Ping Bil Slowman; The global warming hoax reveiled

loman

ating from your overheated globe.

"These posts (and western civilization) made possible by Exxon-Mobil."

-- Cheers, James Arthur

He's a rotten thinker. He drools on and on about how new fossil fuel reserves are discovered, yet he never realizes that they are limited ressources which the industrialized nations are exploiting at the expense of the less developed world and generations to come.

Then, of course, this seems to be a religious website. Probably a good place to publish stories about Unlimited Fossil Fuel.

robert

All the third-world countries I've visited were held back by their politics, not us driving cars.

Civil war, Marxism, cronyism--when the civil society is provoked, unsettled, uncertain, gasping for breath, it cannot prosper.

-- Cheers, James Arthur

It's not quite that clear cut: At any limited resource becomes more scarce there will naturally be research into alternatives. If we come up with a really good, safe, and clean alternative to fossil fuels in the next 50 years rather than, say, 250 years from now, those 200 intervening years of a cleaner environment are surely worth something, yes?

Of course, I'm assuming that our clever monkey brains will be able to discover those alternatives (and that they exist in the first place). Not everyone agrees with that...

Ah, yes, Robert Latest. I had forgotten he even existed, then Joel Koltner had to go and feed him :-( ...Jim Thompson

ears

eaner

cover

one

Conserve. That means using more efficient devices (e.g. replacing T12 fluorescents with T8s), and using them more wisely (e.g. turning off Al Gore's lights when he's not home). That's possible, with zero technical risk, and perhaps 40-50% payback.

-- Cheers, James Arthur

and this:

On a sunny day (Tue, 24 Nov 2009 11:55:33 -0800) it happened "Joel Koltner" wrote in :

For example:

Agreed, people certainly should make an effort to not just waste resources when not doing so has zero or a very small cost. I'm all for legally required standards for fuel economy, appliance efficiency, etc. -- but of course there's always debate on just where the line should be drawn. (E.g., most recently here the debate on plasma TVs...)

Unless you're a warmingist. Then there's BIG bucks in it.

So, you admit that the warmingists are idiots and psychopaths.

Kind of a surprise that you'll admit this, but not that they're idiots and psychopaths.

And what experiment? The one that's going to bankrupt the whole world?

Thanks, Rich

OMG, that's rich. Try searching the HARRY_READ_ME.TXT file

for "cloud." (Clouds' influence on insolation is ~10^2 greater than the AGW hypothesized from CO2.)

A few years ago I downloaded and read some of the FORTRAN code for one of the models.

What trash.

James Arthur

oman

Gypsum, geothermal heating and damage does pick it up twice on the first page, so Joerg should have been able to find it. It was his fact, not mine, and his responsibility to validate it.

s by posting > less about global warming.

I'm not per se interested in changing the climate cycles, I'm interested in getting people to think, which - if it worked - might get them to think sensibly about anthropogenic global warming, amongst other topics.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Well, I did. But anyhow, all I wanted to show was how easy it is for h*mo sapiens to do something really, really stupid in order to "solve" some environmental concern quickly. So I fully understand Jan when he says he doesn't want to live on top of a gigantic CO2 bubble. I most certainly would not want to either.

ote:

l?partne...

id. Spencer

f research

t material

up-...

ru-...

nd

You can criticise the practitioners to your heart's content. I'm interested in the science, and it doesn't happen to be bullshit.

That you can't tell the difference between me and a full-time academic gives a pretty accurate measure of your - nonexistent - perspicacity in the area.

Dream on.

Your discipline? You clearly specialise in rural ignorance, but this isn't usually elevanted to the dignity of a discipline.

And your conviction that the data has been cooked is based on a credulous belief that Ravinghorde and favourite nitwit conspiracy theorists have got it right. If Exxon-Mobile were suddenly to see some profit in beleiving in anthropogenic global warming you'd presumably be just as ready to believe the output of their propaganda mill telling you that the data hadn't been cooked after all.

On account of having had to acquire some physical insight in order to get a Ph.D. in physical chemistry

A rather artificial literary conceit. It doesn't mean anything, in this context, except that you must have plagiarised it from somebody with literary ambitions.

And one of these "plausible lies" is?

Ravinghorde really does want to believe the haul of private e-mails does contain something genuinely scandalous, but he's out of luck.

Exxon-Mobil has to publish the accounts that show where they spend their money, and they have - and apparently still are - spending millions on funding denialist groups.

The British Royal Society isn't in the habit of endorsing idiotic conspiracy theories, but Exxon-Mobil managed to irritate them enough to earn a public rebuke

It's highly unlikely that AWG "caused" Katrina. The anthropogenic global warming that we have had so far has made Katrina-sized hurricanes somewhat more likely than than they were before 1750, but there aren't enough hurricanes per year for the increased risk to be statistically significant - the standard deviation on discrete events can't be less than the square root of the number of events, so you need a lot of events to let you see a small increase.

We've had 0.74 =B1 0.18 =B0C (1.33 =B1 0.32 =B0F) of global warming since

In reality, I do have a couple of facts. One is that sea surface temperatures above 26.5=B0C favour hurricane growth, and that higher sea surface temperatures correlate with more intense hurricanes. Global warming implies both larger areas of tropical ocean above 26.5C for a greater proportion of the summer - whence more hurricanes - and more xtensive areas where the surface temperature is even warmer, whence more intense hurricanes.

Granting your lack of physical insight, this probably means no more to you than would telling you that the Great Spaghetti Monster responds to higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere by winding up more hurricanes and winding them up tighter, but the arguement couched in terms of sea surface temperature has the advantage of being persuasive to people who know something about the subject.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

oman

Sl=3D

energy sources to cope with that.

l look very different

You need to read it a little more carefully. For "thousands of years", substitute "millions of years".

Continental drift isn't all that fast

suugests 2cm to 7cm/per year, 20 to 70 metres per millenium, 20 to 70 kilometeres per million years.

Climate change happens rather faster. Ice ages and inter-glacials used to cycle with a period of about 100,00 years, and if we hadn't pushed up the concentrations of greenhouse gases we'd be due for another ice age any millenium now.

The Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum happened rather faster still, and the Younger Dryas even faster.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

hen again about

ody

e Netherlands they now want to store the CO2

ough you

Pt3oV

t suffocated in your sleep,

AY have a chance :-)

shed

t also

s,

hed

o...

om

Trust you, you are the alarmist, everything bad can happen, though you don't know quite how. Your imagination could use a little more discipline.

Sloman

You live in Oregon. Here is a web site that gives the locations of potentially active volcanoes in your state.

I'd suggest that if you are worried by potential sources of danger under your feet, you should pack up and move to Barendrecht immediately.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

You have posted links to some terminally inept work by climate sceptics - some by people who obviously haven't even heard of the Suess Effect.

Preventing the publication of that sort of rubbish, or ousting the editors who were incompetent or corrupt enough to publish it, would strike me as the kind of behaviour expected of senior scientists aware of their responsibilities in their area of expertise.

And you don't seem to have noticed that George Monbiot went on to satirise your position even more obviously.

"Our co-option of the physical world has been just as successful. The thinning of the Arctic ice cap was a masterstroke. The ring of secret nuclear power stations around the Arctic Circle, attached to giant immersion heaters, remains undetected, as do the space-based lasers dissolving the world=92s glaciers."

Once again, your inability to understand what you posting has made you look remarkably dim.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

James Arthur doesn't know the difference between a global climate model, which predicts over a span of year and a global weather model which falls to pieces in about two weeks.

A remarkable example of pretentious ignorance, pontificating as if it knew what it was talking about on the basis of a misunderstood dinner party conversation.

I've seen some spectacular pratfalls in my time, but this particular combination of fatuous ignorance and self-satisfied pomposity is going to take some beating.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen