Re: President's Staff Idiots Trying to Kill LORAN

On Apr 12, 4:53 pm, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@My-
Web-Site.com> wrote:
On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 05:20:25 -0500, John Fields





<jfie...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 02:50:43 -0700 (PDT), bill.slo...@xxxxxxxx wrote:

On Apr 11, 1:53 am, John Fields <jfie...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri, 10 Apr 2009 09:43:29 -0700 (PDT), bill.slo...@xxxxxxxx wrote:
On Apr 10, 2:25 am, John Larkin
<jjlar...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, 9 Apr 2009 13:12:46 -0700 (PDT), o...@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Quote:
According to our local paper this morning the money might rather be
spent on shooting dirt particles into the higher atmosphere to soothe
global warming. I laughed so hard that I had to hang on to my coffee mug.

End Quote:

Yet the proven technology of dumping iron dust into the ocean to
encourage algea growth and reduce co2 is ignored. Not that we need to
reduce co2,

Au contraire, we need more CO2. Plants love it.

But the plants we love to eat aren't likely do do as well with extra
CO2 as the weeds that compete with them.

---
What a load of ***.

"Aren't likely"?

Cheater, all that means is that you don't have any data to substantiate
your claim, but you want your bull*** opinion to be considered fact.

Don't be silly.

---
What's silly about calling your bluff?
---

Would anybody here read such data, if I went to thr
trouble of digging it up?

---
"thr"?

Of course they would.  You're a contributor here in spite of yourself
but, in this case, you're trying to get off the hook by intimating that
they wouldn't, [read the data] even if you went to the trouble of
digging it up,  when you know full well that no such data exists,
therefore freeing you from the task of having to go digging for it while
placing the blame for your stupidity on someone else.

Typical Slomanesque sidestep.
---

Have you goen to the trouble of trying to dig up data which might
prove me wrong?

---
"goen", Dr. Sloman?

Tsk, tsk...

No, and unless you go to the trouble of digging up, and posting, data
which supports your hypothesis, I won't.

Why should I, since you're practicing junk science?
---

Or, maybe I'm wrong and you _do_ have or can point to some data which
lends some credibility to your wild assertion that crop plants do less
well under high CO2 concentrations than do weeds.

There are lots more sorts of weeds that there are

---
_than there are_ , Dr. Sloman. Tsk,tsk,tsk.
---

sorts of crop plants. It's a certainty that some weed will have a
metabolic oddity that lets it take better advantage of higher CO@
than crop plants.

---
Name one.

CO@?

Tough to let that shift key go when you've got a belly full of beer, eh?
---

Got a link?
---

No. I've got a brain and I've got background knowledge. In this sort
of intellectual kindergarten, that's more than enough.

---
No, it isn't.

Even though you'd have liked for it to have happened, you haven't caused
us all to grovel at your feet after having read your proclamations of
superiority.
---

And the extra CO2 in the atmosphere is going to change the climate
enough that the places that we grow our food today aren't going
to suit the plants that we grow there now,

---
"going going"?

You do get excited about typos.

---
Yup, especially when they're committed by one who professes to be so
much better than the rest of us that his errors should be ignored.
---

You don't know that for a fact, and your "we" makes it seem like you
want to be considered a farmer who has some a priori knowledge about
what crops will grow where, if climate changes.

We - in this context - is the whole human race, as should be obvious,
even to you.

---
More God wannabe slomanesque dodging.

You don't speak for the whole human race, so you should limit your
responses to the idiots who agree with you.
---

You are not and you have no clue as to how climate change will affect
agrarian activities on Earth so, ISTM, a nice cup of "Shut The *** Up"
would do wonders for your already shattered credibility.
---

Your opinion about my credibity merely reminds the audience that you
don't know what you are talking about.

---
The fact that I know what I'm talking about has already been established
by  thousands of helpful articles and schematics I've posted to USENET..

And you?

All you do is bitch and moan and try to put down everyone who disagrees
with you even when they have incontrovertible evidence that they're
right and you're wrong.
---

and in quite a few places,
there won't be enough rain to grow anything much (though there will be
more rain elsewhere so presumably the farmers will be able to pack up
their farms and move, if there aren't too many national borders
involved.

---
So now you think you know where the rain might not fall?

No, I don't, but New Scientist dug up a few climatologists who think
that they are better informed. You can find the article for yourself -
your credibility needs the boost that successfully completing such a
search would deliver.

---
Again, my credibility isn't what's in question here, and it isn't my job
to waste my time helping you to defend yourself.
---

How about a prediction?

Just a year, so we can track you?

You don't miss a chance to exhibit your ignorance and stupidity, do
you. Year on year predicitions are still pretty much weather
predictions rather than climate predictions, and the effect of the
rising CO2 levels does really get above the short term noise until you
start talking about decades or longer.

---
Don't you mean "doesn't really get above the short term noise"?

So, you can't even predict the weather yet you maintain that you can
predict the climate?

What a joke you are, Sloman!
---

Forget the easily predicted Monsoon and the rainy season in the tropical
Americas, tell us something about the rainfall in Texas.
---

Consult your own local authorities.

---
I see.

You have no answers, but instead of admitting it you try to pass the
buck, neatly sidestepping the issue.

Clearly slomanesque.
---  

The general wish outside of Texas
is that it should stop raining on the state, so that the obnoxious
fauna that inhabits it would dehydrate into blessed inactivity, and
people don't make predictions because there's too much risk of hope
biasing the forecasts.

---
So now you're not only a mind reader who can accurately divine the
thoughts of everyone outside of Texas, you can also tune in to their
superstitions?  Amazing!!!
---

Do try to develop a slightly more widely-informed opinion about this -
correcting your superficial aphorisms is getting boring.

---
Sometimes boredom comes out of ignorance.

You criticize, and yet you spew the aphorism:

"But the plants we love to eat aren't likely to do as well with extra
CO2 as the weeds that compete with them."

And cite no reference.

It would be a waste of time around here - Jim Thompson would complain
that any reference that I cited came from a scientist who believed in
AGW.

---
There you go again, blaming someone else again for _your_ not posting
what you can't.
---

You haven't exhbibted quite this level of inanity yet, but I'm
sure that if I keep you posting for any lenght of time you will come
up with something eually entertaining.

---
Actually, I generally only respond to your posts when you've made such a
blatant error that you need to be apprised of your stupidity in not
catching it before you posted it.

You, however, seem to hang on my every word and powerless to not
respond, so who's keeping who posting?

JF  

Didn't "Dr. Sloman" get his PhD at DeVry ?:-)

Jim failing memory is playing him false, not for the first time. I got
my Ph.D. from the University of Melbourne in Australia.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
.

Quantcast