Ping Bil Slowman; The global warming hoax reveiled
in [Design]
|
From: Bill Sloman on 29 Nov 2009 14:22 On Nov 29, 9:21 am, Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: > Bill Slomanwrote: > > On Nov 24, 6:03 pm, Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: > >> Bill Slomanwrote: > >>> On Nov 24, 3:28 am, Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: > >>>> Bill Slomanwrote: > >>>>> On Nov 22, 11:04 pm, Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: > >>>>>> Bill Slomanwrote: > >>>>>>> On Nov 22, 5:14 am, John Larkin > >>>>>>> <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 18:14:04 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman > >>>>>>>> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Nov 22, 12:00 am, John Larkin > >>>>>>>>> <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >>>>>> [...] > >>>>>>>>>>http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/com... > >>> Presumably this kind of evidence is a little too hard to fake. > >> All one has to do is look at Al Gore, his mansions and all. Living > >> green. Yeah, right. > > > He was rich long before he was active against global warming, even > > though his book "Earth in the Balance" dates back to 1992. > > A preacher that doesn't live by his teachings? We oughta, coulda, > shoulda, but not me? There you go, thinking that anthropogenic global warming is a religion, rather than a well-established scientific theory. Presumably Al Gore has done the rational calculation that says his energy slurping life-style allows him to persuade more people that anthropogenic global warming is real than he could reach if he confined himself to lectuing only to venues that he could reach on a bicycle, and that his influence on this larger audiece will more than compensate for the extra CO2 emissions that he has generated in getting to them. It makes sense to me. > >>> Sourcewatch gets its data from Exxon-Mobil's published accounts, which > >>> provide rather better evidence than the kinds of conspiracy theories > >>> with which Ravinghorde regales us. > >> Got a link the _proves_ that Exxon tries to fudge science here? Similar > >> to those embarrassing email? > > > This is the usual reference > > >http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/sep/20/oilandpetrol.business > > > which reports the British Royal Society's letter to Exxon-Mobil > > So? Quote "In a letter earlier this month to Esso, the UK arm of > ExxonMobil, the Royal Society cites its own survey which found that > ExxonMobil last year distributed $2.9m to 39 groups that the society > says misrepresent the science of climate change" > > That is propaganda in my eyes. If the IPCC says that others > "misrepresent" the science that doesn't mean a thing to me anymore. At > least not right now. > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial > > Quote "... sent letters that "attack the UN's panel as 'resistant to > reasonable criticism and dissent and prone to summary conclusions that > are poorly supported by the analytical work'" > > Remember the recently leaked emails? If that isn't enough proof of > "resistant to reasonable criticism" of scientists to you then I can't > help you. If you knew a little bit more about the subject you'd be aware that the resistance wasn't to "reasonable criticism" but to politically motivated harassment. The fuss about the recent e-mails is essentially another steaming heap of denialist propaganda, designed to appeal to lunatic conspiracy theory fans like Ravinghorde. We hear a great deal about how the editor of Climate Research got the boot for publishing a scandalously bad paper that the denialsists happen to like. We don't hear that Lindzen was publishing his rather better, if evnetually falsified, sceptical papers in other journals at the same time without generating any kind of fuss. > > is more comprehensive, and > > >http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/global_warmi... > > > points to a very comprehensive report by the Union of Concerned > > Scientists (UCS). > > Ah yes, the usual witch hunt. By a "union of concerned scientists". The quality is a lot better than "the usual witch hunt". They cite their sources, and Exxon-Mobil hasn't bothered to try to sue them or even smear them. You don't seem to have noticed that some of the people who are now telling you that the case for anthropogenic global warming isn't as strong as the scientific community claims, were telling you - a decade or so ago - that smoking wasn't as damaging to your health as those medical alarmists were telling you back then. It is all a little transparent when you take the time to look. > I've asked for _proof_ where Exxon _fudged_ science. Sorry, but you did > not deliver that. I did. You couldn't be bothered to understand it. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Jan Panteltje on 29 Nov 2009 14:24 On a sunny day (Sun, 29 Nov 2009 10:32:54 -0800 (PST)) it happened Bill Sloman <bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote in <4f60819e-9ee3-4ec2-8e4e-2068d5c3af35(a)c34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>: >And I have learned other languages - French, German, and a little >Russian. I've never used any of them enough to be truly fluent, and >learning Dutch compleltely destroyed my capacity to speak German, >though I now understand it a bit better than I used to. Now all you need is to understand climate cycles a bit betetr.
From: Jan Panteltje on 29 Nov 2009 14:30 On a sunny day (Sun, 29 Nov 2009 10:37:35 -0800 (PST)) it happened Bill Sloman <bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote in <53c4e7ef-9900-4e47-a015-18d519be7df3(a)u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>: >On Nov 27, 2:46�pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> Here you go Bill: > >There you go Jan. > >Posting denialist propaganda may be a nice way of showing your >gratitude to Exxon-Mobil, but it is a complete waste of bandwidth. > >You need to read this document > >http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf I do not read that sort of stuff, obviously a greenies anti plot :-) As to the bigger picture, the though that came into my mind about all this, is that those emails were made public the same day (almost) the global climate meeting flopped. So, in the white house, 'mmmm let's do some any AGW stuff now.' Some phone calls, some papers print it, *especially* in the US. Here they probably want to hang on to it more because of tax revenue. Making the public opinion. You have been assimilated (either way), resistance is futile. Q
From: Michael A. Terrell on 29 Nov 2009 14:45 Jamie wrote: > > Bill Sloman wrote: > > > 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 > > > Hmm, I think I can smell fire and brimstone. Then it's time for your yearly bath. -- The movie 'Deliverance' isn't a documentary!
From: John Fields on 29 Nov 2009 15:31
On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 11:00:30 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman <bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote: >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. --- I'm sure that Jan and the rest of us here who actually _do_ science defend the coherent set of ideas which includes experimentation as part of the scientific method. You, on the other hand, seem to pooh-pooh it as an unnecessary exercise best left to churls and pretend to practice science by mounting endless tirades where nothing matters but _your_ opinion. JF |