Ping Bil Slowman; The global warming hoax reveiled
in [Design]
|
From: Michael A. Terrell on 30 Nov 2009 12:49 John Fields wrote: > > On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 16:18:33 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman > <bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote: > > >On Nov 29, 12:31 pm, John Fields <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> > >wrote: > >> On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 11:00:30 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> <bill.slo...(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. > > > >I think you are confusing experimentation - which involves findng out > >something you don't know already - and theatrical gestures. > > --- > Experimentation isn't used to find out something you don't know, it's > used to confirm whether what you think you know is either right or > wrong. > > So you really aren't a scientist, just an actor? So, that's where 'Pee Wee Herman' went! -- The movie 'Deliverance' isn't a documentary!
From: dagmargoodboat on 30 Nov 2009 12:55 On Nov 29, 3:56 pm, John Larkin <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > Try this! > > http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/HARRY_READ_ME.txt > > John Or this: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece "SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based." [...] "The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals stored on paper and magnetic tape were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building." Hey, Phil Jones, Mr. let's-delete-our-AR4-e-mails, is the director of the CRU (Climatic Research Unit). I hadn't noticed that. -- Cheers, James Arthur
From: John Larkin on 30 Nov 2009 13:03 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 If sea level rise is real, it might be a problem. John
From: John Larkin on 30 Nov 2009 13:04 On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 16:59:29 +0100, Uwe Hercksen <hercksen(a)mew.uni-erlangen.de> wrote: > > >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 Do you design electronics? Tell us about it. John
From: dagmargoodboat on 30 Nov 2009 13:06
On Nov 29, 1:58 pm, John Larkin <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 12:44:05 -0600, John Fields > > > > <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > >On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 08:44:43 -0800, 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. > > >--- > >Priceless!!! > > >JF > > Sloman is clearly confused. I was of the impression that he was a > sour, mean-spirited old git, but it's likely that he is actually > delusional. As such, it's neither kind nor productive to argue with > him. He's gotta be maxed out over his heart. That's no fun. Maybe we should have mercy, lest he explode it. -- Cheers, James Arthur |