Ping Bil Slowman; The global warming hoax reveiled
in [Design]
|
From: Jan Panteltje on 26 Nov 2009 06:37 On a sunny day (Thu, 26 Nov 2009 17:32:44 +1300) it happened Malcolm Moore <abor1953needle(a)yahoodagger.co.nz> wrote in <1strg5da6c1m0aq0dmpdiefet7u9vngch5(a)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. >Regards >Malcolm Enjoy your windmails. Bye
From: Raveninghorde on 26 Nov 2009 09:05 On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 06:55:21 -0600, John Fields <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: >On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 17:35:16 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman ><bill.sloman(a)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.
From: dagmargoodboat on 26 Nov 2009 11:25 On Nov 25, 11:32 pm, Malcolm Moore <abor1953nee...(a)yahoodagger.co.nz> wrote: > On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 19:00:13 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com > wrote: > > > > >On Nov 25, 7:23 pm, Malcolm Moore <abor1953nee...(a)yahoodagger.co.nz> > >wrote: > >> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 11:25:27 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com > >> wrote: > > >> >On Nov 25, 7:59 am, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...(a)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: > > >> >France produces > >> > 447e12 watt-hours of electricity annually, and consumes > >> > 1.99 x 10e6 bbl of petroleum (37MJ/L) per day, plus > >> > 49.27e9 m^3 of natural gas (36.4 MJ/m^3) > >> >(CIA factbook) > > >> >How much energy is in that oil? > > >> >1.99e6 bbl/day * 365 days = 726e6 bbl/year, > >> > x 159L/bbl = 115e9 L/year > >> > x 37MJ / L = 4.27e18 J/year. > > >> >Doing the same for natural gas, we get: > > >> >(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. > > >> Comprehension has obviously never been your best skill! > > >> Bill clearly stated; > > >> "The French genenrate most of their electric power from nuclear > >> reactors and yet you claimed" > > >> Note the words ELECTRIC power. > > >Right. Bill wrongly threw out a red herring. Jan noted that fossil > >fuels made all this (civilization) possible, and Bill blabbered an > >irrelevant statistic about one of France's minor power sources, as if > >that meant France were fossil-fuel independent. > > >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. Let's dig through and re-create that conversation, shall we? 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." > 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. But I'm not foolish enough to try keeping Bill on any sort of topic-- that's like herding fish. 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. > >> 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. -- Cheers, James Arthur
From: dagmargoodboat on 26 Nov 2009 11:41 On Nov 26, 6:26 am, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On a sunny day (Wed, 25 Nov 2009 17:46:50 -0800) it happened John Larkin > <jjSNIPlar...(a)highTHISlandtechnology.com> wrote in > <0cnrg5h8si41lusotsgkcr6uv5s1dtu...(a)4ax.com>: > > > > >On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 08:59:25 -0800, Joerg <inva...(a)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. -- Cheers, James Arthur
From: Bill Sloman on 26 Nov 2009 12:34
On Nov 26, 2:46 am, John Larkin <jjSNIPlar...(a)highTHISlandtechnology.com> wrote: > On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 08:59:25 -0800, Joerg <inva...(a)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. On the contrary, it just failed peer-review. If this were a peer- reviewed journal, it wouldn't have been published. In fact, Jeorg lives close enough to Oregon to still have a potentially active volcanoe or two in the vicinity http://www.nationalatlas.gov/dynamic/dyn_vol-ca.html so the point I was making remains valid. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen |