cruise ships

He calls himself "an entertainer."

If there's a market, someone will provide.

John

ote:

ave had

ump up

my

ity

get

ever

ead

Truth in advertising should compel FauX News to call themselves something like "Fox Spite" or "Fox Prejudice-Fodder".

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

They most certainly could, and did, but they didn't trust our judgement when it came to exploiting these skills. Most adults are better than most children in predicting and anticipating how things can go wrong.

Well they did teach me how to spell counselling, and my only "emotional problem" which I'm prepared to lay at their door is a persistent abhorrence of nonsense. I don't find it a problem, but nonsense-pedlars like you and John Larkin seem to feel that I'd be improved if I was more tolerant of the rubbish you post was little

If a little before all the evidence was actually available.

I don't actually care how much money would have been saved if your eccentric ideas had been accepted - the point at issue is that you haven't persuaded the physics community that you ideas make sense, which is why they show up on an unrefereed web-site, rather than in a peer-reviewed journal. The fact that I find that they read like all the other pseudo-physics web-sites that - mostly - tell me that Einstein was wrong, does influence my opinion too.

Not one of my areas of interest. I'm reminded of the husband who left the trivial decisions to his wife - where they should live, which house they should buy - while he concentrated on the important decisions, such as whether the country should recognise Red China.

You wanted to tell the world that the investment in LIGO was ill- advised? Fine. Sadly, nobody took you seriously. I've confined myself to more trivial tasks, like improving the electron-beam- microfabricator that Fairchild used to make the masks for their 100K ECL logic parts, and the crystal-weighing electronics that - as one stage - made 95% of the single crystal GaAs produced in the West. Nobody made a fuss about it, but the machines worked better after with my modifications, and not did the new production incorporate them, but we shipped a few up-grades for machine already in the field.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

had

up

Fox is, if anything, more objective than the New York Times. The Times has become ludicrous.

John

I guess they didn't teach you much about employability. Or likability.

John

So Faux News serves up stuff that fits your prejudices more closely than the stuff you see in the New York Times.

One suspects that this says more about your prejudices than it says about the quality of the New York Times.

The links that you chose to post here do seem to come from rather right-wing publications.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

I was pretty much continuously employed until I moved to the Netherlands in 1993. My father's opinion at the time was that it was going to wreck my career, and he wasn't wrong, but the move worked out very well for my wife, as we'd expected.

They weren't into flattery. It involves lying, and while they understood the short-term advantages of that kind of behaviour, they also understood the more negative long term consequences. Whoever encouraged you to shoot your mouth off about stuff that you don't know much about wasn't doing you any kind of favour.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

My prejudices favor things that are true.

Told'ya so.

John

ugh

ing

You've not told me anything of the sort.

The article refers to a proposal to tackle that proportion of anthropogenic global warming coming from the injection of methane and soot into the atmosphere. This might reduce anthropogenic global warming over the coming century by 0.5=BAC - CO2 injection seems set to give us at least 2=BAC of warming over the same period, so this proposal isn't an alternative to reducing that - and has the incidental advantage that reducing soot injection into the atmosphere will make people healthier (fine particulates are bad for the lungs).

It doesn't say that we don't have to reduce the amount of fossil carbon we are injection into the atmosphere, though it does note that this is going to be expensive, nor does it claim - as you have done - that anthropogenic global warming isn't going to damage the planet.

Your problem is that you don't know enough to understand what is true, and persistently make claims - as here - that aren't supported by the facts available.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

I've been ranting, here, for years, that the most practical thing we can do to protect the climate is reduce particulate creation. I recall you ridiculing the concept, because you're obsessed with CO2.

John

mbaugh

etting

mes

It's certainly a distraction from the main issue. As I pointed out in the bit of my post that you snipped - without marking the snip -

"This might reduce anthropogenic global warming over the coming century by 0.5=BAC - CO2 injection seems set to give us at least 2=BAC of warming over the same period, so this proposal isn't an alternative to reducing that - and it has the incidental advantage that reducing soot injection into the atmosphere will make people healthier (fine particulates are bad for the lungs). "

Reducing particle (soot) creation is certainly a good idea, but it isn't the dominant contributor to anthropogenic global warming, and your idea that it is some kind of alternative to reducing the amount of fossil carbon we inject into the atmosphere is simply wrong.

The article apparently lists 14 measures which would slow down global warming - several of them do involve reducing soot generation, but the authors also want to reduce methane emissions, so your idea that this is some kind of endorsement of your ill-informed attitudes is simply wishful thinking.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Limbaugh

getting

I snip most of your posts. You drone on and on.

We are *not* going to reduce CO2 emission. It's going to inceease as billions of people struggle out of poverty.

We *can* reduce particulates.

John

Limbaugh

n getting

e.

Times

w...

It's the problem of knowing stuff. I tell you stuff you don't want to know, and you ignore it. It makes your comments look pretty stupid, but you've learned to ignore that too.

That's a prediction. It depends on the idea that burning fossil carbon is the cheapest way to produce energy, which in turn depends on ignoring the damage done by progressively increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Using the same logic, I predict that you haven't hooked up your house to the sewage system, or a septic tank, but just pile up your accumulated bodily wastes in the garden - it's cheaper than shipping them somewhere else and disposing of them in way that doesn't create a stink.

They may yet work out that the solution that worked for Europe and America isn't optimal now that Europe and America have already dumped a huge pile of CO2 into the atmosphere.

The Chinese don't eat as much meat as we do, so their agriculture hasn't got much spare capacity. Global warming is already threatening their capacity to feed their population, which means that they are rather more worried about it than you are.

It could be that they will have enough sense to plan to get progressively more of the energy they need to get themselves even further out of poverty from sustainable sources, rather than joining in a beggar-my-neighbour struggle to grab progressively more of the finite - and progressively harder to extract - amounts of fossil carbon still lying around.

At the moment your persistent balance of trade deficit is pretty much what you spend on importing the oil you need. Your economy wouldn't grow as fast if you started investing in huge solar plants in Arizona and an equally huge super-conducting grid to shift the power from there to where you use it, but you'd save a lot of the money you now spend on an extravagant military machine whose primary job is maintaining your political control over your overseas oil sources.

And you could reduce CO2 emissions. In the long term you are either going to reduce them voluntarily, by moving over to sustainable energy sources, or involuntarily, as climate change and rising sea levels make our current industrial system impracticable.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Limbaugh

getting

Times

No one power generator or driver or family that wants to have light and heat is going to generate enough CO2 to affect the planet at all. So why would that one user sacrifice using energy?

Logic? Where?

I predict that you haven't hooked up your house

Another totally wrong prediction.

Sounds like they're going to get the Canadian tar sand oil that the US doesn't want. Lots of supertanker trips.

John

in' Limbaugh

than getting

ople.

ves

The Times

sely

says

er

ge-w...

all

to

It's called "the tragedy of the commons"

Most grown-ups have heard of the idea and understand it, but it seems to be one of those items of information that you have failed to acquire, and don't want to acquire.

The logic that's implied by your prediction - that the world won't find a way around this particular tragedy of the commons.

Of course it's wrong - just as wrong as your prediction that we aren't going to curb CO2 emissions. I was satirising your position. Because you really don't know much, you will be unaware that farmers traditionally did exactly that - kept their bodily waste and the waste produced by stalled animals in a dung-pile out the front of the farm, that got recycled as fertiliser - if the then current military industrial complex hadn't mined it for potassium nitrate first. It's not an approach that stays practical when population densities get higher.

Maybe they'll sequester the CO2 when they burn the stuff when it gets to China.Probably not the portion that powers the supertankers.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Presumably this dates back to a time before you'd fallen on your head and scrambled your brains.

That link didn't work - presumably you meant this

which doesn't seem to include any e-books.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

on 21/01/2012, Bill Sloman supposed :

It would save a lot of bandwidth if you two would drop your stupid banter and get back to cruising preferably in a boat with no radio.

Limbaugh

getting

Times

Of course I understand it. It's called a "tragedy" because it is one.

Go convince some village in Africa that thay shouldn't have clean running water or crop irrigation or lighting so their kids can study, to allow people in Germany to drive Porsches or Slomans to run computers to post massive blather.

You don't seem to understand how people will behave, how they are behaving.

The way around it is to burn all the available oil, gas, and coal, then find other sources of energy. And we'll live with the CO2 and its effects, which are more beneficial than not.

That's what's happening and will continue to happen.

John

Post something interesting about electronics. What are you designing lately?

John