Ping Bil Slowman; The global warming hoax reveiled
in [Design]
|
From: John Fields on 30 Nov 2009 10:56 On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 19:34:14 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman <bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote: >On Nov 29, 3:09�pm, John Fields <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: >> 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. --- Unrealistic from the point of view of a delusional loon, perhaps. --- >> ><snipped the usual rubbish> >> >> --- >> Of course... >> >> Pretend what you can't counter is worthless. > >No need to pretend. --- And yet... JF
From: Uwe Hercksen on 30 Nov 2009 10:56 John Larkin schrieb: > The human cost of serious CO2 reduction would be immense, especially > in the poorest countries. Climate researchers have an overpowering > moral obligation to be honest and keep an open mind. Hello, when the sea level is rising due to melting ice and warming seawater, the flooding of all low level areas at the coast will cause tremendous cost. Think about New Orleans and New York, London, Hamburg, Amsterdam and lot more big cities by the sea on a very low level. Bye
From: Uwe Hercksen on 30 Nov 2009 10:59 Jon Kirwan schrieb: > Climate is averages, not noise. Not weather. And no one I know of, > least of all climate scientists, are stating that there will be > absolutely no cases where some particular glacier won't increase. > Cripes, if that were exactly true we'd be in a lot worse mess! Hello, 96 % of all studied glaciers do shrink, and only the rest of 4 % do increase. Bye
From: Jim Thompson on 30 Nov 2009 11:03 On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 16:56:57 +0100, Uwe Hercksen <hercksen(a)mew.uni-erlangen.de> wrote: > > >John Larkin schrieb: > >> The human cost of serious CO2 reduction would be immense, especially >> in the poorest countries. Climate researchers have an overpowering >> moral obligation to be honest and keep an open mind. > >Hello, > >when the sea level is rising due to melting ice and warming seawater, >the flooding of all low level areas at the coast will cause tremendous >cost. Think about New Orleans and New York, London, Hamburg, Amsterdam >and lot more big cities by the sea on a very low level. > >Bye Uninformed leftist loon. ...Jim Thompson -- | James E.Thompson, CTO | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
From: John Fields on 30 Nov 2009 11:06
On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 19:42:42 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman <bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote: >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? --- From you, nothing. If I want to know about something I prefer to do the legwork myself and not have opinions foisted on me as if they were facts. --- >I'm not going to get a job as a climate scientist, --- Or, obviously, as anything else. --- >but at least I know enough to be able to demonstrate that James Arthur >doesn't know what he is talking about. --- That's totally out of context and has nothing to do with anything other than taking a gratuitous snipe at someone. You _are_ a loon and should be posting your drivel to auk. JF |