Ping Bil Slowman; The global warming hoax reveiled
in [Design]
|
From: dagmargoodboat on 28 Nov 2009 16:27 Malcolm Moore wrote: > dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > <snip old material> > > >You have to grant me some leeway here because Bill's a fuzzy writer. > >He works by implication and innuendo, so I had to infer that > > I don't have to grant you anything. No, you don't. > This saga shows you're the proven fuzzy writer. I think I've been extremely clear. Excruciatingly, tediously, tiringly so, in this post-mortem. I understood Jan. You didn't. So, if you don't understand me at least I'm in good company. Bill stated a fact--a fact unrelated to Jan's point, you contend below--without explaining what he thought it proved, or how it related. That's fuzzy writing. Bill could've said "The fact that France gets 80% of its electrical power from nuclear plants proves XYZ." That would've been clear writing. <snip> > >But Jan and I took it as a wrong answer to Jan's claim, that the very > >infrastructure we're using was built on fossil fuel. > > There was no answer because there was no question. Bill made a correct > claim in response to Jan's correct claim. And there we have it. Stating a new, unrelated fact is not a response, that's talking past someone. If Bill meant his claim as a related response, it was wrong. If he meant it as a new, interesting fact, it was non- responsive. Bill explains later that he meant it as a response, which is how I treated it. Either way, it leaves a misleading notion w.r.t. the extent of France's independence from fossil fuels I thought it interesting that even France is so dependent on fossil fuels. Even more than 82% (of total energy), if they use coal. -- Cheers, James Arthur
From: JosephKK on 28 Nov 2009 16:30 On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 09:41:40 -0800, John Larkin <jjSNIPlarkin(a)highTHISlandtechnology.com> wrote: >On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 17:13:35 GMT, Jan Panteltje ><pNaonStpealmtje(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >>On a sunny day (Wed, 25 Nov 2009 08:59:29 -0800) it happened Rich Grise >><richgrise(a)example.net> wrote in <pan.2009.11.25.16.59.25.64076(a)example.net>: >> >>>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. >>> >>>But Bill has faith, which trumps facts, like this inconvenient one: >>>http://www.infowars.com/al-gore-admits-co2-does-not-cause-majority-of-global-warming/ >>> >>>Cheers! >>>Rich >> >>Gore should be locked up. > >He's done an excellent job of turning off Sloman's mind. > >John > It was off long before Gore got to it.
From: JosephKK on 28 Nov 2009 16:45 On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 09:41:07 +0000, Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: >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? > Don't ya know, that for a species that has _not_ even been around for just 1 million years to bandy about causing events on the level of the KT-boundary event is quite ridiculous. >>> 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: JosephKK on 28 Nov 2009 16:53 On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 17:56:08 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodboat(a)yahoo.com wrote: >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. Real ones. Pretenders are another matter.
From: JosephKK on 28 Nov 2009 17:01
On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 15:00:17 -0800, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 11:54:05 GMT, Jan Panteltje ><pNaonStpealmtje(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >>The global warming hoax revealed: >> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html?partner=rss&emc=rss >> >><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=googlenews_wsj > > >"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/comments/hadley_hacked/ > >" 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 > > So not the actions of honest scientists. |