Ping Bil Slowman; The global warming hoax reveiled
in [Design]
|
From: Malcolm Moore on 2 Dec 2009 18:31 On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 22:29:31 GMT, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealmtje(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >On a sunny day (Thu, 03 Dec 2009 10:35:24 +1300) it happened Malcolm Moore ><abor1953needle(a)yahoodagger.co.nz> wrote in ><08mdh5lafs2v2f5fhervp7np5mnmmgsn2q(a)4ax.com>: > >>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. > >I did not see your correction. Ok, here's the relevant part of that post again. <begin paste of original response> <Jan originally posted> >Here is some more, grabbed from us.politics today: > > > From: Eunometic <eunometic(a)yahoo.com.au> > Newsgroups: alt.politics.british,uk.politics.misc,aus.politics,us.politics,soc.culture.irish > Subject: Proff Bob Carter Torpedoes Climate Hoax > Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 22:39:38 -0800 (PST) > > Below find some videos for those too busy to read a book. > > Professor Bob Carter > http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=-1326937617167558947&ei=1oAOS8ynNJv-qAO1loDkDQ&hl=en# > Note in minute 31 of the video he mentions some of the work of the > infamous jones who is involved in climate gate emails. > > Dr Tim Ball on Climate Gate, how peer review and the IPCC was > corrupted. > http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/22/video-dr-tim-ball-on-the-cru-emails/#more-13062 > > Proffesor Ian Wishart, author of "Air Con" > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90otAJORkK8 <I replied> Why don't the likes of Raveninghorde & yourself ever check the material you find and post. Ian Wishart is not a professor. A google or wikipedia search would have quickly revealed that. He is a journalist/publisher who inhabits the conspiracy theory end of the publishing world. A review of Air Con is at http://hot-topic.co.nz/somethin%E2%80%99-stupid/ That review led in part to http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/2009/08/air-con-author-preparing-to-sue-herald-and-hot-topic.html the threatened legal action has not eventuated. I took a stab in the middle of that youtube video. After referring to claims of melting icecaps, he's talking about possible sea level rise and how the landscape behind him used to be at the bottom of the ocean and is now 100m above, and CO2 has had nothing to do with that. That's entirely correct, what he doesn't mention is that the landscape is in New Zealand and it has uplifted due to tectonic plate movement, nothing to do with sea level change due to changing amounts of water stored as ice. Perhaps the conspiracy is coming from your favoured sources, but I've always preferred the saying about not atributing to conspiracy that which can more simply be explained by stupidity. <end paste>. If you can't be bothered reading the review of his book linked above, here's a short excerpt that quotes a passage from the book; <begin quote> Consider the mental space occupied by someone who is willing to write, publish and promote this (p247): What they [�wild greens�] really mean is that they want ordinary families and kids to become extinct, leaving space for the Green elite to run the planet and enjoy exclusive bird-watching excursions while feasting on the bones of six year olds who�d earlier been sold to Asian brothels." <end quote> Sheesh! >>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? > >It is not really that important, if he is prof or not, >as it does not change global temperature now or in the future. Describing him as a professor is an appeal to credibility he most certainly doesn't have. No, it won't make a difference to temperatures, http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/environment/climate-change-emails-stop-glaciers-from-melting-200911252254/ but it does make a difference to public perception, which is important where politics is involved. I applaud your dislike of lying, please post a correction to us.p and the cross posted groups. -- Regards Malcolm Remove sharp objects to get a valid e-mail address
From: Bill Sloman on 2 Dec 2009 18:38 On Dec 2, 8:50 pm, John Fields <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 08:10:38 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman > > > > > > <bill.slo...(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. You missed the point. By taking what Joel Koltner actually said, I could demonstrate that what he proposed wouldn't work in a simpler and more comprehensive way that you were doing. > 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. I didn't have to. If there's no external flux to change in the first place, there's no point in worrying about the topology of the winding that might have reacted to the flux change if there had been any. > 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. The toroidal core in a clamp-on meter *is* wrapped around one of the active conductors. That's what I said. Topologically speaking, this is perfectly correct, and - since it mimics the wording of Joel Koltner's original comical suggestion - it reiterates Joel Koltner's original joke. You seem to have mssed this. You have got it into your head that the form if words that I used doesn't preclude the idea that I though that a clamp on meter was a kind of solenoid, but this falls a long way short of establishig that I harboured this particular delusion. For what it's worth, I can't actually remember when I had the ahha! moment for clamp-on meters, but I think it was before 1980. > 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. Since I never bothered to digest the meaning of your experiment, this merely illustrates that you have been letting your imagination range way outside the bounds of probability. I think I commented at the time that it wasn't clear what on earth you had actually done, and I certainly wasn't sufficiently interested to put any effort into trying and to work out what you had been doing, apart from barking up the wrong tree. > So there you have it, a little slice of the life story of Bill Sloman, > Weaver of Tangled Webs. More like an insight into the thought processes of John Fields, source of implausible and untestable hypotheses. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Bill Sloman on 2 Dec 2009 18:43 On Dec 2, 6:56 am, mzen...(a)eskimo.com (Mark Zenier) wrote: > In article <7nb91fF3l1ab...(a)mid.individual.net>, > > Joerg <n...(a)analogconsultants.com> wrote: > >Yeah, your old conspiracy theory. > > Sigh. > > http://www.defendingscience.org/Doubt_is_Their_Product.cfm Looks like an interesting book. I'm depressed to realise that the tobacco industry tactics are also being used by polluters dealing in "asbestos, lead, plastics, and many other toxic materials". I'll have to get myself a copy, not that I'm suffering any shortage of windmills to tilt at. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Bill Sloman on 2 Dec 2009 18:51 On Dec 2, 4:57 pm, John Fields <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 01:22:27 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman > > > > > > <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >On Nov 27, 2:44 am, John Fields <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > > >> >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? > > >A subject on which you have posted a lot of nonsense. You did take > >that joke seriously, as if there was some doubt that it was a joke, > >and since then you have been wasting bandwidth trying to to claim that > >my treating it as a joke meant that I didn't understand that it was > >joke. > > >One expects puppies to chase their own tails, but it is unusual to see > >an adult so wound up in his own misconceptions. > > --- > Indeed, and now that you've been shown that a solenoid won't work in the > way you originally thought it did, you should be wagging your tail > instead of chasing it. I never said anything about whether a solenoid would work or not - not because I thought that a solenoid would work (which is the delusion that you have been trying to foist on me), but because the way Joel Koltner actually worded his joke precluded there being any external field for anything to work on. My explanation trumped yours, becaase I'd paid attention to what Joel Koltner actually said, an example you should have followed, rather than getting excited about what I hadn't said. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Jon Kirwan on 2 Dec 2009 19:01
On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 14:51:23 -0800, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >Jon Kirwan wrote: >> On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 09:56:35 -0800, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> >> wrote: >> >>> Jon Kirwan wrote: >>>> On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 15:47:48 -0800, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Jon Kirwan wrote: > >[...] > >>>>>> As I said, though, these are people like you and me. >>>>> Granted, many of them will be. But some clearly are not. I am quite >>>>> concerned when statements like in those emails are coming from people >>>>> higher up in the pecking order of an organization that is supposed to >>>>> work for the common good. >>>>> >>>>> I have seen it too many times that something leaked from an >>>>> organization, it was said "oh, it's just very few bad apples" and then >>>>> an investigation found a huge morass. I hope that's not so in this case >>>>> but I believe an investigation is most certainly in order at this point. >>>> I'll leave it here. I don't know what you'd hope to achieve, either >>>> way. An investigation to investigate what, exactly? The people or >>>> the science? ... >>> Both. >> >> :) I suspect one will happen, but not the other. >> > >I suspect the same as you. But at least I hope someone tries to find out >whether or not data has been "cooked". > > >>>> ... If the people, I suspect you will have it -- there is no >>>> escaping that some folks in positions of power will use the event and >>>> others will provide cover for themselves by staying out of the way. If >>>> the science, then it will be active climate scientists who must do >>>> that. And I don't think you will be satisfied there. >>> Now that things hit the fan, their arms are twisted and they can't >>> possibly dodge FOI the guys from the other side of the fence will have >>> access and that's a very good thing. So I might be satisfied :-) >> >> Well, lawyers will have fun. But the communications will probably go >> as you expected, now that yet another object lesson has been learned >> -- they will use phone calls and private, out-of-band communications. >> >> If I were active in this field, aware as I am of the divisiveness and >> disingenuous behavior that surrounds these activities, I'd be >> exclusively using public-key encryption and phone conversations for >> anything other than official communications and publishable works and >> regularly using disk-scrubbing (or a ball-peened hammer to beat it to >> death) on my hard disks, routinely. >> >> Regarding personal communications with my defenses down and being >> frank with others, I'd act like I was asked to act when working for >> Lockheed on highly specialized secret projects -- things go in to a >> room or computer, but absolutely nothing leaves without being turned >> to dust and useless rubble. Period. > >Except that you can't work like at Lockheed when in a taxpayer-funded >ivory tower. Sure, one can use phones or at least private email. There >have to be meeting minutes and all sorts of other traceable things. I've >worked in medical most of my life and there you cannot hide a thing. And >I never did. For example, if an FDA probe would find an email answer to >an issue but the email with the questions is nowhere to be found da big >red flag would be raised. I'm talking about off-the-cuff commentary, of course. For example, "George really doesn't understand the concept of process threads or delta queue mechanisms. I've tried to explain them and he's got some kind of mental block I've failed to get past. No fault to him and he's doing fine elsewhere, but I need to take this task so we can stay on schedule. Can you think of a way that he'll feel affirmed in the other tasks he's handling well and somehow get him to suggest giving this task away on his own... or perhaps offer something else he may want and can handle well?" I certainly don't want this written down "in the public record." That may be some of the kind of communication is what I'm talking about. It's necessary communication, sometimes. But it isn't "in band" communication I want randomly and ignorantly tossed out into a public forum with no particular audience in mind. That's for sure. Of course, there is more private messages that are entirely private and have nothing to do with the work in hand. And those should definitely NOT be mixed up with business communications. Which is why I tried to think of a realistic example of a communication that may be important, business-wise, yet not something I want grabbed up by some hacker and thrust into the public like a pile of garbage and no context at all. Jon |