Ping Bil Slowman; The global warming hoax reveiled
in [Design]
|
From: Bill Sloman on 29 Nov 2009 22:34 On Nov 29, 3:09 pm, John Fields <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 17:59:33 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman > > > > > > <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >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. > > --- > Really? > > I get along quite well with almost everybody here, while you, with your > neverending pomposity and penchant for using deception to foment discord > seem to have trouble getting along with _anybody_. > --- John Field's self-image is healthily positive, but regrettably unrealistic. > ><snipped the usual rubbish> > > --- > Of course... > > Pretend what you can't counter is worthless. No need to pretend. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Bill Sloman on 29 Nov 2009 22:34 On Nov 29, 10:26 pm, John Fields <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 18:06:24 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman > > > > > > <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >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. > > --- > Actually, Bill, we _know_ you're a fraud. Sure, and you KNOW that the moon is made of green cheese. > And we're just the tip of the iceberg, More like the dregs of the usenet'svast collection of kooks. > I'm sure, so the longer you keep > on posting to USENET and your posts are examined by more and more > critical eyes and minds, the more obvious the fact that you're a fraud > will become. Fine. I've been posting for more than decade now, so I really ought to be a by-word. > >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. > > --- > You reap what you sow. > --- > > >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. > > --- > Just off the top of my head, the most recent was the power line and > solenoid debacle <snipped the rest of John Fields deluded babble. He didn't realise that Joel Koltner was making a joke, got all excited and did an EXPERIMENT and has been trying to convert this pratfall into something less embarassing ever since> -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Bill Sloman on 29 Nov 2009 22:42 On Nov 29, 10:51 pm, John Fields <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 18:44:08 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman > > > > > > <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >On Nov 28, 4:49 am, John Fields <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > >> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 07:12:48 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman > > >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >> >The aim is to educate you to the point where you can save yourself - > >> >there still seems to be quite a way to go. > > >> --- > >> Oh, please... > > >> The all-merciful guru wants to teach the human race to save themselves; > >> but only if they do it _his_ way. > > >John Fields seems think that learning to understand the science that > >underpins our understanding of anthropogenic global warming is > >equivalent to being indoctrinated in some kind of religious cult. > > --- > Not at all. > > It's obvious that if one wants to understand the impact of anthropogenic > global warming on our good earth or if, in fact, anthropogenic global > warming exists and, if it does, is good or bad, one must get into the > nitty-gritty of it all. What do you want to know about? I'm not going to get a job as a climate scientist, but at least I know enough to be able to demonstrate that James Arthur doesn't know what he is talking about. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Bill Sloman on 29 Nov 2009 22:48 On Nov 27, 7:40 pm, Rich Grise <richgr...(a)example.net> wrote: > >Bill Slomanwrote: > > >> You've made it clear that you don't enjoy having your errors corrected, > >> and you probably think that it would be a nice idea to save other people > >> from similar discomfort, but you shoudl keep in mind that looking like > >> an idiot on sci.electronics.design can be a lot cheaper than making a > >> fool of yourself in front of paying customers. > > You're obviously speaking from personal experince. ;-) Sure. I've seen it happen. I once inadvertently provoked a Ph.D. researcher at Texas Instruments (U.K.) into doing it to himself. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Bill Sloman on 29 Nov 2009 22:53
On Nov 29, 5:44 pm, John Larkin <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 20:31:39 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman > > <bill.slo...(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. The circuit that squegged in real life used bipolar transistors. The LTSpice model with MOSFETs didn't squeq either, but I'll get worried about that when I've got around to building an real example. It's taking longer than it should. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen |