and the
denialists, instead of getting emotionally involved in the fray and
dumping a lot of energy into who might and who might not be right, and
because I don't give a shit,  I prefer to stand on the sidelines and
just watch the game.

The denialists are not doing science or prediction, just working the
creationist trick of pulling scientific papers out of context and
using them to claim uncertainty where none actually exists. By calling
the scientific concenus "alarmists" you make it clear that you don't
understand this fairly unsubtle distinction.

---
You obviously missed the "you alarmists" part which was referring to you
and your ilk, not the communities doing real science.

But then that's to be expected I guess, since you do seem to have
trouble with comprehension from time to time.

Early sign of dementia creeping in?

---

This isn't altogether
surprising. Since you don't exactly keep up to date in electronics, it
would be really surprising if you followed "Physics Today" or read
"Scientific American" .

---
Well, I don't seem to have a problem with keeping up to date enough in
electronics to realize that you can't get energy by wrapping a solenoid
around a conductor carrying AC.

Also, I just recently posted a circuit list for a novel, simple MOSFET
amplifier which made Graham apoplectic, so I know that worked, and from
time to time I do stuff using microcontrollers, so I keep my hand in
pretty well, I think.

You, on the other hand, haven't worked in - what is it, 8 years? - so
I'm sure you're on the cutting edge of things, eh?

As for the rest of it, I let my membership with AIP lapse, so I no
longer get "Physics Today", and I stopped reading "Scientific American"
when it turned into a leftist rag and, so far, neither "event" has
caused a major impact in my life.

JF

 

[John Fields]

On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 19:34:14 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
&lt;bill.sloman@ieee.org&gt; wrote:

On Nov 29, 3:09 pm, John Fields &lt;jfie...@austininstruments.com&gt; wrote:

I get along quite well with almost everybody here, while you, with your
neverending pomposity and penchant for using deception to foment discord
seem to have trouble getting along with _anybody_.
---

John Field's self-image is healthily positive, but regrettably
unrealistic.

---
Unrealistic from the point of view of a delusional loon, perhaps.
---

snipped the usual rubbish

---
Of course...

Pretend what you can't counter is worthless.

No need to pretend.

---
And yet...

JF

 

[Uwe Hercksen]

John Larkin schrieb:

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.

Hello,

when the sea level is rising due to melting ice and warming seawater,
the flooding of all low level areas at the coast will cause tremendous
cost. Think about New Orleans and New York, London, Hamburg, Amsterdam
and lot more big cities by the sea on a very low level.

Bye

 

[Uwe Hercksen]

Jon Kirwan schrieb:

Climate is averages, not noise. Not weather. And no one I know of,
least of all climate scientists, are stating that there will be
absolutely no cases where some particular glacier won't increase.
Cripes, if that were exactly true we'd be in a lot worse mess!

Hello,

96 % of all studied glaciers do shrink, and only the rest of 4 % do
increase.

Bye

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 16:56:57 +0100, Uwe Hercksen
&lt;hercksen@mew.uni-erlangen.de&gt; wrote:

John Larkin schrieb:

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.

Hello,

when the sea level is rising due to melting ice and warming seawater,
the flooding of all low level areas at the coast will cause tremendous
cost. Think about New Orleans and New York, London, Hamburg, Amsterdam
and lot more big cities by the sea on a very low level.

Bye

Uninformed leftist loon.

...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 Fields]

On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 19:42:42 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
&lt;bill.sloman@ieee.org&gt; wrote:

On Nov 29, 10:51 pm, John Fields &lt;jfie...@austininstruments.com
wrote:
On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 18:44:08 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman





bill.slo...@ieee.org&gt; wrote:
On Nov 28, 4:49 am, John Fields &lt;jfie...@austininstruments.com&gt; wrote:
On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 07:12:48 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman

bill.slo...@ieee.org&gt; wrote:
The aim is to educate you to the point where you can save yourself -
there still seems to be quite a way to go.

---
Oh, please...

The all-merciful guru wants to teach the human race to save themselves;
but only if they do it _his_ way.

John Fields seems think that learning to understand the science that
underpins our understanding of anthropogenic global warming is
equivalent to being indoctrinated in some kind of religious cult.

---
Not at all.

It's obvious that if one wants to understand the impact of anthropogenic
global warming on our good earth or if, in fact, anthropogenic global
warming exists and, if it does, is good or bad, one must get into the
nitty-gritty of it all.

What do you want to know about?

---
From you, nothing.

If I want to know about something I prefer to do the legwork myself and
not have opinions foisted on me as if they were facts.
---

I'm not going to get a job as a climate scientist,

---
Or, obviously, as anything else.
---

but at least I know enough to be able to demonstrate that James Arthur
doesn't know what he is talking about.

---
That's totally out of context and has nothing to do with anything other
than taking a gratuitous snipe at someone.

You _are_ a loon and should be posting your drivel to auk.

JF

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

John Fields wrote:

On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 16:18:33 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@ieee.org&gt; wrote:

On Nov 29, 12:31 pm, John Fields &lt;jfie...@austininstruments.com
wrote:
On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 11:00:30 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman





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

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.

I think you are confusing experimentation - which involves findng out
something you don't know already - and theatrical gestures.

---
Experimentation isn't used to find out something you don't know, it's
used to confirm whether what you think you know is either right or
wrong.

So you really aren't a scientist, just an actor?

So, that's where 'Pee Wee Herman' went!


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