Ping Bil Slowman; The global warming hoax reveiled
in [Design]
|
From: Bill Sloman on 27 Nov 2009 04:33 On Nov 27, 5:34 am, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > On Nov 26, 1:26 pm,Bill Sloman<bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > > > On Nov 25, 8:25 pm, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > But the claim was "The French generate most of their electric power > > from nuclear reactors" so the the relevant part of the clown's > > calculation is > > Bill, you make this too easy! For James Arthur everything is easy - he makes up his mind and then sees only that part of the argument that supports his point of view. > Jan rightly said modern civilization was founded on fossil fuel. > Which it was, and still is, and which I tallied. So far so good. Sadly, the implicit claim is that because our civilisation was founded on fossil fuel, it has to continue to depend on fossil fuel, and this isn't true. > Here, I'll fetch Jan's quote for your continued amusement-- > > > > > > >> 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. > > You responded: > > > > > > >You don't seem to have realised the burning fossil carbon isn't the > > > > > >only way to generate energy. > > Okay, fine, you stated the obvious--we all knew fossil fuels aren't > the only way to make power. But it doesn't answer Jan's point at all, > does it? Jan's point - in context - is that Exxon-Mobil should get a free pass to continue to extract and burn fossil carbon because it's predecessors helped to set up the infra-structure that currently sustains us, but will evnetually bring us down if we keep on burning fossil carbon at the current rate. > So you brought up France's nuclear ability as either diversion or > proof of I-don't-know-what, As evidence that we don't have to rely on burning fossil carbon as our sole energy source. > and I just tallied the numbers to show > that France does indeed depend heavily on fossil fuels, and it would > likely be a cold, hungry, internet-free place without them. Which is > what Jan said to start with But with the implication that we shouldn't work on reducing our dependence on fossil fuels. Jan has earlier claimed that people who took anthropogenic global warming seriously wanted us all to reduce our energy consumption to zero and live in unheated grass huts, which is flat-out wrong, as evidenced by George Monbiot's book "Heat" and Thomas L. Friedman's book "Hot, Flat and Crowded". > > ELECTRICAL > > > > Total > > > electricity: 1.61 x 10^18 J > > > (nuclear): 1.29 x 10^18 J > > > 1.29 is 80% of 1.61, so Mr. Bill remains authoritative and Mr. James > > remains a clown. > > Bill, you're a goof! 1.29 is exactly 80% of 1.61 because that's how I > got 1.29--by guesstimating 80% of the 1.61 as nuke[1], then > multiplying! > > [1] I think I even got that 80% figure from you! The correct figure is 78.8% - I checked it at the time - which is closed enough to the 80% that I didn't see any point in complicating the argument by introducing new data. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France Many thanks for the revelation about the way you put together your "evidence". I'd be tempted to salt my arguments with the occasional obviously absurd claim - granting your fatuous ignorance and unrealistic self-confidence I'd have a very good chance of sucking you in - but it isn't really necessary, because you can be relied on to make a fool of yourself. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Martin Brown on 27 Nov 2009 04:41 Jan Panteltje wrote: > On a sunny day (Thu, 26 Nov 2009 09:53:04 -0800 (PST)) it happened Bill Sloman > <bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote in > <4688b1c8-f155-4b23-bb22-a8e56c28fa1b(a)c34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>: > >>> 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. > > Good, so it does not come from us burning stuff. We already know how much fuel we burn and the residual amount staying in the atmosphere is around 60% from Keelings original work at Mauna Lau. Now refined by NOAA with global monitoring. You can even watch the fossil fuel CO2 emitted by the northern hemisphere industrial nations move to the southern hemisphere with a suitable time lag. AND you can tell it isn't coming out of the oceans because the changing isotopic signature matches the fossil fuel that we burnt. Be careful what you wish for...today volcanic activity contributes about 1% of the carbon dioxide net increase. The rest is coming from us. A reasonably detailed article on CO2 from vulcanism is online at: http://www.bgs.ac.uk/downloads/directDownload.cfm?id=432&noexcl=true&t=Volcanic%20Contributions%20to%20the%20Global%20Carbon%20Cycle Climate change around the time of the Deccan traps vulcanism 65 Million years ago was one of the worst periods of global extinction the Earth has seen. Do you really want to go the way of the dinosaurs? >> 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. > > Good, then we can forget all that Gore stuff about farting cows and pigs that are bad for the world, > and need to be more taxed. He has a point at least where methane emissions are concerned. CH4 though short lived is a more potent GHG in the atmosphere than CO2. And it could be a real menace if we release the huge volumes trapped in permafrost and oceanic seabed clathrates. And it would improve the health of the US population to eat a bit less meat. Japans high life expectancy is in part due to a much better diet. Regards, Martin Brown
From: Bill Sloman on 27 Nov 2009 05:40 On Nov 24, 6:03 pm, Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: > Bill Slomanwrote: > > On Nov 24, 3:28 am, Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: > >> Bill Slomanwrote: > >>> On Nov 22, 11:04 pm, Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: > >>>> Bill Slomanwrote: > >>>>> On Nov 22, 5:14 am, John Larkin > >>>>> <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >>>>>> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 18:14:04 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman > >>>>>> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >>>>>>> On Nov 22, 12:00 am, John Larkin > >>>>>>> <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >>>> [...] > >>>>>>>>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? > >>>>>> Because they respect the scientific method? Because they honor truth? > >>>>> There's no contradiction between emotional involvement and respecting > >>>>> the scientific method. > >>>> Did you really read John's quote? Quote of quote: "K and I will keep > >>>> them out somehow even if we have to redefine what the peer-review > >>>> literature is ! " > >>>> If this was truly said then I have lost all respect for those guys. Any > >>>> and all. But they have already lost much of it a long time ago, at least > >>>> in this neighborhood (which is full of engineers). > >>> There are "peer-reviewed" journals around whose editors have been > >>> known to publish denialist propaganda of zero academic merit without > >>> sending it out for review. > >> Ahm, didn't he write "even if _we_ have to redefine what the peer-review > >> literature is" ? Note the word "we" in there. > > >>> As long as there wasn't money to be made out of publishing pseudo- > >>> academic articles, the scientific community could afford to be pretty > >>> relaxed about what constituted a peer-reviewed journal. Exxon-Mobil > >>> and similar organisations with a large financial interest in denying > >>> anthrpogenic global warming have created a situation where tighter > >>> definitions are desirable. > >> Yeah, the usual conspiracy theory. I think the notion of the whole AGW > >> scheme being a gravy train has more credibility than that. At least > >> that's what people around my neighborhood are thinking. > > > With a lot of help from denialist propaganda. It is a bit odd that the > > denialist propaganda machine hasn't got reports of IPCC members > > driving around in Lamborginis while living in the lap of luxury. If > > they had traded their academic integrity for a mess of pottage you'd > > expect other academics in related fields to have noticed some change > > in their life-style. > > > Presumably this kind of evidence is a little too hard to fake. > > All one has to do is look at Al Gore, his mansions and all. Living > green. Yeah, right. He was rich long before he was active against global warming, even though his book "Earth in the Balance" dates back to 1992. > > Sourcewatch gets its data from Exxon-Mobil's published accounts, which > > provide rather better evidence than the kinds of conspiracy theories > > with which Ravinghorde regales us. > > Got a link the _proves_ that Exxon tries to fudge science here? Similar > to those embarrassing email? This is the usual reference http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/sep/20/oilandpetrol.business which reports the British Royal Society's letter to Exxon-Mobil http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial is more comprehensive, and http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/global_warming_contrarians/exxonmobil-report-smoke.html points to a very comprehensive report by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Bill Sloman on 27 Nov 2009 05:57 On Nov 25, 6:03 pm, Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: > Bill Slomanwrote: > > On Nov 25, 12:09 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > [...] > > >> But the glaciers, those will further retreat from Europe, and north of America, > >> only to come back then later, in thousands of years cycles. > > > Since we've messed up the positive feedback that drove that cycle and > > added more than enough CO2 and methane to the atmosphere, the glacier > > aren't going to be coming back any time soon. > > > The shapes and locations ofof the continents will still be pretty much > > the same. I doubt if the world will look that different. > > Ahm, the glacier north of us on Mt.Shasta is growing ... > > Maybe it hasn't heard of AGW and someone should tell it :-) Global warming means more water vapour in the atmosphere, and more snow falling on places high enough - and cold enough - that the snow can settle. Most glaciers are retreating, but with the right topography, extra snow can overwhelm a rising snow line. Mount Shastra is a dormat volcano http://encyclopedia.farlex.com/Shasta,+Mount For the last 4500 years it has erupted roughly once every 600 years, and the last eruption was a bit over 200 years ago. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Bill Sloman on 27 Nov 2009 06:03
On Nov 27, 4:52 am, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > On Nov 26, 12:36 pm,Bill Sloman<bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > > > > > 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 > > I am not wrong. James Arthur never admits that he is wrong, so this statement doesn't tell us anything we didn't already know. >After applying the appropriate proprietary, > undocumented corrections to Joerg's lat/lon, I have yet another > irrefutable proof--which I just deleted off my hard drive--that Joerg > lives _in_ Oregon, and in the very cone of a volcano. That's odd. Denialists usually go in for the selective deletion of calibration data to get the result that they want. > Joerg, be afraid, very afraid. But of a different volcano. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen |