Ping Bil Slowman; The global warming hoax reveiled
in [Design]
|
From: John Fields on 28 Nov 2009 19:19 On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 10:44:15 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman <bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote: >On Nov 28, 4:44�am, John Fields <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: >> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 03:07:11 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman >> >> >> >> >> >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >> >On Nov 26, 8:33�pm, John Fields <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: >> >> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 09:36:14 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman >> >> >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >> >> >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. >> >> >> --- >> >> Then nothing you post would lead to the creation of a consensus. >> >> >Certainly not to a concensus of which you'd form a part. >> >> --- >> I'd certainly keep it from becoming a consensus by showing you up for >> the fraud you are. > >There you go again. I'm not a fraud, but you are too ignorant and dumb >to get to grips with the evidnece that makes this obvious to the >better equipped. --- As is typical with frauds, instead of honestly addressing the issues causing contention, trying to resolve them amicably, and taking your lumps when you deserve them, you resort to invective in order to try to silence your critics. A cowardly practice, at best, and exactly what one would expect of a "scientist" who pretends to be clad in shining armor. This says it best, I think... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ja7cuVh96AI&feature=related I'm in for a penny and I can afford a pound or two, so let's talk a little about why you proposed that energy can be extracted from the magnetic field surrounding a conductor carrying an alternating current by wrapping a solenoid around it. Can it be done when the axis of the solenoid is congruent with the axis of the conductor? The ball's in your court and, unlike you, the better equipped of us know how to speel and don't write "evidnece" JF
From: Jim Thompson on 28 Nov 2009 19:24 On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 18:19:17 -0600, John Fields <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: >On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 10:44:15 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman ><bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >>On Nov 28, 4:44�am, John Fields <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: >>> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 03:07:11 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >>> >On Nov 26, 8:33�pm, John Fields <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: >>> >> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 09:36:14 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman >>> >>> >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >>> >> >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. >>> >>> >> --- >>> >> Then nothing you post would lead to the creation of a consensus. >>> >>> >Certainly not to a concensus of which you'd form a part. >>> >>> --- >>> I'd certainly keep it from becoming a consensus by showing you up for >>> the fraud you are. >> >>There you go again. I'm not a fraud, but you are too ignorant and dumb >>to get to grips with the evidnece that makes this obvious to the >>better equipped. > >--- >As is typical with frauds, instead of honestly addressing the issues >causing contention, trying to resolve them amicably, and taking your >lumps when you deserve them, you resort to invective in order to try to >silence your critics. > >A cowardly practice, at best, and exactly what one would expect of a >"scientist" who pretends to be clad in shining armor. > >This says it best, I think... > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ja7cuVh96AI&feature=related > >I'm in for a penny and I can afford a pound or two, so let's talk a >little about why you proposed that energy can be extracted from the >magnetic field surrounding a conductor carrying an alternating current >by wrapping a solenoid around it. > >Can it be done when the axis of the solenoid is congruent with the axis >of the conductor? > >The ball's in your court and, unlike you, the better equipped of us know >how to speel and don't write "evidnece" >JF Most fraudulent scientists are smart enough to slink quietly away when their fraud is discovered. Slowman has no such IQ. ...Jim Thompson -- | James E.Thompson, CTO | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
