Ping Bil Slowman; The global warming hoax reveiled
in [Design]
|
From: Joerg on 22 Nov 2009 16:52 Jan Panteltje wrote: > On a sunny day (Sat, 21 Nov 2009 14:41:58 -0800) it happened Joerg > <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote in <7mr8loF3j4o64U1(a)mid.individual.net>: > >>> Could be, I already looked up if CO2 was heavier then air (it is): >>> http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090611040945AAPt3oV >>> else it would be very dangerous to live here. >>> But some geological processes could push it upwards, you would get suffocated in your sleep, >>> nowhere to run, even if you found out what was happening. >>> CO2 detector, oxygen equipment, fast car or helicopter, and you MAY have a chance :-) >> >> If for some reason pressure shifts down there and a bubble gets pushed >> up you may not have time to start the turbo-shaft engine in your >> helicopter. Besides you sitting there slumped over the controls, it also >> needs some oxygen to work. > > Yes, after I wrote that, I realised the copter and the car would not start... no oxygen. > Then the only way would be a helium balloon in the attic, with big flaps that open in the roof, > so it can take of vertically, and then, when in fresh air, have the wind blow you elsewhere. > Hot air balloon will not work either, no oxygen for the burners, and hydrogen is dangerous, > but could perhaps be used. > Like that balloon that real scientist makes in the movie 'Waterworld' (recommended movie), > the one he saves everybody with. > Probably your only chance would be an oxygen pack for each family member and a corresponding number of electric mopeds. I guess you guys couldn't call the bromfietsen then :-) Plus a LOUD CO2 alarm. [...] -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM.
From: Joerg on 22 Nov 2009 17:04 Bill Sloman wrote: > 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... >>>> " The other paper by MM is just garbage � as you knew. De Freitas >>>> again. Pielke is also losing all credibility as well by replying to >>>> the mad Finn as well � frequently as I see it. I can�t see either of >>>> these papers being in the next IPCC report. K and I will keep them out >>>> somehow � even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature >>>> is ! " >>> Obviously not intended for publication, but why would you ever think >>> that because scientists are obliged to publish sober and rational >>> arguments, they aren't emotionally involved in their work? >> Because they respect the scientific method? Because they honor truth? > > There's no contradiction between emotional involvement and respecting > the scientific method. > Did you really read John's quote? Quote of quote: "K and I will keep them out somehow � even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is ! " If this was truly said then I have lost all respect for those guys. Any and all. But they have already lost much of it a long time ago, at least in this neighborhood (which is full of engineers). [...] -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM.
From: Raveninghorde on 22 Nov 2009 18:36 On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 14:04:45 -0800, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >Bill Sloman wrote: >> 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... >>>>> " The other paper by MM is just garbage � as you knew. De Freitas >>>>> again. Pielke is also losing all credibility as well by replying to >>>>> the mad Finn as well � frequently as I see it. I can�t see either of >>>>> these papers being in the next IPCC report. K and I will keep them out >>>>> somehow � even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature >>>>> is ! " >>>> Obviously not intended for publication, but why would you ever think >>>> that because scientists are obliged to publish sober and rational >>>> arguments, they aren't emotionally involved in their work? >>> Because they respect the scientific method? Because they honor truth? >> >> There's no contradiction between emotional involvement and respecting >> the scientific method. >> > >Did you really read John's quote? Quote of quote: "K and I will keep >them out somehow � even if we have to redefine what the peer-review >literature is ! " > >If this was truly said then I have lost all respect for those guys. Any >and all. But they have already lost much of it a long time ago, at least >in this neighborhood (which is full of engineers). > >[...] I like this one: /quote The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't. /end quote But the science is settled:( Awaits a follow up from a George Soros shill.
From: Bill Sloman on 22 Nov 2009 19:39 On Nov 22, 10:50 pm, Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: > Bill Slomanwrote: > > On Nov 21, 11:41 pm, Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: > >> Jan Panteltje wrote: > >>> On a sunny day (Sat, 21 Nov 2009 13:10:31 -0800) it happened Joerg > >>> <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote in <7mr3a8F3jab6...(a)mid.individual.net>: > >>>>> One can wonder what the real truth is, about temperature, and then again about > >>>>> what causes it, you know there were, and will be, ice ages, nobody > >>>>> was having coal plants in the previous one to create CO2 (in the Netherlands they now want to store the CO2 > >>>>> in the ground under my house almost), so, all feeble science. > >>>> Time to sell? Once this sort of "project" has moved along far enough you > >>>> might not be able to, for the price you'd want. > >>> Could be, I already looked up if CO2 was heavier then air (it is): > >>> http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090611040945AAPt3oV > >>> else it would be very dangerous to live here. > >>> But some geological processes could push it upwards, you would get suffocated in your sleep, > >>> nowhere to run, even if you found out what was happening. > >>> CO2 detector, oxygen equipment, fast car or helicopter, and you MAY have a chance :-) > >> If for some reason pressure shifts down there and a bubble gets pushed > >> up you may not have time to start the turbo-shaft engine in your > >> helicopter. Besides you sitting there slumped over the controls, it also > >> needs some oxygen to work. > > > Of course, if this were likely to happen, Barendrecht would have > > vanished in a giant fireball sometime in the last few thousand years, > > when the - now exhausted - natural gas field under the town had pushed > > a bubble of natural gas up to the surface. > > >http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5i0gwwjN8hkEa1SyfHo... > > > <snipped the rest of the idiot anxieties> > > Oh yeah? > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Nyos Lake Nyos is a deep lake and the water was saturated with CO2 from the bottom up. The pressure at the bottom of the lake is a lot higher than at the surface, so the CO2 concentration at the bottom of the lake was a lot higher than that at the top. This is an unstable situation, and once a part of the deeper water started moving towards the surface, the CO2 started coming out of solution, making that volume of water and CO2 less dense, so that it rose more rapidly. As your web-site says a "300-foot (91 m) fountain of water and foam formed at the surface of the lake". The CO2 to be stored a couple of kilometres under Barendrecht, in an exhausted natural gas field, would have a rather tougher time getting out. The natural gas field held the the natural gas under Barendrecht without letting it out since Barendrecht started keeping written records, and most likely for a few hundred million years before that, so the two situations don't seem to be entirely comparable. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Bill Sloman on 22 Nov 2009 19:43
On Nov 22, 7:48 pm, John Larkin <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 06:45:03 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman > > > > > > <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >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: > >> >> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 11:54:05 GMT, Jan Panteltje > > >> >> <pNaonStpealm...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> >> >The global warming hoax revealed: > >> >> >http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html?partne... > > >> >> ><Quote from that article> > >> >> >This shows these are people willing to bend rules and > >> >> >go after other people's reputations in very serious ways,' he said.. Spencer > >> >> >R. Weart, a physicist and historian who is charting the course of research > >> >> >on global warming, said the hacked material would serve as 'great material > >> >> >for historians.' > >> >> ><end quote> > > >> >> >LOL. > >> >> >Some science! > > >> >> >And that in a leftist newspaper! > > >> >>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125883405294859215.html?mod=googlenew... > > >> >> "In several of the emails, climate researchers discussed how to > >> >> arrange for favorable reviewers for papers they planned to publish in > >> >> scientific journals. At the same time, climate researchers at times > >> >> appeared to pressure scientific journals not to publish research by > >> >> other scientists whose findings they disagreed with." > > >> >Most scientists have a fair idea of who might be asked to review their > >> >papers, and adjust the papers to encourage editors to go for the more > >> >constructive and well-informed of the likely referees. > > >> >They also have opinions about the kind of work that other people do, > >> >the reliability of the results that other scientists claim, and the > >> >quality of the papers that they produce. Some people are bad enough > >> >that they end up trying to publish in journals on the edges of their > >> >field, where the editors won't know how untrustworthy they are. > >> >Personal contacts often mean that they don't get away with it. > > >> >> Some good stuff here: > > >> >>http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/com... > > >> >> " The other paper by MM is just garbage as you knew. De Freitas > >> >> again. Pielke is also losing all credibility as well by replying to > >> >> the mad Finn as well frequently as I see it. I cant see either of > >> >> these papers being in the next IPCC report. K and I will keep them out > >> >> somehow even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature > >> >> is ! " > > >> >Obviously not intended for publication, but why would you ever think > >> >that because scientists are obliged to publish sober and rational > >> >arguments, they aren't emotionally involved in their work? > > >> Because they respect the scientific method? Because they honor truth? > > >There's no contradiction between emotional involvement and respecting > >the scientific method. > > >> I thought they were obliged to publish their actual measured results, > >> not cherry-picked or outright fudged data. > > >They are. Adjusting papers to persuade editors to select constructive > >referees is primarily a matter of choosing the right papers to cite in > >the introduction of the paper and and in the discusion of the > >conclusions. > > >For preferred referees you cite papers for which they are first > >authors and you try to avoid citing non-preferred referees or a least > >confine yourself to papers where they aren't first authors. Careful > >choice of synonyms can also be useful in in directing an editor's > >thoughts towards the righ referee. > > >> Apparently not. > > >Wrong. Cherry-picking and fudging data is a career-wrecking crime, and > >since such data doesn't replicate when somebody else does the > >experiment, you have to be an idiot as well as a psychopath to try it. > > But climate is not subject to experiment. Historically, science has > tended to be erratic, faddish, and usually wrong until corrected by > experiment. Darwin's Theory of Evolution wasn't based on experiment. Neither is modern astronomy. Would you like to detail the errati, faddish and incorrect parts of these areas of science? -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen |