Ping Bil Slowman; The global warming hoax reveiled
in [Design]
|
From: Don Klipstein on 29 Nov 2009 00:02 In <b7319000-c534-44c4-a264-5ee56b939d74(a)e27g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, dagmargoodboat(a)yahoo.com wrote in part: >Cast aside your irrelevant bile and consider: we're in a 10- >year cooling trend. HadCRUT-3 by year for the most recent 10 full years, from Hadley Centre: 1999: .339 2000: .360 2001: .381 2002: .401 2003: .418 2004: .424 2005: .420 2006: .404 2007: .383 2008: .360 UAH TLT V. 5.2, average of 12 monthly figures: 1999: .041 2000: .036 2001: .201 2002: .289 2003: .277 2004: .195 2005: .314 2006: .263 2007: .284 2008: .050 I would not go so far as to call this a 10 year cooling trend. - Don Klipstein (don(a)misty.com)
From: Bill Sloman on 29 Nov 2009 00:05 On Nov 28, 4:35 am, John Fields <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 00:43:51 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman > > <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > > >Your scepticism is nether humble nor yours. You pick up neatly > >packaged chunks of scepticism from your frieindly neighbourhood > >denialist propaganda machine and regurgitate them here. > > Jahred Diamond's > >book "Collapse" makes it pretty clear that the leaders of a failing > >society will have their attention firmly fixed on maintaining their > >status within that society - in your case, your status as a successful > >businessman - right up to the point where it starts collapsing around > >their ears. > > --- > Seems to me that your accusation that Larkin here regurgitates > propaganda he's picked up elsewhere is PKB. John, you really don't have to remind us that you can't tell the difference between peer-reviewed scientific publications and the kind of rubbish that denialist web-sites spread around. Get yourself a scientific education and you might be able to do better. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Bill Sloman on 29 Nov 2009 07:49 On Nov 28, 1:27 pm, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > 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. Clear perhaps, but also prolix. > <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. Since Jan's claim - that the infrastructure we now use was built with energy derived by burning fossil carbon - has zero relevance to the question of whether we should continue to generate the bulk of our energy by burning fossil fuel - I was not all that interested in addressing Jan's claim. > > 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. Which is totally irrelevant to the important question, which is where we can and should get our energy in the future. > I thought it interesting that even France is so dependent on fossil > fuels. Even more than 82% (of total energy), if they use coal. The way things are is only interesting in as far as it dictates the route we follow towards the way things ought to be - or, in the context of anthropogenic global warming the way things need to be, if we don't want to have to set aside our interest in generating energy in favour of frantic efforts to grow enough food. Jan, of course, ignores this line of thought on the basis that anthropogenic global warming isn't happening, claiming that the people who worry about it want us to stop using energy at all (over an above what we get from food) and rehouse ourselves into unheated grass huts. This is a remarkably flagrant strawman but he seems very attached to it. Your own approach is less extravagant - you don't actively deny anthropogenic global warming, but claim that its progression is too unpredictable to justify any serious investment in cutting down our CO2 emissions. You don't actually specify how precise a prediction would be needed to justify such an investment, but since you seem to think that the past ten years of relatively limited warming should have been predicted back in the 1990's, you do seem to think that a precison of a tenth of a degree or so is necessary, which isn't actually a rational requirement. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Jan Panteltje on 29 Nov 2009 08:08 On a sunny day (Sat, 28 Nov 2009 21:00:10 -0800 (PST)) it happened Bill Sloman <bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote in <79cb352b-afb2-456a-bf0d-3c38393e5b7b(a)b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>: >> Windmills are an unreliable energy source, no wind for some time and no e= >nergy AT ALL. > >Any single windmill is unrliable in this sense. Build enough of them >over a sufficiently large geographical area and hook them up to grid, >and the statistics are a lot more attractive. > >> You need an energy storage system, several experiments are being done, bu= >t >> an energy storage system that can bridge weeks for example, is not curren= >tly possible >> in an economic way. > >Weeks? Yes weeks. >> And the same green nut cases that vote for 'clean' energy vote against wi= >ndmills because of 'horizon pollution', >> and because those kill birds, and .. and .. ? > >Too true. And they get upset about CO2 being sequestered under thier >beds. Personally I never voted against windmills, I quit the political party the moment they did that. But I also know windmills will not provide all our power needs. They are also noisy, I know, I can hear them here, other then you in Nijmegen hidden deep in the city. Chomp, chomp, chomp, chomp, all night long. >> Solar power in the Netherlands is a big joke, as it has now been raining = >and cloudy for weeks, >> so nothing would work. > >Direct sunlight is a lot better scattered light, but you still get >useful power if the sun is up. Define 'Useful power', lemme guess: 1W / m^2? >> I tried a solar panel myself, and you are lucky if it can power a transis= >tor radio, at low volume that is. >> It would not even charge my nicads (long time ago). > >A larger solar panel with a better dc-to-dc inverter might have done >better. Yea, like a whole football field, and a converter designed by Bill Slowman. >> There is a plan for solar power in the Sahara desert, but that is future = >talk, >> political instability makes it sort of difficult to guarantee the electri= >city will make it all the way here >> that is not counting transport losses. > >Happily, the Germans are more enthusiastic about the idea than you >are. Actually it is an international project, but enthusiasm alone does not really do anything. >> And *STILL* that does not run your cars, your building machines, ships, w= >hat not. >> So that is bull. > >It wouldn't run the car I've got at the moment, but it can run a car >and a building machine. Ships are trickier, and aircraft very tricky >indeed. But we do need to keep on emitting some carbon dioxide to >stave off the next ice age, so we may be able to work something out. See, here you do it again, and show your big mis-conception: 'stave off the next ice age'. Forget it, it will come! No matter what you do. http://www.world-mysteries.com/alignments/mpl_al3b.htm http://www.sci.ccny.cuny.edu/~stan/d_clim.pdf >> Shoot it into the sun, and store it under Nijmegen of course. >> Make nice small RTGs with it, everybody one for in the car and in the hou= >se. > >Shooting it into the sun might not be a good idea - we've only got one >sun, and an unexpected interactions could make life difficult or >impossible. Next loony concept revealed: Do you know the mass of the sun? You clearly suffer from a lack of grasp of the size of nature, and nature's forces! Really Bill, you make no longer sense, and are here for the sake of the discussion only. That does explain why you cannot change viewpoint, as it would end all reactions of people pointing out your errors. Let's talk about other things OK? BTW thank you for praising my language abilities, calling me 'bilingual', in fact I speak German, French, Dutch, English, and a little Portuguese. And learning some more. You living in the Netherlands so long, I would have expected you to speak Dutch too. Many Dutch also speak English....
From: Jan Panteltje on 29 Nov 2009 08:10
On a sunny day (Sat, 28 Nov 2009 21:05:35 -0800 (PST)) it happened Bill Sloman <bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote in <dc44176d-0d2d-43b4-b9b5-a498b93c3f3f(a)e27g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>: >John, you really don't have to remind us that you can't tell the >difference between peer-reviewed scientific publications and the kind >of rubbish that denialist web-sites spread around. Get yourself a >scientific education and you might be able to do better. I will take John's understanding of science anytime over yours. |