Ping Bil Slowman; The global warming hoax reveiled
in [Design]
|
From: Bill Sloman on 29 Nov 2009 13:46 On Nov 27, 9:29 am, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > On Nov 27, 4:33 am,Bill Sloman<bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > > > On Nov 27, 5:34 am, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > > 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". > > I read Friedman's book. My word but he's an illogical, histrionic > fool. Not sure if I finished it--once I saw his rationale assembled, > it grew too tedious to watch him extrapolate ever more fantastical > consequences. I rate Friedman "Nobel Peace Prize worthy" x 1.05. Perhaps. But he isn't talking about us reducing our energy consumption to zero and moving us into unheated grass huts. > > > > 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. > > I thought it was more than good enough of an approximation for a back- > of-the-envelope estimate of a ~20% factor. Engineers do stuff like > that. But good engineers check their sources. > And, I got within 1.5%, for an overall error contribution of < 0.3%. > > Or did you mean it was a mistake for me to depend on something I > thought I might've heard from you? Granting how royally you screwed up in your 22nd November post, the answer seems pretty obvious. You really can't rely on your memory, any more than I could rely on my memory that Jeorg lived in Oregon, rather than in Northern California, close to the border with Oregon. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: John Fields on 29 Nov 2009 13:52 On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 10:32:54 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman <bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote: >On Nov 29, 5:08�am, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:> >> You living in the Netherlands so long, I would have expected you to speak Dutch too. > >I do. I passed NT2 (Dutch as a second language) in reading, listening >and speaking someyears ago. I didn't pass on my written Dutch - nobody >has ever wanted me to write Dutch so I've never had enough practice to >get rid of the minor grammatical errors. --- Then you didn't pass on your written English, either, I surmise. JF
From: Bill Sloman on 29 Nov 2009 13:58 On Nov 29, 5:28 am, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On a sunny day (Sat, 28 Nov 2009 21:05:35 -0800 (PST)) it happenedBill Sloman > <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote in > <dc44176d-0d2d-43b4-b9b5-a498b93c3...(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. > > And, on top of that, just found in a Usenet newsgroup: <snipped the usual denialist rubbish> What Jan doesn't seem to understand is the Exxon-Mobil has bought a bunch of US politicians - Senator James Imhofe is the most prominent example - who make it their business to harass high-profile climate scientists - of which Michael Mann is the archetype. It is all smoke and mirrors, but they can conjure up enough smoke to give other parts of the denialist propaganda machine "critical reports" to witter on about. http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: John Larkin on 29 Nov 2009 13:58 On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 12:44:05 -0600, John Fields <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: >On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 08:44:43 -0800, John Larkin ><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >>On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 20:31:39 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman >><bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote: >> >>>> It's been some time since you posted anything interesting or useful >>>> about electronic design. Last thing I remember is your perplexity that >>>> a simple oscillator simulation refused to squegg. >>> >>>That seems to reflect a weakness of the Gummel-Poon model. I'm working >>>on it. >> >>But you used mosfets. > >--- >Priceless!!! > >JF Sloman is clearly confused. I was of the impression that he was a sour, mean-spirited old git, but it's likely that he is actually delusional. As such, it's neither kind nor productive to argue with him. I can't imagine him finding "a weakness of the Gummel-Poon model", much less using that to explain why a simulated mosfet Royer oscillator doesn't squegg. So something is very weird here. John
From: Bill Sloman on 29 Nov 2009 14:00
On Nov 29, 5:10 am, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On a sunny day (Sat, 28 Nov 2009 21:05:35 -0800 (PST)) it happenedBill Sloman > <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote in > <dc44176d-0d2d-43b4-b9b5-a498b93c3...(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. Sure. We've noticed. What you may not have noticed is that his set of silly ideas doesn't have all that much in common with your set of silly ideas. People who understand science do have the advantage of defending the same coherent set of ideas. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen |