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: Whata Fool on 1 Dec 2008 06:40 bill.sloman(a)ieee.org wrote: >On 1 dec, 00:02, Whata Fool <wh...(a)fool.ami> wrote: >> Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >> >On Sun, 30 Nov 2008 07:28:18 -0800,bill.slomanwrote: >> >> >> On 29 nov, 21:38, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >>> On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 09:58:21 -0800,bill.slomanwrote: >> >>> > On 28 nov, 16:55, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >>> >> On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 02:26:40 -0800,bill.slomanwrote: >> >>> >> > On 27 nov, 23:02, Whata Fool <wh...(a)fool.ami> wrote: >> >>> >> >> bill.slo...(a)ieee.org wrote: >> >>> >> >> >On 27 nov, 02:59, Whata Fool <wh...(a)fool.ami> wrote: >> >>> >> >> >> "DeadFrog" <DeadF...(a)Virgin.net> wrote: >> >> >>> >> >> >> >"Whata Fool" <wh...(a)fool.ami> wrote in message >> >>> >> >> >> >news:fdeni4p8pptdaacn58utfjlehk9jcbfmff(a)4ax.com... >> >>> >> >> >> >> bill.slo...(a)ieee.org wrote: > >> He is confusing me, doesn't the AGW consensus claim that AGW has >> caused the stratosphere to cool to a lower than normal temperature? > >I'm not confusing Whata Fool. His confusion is entirely self- >inflicted. Then you don't know the answer to the question, you just want to lambast to inflate your outlandish ego? Or is it you don't know anything about AGW? ><snip> > >> I claim, and strongly suggest that thinking scientists must understand >> that statement does not represent the true physics, because it ignores the >> probability that an N2 and O2 (78 + 20) atmosphere would be hotter than at >> present without GreenHouse Gases. >> >> Unless somebody can explain how N2 and O2 could cool after being >> warmed by solar energy and convection from the surface. > >It's obvious that you don't know enough to follow any kind of >worthwhile explanation. Go off and get yourself some education from >people who are paid to sort out your kinds of delusions. What's the matter, the discussion too complicated for you level of education?
From: Whata Fool on 1 Dec 2008 06:50 bill.sloman(a)ieee.org wrote: >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? Are you aware that one of the servers didn't forward about 25 messages from you and Graham that were sent a week ago or more or were just bounced by another server in error?
From: Eeyore on 1 Dec 2008 10:08 Whata Fool wrote: > Why in the world is sci.electronics-design in this thread Because it's one of our favourite topics when the electronics gets dull. Graham
From: Eeyore on 1 Dec 2008 10:10 Whata Fool wrote: > It really won't affect the climate no matter what we do Considering that CO2 lingers in the atmosphere for 100-400 years and even the AGW movement don't plan to have us stop emitting it, you are 100% correct, EVEN IF it mattered. Graham
From: Eeyore on 1 Dec 2008 10:14
Malcolm Moore wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >Malcolm Moore wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >Malcolm Moore wrote: > >> >> Eeyore wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> >I spent some time working in radar. Does that make me ineligible for any other branch of >> >> >> >electronics, or will I > always be a 'radar shill' ? > >> >> > > >> >> >That, quite frankly is what your pitiful 'argument' boils down to. > >> >> > >> >> If you were advocating that any harmful effects of radar were a > >> >> nonsense, I'd expect your previous employment to be made known. > >> >> I also hope you wouldn't attempt to give your advocacy more credence > >> >> by claiming to be a physiologist. > >> >> That is effectively what the NZCSC is doing when it claims the first > >> >> eight names on it's list are all "Climate Scientists". > >> > > >> >You're a screaming LOONIE ! > >> > >> Given your tendency to write in upper case, the epithet "screaming" is > >> more applicable to yourself. > >> > >> As for thinking I'm "loonie", you introduced the radar analogy so it > >> can't be that. Therefore I guess you think I'm loonie because I > >> thought you might behave ethically by declaring previous employment, > >> and not using undeserved titles. Your habit of making unattributed > >> snips should have warned me that was unlikely. > > > >A very lame attempt at obfuscation. > > You're becoming absurd. > > >Expalin why certain groups of people should be 'disallowed' from discussing AGW or not taken >seriously and only 'believers' allowed > to contribute, in a rational scientific manner please. > > Your statement is a nonsense. I've not attempted to disallow anything. But the AGW movement does. > On the contrary, I've > suggested NZCSC should publish more information, namely full CV's of > their members. At present, they are disallowing you from considering > that information. Why should they publish their CVs ? I don't see pro-AGW sites do that. They provide relevant background info from which any competent Googler can find more. > You however seem to believe that others shouldn't be able to critique > organisations for which you have a fondness. I believe that what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Graham |