Ping Bil Slowman; The global warming hoax reveiled

Read your own words again and note two words in your post: "in the summer" and "Nearly". They would not possibly have picked a location under the ice or one that iced over in the winter. Then there's all those retreating glaciers in the alps where they now miraculously find all sorts of stuff from Romans and other folks who used the routes when they obviously were free of ice. Unless you can convince me that Roman supply wagons had studded wheels, electronic ABS and totally fearless horses and that Roman soldier were immune to frostbite.

ote:

rth of America,

and

cier

much

hat

year

a...

The Holocene thermal maximum occured some thousands of years ago

The current inter-glacial had clearly clearly passed its peak before we started burning fossil carbon, and we were heading for another ice age, which the current spot of anthropogenic global warming does seem to have put off.

This is a good thing, but we need to take care that we don't end up with much too much of a good thing.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

ote:

re

at

Identify one. The settlement was not lost because it was inundated with ice, but because the weather got just a little too cold to allow the Vikings to harvest enough food to keep them going.

The lost Viking settlement in Greenland was only lost about a thousand years ago. A few thousand years ago is another story - we are getting back a lot closer to the Holocene Thermal Maximum, the warmest period of this interglacial.

The climate had been cooling off towards the next ice age ever since, until we started digging up and burning fossil carbon, and put the next ice age on hold. This was a good thing, but we are now well on our way to having too much of a good thing.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

of America,

Then how come Roman coins were found at Schnidejoch? Did they have time machines or did Exxon-Mobil stuff them there?

You are repeating yourself :-)

Plus I'd like some of that good thing but it ain't happening here in the Sierras.

rote:

e a

le who

...

They weren't threatening him, they were getting him fired forpublishing what was - at the very least - outrageously poor work.

He'd published a very poor paper, bad enough to provoke three memebers of the editorial board into resigning.

When the dust settled, one of the board members who had resigned came back as the new editor.

Ravinghorde and his fellow conspiracy theorists want to see this as the scandalous ejection of an editor who was brave enough to publish a dissenting paper, but they can't be bothered to produce the paper and explain why it provoked such an intense response when the people who published Lindzen's dissenting papers have got off scot-free.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

There you go again. I'm not a fraud, but you are too ignorant and dumb to get to grips with the evidnece that makes this obvious to the better equipped.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Bill Sloman

e"

..

I am in enough cardiac trouble that I've been exposed to quite a few ultrasound machines in recent years. When I was working on the stuff, the medicine men were claiming that exposure to diagnostic levels of ultrasound was potentially dangerous though they couldn't come up with a remotely plausible damage mechanism, and did some truly fatuous experiments that they claimed "proved" that it could be damaging.

Mount Pelee killed 30,000 - all but two of the inhabitants of Saint- Pierre, the town situated below the volcano.

Vesuvius gave the Romans a little more warning, but not all that much.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

America,

Details, Details...

Why worry so much now..

They got people so wound up over the 2012 Dec, event coming, it's the end of the world! So they have depict it that way!

Major solar activity.

Planets and the milky way aligning! Something that only happens every 26k years or so. Causing torsion waves! yes, you heard it!..

And not let us forget: Planet X doing a 2 month tour near us.

And something about an asteroid if I remember?

All taking place about the same time I guess!

If that don't put a cramp in your style, nothing else will!

So, why worry about some ice! unless it's in your drink!

Sloman

We have a little one here...

There's a beautiful view of the lake from the top.

John

locations

..

Sacramento.

versus

only

Joerg

=20

Gosh, i used to be able to reach his place within 45 minutes drive. It is about 2 hours now. 88*)))

locations

..

Sacramento.

versus

only

Joerg

Oregon.=20

Oh s*it, it is long long distance now.

Quote "Fjallsjökull, an outlet glacier of Vatnajökull ice cap on the southeastern coast of Iceland. Advance of this glacier in the 1695-1710 period destroyed a farm that dated from Viking settlement. Photo date

AFAIR that settlement dates back to about 900 and was discovered by a guy named Bardarson (spelling could be off a bit). When the chimney flue is plugged because the house is covered by a glacier it's time to move on ;-)

Another Viking farm (Eyrarhorn, probably spelled with Norwegian letters) became submerged because the growing weight of the ice sheet pushed the land under.

hold

lobal-warming/

Naw, just put him in series with the electric line to his house, just after pumping the all the jet fuel he used flying around promoting his books through his alimentary tract. Should make quite the satisfactory explosion.

No, you don't.

I think I've been extremely clear. Excruciatingly, tediously, tiringly so, in this post-mortem.

I understood Jan. You didn't. So, if you don't understand me at least I'm in good company.

Bill stated a fact--a fact unrelated to Jan's point, you contend below--without explaining what he thought it proved, or how it related. That's fuzzy writing.

Bill could've said "The fact that France gets 80% of its electrical power from nuclear plants proves XYZ." That would've been clear writing.

And there we have it.

Stating a new, unrelated fact is not a response, that's talking past someone. If Bill meant his claim as a related response, it was wrong. If he meant it as a new, interesting fact, it was non- responsive.

Bill explains later that he meant it as a response, which is how I treated it.

Either way, it leaves a misleading notion w.r.t. the extent of France's independence from fossil fuels

I thought it interesting that even France is so dependent on fossil fuels. Even more than 82% (of total energy), if they use coal.

-- Cheers, James Arthur

hold

global-warming/

It was off long before Gore got to it.

Bill Sloman

out

=20

=20

Don't ya know, that for a species that has _not_ even been around for just 1 million years to bandy about causing events on the level of the KT-boundary event is quite ridiculous.

meant

the =3D

pigs that are bad for the world,

Sloman

that are bad for the world,

Someone should convey to Martin Brown to go away and eat s*it. ...Jim Thompson

Spencer

research

material

of

Real ones. Pretenders are another matter.

No, if I said it, it's still here in the archives. Maybe you've confused me with someone else.

My information on GCMs came from reading their summaries (supplied by each GCM group), reading as much of one global climate model's FORTRAN spaghetti source-code as I could stand, and, mostly, _directly_ from one of the world's preeminent experts, who works on them.

So, I've always known the difference.

I know the difference. But suppose I didn't--it still doesn't matter. Cast aside your irrelevant bile and consider: we're in a 10- year cooling trend. I don't remember any stern warnings from climastrologists this was imminent, do you? Quite the opposite. But your memory is better than mine--you remember things that didn't even happen. Maybe you could cite those warnings for us.

Or is 10 years "just weather," and not climate?

I already stated I don't remember exactly. And part of it is that I can't be too particular without revealing my source, which I am entrusted not to do. That person is a scientist, not a politician, and doesn't want to be sacrificed on the altar of AGW political correctness.

The point being that the things fall apart in a few months, and they're being used to forecast 50-500x that timespan and more. It doesn't matter whether the 20-year forecast fell apart at t=two months or three, or even four or five months, does it?

Obviously they're no good even at predicting in the 1-10 year timeframe, or they would've predicted the current cooling.

-- Cheers, James Arthur