Plimer and Silicon Chip

[KR]

On Oct 6, 9:10 am, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au>
wrote:

"Roger Dewhurst" <dewhu...@wave.co.nz> wrote in message

news:hadsdg$mp2$1@lust.ihug.co.nz...



**Plimer has been dealt with several times, by several commentators. One
scientist found in excess of 300 (three HUNDRED) errors in his book. For
my part, I've noted the plimer has failed miserably to support his
nonsensical claim that CO2 levels ALWAYS lag temperature rise.
Examintation of ice core data refutes this claim of Plimer's. It would
seem he has spent too much time reading fossil fuel propaganda, rather
than the science.

The book has faults.

**Not the least of which are the outright lies that relate to claims about
the IPCC reports. Sea level rises, for one. His cherry-picked data is hardly
scientific. It also explains why Plimer has not chosen the route of allowing
his work to be peer-reviewed.

 There are errors and it is difficult to read.  I

think that he should have used fewer examples and been more selective
about those that he chose.

**What would have been better, is that Plimer could have been honest and
objective, rather than dishonest.

  The book should have been half the length.

The book is a compromise between a broad brush approach for the general
public and something for the scientifically literate.  It is almost
impossible to combine the two and not surprisingly Plimer has not achieved
total success.  Nevertheless his general argument is substantiated.

**Only if the reader manages to avoid reading some science. Plimer's
approach appears to be that of bombarding scientific illiterates with lots
of data, whilst ignoring data which proves Plimer to be scientifically
dishonest. His lies are many.

 I was pleasantly surprised to find a number of arguments

documented which I had nutted out for myself but which I had not seen
proposed elsewhere.

**There's a good reason for that. He'd be laughed out of any scientific
peer-review process. Of course, for scientific illiterates, his work seems
to be really sciency. In reality, it comprises many lies, cherry-picked data
and a whole bunch of misleading statements.

--

That sounds exactly like what you and your kind do,
except you don't actually quote any science.




> Trevor Wilsonwww.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Trevor Wilson]

"Roger Dewhurst" <dewhurst@wave.co.nz> wrote in message
news:hae5mv$s38$1@lust.ihug.co.nz...

Trevor Wilson wrote:
"KR" <kenreed1999@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:aa3674a4-ebca-4bd7-9e18-7ad8af283f36@e4g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 6, 9:10 am, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au
wrote:
"Roger Dewhurst" <dewhu...@wave.co.nz> wrote in message

news:hadsdg$mp2$1@lust.ihug.co.nz...



**Plimer has been dealt with several times, by several commentators.
One
scientist found in excess of 300 (three HUNDRED) errors in his book.
For
my part, I've noted the plimer has failed miserably to support his
nonsensical claim that CO2 levels ALWAYS lag temperature rise.
Examintation of ice core data refutes this claim of Plimer's. It would
seem he has spent too much time reading fossil fuel propaganda, rather
than the science.
The book has faults.
**Not the least of which are the outright lies that relate to claims
about
the IPCC reports. Sea level rises, for one. His cherry-picked data is
hardly
scientific. It also explains why Plimer has not chosen the route of
allowing
his work to be peer-reviewed.

There are errors and it is difficult to read. I

think that he should have used fewer examples and been more selective
about those that he chose.
**What would have been better, is that Plimer could have been honest and
objective, rather than dishonest.

The book should have been half the length.

The book is a compromise between a broad brush approach for the general
public and something for the scientifically literate. It is almost
impossible to combine the two and not surprisingly Plimer has not
achieved
total success. Nevertheless his general argument is substantiated.
**Only if the reader manages to avoid reading some science. Plimer's
approach appears to be that of bombarding scientific illiterates with
lots
of data, whilst ignoring data which proves Plimer to be scientifically
dishonest. His lies are many.

I was pleasantly surprised to find a number of arguments

documented which I had nutted out for myself but which I had not seen
proposed elsewhere.
**There's a good reason for that. He'd be laughed out of any scientific
peer-review process. Of course, for scientific illiterates, his work
seems
to be really sciency. In reality, it comprises many lies, cherry-picked
data
and a whole bunch of misleading statements.

--

That sounds exactly like what you and your kind do,
except you don't actually quote any science.

**On the contrary. I HAVE supplied the science. YOU managed to ignore it.
Keep your head buried in the sand and believe the claptrap handed to you
by Plimer if it makes you happy.


You may think that you have supplied some science but since you would not
recognize science if it bit you on the bum

**LOL! I suggest you read some science sometime. Plimer (and you) have zero
idea. You have failed to supply any cites. Not one.

your comments are

somewhat useless, much as your rants on firearms of a few years ago.

**And again, you fail to supply cites or evidence to support your
assertions. You are full of shit.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[David L. Jones]

Phil Allison wrote:

"Trevor Wilson"

**Plimer has been dealt with several times, by several commentators.
One scientist found in excess of 300 (three HUNDRED) errors in his
book. For my part, I've noted the plimer has failed miserably to
support his nonsensical claim that CO2 levels ALWAYS lag temperature
rise. Examintation of ice core data refutes this claim of Plimer's.


** Data obtained from ice core samples IS dodgy at best - all sorts
of elaborate * hypotheses * ( ie not proven facts ) are used to
interpret what is found in them.

Ice cores are not used because they are such good evidence of the
past state of the atmosphere - but rather because they are the ONLY
evidence.
Reading the future from tea leaves is about as scientific.

Nevertheless, the Wiki on ice cores flatly contradicts TW and supports
Plimer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core#Ice_core_data

" Nonetheless, recent work has tended to show that during
deglaciations CO2 increases lags temperature increases by 600 +/- 400
years."

Yet the poor glaciers continue to decline:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of_glaciers_since_1850
I've stood on some of them in the Rockies and Alps and watched them melt
under my feet.

AGW? Solar? Whale farts? or Phil's Tea Leaves?, take your pick or invent
your own. Still sad to see though, I like glaciers.

Dave.

--
================================================
Check out my Electronics Engineering Video Blog & Podcast:
http://www.eevblog.com

 

[Trevor Wilson]

"Phil Allison" <phil_a@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:7ivk7gF345maeU1@mid.individual.net...

"Trevor Wilson"

**Plimer has been dealt with several times, by several commentators. One
scientist found in excess of 300 (three HUNDRED) errors in his book. For
my part, I've noted the plimer has failed miserably to support his
nonsensical claim that CO2 levels ALWAYS lag temperature rise.
Examintation of ice core data refutes this claim of Plimer's.


** Data obtained from ice core samples IS dodgy at best - all sorts of
elaborate * hypotheses * ( ie not proven facts ) are used to interpret
what is found in them.

Ice cores are not used because they are such good evidence of the past
state of the atmosphere - but rather because they are the ONLY evidence.

**Untrue. They are defintely the best, most reliable, most testable source
however. Tree rings are another, less reliable source. Moreover, Plimer is
unable to read the same ice core data he cites.

Reading the future from tea leaves is about as scientific.

**Dream on. Ice core data is the most reliable data available for
temperatures stretching back several hundred thousand years. It may not be
perfect, but it is decent enough.

Nevertheless, the Wiki on ice cores flatly contradicts TW and supports
Plimer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core#Ice_core_data

" Nonetheless, recent work has tended to show that during deglaciations
CO2 increases lags temperature increases by 600 +/- 400 years."

**It seems that Wikipedia is incorrect. Gee, that never happens.

BTW " deglaciations " are periods when the place is getting warmer.

**Before you defend Plimer and Simpson, I suggest this as some appropriate
reading material:

WARNING: This is a ~ 400kB .pdf file.
http://www.complex.org.au/tiki-download_file.php?fileId=91



--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Phil Allison]

"Trevor Wilson is a CHARLATAN and a LUNATIC "

**Plimer has been dealt with several times, by several commentators. One
scientist found in excess of 300 (three HUNDRED) errors in his book. For
my part, I've noted the plimer has failed miserably to support his
nonsensical claim that CO2 levels ALWAYS lag temperature rise.
Examintation of ice core data refutes this claim of Plimer's.


** Data obtained from ice core samples IS dodgy at best - all sorts of
elaborate * hypotheses * ( ie not proven facts ) are used to interpret
what is found in them.

Ice cores are not used because they are such good evidence of the past
state of the atmosphere - but rather because they are the ONLY evidence.

**Untrue.

** Read the Wiki - you FUCKING NUT CASE !!

Reading the future from tea leaves is about as scientific.

**Dream on.

** Read the Wiki - you FUCKING NUT CASE !!!

Nevertheless, the Wiki on ice cores flatly contradicts TW and supports
Plimer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core#Ice_core_data

" Nonetheless, recent work has tended to show that during deglaciations
CO2 increases lags temperature increases by 600 +/- 400 years."

**It seems that Wikipedia is incorrect.

** Read the link at the end of the quote

- you FUCKING NUT CASE !!


...... Phil

 

[Roger Dewhurst]

Phil Allison wrote:

"Trevor Wilson is a CHARLATAN and a LUNATIC "


**Plimer has been dealt with several times, by several commentators. One
scientist found in excess of 300 (three HUNDRED) errors in his book. For
my part, I've noted the plimer has failed miserably to support his
nonsensical claim that CO2 levels ALWAYS lag temperature rise.
Examintation of ice core data refutes this claim of Plimer's.

** Data obtained from ice core samples IS dodgy at best - all sorts of
elaborate * hypotheses * ( ie not proven facts ) are used to interpret
what is found in them.

Ice cores are not used because they are such good evidence of the past
state of the atmosphere - but rather because they are the ONLY evidence.
**Untrue.

** Read the Wiki - you FUCKING NUT CASE !!


Reading the future from tea leaves is about as scientific.
**Dream on.


** Read the Wiki - you FUCKING NUT CASE !!!


Nevertheless, the Wiki on ice cores flatly contradicts TW and supports
Plimer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core#Ice_core_data

" Nonetheless, recent work has tended to show that during deglaciations
CO2 increases lags temperature increases by 600 +/- 400 years."
**It seems that Wikipedia is incorrect.


** Read the link at the end of the quote

- you FUCKING NUT CASE !!


..... Phil

You really should save the rudeness for special occasions of which this
is indeed one. Used too frequently it loses its effect.

R

 

[Trevor Wilson]

"Roger Dewhurst" <dewhurst@wave.co.nz> wrote in message
news:haeei3$15p$4@lust.ihug.co.nz...

You really should save the rudeness for special occasions of which this is
indeed one. Used too frequently it loses its effect.

**You really are a piece of work. You fail completely to supply anything
remotely resembling evidence and dance when you see someone using profanity
to make some kind of point.

Where is your evidence?


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Roger Dewhurst]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

"Roger Dewhurst" <dewhurst@wave.co.nz> wrote in message
news:haeei3$15p$4@lust.ihug.co.nz...
You really should save the rudeness for special occasions of which this is
indeed one. Used too frequently it loses its effect.

**You really are a piece of work. You fail completely to supply anything
remotely resembling evidence and dance when you see someone using profanity
to make some kind of point.

Where is your evidence?


That would be casting pearls before swine. You would not know

'evidence' if it bit you on the bum.

R

 

[Trevor Wilson]

"Roger Dewhurst" <dewhurst@wave.co.nz> wrote in message
news:haefbn$22t$1@lust.ihug.co.nz...

Trevor Wilson wrote:
"Roger Dewhurst" <dewhurst@wave.co.nz> wrote in message
news:haeei3$15p$4@lust.ihug.co.nz...
You really should save the rudeness for special occasions of which this
is indeed one. Used too frequently it loses its effect.

**You really are a piece of work. You fail completely to supply anything
remotely resembling evidence and dance when you see someone using
profanity to make some kind of point.

Where is your evidence?


That would be casting pearls before swine. You would not know 'evidence'
if it bit you on the bum.

**LOL! Still pissing in the wind I note. You don't supply any evidence,
because you are unable to do so. Your preference is to snipe. I'll just
continue to expose you for what you are. A bag of wind.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Phil Allison]

"Roger Dewhurst"

You really should save the rudeness for special occasions of which this is
indeed one. Used too frequently it loses its effect.

** Nothing has any effect on TWs' thick head.




...... Phil

 

[Trevor Wilson]

"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
news:4acae32c$0$6093$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...

"Roger Dewhurst" <dewhurst@wave.co.nz> wrote in message
news:hae5mv$s38$1@lust.ihug.co.nz...
"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:7ivl8gF33u9u5U1@mid.individual.net...
your comments are
somewhat useless, much as your rants on firearms of a few years ago.

**And again, you fail to supply cites or evidence to support your
assertions.

Whilst I believe global warming caused by man made sources *IS* a problem,
I
also believe trying to counter it by increasing the 7+Billion people on
the
planet is far worse than King Canute, and a FARRRRR more expensive failure
to boot!

**Absolutely no argument from me. The Rudd government and the previous
Howard government are/were environmental vandals in this respect.
Australia's population is already beyond capacity. Allowing it to grow
larger, is stupid. It is worse for most of the rest of the planet.
Population control is utterly essential. The sooner the better. Immigration
must cease and encouraging people to procreate beyond replacement is
obscene. Clear enough?

And while I've forgotten the "rants on firearms"

**I'm still waiting for that idiot, 'Roger Dewhurst', to supply some
justification of his comments in this matter.

your recent rants about GPS

usage were hardly "scientific". Cherry picking of data, and incorrect,
biased conclusions are not exclusive to Plimer it seems

**I'm not perfect. My OPINIONS about whether GPS units are just that:
OPINIONS. They are opinions, based on an unfortunate experience and some
soberbering statistics. I accept that others will have different opinions in
that matter. Plimer is dressing opinions up as fact. And idiots like
Simpson, Allison and Dewhurst are sucking it all up. Fundamentally, these
idiots need to be convinced about the fact of AGW, before population control
measures can be implemented.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Mr.T]

"David L. Jones" <altzone@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:NCkym.206652$8B7.175002@newsfe20.iad...

$100 per page is the going rate, tax free.

Tax free? I don't think so. (You may have deductions that will effectively
make it so however, since then they will WANT to classify it as a hobby)

MrT.

 

[Mr.T]

"Roger Dewhurst" <dewhurst@wave.co.nz> wrote in message
news:hae5mv$s38$1@lust.ihug.co.nz...

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:7ivl8gF33u9u5U1@mid.individual.net...
your comments are
somewhat useless, much as your rants on firearms of a few years ago.

**And again, you fail to supply cites or evidence to support your
assertions.

Whilst I believe global warming caused by man made sources *IS* a problem, I
also believe trying to counter it by increasing the 7+Billion people on the
planet is far worse than King Canute, and a FARRRRR more expensive failure
to boot!

And while I've forgotten the "rants on firearms" your recent rants about GPS
usage were hardly "scientific". Cherry picking of data, and incorrect,
biased conclusions are not exclusive to Plimer it seems

MrT.

 

[Mr.T]

"David L. Jones" <altzone@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Rzxym.22078$Fg7.20619@newsfe03.iad...

Yet the poor glaciers continue to decline:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of_glaciers_since_1850
I've stood on some of them in the Rockies and Alps and watched them melt
under my feet.

