Ping Bil Slowman; The global warming hoax reveiled
in [Design]
|
From: Bill Sloman on 1 Dec 2009 20:28 On Dec 1, 3:55 pm, John Fields <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 18:02:12 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman > > > > > > <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >On Nov 29, 7:52 pm, John Fields <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > >> On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 10:32:54 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman > > >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >> >On Nov 29, 5:08 am, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:> > >> >> You living in the Netherlands so long, I would have expected you to speak Dutch too. > > >> >I do. I passed NT2 (Dutch as a second language) in reading, listening > >> >and speaking someyears ago. I didn't pass on my written Dutch - nobody > >> >has ever wanted me to write Dutch so I've never had enough practice to > >> >get rid of the minor grammatical errors. > > >> --- > >> Then you didn't pass on your written English, either, I surmise. > > >Oddly enough, they didn't test me on that - it was a test of my > >comptetence in Dutch. > > --- > But, obviously, if the criteria the Dutch used to fail your written > Dutch were used by your instructor of English, your lack of > "comptetence" in written English wouldn't have allowed you to pass that > either. Dream on. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Bill Sloman on 1 Dec 2009 20:47 On Dec 1, 4:52 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On a sunny day (Tue, 1 Dec 2009 07:03:08 -0800 (PST)) it happenedBill Sloman > <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote in > <783e8bc3-404a-4357-9a3e-48202ba23...(a)k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>: > > >> >the causes of the ice ages leads directly to the conclusion that there > >> >aren't going to be any more "natural" climate cycles to understand, > >> >because anthropogenic effects have overwhelmed th natural driving > >> >forces. > > >> Bull, your data A is in that noise! > > >One wonders why Jan thinks that. > > Look, even specialised scientists working years on that issue cannot agree it is above noise level. And where do they say that? > Only Bill Sloman thinks so, and some other AGW fanatics. Describing the IPCC as AGW fanatics does seem to be a popular sport amongst lunatic denialists, but even George W. Bush didn't dare go that far. > How many sigma do you have proof of? The IPCC figure is 0.74°C [0.56°C to 0.92°C] where the limits are presumably +/- 2.5 sigma, so the 0.74 warming in the last century is about four standard deviations. > from non cooked data? Anybody can claim that data has been cooked, but nobody has proved it, nor shown any sign of coming close to proving that anybody has "cooked" the relevant data. > Nobody knows right? Wrong. > But we *do* know ice ages came and went, without us helping. And now we know how. > Ice ages will keep coming, and will keep going. Actually, they won't. They started up about 2.58 million years ago, and the current anthropogenic global warming has already been enough to ensure that the next ice age won't arrive until after we've gone extinct. > We need the energy to cope with that. Not if there isn't going to be an ice age. > 24/7 available energy at that. Not really. There are all sorts of ways of storing energy ovrnight. > No climate dependent like win and sun dependent. > Now you could have thought of that yourself :-) Only if I was as far out of touch with reality as as you are. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Bill Sloman on 1 Dec 2009 20:55 On Dec 1, 4:14 pm, John Fields <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 18:07:14 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman > > <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >On Nov 30, 4:12 pm, John Fields <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > >> 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. > > >In other words, to find out whether something you think you know is > >true or false. If you knew it was true, you wouldn't bother doing the > >experiment. > > --- > Not true. > > In this case I knew that what I knew was true, but since you were of the > opinion that it was false, And I'd expressed that opinion where? Let's see a direct quote, not one more of your fantasies explaining why I was not taking your vapourings seriously. > I performed the experiment to give you a > real-world, replicatable base from which to evaluate my position. But your position was based on some deluded idea of what was being discussed, not anything that I'd posted > Of course you chose to denigrate it, but that's what you always do when > you're faced with irrefutable facts with which you disagree. Not that you've ever come up with any. This doesn't stop you from making fatuous claims to this effect - as here - based on one of your usual deluded misunderstandings. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: John Fields on 1 Dec 2009 21:06 On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 16:37:32 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman <bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote: >On Dec 1, 3:27�pm, John Fields <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: >> On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 16:40:28 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman >> >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >> >On Nov 30, 3:37�pm, John Fields <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: >> >> On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 19:34:39 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman >> >> >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >> >> ><snipped the usual pleasantries> >> >> >> Hardly, since the experiment was done in order to show you (I even >> >> emailed it to you, remember, since for some reason you can't access >> >> abse?) that you were wrong about being able to extract energy from the >> >> varying magnetic field surrounding a conductor by wrapping a solenoid >> >> around it. >> >> >The solenoid was entirely your idea. A clamp-on meter - which is what >> >I was talking about - isn't a solenoid, but a toroidal transformer >> >core which can be opened and closed. The output power - such as it is >> >- is extracted from a second wiinding wrapped around part of that >> >core. >> >> >This �creates a perfectly conventional transformer with a single-turn >> >primary - one of the power companies active lines runs inside the >> >toroid, and the rest run outside, forming a rather loosely wound >> >single turn. >> >> >You didn't understand �this and got excited and ran your "experiment" >> >with a solenoid and a bunch of wires - a configuration that has >> >nothing to do with clamp-on meters >> >> --- >> I see you _still_ don't understand the experiment. > >I understand it well enough. You had a solenoid and bunch of wires and >you wanted to play with them. --- Ah, I see. You really _did_ finally understand the experiment and now you're just trying to do damage control by clipping the part that shows you had no clue that a passive clamp-on ammeter uses a toroidal transformer for the sensor. Here's the part you clipped: <QUOTE> If you did, you'd have realized that there were two different configurations; one with a solenoid wound around a conductor carrying an alternating current, and the other with a toroid surrounding the conductor. Here's the data: SOLENOID TOROID T/S ----------+----------+------- CURRENT 4.17�A 34.1mA 818 VOLTAGE 28.81�V 11.295V 3.92e5 T/S is the ratio of the output to the input, so you can see how truly disparate they are. <END QUOTE> --- Geez, Bill, talking about being disingenuous for a moment, you're presented with an argument, in the form of an experiment which clearly proves that your earlier belief that power can be transferred into a load by a solenoid surrounding a conductor carrying an alternating current is wrong and yet, instead of acceding to the truth and admitting your error you press on, hoping that a miracle will save you. Oh, but wait... You don't believe in miracles. JF
From: John Larkin on 1 Dec 2009 22:30
On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 17:27:17 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman <bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote: >On Dec 2, 12:47�am, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: >> Malcolm Moore <abor1953nee...(a)yahoodagger.co.nz> wrote: >> > dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: >> >> > >I thought it interesting that even France is so dependent on fossil >> > >fuels. �Even more than 82% (of total energy), if they use coal. >> >> > So you should have stated that rather than offering a "fact check." >> >> Maybe. �But Bill later said he meant France as an example of >> independence from fossil fuels. > >Huh? I don't remember saying that. The point was that France gets a a >substantial proportion of its energy from nuclear power stations, >while Jan seemed to be saying that everything is powered by burning >fossil carbon. > >>�So, a fact check as to the extent >> that independence was entirely appropriate. > >Except that it wasn't a fact check at all, but the usual debating >trick of framing things to suit your own point of view, delivered >with the usual sanctimonious bombast. Your off-topic ratio must be literally around 99%. Your offensive-to-friendly ratio is similar. Why? John |