Ping Bil Slowman; The global warming hoax reveiled
in [Design]
|
From: Bill Sloman on 26 Nov 2009 17:26 On Nov 24, 2:19 pm, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > On Nov 24, 3:08 am,Bill Sloman<bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > > > > > > > On Nov 24, 3:43 am, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > > > On Nov 23, 1:10 pm, krw <k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: > > > > > On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 09:53:23 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com > > > > wrote: > > > > > >On Nov 22, 8:44 pm,Bill Sloman<bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > > > > >> On Nov 22, 8:07 pm, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > > > > >> > On Nov 22, 1:48 pm, John Larkin wrote: > > > > > >> > > But climate is not subject to experiment. Historically, science has > > > > >> > > tended to be erratic, faddish, and usually wrong until corrected by > > > > >> > > experiment. > > > > > >> > These guys want to replace confirmation by experiment with proof by > > > > >> > correlation. Which they're in a unique position to ensure. > > > > > >> Astronomy has had to struggle with exactly the same problem. I presume > > > > >> you also are going to rip down all the observatories and insist that > > > > >> the sun really does go around the earth. > > > > > >Astronomy is easily confirmed, repeatably, to high accuracy, by > > > > >multiple observers around the world. > > > > > >Climatrology can't predict a decade-long cooling trend even once it's > > > > >begun, nor can it explain it. > > > > > Climatology can't "predict" history, yet some idiots want to use it to > > > > control everyone. Politicians (are) like that. > > > > Climatology predicts history fine with a little bit of curve-fitting. > > > Climatrology, like astrology (or maybe let's call it climatrollogy), > > > looks into the future. > > > > > >If your model contradicts Nature, your model is wrong. > > > > > Wrong is often useful (see above). > > > > That's Mencken's game-- > > > "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed > > > (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an > > > endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." --H.L. Mencken > > > Weapons of mass desctruction - which have never been found - fit > > Menken's picture rather better than anthropogenic global warming, for > > which there is a raft of evidence (though it does take a smidgin of > > scientific education^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hfraud to make it comprehensible). > > Last line, above, corrected. James Arthur thinks that climate models can't predict any more than a fortnight ahead before they blow up. Oddly enough they can, but weather models can't. And he still thinks that he is in a position to tell us that the evidence for anthropogenic global warming is a fraud? -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Bill Sloman on 26 Nov 2009 17:29 On Nov 24, 3:37 pm, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > On Nov 23, 9:43 pm, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > > > > > > On Nov 23, 1:10 pm, krw <k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: > > > > dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > > > >On Nov 22, 8:44 pm,Bill Sloman<bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > > > >> On Nov 22, 8:07 pm, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > > >> > These guys want to replace confirmation by experiment with proof by > > > >> > correlation. Which they're in a unique position to ensure. > > > > >> Astronomy has had to struggle with exactly the same problem. I presume > > > >> you also are going to rip down all the observatories and insist that > > > >> the sun really does go around the earth. > > > > >Astronomy is easily confirmed, repeatably, to high accuracy, by > > > >multiple observers around the world. > > > > >Climatrology can't predict a decade-long cooling trend even once it's > > > >begun, nor can it explain it. > > > > Climatology can't "predict" history, yet some idiots want to use it to > > > control everyone. Politicians (are) like that. > > > Climatology predicts history fine with a little bit of curve-fitting. > > Climatrology, like astrology (or maybe let's call it climatrollogy), > > looks into the future. > > Oooo, "climastrology"--even better. I wonder which dinner party gave him that mystical insight? If it was the same one that convinced him that climate models were as subject to the butterfly effect as weather models, it would seem that someone was sending him up. They did rather too good a job of it. The clown still doesn't seem to have noticed that he was being sent up. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Bill Sloman on 26 Nov 2009 17:58 On Nov 23, 7:34 pm, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > On Nov 22, 8:44 pm,Bill Sloman<bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > > > On Nov 22, 8:07 pm, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > > > On Nov 22, 1:48 pm, John Larkin wrote: > > > These guys want to replace confirmation by experiment with proof by > > > correlation. Which they're in a unique position to ensure. > > > Astronomy has had to struggle with exactly the same problem. I presume > > you also are going to rip down all the observatories and insist that > > the sun really does go around the earth. > > > > They're the ones with infinite government funding, > > > "Infinite"? > > > >They're the > > > official interface to and gate-keepers of the raw data, and they're > > > not letting other people have it. > > > You must be thinking of Roy Spencer > > No, I was thinking of NASA-Goddard, the Hadley wing of the UK's > meteorological service, and the e-mails we've just seen wherein they > discuss how they've withheld embarrassing raw data. That Ravinghorde's province. He can see "withholding embarrassing raw data" in perfectly innocuous e-mails between people who don't want to have to put in the considerable - and unrewarded - labour involved in making the data accessible and comprehensible. He feels free to invent the "embarrassing" aspect because the poor dear doesn't have a clue about the magnitude of the task. Face it. The stolen e-mails don't contain any evidence of actual wrong- doing, because if they did we'd have heard about from somebody who isn't a member of the lunatic fringe, a group of which you are now a card-carrying member. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Bill Sloman on 26 Nov 2009 17:58 On Nov 24, 4:00 pm, John Larkin <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 06:37:56 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com > wrote: > > > > > > >On Nov 23, 9:43 pm, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > >> On Nov 23, 1:10 pm, krw <k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: > > >> > dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > >> > >On Nov 22, 8:44 pm,Bill Sloman<bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >> > >> On Nov 22, 8:07 pm, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > >> > >> > These guys want to replace confirmation by experiment with proof by > >> > >> > correlation. Which they're in a unique position to ensure. > > >> > >> Astronomy has had to struggle with exactly the same problem. I presume > >> > >> you also are going to rip down all the observatories and insist that > >> > >> the sun really does go around the earth. > > >> > >Astronomy is easily confirmed, repeatably, to high accuracy, by > >> > >multiple observers around the world. > > >> > >Climatrology can't predict a decade-long cooling trend even once it's > >> > >begun, nor can it explain it. > > >> > Climatology can't "predict" history, yet some idiots want to use it to > >> > control everyone. Politicians (are) like that. > > >> Climatology predicts history fine with a little bit of curve-fitting. > >> Climatrology, like astrology (or maybe let's call it climatrollogy), > >> looks into the future. > > >Oooo, "climastrology"--even better. > > That's a keeper. A genuine James Arthur pratfall. Not a collectible as all that - he makes a fool of himself a little too often, and the market is getting saturated. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Bill Sloman on 26 Nov 2009 18:18
On Nov 26, 7:35 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On a sunny day (Thu, 26 Nov 2009 10:07:13 -0800 (PST)) it happenedBill Sloman > <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote in > <6e3552a1-ae05-4a2c-835f-9f245f6d0...(a)m25g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>: > > >> 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, the= > >re would be no civilisation > >> and not even internet, and no printing material, no paper, some paper man= > >ufacturers 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. > > mm, why do you say that of everybody except your comic book scientists? I don't say it about everybody, but there are a number of people who post here on subjects that they know very little about, and they quite often post total nonsense. > >> Or renounce it all, and go live on one of the last energy free little isl= > >ands... 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. > > Well, I read almost no paper newspapers, really, but I have a much faster internet > news feed, of a much broader spectrum from many different countries, and Netherlands > too. It is a pity you don't seem to be equipped to make sesne of all this information. > That energy prices will go up is no news, it is the way the system works. > That taxes will go up, exactly the same. > All that said, a good thing I did not sign on some years ago for a fixed (high) energy > price, > just got some Euros back on my yearly electricity bill, man was I right. > But it also helped that I have the computer control all energy here. > And I wrote the programs myself. > Capital investment, well there are windmills here up the road, and a lot more further > on. > Now they want to build some in the sea. Get up to date. the Danes have been doing it for years. http://www.dongenergy.com/EN/Media/Press%20releases/Pages/CisionDetails.aspx?cisionid=447507 > Have you calculated how much percentage those will supply? Not me, but it has been done by others http://www.pnas.org/content/106/27/10933.full > They still have not got the strength to build some nuke plants here... > But this morning I was thinking that the best nuke plant location would probably be > Nijmegen. > A great place for CO2 storage too ;-) Not really. Nobody ever found natural gas under Nijmegen. > So they build coal and natural gas plants... Fine with me, next they will > import the coal from China, where >100 miners die each year. > But those death are far away, do not weight on the political agenda I guess. > And I think the same is happening with uranium mining, I have seen movies where all > those > guys had was a paper face mask... here is our society, > taxes, profit, and lip service to reality. > We are still a devouring animal type, really. > Nature, we are part of it, and as we are part of it we need to accept the climate > cycles I don't see any necessity to accept the climate cycles, and I'm delighted that we have generated enough anthropogenic global warming to prevent the the next ice age, which would have been due any millenium now. However, one can have too much of good thing, and persisting in injecting CO2 into the atmosphere has the potential to make as big a mess of our civilisation as would the start of a new ice age. > unless we develop technology like terra forming that _really_ can change the climate, > maybe it will happen one day. If you had learned a bit more science when you were young, you'd be aware that burning fossil carbon is an all-too-effective form of terraforming. > But hiding CO2 under your bed won't work. Not for any extended period, but it would help to bridge the gap while we are still building the windmills and the solar power plants that we will need to replace coal, oil and gas-powered energy sources that we rely on at the moment. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen |