Ping Bil Slowman; The global warming hoax reveiled
in [Design]
|
From: Jan Panteltje on 25 Nov 2009 08:44 On a sunny day (Wed, 25 Nov 2009 04:31:12 -0800 (PST)) it happened Bill Sloman <bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote in <dfeab536-fe22-48ed-a245-0ab80e75c5e3(a)p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>: >On Nov 25, 12:00�pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> On a sunny day (Tue, 24 Nov 2009 16:36:08 -0800 (PST)) it happenedBill Sl= >oman >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote in >> <1fc4cb23-4899-43a0-b863-117f62eae...(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? > >Google writes a tracking cookie to your computer whenever you do a >search, so you don't have to bother. > >> >> 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 cy= >cle= >> >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 co= >mponent is insignificant in the view of the big climate cycles. > >Sorry. That is insensible non-thinking, otherwise known as wishful >thinking. I think you'd better think it out again, after you've >learned a bit more about greenhouse gases and how they work. There is no proof whatsover that CO2 levels have caused warming in the past. And even if you assumed CO2 levels did, where did the CO2 come from? It is much more simple (Occam's) to think CO2 levels went up because the warmer climate had more animals populate the earth.... But even that may not be so.
From: Jan Panteltje on 25 Nov 2009 08:50 On a sunny day (Wed, 25 Nov 2009 04:59:41 -0800 (PST)) it happened Bill Sloman <bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote in <b8cfe9e0-a079-4bdd-8ed8-0cf93cc7d4a5(a)s15g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>: >> >> >> Hey, if it was not for Exxon-Mobil and the other energy companies, >> >> there would be no media, no energy, and no way to spread the ideas ori= >gin= >> >> ating from your overheated globe. >> >> >BP and Shell both have the sense to acknowledge that anthropogenic >> >global warming is real and both have started diversifying into more >> >sustainable activities. >> >> >You don't seem to have realised the burning fossil carbon isn't the >> >only way to generate energy. >> >> You really are beginning to sound like an idiot nut case. >> After all the case I made here for nuclear power. > >The French genenrate most of their electric power from nuclear >reactors and yet you claimed > >> >> Hey, if it was not for Exxon-Mobil and the other energy companies, >> >> there would be no media, no energy, > >Just admit you have no clue and are wrong. Without the [fossile] energy companies there would be no media, no energy, as your car does not run on electricity (yet). Without those machines, used to build cities, roads, transport goods, there would be no civilisation and not even internet, and no printing material, no paper, some paper manufacturers have their own power plants. Been there. Now wake up from your green dreams. Or renounce it all, and go live on one of the last energy free little islands... atolls...
From: dagmargoodboat on 25 Nov 2009 10:16 On Nov 25, 8:50 am, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On a sunny day (Wed, 25 Nov 2009 04:59:41 -0800 (PST)) it happened Bill Sloman > <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote in > <b8cfe9e0-a079-4bdd-8ed8-0cf93cc7d...(a)s15g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>: > > > > > > >> >> Hey, if it was not for Exxon-Mobil and the other energy companies, > >> >> there would be no media, no energy, and no way to spread the ideas ori= > >gin= > >> >> ating from your overheated globe. > > >> >BP and Shell both have the sense to acknowledge that anthropogenic > >> >global warming is real and both have started diversifying into more > >> >sustainable activities. > > >> >You don't seem to have realised the burning fossil carbon isn't the > >> >only way to generate energy. > > >> You really are beginning to sound like an idiot nut case. > >> After all the case I made here for nuclear power. > > >The French genenrate most of their electric power from nuclear > >reactors and yet you claimed > > >> >> Hey, if it was not for Exxon-Mobil and the other energy companies, > >> >> there would be no media, no energy, > > >Just admit you have no clue and are wrong. > > Without the [fossile] energy companies there would be no media, no energy, > as your car does not run on electricity (yet). > Without those machines, used to build cities, roads, transport goods, there would be no civilisation > and not even internet, and no printing material, no paper, some paper manufacturers have their own power plants. > Been there. > Now wake up from your green dreams. Green 2009 == Red. Once green meant people who really were concerned about the environment. Now it's just an entree, a pretext, a populist theme to gain power; a backdoor. One of Alinsky's Rules. -- Cheers, James Arthur
From: krw on 25 Nov 2009 10:27 On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 07:16:41 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodboat(a)yahoo.com wrote: >On Nov 25, 8:50�am, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> On a sunny day (Wed, 25 Nov 2009 04:59:41 -0800 (PST)) it happened Bill Sloman >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote in >> <b8cfe9e0-a079-4bdd-8ed8-0cf93cc7d...(a)s15g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Hey, if it was not for Exxon-Mobil and the other energy companies, >> >> >> there would be no media, no energy, and no way to spread the ideas ori= >> >gin= >> >> >> ating from your overheated globe. >> >> >> >BP and Shell both have the sense to acknowledge that anthropogenic >> >> >global warming is real and both have started diversifying into more >> >> >sustainable activities. >> >> >> >You don't seem to have realised the burning fossil carbon isn't the >> >> >only way to generate energy. >> >> >> You really are beginning to sound like an idiot nut case. >> >> After all the case I made here for nuclear power. >> >> >The French genenrate most of their electric power from nuclear >> >reactors and yet you claimed >> >> >> >> Hey, if it was not for Exxon-Mobil and the other energy companies, >> >> >> there would be no media, no energy, >> >> >Just admit you have no clue and are wrong. >> >> Without the [fossile] energy companies there would be no media, no energy, >> as your car does not run on electricity (yet). >> Without those machines, used to build cities, roads, transport goods, there would be no civilisation >> and not even internet, and no printing material, no paper, some paper manufacturers have their own power plants. >> Been there. >> Now wake up from your green dreams. > >Green 2009 == Red. > >Once green meant people who really were concerned about the >environment. Now it's just an entree, a pretext, a populist theme to >gain power; a backdoor. One of Alinsky's Rules. Nothing has changed. The greenies have always been watermelons.
From: Rich Grise on 25 Nov 2009 11:59
On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 13:44:14 +0000, Jan Panteltje wrote: > On a sunny day (Wed, 25 Nov 2009 04:31:12 -0800 (PST)) it happened Bill > Sloman <bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote in >>On Nov 25, 12:00�pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>> On a sunny day (Tue, 24 Nov 2009 16:36:08 -0800 (PST)) it happenedBill >>> Sl= >>oman >>> >>> >I'm not per se interested in changing the climate cycles, I'm >>> >interested in getting people to think, which - if it worked - might >>> >get them to think sensibly about anthropogenic global warming, amongst >>> >other topics. >>> >>> Sensibly thinking about it leads to the insight that the anthropogenic >>> co= >>mponent is insignificant in the view of the big climate cycles. >> >>Sorry. That is insensible non-thinking, otherwise known as wishful >>thinking. I think you'd better think it out again, after you've learned a >>bit more about greenhouse gases and how they work. > > There is no proof whatsover that CO2 levels have caused warming in the > past. And even if you assumed CO2 levels did, where did the CO2 come from? > It is much more simple (Occam's) to think CO2 levels went up because the > warmer climate had more animals populate the earth.... But even that may > not be so. Not to mention that the warming cycles PRECEDE the elevations in CO2 levels. This is pretty obvious, when you consider that cold water can hold more CO2 in solution than warm water can. But Bill has faith, which trumps facts, like this inconvenient one: http://www.infowars.com/al-gore-admits-co2-does-not-cause-majority-of-global-warming/ Cheers! Rich |