Ping Bil Slowman; The global warming hoax reveiled
in [Design]
|
From: Bill Sloman on 21 Nov 2009 20:47 On Nov 21, 11:36 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On a sunny day (Sat, 21 Nov 2009 13:10:31 -0800) it happened Joerg > <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote in <7mr3a8F3jab6...(a)mid.individual.net>: > > >> One can wonder what the real truth is, about temperature, and then again about > >> what causes it, you know there were, and will be, ice ages, nobody > >> was having coal plants in the previous one to create CO2 (in the Netherlands they now want to store the CO2 > >> in the ground under my house almost), so, all feeble science. > > >Time to sell? Once this sort of "project" has moved along far enough you > >might not be able to, for the price you'd want. > > Could be, I already looked up if CO2 was heavier then air (it is): > http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090611040945AAPt3oV > else it would be very dangerous to live here. > But some geological processes could push it upwards, you would get suffocated in your > sleep, nowhere to run, even if you found out what was happening. This is unlikely. The CO2 is being injected below an impervious layer of clay that sealed the field well enough to trap natural gas there for a couple of hundred million years. Unlike natural gas, CO2 dissolves happily in water, and at a couple of kilometres below the surface the local pressure is high enough to keep the CO2 injected in solution. > CO2 detector, oxygen equipment, fast car or helicopter, and you MAY have a chance :-) He's a lot more likely to be drowned by rising sea levels breaking the dykes, but that is a familiar risk, so he's happy to ignore it. > It is an idiotic idea, the greenies create things that are more dangerous then what they want to fight. The real risk is of rising CO2 levels producing temperatures high enough to get the Greenland ice cap sliding off into the sea even faster than it is a the moment - it recently hit 270 gigaton per year, good for 0.75mm per year of sea level rise http://www.physorg.com/news177258173.html but that seems to have passed Jan by. > Like more people die in coal mining in one year _an other 30 or so in China today_ then in all nuclear accidents that ever happened, > that is why the greenies are against nuke power??? And nuke power makes no CO2. But it does involve other - even more persistent - problems > It is, as opposed to Bill's constant insulting of others by suggesting they have > no scientific understanding or education, the most *stupid* little greenies club that does this over and over. Jan doesn't like being reminded that he doesn't understand the science involved. He's smart enough to correct his ignorance, but prefers to spend his time complaining that he is being insulted because his ignorant prejudices are being pilloried. > again, manipulated by energy haters like Gore. Al Gore and the rest of rational part of of the campaign to reign in anthropogenic global warming aren't energy haters. They are perfectly happy to see energy generated by any mechanism that doesn't push up CO2 levels in the atmosphere - wind turbines could supply all the enrgy we consume at the moment and solar power stations could do a lot better. Burning fossil carbon looks cheaper, if you ignore the long term damage done by rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere, but submerging the Netherlands as sea levels rise is the kind of long term damage we should be thinking about. > If it was for the greenies we would all be living in grass shacks without heating and eating grass too. Jan Panteltje complains about feeling insulted because I call him ignorant, then proceeds to come up with this fatuity. There are a couple of books around that spell out how society would work with sustainable energy sources - George Monbiot's "Heat" is one and thomas L. Friedman's "Hot, Flat and Crowded" is another. Unheated grass shacks don't form any part of the picture. No doubt there are lunatic greenies who do want to take us back to the Stone Age, but only the denialist press claims to take them seriously. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: dagmargoodboat on 21 Nov 2009 20:56 On Nov 21, 4:52 pm, Jon Kirwan <j...(a)infinitefactors.org> wrote: > On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 11:54:05 GMT, Jan Panteltje > > > > <pNaonStpealm...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >The global warming hoax revealed: > >http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html?partne... > > ><Quote from that article> > >This shows these are people willing to bend rules and > >go after other people's reputations in very serious ways,' he said. Spencer > >R. Weart, a physicist and historian who is charting the course of research > >on global warming, said the hacked material would serve as 'great material > >for historians.' > ><end quote> > > >LOL. > >Some science! > > >And that in a leftist newspaper! > > The points are addressed in realclimate.org. By Gavin, who is one of > those whose emails were disclosed and others who post there. The > _truer_ feelings that some climate scientists have for some of the > public naysayers are exposed. Oh, well. Too bad. It's not surprising they don't like their critics. But as scientists they shouldn't be a) resisting sharing their data, b) colluding to suppress competing publications, c) or directing one another--or anyone else--to delete their e-mails wrt AR4. Scientists cooperate, sometimes compete, but never conspire. -- Cheers, James Arthur
From: dagmargoodboat on 21 Nov 2009 21:01 On Nov 21, 6:00 pm, John Larkin <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 11:54:05 GMT, Jan Panteltje > > > > <pNaonStpealm...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >The global warming hoax revealed: > >http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html?partne... > > ><Quote from that article> > >This shows these are people willing to bend rules and > >go after other people's reputations in very serious ways,' he said. Spencer > >R. Weart, a physicist and historian who is charting the course of research > >on global warming, said the hacked material would serve as 'great material > >for historians.' > ><end quote> > > >LOL. > >Some science! > > >And that in a leftist newspaper! > > http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125883405294859215.html?mod=googlenew.... > > "In several of the emails, climate researchers discussed how to > arrange for favorable reviewers for papers they planned to publish in > scientific journals. At the same time, climate researchers at times > appeared to pressure scientific journals not to publish research by > other scientists whose findings they disagreed with." > > Some good stuff here: > > http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/com... > > " The other paper by MM is just garbage as you knew. De Freitas > again. Pielke is also losing all credibility as well by replying to > the mad Finn as well frequently as I see it. I cant see either of > these papers being in the next IPCC report. K and I will keep them out > somehow even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature > is ! " > > John http://doctorbulldog.wordpress.com/2009/11/20/the-telegraph-picks-up-on-the-hadley-cru-story/ "The fact is that we cant account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we cant. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate." "It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong." -- Richard Feynman -- Cheers, James Arthur
From: Bill Sloman on 21 Nov 2009 21:14 On Nov 22, 12:00 am, John Larkin <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 11:54:05 GMT, Jan Panteltje > > <pNaonStpealm...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >The global warming hoax revealed: > >http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html?partne... > > ><Quote from that article> > >This shows these are people willing to bend rules and > >go after other people's reputations in very serious ways,' he said. Spencer > >R. Weart, a physicist and historian who is charting the course of research > >on global warming, said the hacked material would serve as 'great material > >for historians.' > ><end quote> > > >LOL. > >Some science! > > >And that in a leftist newspaper! > > http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125883405294859215.html?mod=googlenew.... > > "In several of the emails, climate researchers discussed how to > arrange for favorable reviewers for papers they planned to publish in > scientific journals. At the same time, climate researchers at times > appeared to pressure scientific journals not to publish research by > other scientists whose findings they disagreed with." Most scientists have a fair idea of who might be asked to review their papers, and adjust the papers to encourage editors to go for the more constructive and well-informed of the likely referees. They also have opinions about the kind of work that other people do, the reliability of the results that other scientists claim, and the quality of the papers that they produce. Some people are bad enough that they end up trying to publish in journals on the edges of their field, where the editors won't know how untrustworthy they are. Personal contacts often mean that they don't get away with it. > Some good stuff here: > > http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/com... > > " The other paper by MM is just garbage as you knew. De Freitas > again. Pielke is also losing all credibility as well by replying to > the mad Finn as well frequently as I see it. I cant see either of > these papers being in the next IPCC report. K and I will keep them out > somehow even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature > is ! " Obviously not intended for publication, but why would you ever think that because scientists are obliged to publish sober and rational arguments, they aren't emotionally involved in their work? -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Bill Sloman on 21 Nov 2009 21:17
On Nov 21, 9:37 pm, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde(a)invalid> wrote: > On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 11:46:02 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman > > > > > > <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >On Nov 21, 7:03 pm, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde(a)invalid> wrote: > >> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 05:53:00 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com > >> wrote: > > >> >On Nov 21, 6:54 am, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> >> The global warming hoax revealed: > >> >> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html?partne... > > >> >> <Quote from that article> > >> >> This shows these are people willing to bend rules and > >> >> go after other people's reputations in very serious ways,' he said. Spencer > >> >> R. Weart, a physicist and historian who is charting the course of research > >> >> on global warming, said the hacked material would serve as 'great material > >> >> for historians.' > >> >> <end quote> > > >> >> LOL. > >> >> Some science! > > >> >> And that in a leftist newspaper! > > >> >Summary: > >> >http://doctorbulldog.wordpress.com/2009/11/20/the-telegraph-picks-up-.... > > >> >Details: > >> >http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/19/breaking-news-story-hadley-cru-.... > > >> And a search engine for CRU emails > > >>www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/-Hide quoted text - > > >Ravinghorde is going to be even more of a nuisance than he is at the > >moment. > > >His ignorance is such that he regularly quotes real scientific papers > >to support arguments that they actively contradict. > > >Given a bunch of private e-mails that he can quote out of context, he > >can be predicted to find "evidence" for life-time's worth of insane > >conspiracy theories. > > http://xkcd.com/664/- Hide quoted text - By which Ravinghorde would like us to know that he thinks of himself as an engineer rather than a scientist. Since he is - in fact - a fruitcake who can't do joined-up logic, his self-image isn't all that interesting. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen |