Ping Bil Slowman; The global warming hoax reveiled
in [Design]
|
From: Bill Sloman on 28 Nov 2009 20:55 On Nov 28, 3:58 am, John Fields <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 00:38:11 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman > > > > > > <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >On Nov 27, 2:44 am, John Fields <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > >> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 15:18:18 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman > > >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >> >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. > > >> --- > >> Like about being able to extract energy from a varying magnetic field > >> surrounding a conductor by wrapping a solenoid around the conductor? > > >Joel Koltner was making a joke. The smiley should have told you that. > > --- > He wasn't making a joke, he was being humorous in his presentation, you > wretch. > > But, whether he was making a joke or not is immaterial, since I _proved_ > my point by experimentation and presented the data and method for anyone > who cared to replicate the experiment to do so. Few people are so lacking in a sense of proportion that they'd bother. <snipped the rest of the rant> -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Bill Sloman on 28 Nov 2009 20:59 On Nov 28, 4:19 pm, John Fields <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 10:44:15 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman > > > > > > <bill.slo...(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. John Fields has learned the word 'amicable". It is sad that he shows no evidence of knowing what it means. <snipped the usual rubbish> -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Jim Thompson on 28 Nov 2009 21:04 On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 20:27:21 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > >JosephKK wrote: >> >> Michael A. Terrell wrote: >> > >> > It was 34 degrees in Ocala Thursday night. It's supposed to be 35 >> >tonight. >> >> From the short time i spent in Florida that is about 10 to 15 degrees >> below normal for this time of year. > > > I've had to turn the heat on the last two days. That doesn't usually >happen till near the end of December. The ice still hasn't melted in my beer/wine tub from Thursday ;-) ...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: dagmargoodboat on 28 Nov 2009 21:05 On Nov 28, 1:40 pm, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > On Nov 27, 4:33 pm, John Larkin > > > > <jjSNIPlar...(a)highTHISlandtechnology.com> wrote: > > On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 16:25:02 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman > > > <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > > >On Nov 27, 9:44 am, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > >> On Nov 27, 11:48 am, John Larkin > > > >> <jjSNIPlar...(a)highTHISlandtechnology.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. > > > >> >http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870349940457455963038204... > > > >> > John > > > >> Spot-on. > > > >Anything but. The journalist is treating a highly necessary bit of > > >quality control as "suppresion of dissent". If they'd done theri job > > >properly, they'd have found this out. > > > Threatening journal editors is "quality control"? > > They weren't threatening him, they were getting him fired > forpublishing what was - at the very least - outrageously poor work. > > He'd published a very poor paper, bad enough to provoke three memebers > of the editorial board into resigning. > > When the dust settled, one of the board members who had resigned came > back as the new editor. > > Ravinghorde and his fellow conspiracy theorists want to see this as > the scandalous ejection of an editor who was brave enough to publish a > dissenting paper, but they can't be bothered to produce the paper and > explain why it provoked such an intense response when the people who > published Lindzen's dissenting papers have got off scot-free. > > -- > Bill Sloman, Nijmegen This (above) is why many serious scientists dare not voice contrary opinions--they'd get lynched, and they know it. -- Cheers, James Arthur
From: Bill Sloman on 28 Nov 2009 21:06
On Nov 28, 4:24 pm, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...(a)My- Web-Site.com> wrote: > On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 18:19:17 -0600, John Fields > > > > > > <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > >On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 10:44:15 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman > ><bill.slo...(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 and John Fields both think that I'm a fraud. This is - of course - a devastating blow to my self-esteem, since I've always had such a high opinion of their judgement, but somehow I guess I'll learn to live with this public humiliation. But I guess I'll stick around until they get around to telling us which of my hypothetical frauds they have discovered. This may take a while. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen |