Ping Bil Slowman; The global warming hoax reveiled

The story popular in New Orleans is that the Indians gave the land to Bienville because it was so hot, wet, and full of mosquitoes that they didn't want it.

John

ery

ect

No-one ever said that it did. It is still both possible and necessary.

Meaning that it is easier to burn oil efficiently than it is to burn wood efficiently?

And the Amazon natives can have energy from solar power plants, hydro- electric power plants and windmills, just like everybody else - the capital cost per kilowatt is higher than it is for burning oil, but the capital cost of losing the Amazon rainforest balances this out, with a bit to spare.

If you knew as much about computer models as you claim, you'd be aware that all computer models simulate simplifications of reality, rather than reflecting reality.

The models you are complaining about don't include the Multidecadal North Atlantic Oscillation, so their failure to model its effects doesn't make them bad models, merely crude models.

They are designed to simulate the crude effects of letting the CO2 level in the atmosphere get up to 500 or 600ppm, and even a very crude model can tell you that this is a very bad idea.

But not good enough to slow down anthropogenic global warming.

I haven't a clue. Since I'm in no position to do anything about it - we did what little we could to minimise our gas bills when we moved into our current house back in 1993 - I'm not going to waste my time finding out.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Huh? I don't remember saying that. The point was that France gets a a substantial proportion of its energy from nuclear power stations, while Jan seemed to be saying that everything is powered by burning fossil carbon.

Except that it wasn't a fact check at all, but the usual debating trick of framing things to suit your own point of view, delivered with the usual sanctimonious bombast.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

:>

speak Dutch too.

Dream on.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

man

e it is above noise level.

And where do they say that?

Describing the IPCC as AGW fanatics does seem to be a popular sport amongst lunatic denialists, but even George W. Bush didn't dare go that far.

The IPCC figure is 0.74=B0C [0.56=B0C to 0.92=B0C] where the limits are presumably +/- 2.5 sigma, so the 0.74 warming in the last century is about four standard deviations.

Anybody can claim that data has been cooked, but nobody has proved it, nor shown any sign of coming close to proving that anybody has "cooked" the relevant data.

Wrong.

And now we know how.

Actually, they won't. They started up about 2.58 million years ago, and the current anthropogenic global warming has already been enough to ensure that the next ice age won't arrive until after we've gone extinct.

Not if there isn't going to be an ice age.

Not really. There are all sorts of ways of storing energy ovrnight.

Only if I was as far out of touch with reality as as you are.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Your off-topic ratio must be literally around 99%. Your offensive-to-friendly ratio is similar.

Why?

John

I'm puzzled! Is there some orgasmic result from feeding trolls? If not, WHY do you keep doing it? ...Jim Thompson

(Remembering some trivia from some threads about aiming TV antennas to pick up DTV).

Mark Zenier snipped-for-privacy@eskimo.com Googleproofaddress(account:mzenier provider:eskimo domain:com)

Sigh.

Mark Zenier snipped-for-privacy@eskimo.com Googleproofaddress(account:mzenier provider:eskimo domain:com)

If I _knew_ the source and motivation (such as Climate Audit), I might. Again, perhaps you are better than I am here.

I frankly don't know every circumstance. You can talk about yours and I perhaps I may agree with you... But we don't have the letters here to examine and I think you said you felt it would be inappropriate to post them, so we are stuck on that point. Without the facts in evidence, all I have are your feelings about it -- which I grant your right to have. But I cannot come to an independent view on it. So there we are. (My experiences don't leave me feeling as you have from yours. And I suspect I have had more interactions than you, each with a change to expose to me the kind of problems you are talking about... without doing so. So I shake my head, is all.)

If you can post what you wrote and the responses, then perhaps I could see what you saw. But that's not in the cards, I gather.

Well, I think the FOI request process is one of many potentially good tools. And I've seen administrations act illegally in my view to block them. And I've seen them literally use a shredder late into the night (and get caught at it) destroying documents that would have otherwise been revealed by one, as well.

I would hope scientists rise above that kind of behavior. But if you found a few that seriously considered acting poorly, neither would it shock me.

Jon

this.

I'll leave it here. I don't know what you'd hope to achieve, either way. An investigation to investigate what, exactly? The people or the science? If the people, I suspect you will have it -- there is no escaping that some folks in positions of power will use the event and others will provide cover for themselves by staying out of the way. If the science, then it will be active climate scientists who must do that. And I don't think you will be satisfied there.

Jon

oman

step on the grass.

I can't say that I have noticed anything of the sort. School children and pop-stars might say things like that, but I don't have any contact with Dutch school children, and don't read the kinds of papers that report what pop-stars have to say.

Can you point to an example of this kind of program?

Granting your capacity to extract "general impressions" that don't have much to do with reality, I'd like better evidence than your "general impression".

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

I didn't say "ethical." Don't change the goal posts on me in the middle of a run. I am talking about you recommend that "an honest climate scientist should not be afraid of dirt." The reality of the science and effectiveness of propaganda in an era of sound bites and images and a near complete lack of factual content is manifest. In a perfect world, I'd agree. We don't live in one.

powerful.

time.

Read your comments here, again. But do so from the point of view of someone outside of you. I am staying on target about gaining a fully comprehensive view before deciding on the basis of some very sparse points you cleave onto, that there is systemic, cross-discipline perfidy going on in climate research. Do you realize the grand sweep of your accusations -- the sheer and unbridled magnitude of them? And based upon what, exactly? Some article you read and some history class or two? And unwilling to actually dig fully into it? Is that it? And you don't feel the need to engage _any_ facet fully, but would instead prefer to simply keep your beliefs on this wan basis rather than perhaps go the extra mile?

I honestly have NO IDEA at all where your point will take me. I might conclude exactly as you seem so eager and willing to conclude, after we get through it in detail -- perhaps a few months from now. And I'm willing to track down appropriate individuals, share communications with you and them, and see where it takes you and me without preconceptions -- because I have none, being completely ignorant right now. And even then, you aren't willing to put in effort (seemingly happy if I do, but not if you do) and would prefer to simply remain with an accusatory finger pointed outward?

You have the right to control your time, Joerg. And I respect that choice. But I don't know what to say, really, to an accusation where the accuser isn't willing to do their due diligence first. I will simply have to wait until you feel ready, I suppose, if ever. Let me know. I'd probably enjoy the experience.

Jon

Great.

We understand each other, then.

Jon

Sloman

energy=3D

s, the=3D

er man=3D

A subject on which you have posted a lot of nonsense. You did take that joke seriously, as if there was some doubt that it was a joke, and since then you have been wasting bandwidth trying to to claim that my treating it as a joke meant that I didn't understand that it was joke.

One expects puppies to chase their own tails, but it is unusual to see an adult so wound up in his own misconceptions.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

I haven't noticed that the the usual suspects have shown any signs of recognising when they are peddling Exxon-Mobil subsidised propaganda. Odd, since it is pretty recognisable.

I can't say that I've noticed any signs of Royal Dutch Shell subsidised denialist propaganda - that oil company publicly claims to believe in anthropogenic global warming, and in fact is behind the prospective Dutch trial of CO2 sequestration under Barendrecht that is so upsetting Jan Pateltje.

Of course, your exquisite research skills and deep connections with the climate community may give you access to secrets that lesser mortals can only dream about, but since you would not - of course - be in position to identify your source it is simpler to assume that - once again - you don't know what you are talking about.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

"Literally"? Either you can find 99 off-topic posts for every on-topic post - in which case you could have posted the actual statistics, or you can't, and you are dignifying biased guesswork with the term "literally".

And you do have this tendency to post recipes, which aren't really on- topic for this group.

You are easy to offend? You certainly seem to have been vicariously offended by my characterising some of James Arthur's output as santimonious bombast. He may be a friend of yours, but he still poses as an expert while making mistakes that make it obvious that he doesn't know what he is talking about.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

On Dec 1, 4:37=A0am, John Larkin wrote:

ful

y that

king

This is the .asc file from the LTSpice 4 simulation of a similar circuit. It isn't quite the same as the circuit that squegged back in

Version 4 SHEET 1 3272 1144 WIRE -160 -160 -464 -160 WIRE 80 -160 -160 -160 WIRE 368 -160 80 -160 WIRE 80 -128 80 -160 WIRE -160 -64 -160 -160 WIRE 368 -64 368 -160 WIRE -64 -16 -96 -16 WIRE 80 -16 80 -48 WIRE 80 -16 16 -16 WIRE 112 -16 80 -16 WIRE 176 -16 112 -16 WIRE 304 -16 256 -16 WIRE -160 96 -160 32 WIRE -80 96 -160 96 WIRE 0 96 -80 96 WIRE 288 96 64 96 WIRE 368 96 368 32 WIRE 368 96 288 96 WIRE -160 192 -160 96 WIRE -112 192 -160 192 WIRE 80 192 -32 192 WIRE 208 192 80 192 WIRE 368 192 368 96 WIRE 368 192 288 192 WIRE -224 272 -288 272 WIRE 16 272 -144 272 WIRE 80 272 80 192 WIRE 80 272 16 272 WIRE -464 336 -464 -160 WIRE -128 416 -160 416 WIRE -32 416 -128 416 WIRE 192 416 48 416 WIRE 224 416 192 416 WIRE 384 416 304 416 WIRE 400 416 384 416 WIRE 112 464 112 -16 WIRE -160 560 -160 416 WIRE -48 560 -160 560 WIRE 400 560 400 416 WIRE 400 560 32 560 WIRE -464 624 -464 416 WIRE -288 624 -288 272 WIRE -288 624 -464 624 WIRE 112 624 112 544 WIRE 112 624 -288 624 WIRE 192 624 192 416 WIRE 192 624 112 624 WIRE -464 656 -464 624 FLAG -464 656 0 FLAG 16 272 Vct FLAG 384 416 Vout+ FLAG -128 416 Vout- FLAG -80 96 tank- FLAG 288 96 tank+ SYMBOL ind2 -128 208 R270 WINDOW 0 32 56 VTop 0 WINDOW 3 4 56 VBottom 0 SYMATTR InstName L1 SYMATTR Value 250=B5 SYMATTR Type ind SYMATTR SpiceLine Rser=3D0.022 Cpar=3D1p SYMBOL ind2 192 208 R270 WINDOW 0 32 56 VTop 0 WINDOW 3 4 56 VBottom 0 SYMATTR InstName L2 SYMATTR Value 250=B5 SYMATTR Type ind SYMATTR SpiceLine Rser=3D0.022 Cpar=3D1p SYMBOL cap 64 80 R90 WINDOW 0 0 32 VBottom 0 WINDOW 3 46 32 VTop 0 SYMATTR InstName C1 SYMATTR Value 100n SYMBOL ind2 -240 288 R270 WINDOW 0 32 56 VTop 0 WINDOW 3 5 56 VBottom 0 SYMATTR InstName L7 SYMATTR Value 33m SYMATTR SpiceLine Ipk=3D0.03 Rser=3D80 Cpar=3D8.5p SYMATTR Type ind SYMBOL voltage -464 320 R0 WINDOW 123 0 0 Left 0 WINDOW 39 24 132 Left 0 SYMATTR SpiceLine Rser=3D0.001 SYMATTR InstName V1 SYMATTR Value 5 SYMBOL ind2 32 0 M270 WINDOW 0 44 45 VTop 0 WINDOW 3 5 56 VBottom 0 SYMATTR InstName L3 SYMATTR Value 22.5=B5 SYMATTR Type ind SYMATTR SpiceLine Rser=3D0.004 Cpar=3D1pF SYMBOL ind2 272 0 M270 WINDOW 0 32 56 VTop 0 WINDOW 3 5 56 VBottom 0 SYMATTR InstName L4 SYMATTR Value 0.0000278 SYMATTR Type ind SYMATTR SpiceLine Rser=3D0.004 Cpar=3D1p SYMBOL res 96 448 R0 SYMATTR InstName R1 SYMATTR Value 3k9 SYMBOL pnp -96 32 R180 SYMATTR InstName Q3 SYMATTR Value 2N3906A SYMBOL pnp 304 32 M180 SYMATTR InstName Q4 SYMATTR Value 2N3906A SYMBOL ind2 -48 432 R270 WINDOW 0 44 45 VTop 0 WINDOW 3 5 56 VBottom 0 SYMATTR InstName L5 SYMATTR Value 22.5=B5 SYMATTR Type ind SYMATTR SpiceLine Rser=3D0.004 Cpar=3D1pF SYMBOL ind2 208 432 R270 WINDOW 0 44 45 VTop 0 WINDOW 3 5 56 VBottom 0 SYMATTR InstName L6 SYMATTR Value 22.5=B5 SYMATTR Type ind SYMATTR SpiceLine Rser=3D0.004 Cpar=3D1pF SYMBOL res 48 544 R90 WINDOW 0 0 56 VBottom 0 WINDOW 3 32 56 VTop 0 SYMATTR InstName R2 SYMATTR Value 1k SYMBOL res 64 -144 R0 SYMATTR InstName R3 SYMATTR Value 1k TEXT -488 720 Left 0 !.tran 0 10m 0m 10n TEXT -488 760 Left 0 !.ic V(tank-)=3D5 V(Vct)=3D4.995 V(tank+)=3D4.99 V(Vo= ut

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen