Ping Bil Slowman; The global warming hoax reveiled

On a sunny day (Tue, 1 Dec 2009 16:20:20 -0800 (PST)) it happened snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com wrote in :

I think these days they use used oil pipes for fixing arteries. I think Cheney has some installed too.

In a cold arctic snowstorm because of AGW fanatics farting, Bill Sloman puffed:

I posted some links recently in reply to your rantings, try reading those.

An other University professor stepped down today, article NYtimes.com, that person is under investigation. Guess why?

Sorry, I forgot you :-)

You are not doing science here, merely advocating your AGW religious beliefs!

On a sunny day (Wed, 2 Dec 2009 01:12:31 -0800 (PST)) it happened Bill Sloman wrote in :

You should folow politics a bit closer.

On a sunny day (Wed, 2 Dec 2009 01:35:31 -0800 (PST)) it happened Bill Sloman wrote in :

Barendrecht does not bother me the least, I do not live n Barendrecht, just like Joerg does not live in Oregon. The idea of putting it under my house is something I do not like though. I did read today the the people in Barendrecht will oppose the plan, and I also did read the politician responsible saying that they will store it there anyway. I just wonder if that politician would accept to be beheaded if anything went wrong. Houses in Barendrecht will likely drop in price considerably. Why do you not move there?

/m=B2.

The NOAAA web-site, which you snipped

doesn't give a specific figure, but does give a graph - Figure 3 - of the measured CO2 forcing rising with CO2 concentration, showing it to have reached 1.7 Watts per square metre. The introduction at the top of the web-page makes it clear that the uncertainty on this figure is around 10%, which matches the Colorado numbers.

Your claim was

"The AGW contribution alleged from CO2 is, well, not even clear. A range of estimates from ~0.25 to 1 W/m^2 out of roughly 300W/m^2 has been offered."

You can't substantiate this claim, or tell us where you got it, and in fact it seems to be flat out wrong.

Do tell us again how much you know about climate modelling, and about the excellent advice you can get from someone directly involved in the subject - we need a good laugh.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen>

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

The claim his said I was making is entirely his own invention.

Since he invented the claim he wanted to disagree with, it ought to have been.

He's finally realised that he has been talking to himself, at ridiculous length, and now he is putting a brave face on slinking back into his box.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

te:

the

id

rn

t"

Your whole campaign seems to be based on things that I didn't say, rather than anything I said. You have concocted this fantasy where I'm supposed to have taken you seriously, and my failure to respond to your carry-on is supposed to have been based on some lack of understanding on my part, rather than a very clear understanding that John Fields had got another bee in his bonnet and needed to be jeered at.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

powerful.

wrong?

time.

No. My message to scientists (which they won't read anyhow ...) is simply this: Look at this, and this, and that, and please explain it to us. For example why Schnidljoch was nearly free of ice. Or why AGW proponent scientists have predicted that the Himalaya glaciers will be mostly gone in 30 years while Russian scientists claimed it'll take ten times that long (no, I don't have that article anymore). I neither have the time nor the scientific background to find out. That's why we taxpayers _pay_ guys that do. They need to do this job, not you and I.

I don't accuse, I am saying that we should look at additional information outside IPCC. Because I feel that some sort of censoring is going on there. Not sure of the extent but that will (hopefully) come out in the now ongoing investigations.

It's not me who is accusing, it's scientists whom I took the liberty to quote. I know you probably don't like the guy but we all must keep an open ear, and if it is true what he says in brief here then that would be quite significant:

Before you tell me that I haven't spent 2000+ hours researching please note that I said "if" :-)

this.

Both.

Now that things hit the fan, their arms are twisted and they can't possibly dodge FOI the guys from the other side of the fence will have access and that's a very good thing. So I might be satisfied :-)

Yup, that's it. Don't mention DTV to other residents in this area, by now many of them are extremely p....d about it.

Probably some of these:

Hope This Helps! Rich

There's a difference? ;-)

Cheers! Rich

You posted a lie here the other day when you forwarded a post from us.politics describing someone as a professor when they certainly aren't. I corrected you here on sed.

Have you posted back to us.politics pointing out this error? If not why not? Do you condone lies from your side of the debate?

-- Regards Malcolm Remove sharp objects to get a valid e-mail address

better

this.

:) I suspect one will happen, but not the other.

Well, lawyers will have fun. But the communications will probably go as you expected, now that yet another object lesson has been learned

-- they will use phone calls and private, out-of-band communications.

If I were active in this field, aware as I am of the divisiveness and disingenuous behavior that surrounds these activities, I'd be exclusively using public-key encryption and phone conversations for anything other than official communications and publishable works and regularly using disk-scrubbing (or a ball-peened hammer to beat it to death) on my hard disks, routinely.

Regarding personal communications with my defenses down and being frank with others, I'd act like I was asked to act when working for Lockheed on highly specialized secret projects -- things go in to a room or computer, but absolutely nothing leaves without being turned to dust and useless rubble. Period.

Jon

On a sunny day (Thu, 03 Dec 2009 10:35:24 +1300) it happened Malcolm Moore wrote in :

I did not see your correction.

It is not really that important, if he is prof or not, as it does not change global temperature now or in the future.

powerful.

wrong?

opinion-building.

Romans

time.

The IPCC is not the be-all and end-all. Others have said so in this group, so have I. The United States, itself, has at least three separate agencies doing their own investigations of the peer reviewed literature (not to mention reviewing grant proposals and making funding decisions well before any results are to be had) and they have each come to similar conclusions -- but on their own. And the US isn't the only country funding groups doing that.

Okay. I think my main point here is that to remind you of something you already know -- becoming sufficiently informed to say much at all takes lots of effort. Just as it does for an engineer before they can offer clients practical and realistic advice or produce successful product designs. I'm sure you'd feel much as I would if some wildcat without any training, experience, study and reading, or even serious hobby experience started hanging out their shield to the public as an electronics engineer or a PE.

Those who clearly have no personal investment of their own time, practical work, and education can certainly run around dissenting in public about electronics designers or perhaps their willingness to collude with those in power to fleece the ill-informed public of their hard earned money, for example. But it would be somewhat painful for you to stand by and watch, I'd suppose. You know yourself and you know that you are a fair-minded person and a capable one.

You might want to suggest that they spend a little time with you, walk in your shoes... if you were being gentle about it and cared about them. You might be a bit more abrupt, in other circumstances.

I'm willing to spend time... my time. And it's not easy to say that, because I value it highly. It would affect my life, my kids, and family. But for you, yes. But you have to be willing to reciprocate. Otherwise, it's unfair. And I think you understand that fact.

We'll leave it there.

Jon

I suspect the same as you. But at least I hope someone tries to find out whether or not data has been "cooked".

Except that you can't work like at Lockheed when in a taxpayer-funded ivory tower. Sure, one can use phones or at least private email. There have to be meeting minutes and all sorts of other traceable things. I've worked in medical most of my life and there you cannot hide a thing. And I never did. For example, if an FDA probe would find an email answer to an issue but the email with the questions is nowhere to be found da big red flag would be raised.