Ping Bil Slowman; The global warming hoax reveiled
in [Design]
|
From: Jan Panteltje on 30 Nov 2009 06:34 On a sunny day (Sun, 29 Nov 2009 16:05:30 -0800 (PST)) it happened Bill Sloman <bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote in <8ec639f4-b3ad-4e04-8ddc-00163a2e85a6(a)o10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>: >On Nov 29, 11:24�am, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> On a sunny day (Sun, 29 Nov 2009 10:32:54 -0800 (PST)) it happenedBill Sl= >oman >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote in >> <4f60819e-9ee3-4ec2-8e4e-2068d5c3a...(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 better. > >This is pretty much my understanding of the climate cycles up to now > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles > >Since our injecting loads of CO2 into the atmosphere - enough to cause >enough heating already to substatially decrease the ice-cover within >the Arctic Circle - seems to be over-riding the positive feedbacks >that amplifed the the small forcing from the Milankovitch Effect >enough to let it explain the ice age to interglacial oscillation, this >is of strictly historical interest. > >I can't really see the necessity to understand something that isn't >happening any more. > >Idiot conservatives do keep on acting as if the world hasn't changed >right up to the moment that the change overwhelms them, so it probably >wouldn't be a good idea to acquire you "understanding" of natural >cycles, or your total ignorance of the physics that drove them. > >-- >Bill Sloman, Nijmegen I think you are just repeating yourself. Well, ice ages will come, ice ages will go. And *unless* we change earth's orbit etc etc (terra forming), it will repeat. You and the CO2 storage under your bed in your green grass hut, will NEVER make any difference. But if it gets really cold, or bleeding hot, and you have only windmills and solar cells... Too bad for the children's children. So.. forget about all the AGW stuff, build power plants. And be prepared to accept that nature will change the face of the earth, where people live. That is the reality, AGW dreams is just talk, sales talk at that.
From: John Fields on 30 Nov 2009 08:45 On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 15:47:51 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman <bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote: >On Nov 29, 10:41�am, John Fields <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> >wrote: >> On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 08:27:20 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman >> >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >> >On Nov 29, 5:53�am, John Fields <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: >> >> On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 17:55:50 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman >> >> >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >> >> >On Nov 28, 3:58�am, John Fields <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: >> >> >> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 00:38:11 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman >> >> >> >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >> >> >> >On Nov 27, 2:44�am, John Fields <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 15:18:18 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman >> >> >> >> >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >> >> >> >> >On Nov 26, 7:35�pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> On a sunny day (Thu, 26 Nov 2009 10:07:13 -0800 (PST)) it happenedBill Sloman >> >> >> >> >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote in >> >> >> >> >> <6e3552a1-ae05-4a2c-835f-9f245f6d0...(a)m25g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Without the [fossile] energy companies there would be no media, no energy= >> >> >> >> >> >, >> >> >> >> >> >> as your car does not run on electricity (yet). >> >> >> >> >> >> Without those machines, used to build cities, roads, transport goods, the= >> >> >> >> >> >re would be no civilisation >> >> >> >> >> >> and not even internet, and no printing material, no paper, some paper man= >> >> >> >> >> >ufacturers have their own power plants. >> >> >> >> >> >> >And if we keep on digging up fossil carbon and burning it, all these >> >> >> >> >> >nice things will go away again. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Been there. >> >> >> >> >> >> Now wake up from your green dreams. >> >> >> >> >> >> >An ironic appeal, since it comes from someone who clearly doesn't know >> >> >> >> >> >what he is talking about. >> >> >> >> >> >> mm, why do you say that of everybody except your comic book scientists? >> >> >> >> >> >I don't say it about everybody, but there are a number of people who >> >> >> >> >post here on subjects that they know very little about, and they quite >> >> >> >> >often post total nonsense. >> >> >> >> >> --- >> >> >> >> Like about being able to extract energy from a varying magnetic field >> >> >> >> surrounding a conductor by wrapping a solenoid around the conductor? >> >> >> >> >Joel Koltner was making a joke. The smiley should have told you that. >> >> >> >> --- >> >> >> He wasn't making a joke, he was being humorous in his presentation, you >> >> >> wretch. >> >> >> >> But, whether he was making a joke or not is immaterial, since I _proved_ >> >> >> my point by experimentation and presented the data and method for anyone >> >> >> who cared to replicate the experiment to do so. >> >> >> >Few people are so lacking in a sense of proportion that they'd bother. >> >> >> You really are no scientist are you? >> >> >And I'd suddenly become a "scientist" if I started wasting my time on >> >experiments that told me nothing I didn't already know, about a >> >subject in which I wasn't interested? >> >> --- >> At this point, what with the deceit you practice ... > >The deceit I practice? Perhaps you'd like to identify a specific >deceit. I've certainly told you things that you don't believe, but it >would have been deceitful to tell you what you wanted to hear. > ><snipped the rest, whatever it was> --- That snippage was deceitful because what you snipped identified the deceit you asked for. Of course you pretend that the snip was made without your knowing what you snipped, but we both know better than that, don't we? JF
From: John Fields on 30 Nov 2009 08:52 On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 16:05:30 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman <bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote: >I can't really see the necessity to understand something that isn't >happening any more. --- Here; read a little Santayana: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." JF
From: Uwe Hercksen on 30 Nov 2009 10:35 Joerg schrieb: > Ahm, the glacier north of us on Mt.Shasta is growing ... Hello, but 96 % of all studied glaciers are shrinking. What is the use of argumenting only with a very small minority? Bye
From: Uwe Hercksen on 30 Nov 2009 10:44
Joerg schrieb: > Here in Northern California people look at their water bills, they see > drought rates being charged more and more often. Warmingists predicted > we'd be swamped with precipitation by now. Didn't happen. Hello, the snow falling on the glacier of Mt. Shasta to keep it growing couldnt fall as rain somewhere else. Bye |