The world has never seen such freezing heat
in [Design]
|
Prev: Class D audio driver with external mosfets
Next: NE162 mixer: input/output impedance in balanced mode?
From: Eeyore on 24 Nov 2008 17:49 bill.sloman(a)ieee.org wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > Whata Fool wrote: > > > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > >z wrote: > > > > > >> Actually, GISS now reports the corrected October temps as 5th highest > > > > > >But they LIED initially ANYWAY ! > > > > > Maybe not, just sloppy, incompetent, and biased. > > > > > To be called a lie, they would have needed to know the > > > truth, can anybody be sure the latest correction is correct? > > > > Can you believe ANY of it any more ? It's religion, not science any more. > > Graham doesn't know enough science to be able to distinguish between > science and religion. It's precisely that kind of absurd flippant dismissive comment that marks you and your AGW buddies out as ignorant FOOLS and CHARLATANS. I was so good at science at school (one of the oldest and most established in the entire world) that they wanted me to apply to Cambridge (UK). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_Albans_School_(Hertfordshire) Btw, I was studying Computing in 1971. Stephen Hawking is one of our more recent noted alumni btw. In the end I went initially to UCL http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_College_London I actually turned down an invitation (at lower exam grades) to Imperial. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_college In the process I passed the highest school level exam available (in Physics). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholarship_Level Know science ? Don't kid yourself you know any Mr Unemployable. Graham
From: bill.sloman on 24 Nov 2008 18:12 On 24 nov, 15:36, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > bill.slo...(a)ieee.org wrote: > > Richard The Dreaded Libertarian <n...(a)example.net> wrote: > > > Bill Ward wrote: > > > > > Perhaps you could explain in your own words the scientific basis and > > > > evidence for your beliefs, then we could debate it properly. > > > > When you say, "the scientific basis and evidence for your beliefs", > > > are you talking about the beliefs or the warmingsts, or the belief > > > of the real scientists? In real science, we believe in the facts, > > > which the warmingists avoid like a vampire avoids mirrors. > > > Not exactly true. When I do point you at facts, you proceed to ignore > > them. > > Because 'AGW facts' are rarely facts at all but 'masssaged' or 'corrected' or > otherwise tinkered with, excused or eliminated to fit the theory. Graham - unsophisticated as he is - has never had to calibrate a sensor, or construct a working curve to relate the output of a sensor to the data that he is interested in. He buys his measuring gear off the shelf, after other people have done the work for him, and interprets the inevitable problems that real scientists run into making sense of real measurements in terms of his daft conspiracy theory. His "genius-level" IQ is clearly well adapted to passing exams, but doesn't seem to be perform as well on real-world data. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: bill.sloman on 24 Nov 2008 18:14 On 24 nov, 15:38, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > bill.slo...(a)ieee.org wrote: > > growing corn the American way requires burning enough oil to more > > than counter-balance the carbon capture in the growing corn > > Even that's untrue. It's a common myth. The ROEI is a good 2:1 with modern > processes. So the naysayers quote old methods and studies only. And your evidence to support this claim can be found where? -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Phil Hobbs on 24 Nov 2008 18:21 bill.sloman(a)ieee.org wrote: > As Arthur C. Clark put it, "any sufficiently advanced > science is indistinguishable from magic" and Rich's understanding is > retarded enough that the scientific basis for anthropogenic global > warming does look like magic to him, along with TV and matches. Since the SNR of this thread is way too low for even DFE to fix, I'd just like to give my favourite corollary to Clarke's Law: "Any technology that is distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced." So everybody get busy doing engineering. ;) Cheers, Phil Hobbs
From: bill.sloman on 24 Nov 2008 18:33
On 23 nov, 21:32, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > bill.slo...(a)ieee.org wrote: > > The Gulf Stream was observed to have decreased by about 30% from > > earlier flow rates, suggesting that it might be in the process of > > shutting down completely > > How does it suggest that ? It's colder today than yesterday. Does that mean it > will be colder tomorrow too and so on? If something is less today than it was when you last looked at it, it is obviously possible that it might be even smaller the next time you look at it. I can't see any reason to be overly critical of the authors of the paper that publicised their measurements of the Gulf Stream from pointing out this possibility. Subsequent measurements suggest that the Gulf Stream had switched to a new - more or less stable - state rather than going into terminal decline, which is why we've gone back to worrying about global warming rather than contemplating the next ice age. > Been looking into that crystal ball have you ? You have - as usual - snipped the New Scientist article I was pointing to http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn8398 which makes it obvious that the "crystal ball" involved wasn't mine. > Gullible isn't an adequate enough word for you. No. For a start, it doesn't mean "better-informed than Eeyore". You really don't process information all that reliably or efficienty, and your opinions about other peoples gullibility are no more reliable than the rest of your opinions, which is to say, random noise. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen |