Ping Bil Slowman; The global warming hoax reveiled
in [Design]
|
From: Bill Sloman on 26 Nov 2009 12:36 On Nov 26, 5:41 pm, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > 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 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. > > > >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. It is a pity that I got it wrong. Peer review would probably have prevented this. James Arthur happens to be wrong - his concurrence doesn't create a concensus, which in practice is confined to the opinions of people who know what they are talking about. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Bill Sloman on 26 Nov 2009 12:53 On Nov 25, 2:44 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On a sunny day (Wed, 25 Nov 2009 04:31:12 -0800 (PST)) it happenedBill Sloman > <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote in > <dfeab536-fe22-48ed-a245-0ab80e75c...(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. Rather, none that satisifies you. In fact, it is very easy to create a model earth that doesn't have any water or CO2 in its atmosphere, and show that its average surface temperature would -18C, some 32C colder than our current 14C. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect > And even if you assumed CO2 levels did, where did the CO2 come from? CO2 is being subducted - as carbonate rock - all the time. The carbonate is unstable once it gets into the outer mantle and comes out again in volcanic eruptions. The spectacular volcanic eruptions that created the Deccan Traps and the Siberian Traps released a lot of CO2 in a relatively short time - geologically speaking. The fact that some of the laval flow came up through coal fields meant that they burnt a fair bit of fossil carbon in the process. > 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. It isn't. there aren't enough animals around to to have much direct effect on the CO2 level in the atmosphere - if they don't go in for digging up and burning fossil carbon on an industrial scale. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Bill Sloman on 26 Nov 2009 13:00 On Nov 25, 5:59 pm, Rich Grise <richgr...(a)example.net> wrote: > 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 happenedBill> Sloman<bill.slo...(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. However if you dig up a lot of coal or oil and burn it - as we have done - you can get the CO2 level in the atmosphere to rise before the positive feedbacks kick in to really push up the surface temperature > But Bill has faith, which trumps facts, like this inconvenient one:http://www.infowars.com/al-gore-admits-co2-does-not-cause-majority-of... Rich is igorant enough to think that this botched propaganda piece represents a fact. The idiot reporter involved is dim enough to think that he can claim that Al Gore would say the CO2 is only responsible for 40% of the greenhouse warming, when it is well known that it only contributes between 9% and 26% of the warming, while water contributes between 36% and 72%. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Bill Sloman on 26 Nov 2009 13:07 On Nov 25, 2:50 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On a sunny day (Wed, 25 Nov 2009 04:59:41 -0800 (PST)) it happenedBill 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. 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. > Or renounce it all, and go live on one of the last energy free little islands... atolls... Not necessary. We can generate all the energy we need without burning fossil carbon. And if you had read your newspaper this morning you would have learned that your electricity and gas bills are going to go up to help pay for the capital investment that is going to make this happen in the Netherlands over the next couple of decades. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: John Larkin on 26 Nov 2009 13:18
On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 08:41:26 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodboat(a)yahoo.com wrote: >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. I have just run a simulation that proves that Joerg lives in Oregon. There can be no more doubt. John |