Ping Bil Slowman; The global warming hoax reveiled
in [Design]
|
From: Joerg on 24 Nov 2009 23:40 Bill Sloman wrote: > On Nov 24, 2:49 am, Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >> Bill Slomanwrote: [...] >>> And the natural gas field that used to be there didn't survive an >>> earthquake or two over the couple of hundred years it was hanging >>> around waiting for ome Dutchman to drill that hole? >> Not an earthquake that was able to rupture things down there. A drilled >> hole, very different thing. And yes, I did work in an oil field and went >> through the scare when the gas bubble siren wailed. Pretty much >> smack-dab in the middle of the North Sea, on an anchored >> semi-submersible. Definitely not a great place to be when a bubble wafts >> upwards. Luckily it hissed off and I am still here :-) >> >>> Even granting a slow leak through the pipe that they are now going to >>> use to put CO2 into the gas-field, there is a couple of kilometres of >>> water saturated geology between the gas-filed and the surface. You >>> aren't going to get a Lake Nyos-style 300 foot geyser of CO2, just a >>> bit more calcium and magnesium bicarbonate in the ground-water. >> Trust us, we are the government, nothing bad will happen. Yeah :-) > > Trust you, you are the alarmist, everything bad can happen, though you > don't know quite how. Your imagination could use a little more > discipline. > No imagination there, it's based on living and watching a few decades. Lots of things have gone wrong where we as the population were told it couldn't. I remember as a kid when folks were told that a major reactor meltdown could never really happen and certainly nobody in Europe would be affected. Then Tshernobyl happened ... > <snipped the irrelevant - if real - example of something going wrong > in a gradual way. > But thanks for the link. It's nice to engage in discussion with people > with some - if perhaps not quite enough - respect for facts> > But why did you initially dismiss it as urban legend? That was a tad disappointing. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM.
From: Bill Sloman on 25 Nov 2009 03:36 On Nov 25, 5:40 am, Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: > Bill Slomanwrote: > > On Nov 24, 2:49 am, Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: > >> Bill Slomanwrote: > > [...] > > > > > > >>> And the natural gas field that used to be there didn't survive an > >>> earthquake or two over the couple of hundred years it was hanging > >>> around waiting for ome Dutchman to drill that hole? > >> Not an earthquake that was able to rupture things down there. A drilled > >> hole, very different thing. And yes, I did work in an oil field and went > >> through the scare when the gas bubble siren wailed. Pretty much > >> smack-dab in the middle of the North Sea, on an anchored > >> semi-submersible. Definitely not a great place to be when a bubble wafts > >> upwards. Luckily it hissed off and I am still here :-) > > >>> Even granting a slow leak through the pipe that they are now going to > >>> use to put CO2 into the gas-field, there is a couple of kilometres of > >>> water saturated geology between the gas-filed and the surface. You > >>> aren't going to get a Lake Nyos-style 300 foot geyser of CO2, just a > >>> bit more calcium and magnesium bicarbonate in the ground-water. > >> Trust us, we are the government, nothing bad will happen. Yeah :-) > > > Trust you, you are the alarmist, everything bad can happen, though you > > don't know quite how. Your imagination could use a little more > > discipline. > > No imagination there, it's based on living and watching a few decades. > Lots of things have gone wrong where we as the population were told it > couldn't. I remember as a kid when folks were told that a major reactor > meltdown could never really happen and certainly nobody in Europe would > be affected. Then Tshernobyl happened ... > > > <snipped the irrelevant - if real - example of something going wrong > > in a gradual way. > > But thanks for the link. It's nice to engage in discussion with people > > with some - if perhaps not quite enough - respect for facts> > > But why did you initially dismiss it as urban legend? That was a tad > disappointing. I didn't dismiss it - I was just bitching about the absence of a link to the detailed account. >"Since you have not identified > the city or found a URL to back up this story, I could wonder whether > it was the sort of urban legend that the Prussians invent whenever > they talk to people about the Bavarians. " The phrase "I could wonder" falls a long way short of dismissal. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Bill Sloman on 25 Nov 2009 03:56 On Nov 24, 4:04 pm, John Larkin <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 00:43:51 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman > > > > > > <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >On Nov 24, 2:42 am, John Larkin > ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 16:31:49 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman > > >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >> >On Nov 23, 5:43 pm, John Larkin > >> ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >> >> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 04:12:23 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman > > >> >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >> >> >On Nov 23, 12:06 pm, ChrisQ <m...(a)devnull.com> wrote: > >> >> >> John Larkin wrote: > > ><snip> > > >> >> So now you are using local weather events as proof of climate change. > >> >> So what do you make of the recent record-setting cold snaps across the > >> >> USA? > > >> >One of the regular predictions of the effects of global warming is a > >> >higher frequency of extreme weather. The logic is that global warming > >> >means more water vapour in the atmosphere, and the engine that drives > >> >weather is the energy released when water vapour condenses. > > >> >Extreme weather can be hot or cold, wet or dry, which does put > >> >proponents of anthropogenic global warming in the catbird seat when > >> >some extreme weather shows up. > > >> Like, for instance, when it rains for 40 days and 40 nights? > > >That doesn't seem to have happened recently. > > Exactly. Bad weather has been happening for thousands of years. > > The records are funny. When they say "coldest November in 80 years" I > think "then it was even colder 80 years ago." > > > > > > > > >> >> Geez, I'm sure glad you don't design electronics. Stick to obsessing > >> >> about climate; that will keep you from doing much real harm. > > >> >And if you concentrated on electronics, which you do know something > >> >about, rather than potificating about climate change, where you > >> >ignorance makes you a total sucker for the most fatuaous denialist > >> >rubbish, you'd be less of a menance. > > >> I do concentrate on electronics... a lot. I have about 11 or so > >> interesting projects at various stages of development, and a bunch > >> more we're thinking about. > > >> But why does being skeptical of some nonlinear/chaotic computer models > >> constitute "menace"? The science must be very, very fragile if it > >> can't bear my humble skepticism in an obscure newsgroup. > > >Your scepticism is nether humble nor yours. You pick up neatly > >packaged chunks of scepticism from your frieindly neighbourhood > >denialist propaganda machine and regurgitate them here. > > >> I suppose that's another reason they hide their raw data and cook the peer > >> reviews. > > >Since they "hide" their raw data because it is incomprehensible and > >"cook" their peer reviews - to the limited extent that they can > >influence editors - by preferentially citing the work of people known > >to produce constructive reviews, this is just another piece of > >evidence that you know very little about the way science works. You > >may sell remarkable scientific measuring instruments to scientific > >research laboratories, but you clearly don't often get to drink coffee > >with the people who use your gear. > > >> Well, the AGW fad has peaked. What anti-civilization paranoia will be > >> next, do you think? > > >The enthusiasm of Exxon-Mobil and similar fossil-carbon extraction > >companies for filling the media with anti-scientific propaganda aimed > >at blocking the changes to our civilisation that will be needed to > >prevent it's collapse (and the consequent population implosion) does > >imply that there are a lot of rich people around exhibiting a rather > >dangerous form pf psychopathic short-term self-interest. > > >One might hope that they might grow out of it, but Jahred Diamond's > >book "Collapse" makes it pretty clear that the leaders of a failing > >society will have their attention firmly fixed on maintaining their > >status within that society - in your case, your status as a successful > >businessman - right up to the point where it starts collapsing around > >their ears. > > I am not a businessman; I'm a circuit designer. Whenever you get on th defensive you boast about running a successful business. Time is never going to have a Circuit Designer of the Year on its front cover - the "successful businessman" aspect of your work is what gives you get your social status. > 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. You should know me well enough to have been able to predict that answer, or something very like it. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen > > John- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Raveninghorde on 25 Nov 2009 04:57 On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 19:26:54 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman <bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote: SNIP Paranoid Bill, the Soros shill, you'll enjoy this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEiLgbBGKVk&feature=player_embedded
From: Jan Panteltje on 25 Nov 2009 06:00
On a sunny day (Tue, 24 Nov 2009 16:36:08 -0800 (PST)) it happened Bill Sloman <bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote in <1fc4cb23-4899-43a0-b863-117f62eae253(a)s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>: >Gypsum, geothermal heating and damage does pick it up twice on the >first page, so Joerg should have been able to find it. It was his >fact, not mine, and his responsibility to validate it. If I say 'cookie', do I need to supply a wikipedia reference it exists? >> And, that is not the only case that exists. >> There was a more recent one IIRC. >> >> The only urban legend here is that you think you can change climate cycle= >s by posting > less about global warming. >> Or was it more? >> I think less, because that saves energy, CO2, so get on with it! > >I'm not per se interested in changing the climate cycles, I'm >interested in getting people to think, which - if it worked - might >get them to think sensibly about anthropogenic global warming, amongst >other topics. Sensibly thinking about it leads to the insight that the anthropogenic component is insignificant in the view of the big climate cycles. |