From: Joerg on 28 Nov 2009 19:25 Bill Sloman wrote: > On Nov 28, 12:54 pm, Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >> Bill Slomanwrote: >>> On Nov 27, 5:46 pm, Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>> Bill Slomanwrote: >>>>> On Nov 27, 2:17 pm, Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>>>> Jon Kirwan wrote: >>>>>>> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 10:43:33 -0800, Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> Jon Kirwan wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 09:03:28 -0800, Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Bill Slomanwrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 25, 12:09 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> [...] >>>>>> As you said, climate is averages, but we must look much, much farther >>>>>> than just 50, 100 or 150 years. As has been discussed here before, there >>>>>> has for example been homesteading and farming in areas of Greenland that >>>>>> are now under a thick layer of ice. Of course that is an inconvenient >>>>>> truth for warmingists. Bill might claim that Exxon-Mobil has gone there >>>>>> in the dead of night, drilled holes, dropped some Viking tools and >>>>>> artefacts down those holes and then poured water back into them :-) >>>>> No. The areas that that the Vikings farmsteaded during the Medieval >>>>> Warm Period have never been coverd with thick ice. You can still see >>>>> the walls of their church at Hvalsey >>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Greenland >>>>> There are suggestions that the Viking settlement wasn't so much frozen >>>>> out as out-performed by the Inuit when they got there - the Inuit had >>>>> better boats, better fishing techniques, better hunting techniques and >>>>> warmer clothing, and the Vikings couldn't live on what the Inuit left >>>>> over. >>>> Sure you can pick a church near the coast which was always free of ice >>>> but other areas weren't. >>> Identify one. The settlement was not lost because it was inundated >>> with ice, but because the weather got just a little too cold to allow >>> the Vikings to harvest enough food to keep them going. >> http://academic.emporia.edu/aberjame/ice/lec19/holocene.htm >> >> Quote "Fjallsj�kull, an outlet glacier of Vatnaj�kull ice cap on the >> southeastern coast of Iceland. Advance of this glacier in the 1695-1710 >> period destroyed a farm that dated from Viking settlement. Photo date >> 8/94; � by J.S. Aber." > > That's some 300 years after the Vikings abandoned the colony. > Glaciers, like rivers, dig out new channels from time to time. This > isn't a farm that is now buried under the ice sheet, or anything like > it. > As far as I know it was. >> AFAIR that settlement dates back to about 900 and was discovered by a >> guy named Bardarson (spelling could be off a bit). When the chimney flue >> is plugged because the house is covered by a glacier it's time to move >> on ;-) > > Except that he had moved on some 300 years earlier, so the glacier > didn't contribute materially to his decision (unless he was remarkably > prescient, and somebody who was that prescient wouldn't have moved in > in the first place). > > And I like the image of the famer fleeing from the on-coming glacier > with all his possessions loaded onto sledges being dragged away by > his team of snails. > What does that matter? Fact is, temperatures became colder and colder until the settlers simply could not stick it out anymore because the land would not sustain them anymore. This is evidenced by numerous archaeological finds, such as farm dogs that were slaughtered and then eaten. Then some areas of theirs were taken over by ice. When you see a tsunami coming would you just wait there and see, in hopes that it might go away on its own? Since the remnants of those farms have been found under the ice it is proven that there was no ice back then. And today there is. Same at Schnidljoch. Do you have any other explanation how Roman coins got there? >> Another Viking farm (Eyrarhorn, probably spelled with Norwegian letters) >> became submerged because the growing weight of the ice sheet pushed the >> land under. > > But the ice sheet wasn't growing directly on top of the farm, was > it ... > No, but obviously the growing ice pack caused it, didn't it? I have the feeling you will not accept any proof and will try to find all sorts of excuses and hair in the soup. What's next? Their language wasn't Norwegian enough anymore so they don't count? -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM.
From: Bill Sloman on 28 Nov 2009 19:26 On Nov 28, 1:30 pm, "JosephKK"<quiettechb...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 09:41:40 -0800, John Larkin > > > > > > <jjSNIPlar...(a)highTHISlandtechnology.com> wrote: > >On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 17:13:35 GMT, Jan Panteltje > ><pNaonStpealm...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > >>On a sunny day (Wed, 25 Nov 2009 08:59:29 -0800) it happened Rich Grise > >><richgr...(a)example.net> wrote in <pan.2009.11.25.16.59.25.64...(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.... > > >>>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. Right. I'd got my Ph.D. in Physical Chemistry in 1970, which made me dangerously vulnerable to scientific evidence. Al Gore has only just finished his undergraduate studies in 1969, so he really can't be blamed. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Bill Sloman on 28 Nov 2009 19:32
On Nov 28, 1:45 pm, "JosephKK"<quiettechb...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 09:41:07 +0000, Martin Brown > > > > > > <|||newspam...(a)nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >Jan Panteltje wrote: > >> On a sunny day (Thu, 26 Nov 2009 09:53:04 -0800 (PST)) it happenedBill Sloman > >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote in > >> <4688b1c8-f155-4b23-bb22-a8e56c28f...(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&... > > >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. Only to those who don't have some understanding of the issues involved. Ignorance may be bliss, but - like most drugs of addiction - it can seriously damage your health. In this instance, it can also damage the health of your off-spring. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen |