OT: something for Sloman to think about :-)

On a sunny day (Mon, 3 Aug 2009 23:29:46 -0700 (PDT)) it happened Bill Sloman wrote in :

Here proof of your selective memory: Quote from

• > Nobody claims the sea level is not rising, but read this SCIENTIFIC paper please:

• >
  formatting link

• What you have posted are the illustrations intended to accompany a

• scientific lecture.

• A written version of the lecture might - in theory - constitute a

• scientific paper, but in fact verbal presentations aren't structured

• in the same way as written papers. In any event, you've just proved -

• once more - that you haven't a clue what constitutes a scientific

• paper or a scientific argument.

• > We better prepare and have the tech to handle changes like this in the long term.

• > That requires organisation and technology.

• > Mass migration will happen, properties will become zero value, others will

• > become very valuable.

• > What is not important is, if you switch on an Edison or a CFL tube, other

• > then from a resources POV.

• The dogma's of your particular religion may be interesting, but they

• don't constitute arguents.

• --

• Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

*

I found it in less then 90 second by typing that URL in google. I guess you only find what you think suits your search for eleves.

LOL Q.E.D

The problem is we don't want to be taxed into slavery paying for what is clearly a religion.

The church of warmingism has already done significant harm to the global economy, and has already exacerbated starvation in the third world by diverting food crops to the pipe dream of "ethanol".

Thanks, Rich

Exactly. Warmingism is a religion, QED.

Cheers! Rich

bag /

As Arthur C. Clarke any sufficinetly advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. The evidence for anthropogenic global warming is sufficiently technologically advanced that it looks like magic to Rich Grise, who doesn't know much aboutr science, so he concludes - incorrectly - that warmingism is a religion, rather than facing that fact that he is painfully ignorant about the subject.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

ag /

Rich doesn't know enough about science (or religion) to realise that anthropogenic global warming is just a well-established scientific hypothesis, not a religion - every aspect of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis could be falsified, but none of them have been falisfied so far. Religious dogma is less susceptible to experimental test.

Which is Rich's way of blaming anthropogenic global warming for Dubbya's idiotic - and eventually unsuccessful - scheme for buying farming votes by offering to buy up corn for fermentation into ethanol. Admittedly, Dubbya did claim that the scheme would reduce CO2 output, but since growing corn burns up a lot of conventionally produced power, this was obvious nonsense. More sophisticated observers commented on this when the scheme was introduced, but idiots like Rich fell for the lie. He keeps on trotting it out, time and time again, even through we keep on pointing out that he's got it wrong (again).

A recent Scientific American had a front page article on "grassoline" which is the practical version of this approach - you harvest and ferment switchgrass and other plants which will grow where conventional crops won't. It doesn't exacerbate starvation and really does represent a sustainable source of ethanol.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

man

..

C paper please:

That explains why I didn't recognise it - you adduced it as a scientific paper - which it isn't - and are now claiming that it tells a story, which it doesn't (since the linking text was delivered verbally). My mental filing system stored it as another example of your ignorance, not as any kind of argument

Well searching with groups.google.com didn't find it, as it should have done if

can find it. Google is supposed to archive all the usernet (apart from the binary groups) and the groups.google.com search machine should have found it.

This doesn't refute the point that I was making.

You claim that anthropogenic global warming scientists ignores well known facts then adduce boring well-known facts as "evidence" of this "neglect". Both Milancovitch cycles and geological evidence of earlier climate excursions are well-known to climate scientist, and frequently mentiooned in diuscussions of anthropogenic global warming.

I can't imagine why you'd think otherwise, if you'd ever read anything much about anthropogenic global warming.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

On a sunny day (Tue, 4 Aug 2009 19:39:35 -0700 (PDT)) it happened Bill Sloman wrote in :

Well, that confirms the fact that you only call things 'scientific' that agree with your views.

That *IS* selective memory, NO MATTER what arguments are presented against you views, you will immediately reject and forget those. We have to / or could / go deeper in the psychology of this, maybe you think that the extra taxes will help finance your existence? So in that case it makes perfect sense for you to defend theories, right or wrong, that support you. This may all happen subconsciously, and you will likely immediately reject and forget this argument too, but lets throw in little a spanner anyways, anytime you read the word Freud you WILL remember this discussion.

Slowly jiggles object in front of Bill's eyes speaking softly, post hypnotic suggestion. Freud.

It really works.

And there is supposed to be anthropogenic global warming. But most people here know that google groups search and your assumption of an anthropogenic global heating are both broken.

It does, and that point you are making is incorrect nevertheless.

man

De.=3D

My - perfectly conventional - view is that a scientific paper is one that has been published in a peer-reviewed scientifc journal. The sequence of slides you presented

isn't such a document. Moreover, without the accompanying lecture to set the slides in context, it doesn't tell any kind of story.

You seem to think that the term "scientific" is some kind of unspecific adjective - like "good" - which can be splashed around at will.

Your problem is that a collection of slides doesn't constitue an argument, so your claim falls at the first hurdle. I rejected a non- argument. Since it didn't either support or contradict my views, you can't draw any conclusion from that rejection. The fact that you think that a collection of slides might constitue an "argument" does demonstrate a serious defect in your thinking.

Having made a fool of yourself by constructing a foolish and insupportable proposition, you then proceed to make yourself look even sillier by invoking psychology.

or wrong,

Only if we accept your defective logic.

n.

And have a good laugh at your expense.

tic suggestion.

Yes. You seem to have hypnotised yourself into the belief that you are posting sense - rather than total nonsense.

Google groups search normally works fine for me. I can't claim similar personal experience of anthropogenic global warming, but - as far as I can see - the scientific case for anthropogenic global warming has yet to be falsified, despite at least a decade of lame attemtps to devise alternative explanations for the - voluminous - observations.

Actually, you haven't refuted anything that I've said. All that you have done is to prove - once again - is that you don't know what you are talking about.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

On a sunny day (Wed, 5 Aug 2009 18:46:17 -0700 (PDT)) it happened Bill Sloman wrote in :

It is actually spelled 'scientific'.

There are hardly any paper products left today that are not sponsored in one way or an other by big companies to represent their interests, Recently an other case was seen in some 'scientific' medical journal.

You are an arrogant pick. It shows the location of the glaciers over time. Seems a lot more warming and cooling was going on then your (hypothetical) milli degree Kelvin 'anthropogenic' contribution. As you do not remember, but I wrote exactly this in that posting you forgot, we should prepare for climate *change*, so we can live, and forget about that milli degree change perhaps caused by whatever humanity is pumping into the atmosphere now. As it will be insignificant relevant to the other factors. You are wasting every bodies time and money with that stuff, including your own, and threatening the future of humanity as you seem to want to have it focussed on the wrong thing.

an

at

one

The scientific journals have finally got around to insisting that authors specify where they got their funding; it isn't a perfect system, but it works rather better than your scheme of accepting everything you find on the web even if it comes from one of Exxon- Mobil's shills.

You too seem to have managed to produce a typo.

True, but - as I pointed out earlier in this thread, this is well known to the people who work on anthropogenic global warming, and forms part of the scientific case for anthropogenic global warming. It hasn't been ignored, and doesn't form any kind of counter-argument.

The Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum is an historical example of what happens when global temperatures rise enough to hit one of the famous tipping points. A lot of metahe got moved into the amosphere in a fairly short time, and it took

20,000 years for the consequent warming to die away.

In recent yearspaleontologists have done a lot of very impressive work on refining their datng methods to allow then to get some idea of the actual sequence of events leading up to global extinction events - most of which seem to have involved significant excursions in global temperature - so that they can get a grip on what actually happened. Our enthusiasm for pumping fossil carbon back into the atmosphere seems to roughly as effective as erupting flood basalt through coal seams, and the consequences could be equaly catastrophic.

) milli

The addtional CO2 we have been injecting into the atmosphere since

1750 (much of it since 1950) has produced some 0.74 =B1 0.18 =B0C of global warming in the last century - quite a few millidegrees.

ot,

that milli

osphere now.

Denial is a popular method dealing with unpalatable facts. It isn't a good one.

ur own,

This an unmoderated user group. You can waste your time posting irrational and ill-informed denials of anthropogenic global warming, and I can spend my time pointing out that you don't know what you are talking about. If you want me to stop criticisng your posts, try to read enough about the subject to avoid making fatuous claims.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen