Ping Bil Slowman; The global warming hoax reveiled
in [Design]
|
From: Joerg on 2 Dec 2009 12:59 Mark Zenier wrote: > In article <slrnhh1de5.65g.don(a)manx.misty.com>, > Don Klipstein <don(a)manx.misty.com> wrote: >> (I have a bit of impression that the location in question is east rim of >> the Central Valley ENE of Sacramento - any correction/clarification? >> How about elevation? - that may matter in local or regional weather and >> climate issues.) > > (Remembering some trivia from some threads about aiming TV antennas to > pick up DTV). > > http://www.airnav.com/airport/O61 > Yup, that's it. Don't mention DTV to other residents in this area, by now many of them are extremely p....d about it. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM.
From: Rich Grise on 2 Dec 2009 13:24 > Jon Kirwan wrote: >> >> Read your comments here, again. But do so from the point of view of >> someone outside of you. I am staying on target about gaining a fully >> comprehensive view before deciding on the basis of some very sparse >> points you cleave onto, that there is systemic, cross-discipline perfidy >> going on in climate research. Do you realize the grand sweep of your >> accusations -- the sheer and unbridled magnitude of them? And based >> upon what, exactly? Probably some of these: http://eastangliaemails.com/ Hope This Helps! Rich
From: Rich Grise on 2 Dec 2009 13:27 On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 16:52:40 -0800, dagmargoodboat wrote: > On Dec 1, 3:08�pm, Rich Grise <richgr...(a)example.net> wrote: >> On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 11:12:09 -0800, dagmargoodboat wrote: >> >> > Even so, if the NAMDO--which affects temperatures and weather and >> > clouds--isn't understood, as you concede, how did those climate models >> > accurately project and integrate the effects of those clouds over all >> > that simulated time? �If the GCM doesn't know how many, how >> > reflective, and how widespread the clouds are, how can it compute and >> > integrate the solar input to calculate total warming? �It can't. >> >> > It's bogus. >> >> Everybody knows Garbage In, Garbage Out. >> >> Therefore, garbage into a garbage "model" yields Garbage Squared. ;-) > > And here I thought you were going to say GI==> GM ==>"Policy" ! There's a difference? ;-) Cheers! Rich
From: John Fields on 2 Dec 2009 14:50 On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 08:10:38 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman <bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote: >On Dec 1, 5:29�pm, John Fields <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: >> On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 23:17:00 -0800, "JosephKK"<quiettechb...(a)yahoo.com> >> wrote: >> >> >On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 12:41:47 -0600, 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: >> >> >So you have demonstrated what Bill is to your satisfaction. �Well and >> >good. >> >> >Could you now just ignore him, even you are getting frustrated with >> >the way his evasions waste everybody's time. >> >> --- >> Yes, you're right. >> >> The points I made were valid > >The claim his said I was making is entirely his own invention. > >>and my science was clean, > >Since he invented the claim he wanted to disagree with, it ought to >have been. > >>no matter how he >> chooses to rail on, so it's time to disengage. > >He's finally realised that he has been talking to himself, at >ridiculous length, and now he is putting a brave face on slinking back >into his box. --- Well, one last post to put everything into its proper perspective, and then I'll let you get on with your ridiculous little mean-spirited life. 1. Joel Koltner commented that it would be possible to steal power by wrapping a bunch of turns around a power line. 2. I said it wouldn't be possible and asked if he knew why. 3. He said because the federales would come and get you if you tried. 4. I stated that that wasn't it, it was because you can't get power to transfer using a solenoid that way. 5. You jumped in saying I was wrong because 'power lines' is plural, and because of that, current in the conductors would be going in opposite directions and the magnetic fields generated about the conductors would cancel Notice _in particular_ that you didn't state that current wouldn't be induced in the solenoid because it was a solenoid, but because of the cancellation of the magnetic fields. Then, in the very next breath, you went on to state that if the conductors in the 'line' were separated and a clamp-on meter wrapped around one of them then the conductors would act like the primary of a transformer and power could be had out of the secondary. Now, and this is very important, notice that you nowhere claimed that power _couldn't_ be had from a solenoid wrapped around a conductor, and you even went so far as to describe the deployment of the meter as being _wrapped_ around the conductor, indicating that you thought it _was_ a solenoid. 6. I then devised and ran my experiment in order to demonstrate that your belief that power could be had from a solenoid was wrong, whereupon you belittled the experiment while digesting its meaning, waited a little while, and then proclaimed that you knew it was a toroid all along and even tried to make it seem like it was me who was proclaiming the solenoid the winner. So there you have it, a little slice of the life story of Bill Sloman, Weaver of Tangled Webs. JF
From: Malcolm Moore on 2 Dec 2009 16:35
On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 12:01:48 GMT, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealmtje(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >On a sunny day (Tue, 1 Dec 2009 17:27:17 -0800 (PST)) it happened Bill Sloman ><bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote in ><6a65fb45-1d30-40e4-a3ad-88c318eb0f31(a)k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>: > >>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. > >I never said that, and I was the one who made the case for nuclear power. >You are starting to be a twising lier, just like your fellow warmists. You posted a lie here the other day when you forwarded a post from us.politics describing someone as a professor when they certainly aren't. I corrected you here on sed. Have you posted back to us.politics pointing out this error? If not why not? Do you condone lies from your side of the debate? -- Regards Malcolm Remove sharp objects to get a valid e-mail address |