Happens EVERY year, with or without Global Warming. It's the *long term*
decrease that is the problem, and that's also happened a number of times in
the history of the world, even before we had 7 Billion people to help it
along!!!

MrT.

 

[Mr.T]

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:7j07siF346qldU1@mid.individual.net...

**I'm not perfect. My OPINIONS about whether GPS units are just that:
OPINIONS.

Fair enough.

Fundamentally, these
idiots need to be convinced about the fact of AGW, before population
control
measures can be implemented.

Unfortunately hardly any government, political party, or individuals are
willing to link the two and do anything about the real cause of climate
change in any case. I'm TOTALLY sick of paying their baby bonuses AND carbon
"taxes". Pick ONE or the other!!!

MrT.

 

[David L. Jones]

Mr.T wrote:

"David L. Jones" <altzone@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:NCkym.206652$8B7.175002@newsfe20.iad...
$100 per page is the going rate, tax free.

Tax free? I don't think so. (You may have deductions that will
effectively make it so however, since then they will WANT to classify
it as a hobby)

Yes, tax free. For most people it can be classified as hobby income, unless
you are silly enough to deliberably say it's not. SC even gave me a form to
fill out stating that the income I was receiving was for hobby purposes, to
cover their backside too I guess...

Dave.
--
---------------------------------------------
Check out my Electronics Engineering Video Blog & Podcast:
http://www.eevblog.com

 

[David L. Jones]

Mr.T wrote:

"David L. Jones" <altzone@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Rzxym.22078$Fg7.20619@newsfe03.iad...
Yet the poor glaciers continue to decline:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of_glaciers_since_1850
I've stood on some of them in the Rockies and Alps and watched them
melt under my feet.

Happens EVERY year, with or without Global Warming. It's the *long
term* decrease that is the problem

Of course, I was waxing lyrical a tad.
If you stood on a glacier and watched it melt and knew it was actually
retreating long term very quickly, you might feel the same way!

, and that's also happened a number
of times in the history of the world, even before we had 7 Billion
people to help it along!!!

Yep, but no one knows for sure if it has happened this quickly before
though.
The 7 Billion selfish humanoids could very well be helping it along.
Bastards!

Dave.

--
---------------------------------------------
Check out my Electronics Engineering Video Blog & Podcast:
http://www.eevblog.com

 

[Peter K]

--

"David L. Jones" <altzone@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:NCkym.206652$8B7.175002@newsfe20.iad...

$100 per page is the going rate, tax-free.
Not a huge amount, but say $800 for an average 8 page article ain't so
bad.

SC is a business like any other. It is neither a charity nor a
peer-reviewed journal. For an experienced professionally qualified engineer
or scientist a reasonable hourly rate for contract or consulting work at the
moment is at least $100. Most of us would charge minimum $1000 per day. If
you claim you can write an 8-page article on a novel topic, in addition to
prototype construction and testing, in less than 1 day, then you are
delusional. Once again remember the old saying, pay peanuts, get monkeys.

A guy like you should be able to churn out a great article in no time, yes?
SC will usually put good articles in pretty quick, within a month or two.

OK, now we are getting down to the personal stuff. You have no idea who I
am, what my qualifications are or what experience or publications I have.
Given that you consider your "Renew" contribution is a career highlight I
don't think I have much to worry about if we were ever to compare CV's.



Getting back to the main topic. What I have said is that SC has published
articles that are grossly technically incompetent. The pressure sensor water
tank level gauge is a perfect example. This was revised three times over
three issues after many people pointed out the stupidity of inserting a tube
with the top end sealed and not expecting the trapped air to dissolve in the
water. Why do they think bubbler level sensors have been around for the
last 30 years? After 3 revisions they still didn't get it right.

Perhaps, there have been many around the world, but I'd like to think mine
had a different slant. Renew thought it good enough to publish. Which ones
in particular did you think were similar?

No David, your solar air heater is not different or any better than the
scores of others that are detailed on the Web and other places. You know as
well as I do that designs similar, if not identical, have been around in
local libraries for years before 2005. Here are a few:



"Solar Air Heater Plans" by Ray Wolf, ISBN 0-87857-369-3...
Rodale Press, 33 East Minor St., Emmaus, PA 18049, 1981.



The Complete Book of Solar Air Heating
Systems_ by Steve Kornher and Andy Zaugg. Rodale Press, 1984,



http://www.builditsolar.com/Projects/SpaceHeating/SolAirHtSysBook/SolAirHtingBk.htmLets get a few other things straight while we are at it. The topic I postedwas about the editor of SC using his magazine for promoting unscientificviews about climate change. You have chosen to ignore this important point.Given that you are attempting to get some income from SC and that globalwarming is the greatest problem ever faced by humans do you think yoursilence may indicate something about your ethics?Is this the best you can come up with?"AGW? Solar? Whale farts? or Phil's Tea Leaves?, take your pick or inventyour own. Still sad to see though, I like glaciers." ?Finally, a few words of advice. If you want to be taken seriously as aprofessional then spending vast amounts of time on a USENET group such asthis, which is well known to be overpopulated by personality disorderedindividuals, and promoting internet dating services on your own pages, isnot going to help you in the long term.Pete

 

[Phil Allison]

"Peter Karoly is a FAKE "

"David L. Jones"

$100 per page is the going rate, tax-free.
Not a huge amount, but say $800 for an average 8 page article ain't so
bad.


SC is a business like any other.

** Absurd drivel.

Businesses are nothing like all the same.

Only ignorant, pseudo academic TWATS imagine that.

It is neither a charity nor a peer-reviewed journal.

** It is not a bowl of soup either.

Wot is this posturing puke ON about ???

For an experienced professionally qualified engineer or scientist a
reasonable hourly rate for contract or consulting work at the moment is at
least $100.

** Good grief !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Tradesmen doing service work charge that much, at least.

Most of us would charge minimum $1000 per day.

** Wot the fuck has professional consulting fees got to do with writing an
article for SC ???

Nothing.

If you claim you can write an 8-page article on a novel topic, in
addition to prototype construction and testing, in less than 1 day, then
you are delusional.

** Wot a BLATANT " straw man " fallacy.

Once again remember the old saying, pay peanuts, get monkeys.

** Then again, you could pay plenty and still get a ** manic baboon ** like
this smug puke.

A guy like you should be able to churn out a great article in no time,
yes? SC will usually put good articles in pretty quick, within a month or
two.


OK, now we are getting down to the personal stuff. You have no idea who I
am, what my qualifications are or what experience or publications I have.

** Not Dave's problem that YOU chose to be mysterious & anonymous.

That is 100% YOUR problem - shithead.

Given that you consider your "Renew" contribution is a career highlight I
don't think I have much to worry about if we were ever to compare CV's.

** My god, this vile puke IS fucking asking for it.

Getting back to the main topic. What I have said is that SC has published
articles that are grossly technically incompetent.

** Sure, they do that all the time.

It's only a hobby magazine and contributed material is taken at face value.

Poor quality material appears in ANY magazine you care to name.

Science journals are RIDDLED with it !!!!!

Most of it from pricks like you.

The pressure sensor water tank level gauge is a perfect example.

** Hardly, as the problem issue is one unrelated to electronics design.


NOTE:

Folks, we have here another prime example of the sort of useless * piles of
shit * being regularly spewed out by publicly funded universities.

Full of BULLSHIT right up to the eyeballs, it publicly attacks fully
identified people while hiding like a damn coward behind a cloak of self
imposed anonymity.

Ain't higher education just wonderful.




...... Phil

 

[David L. Jones]

Peter K wrote:

$100 per page is the going rate, tax-free.
Not a huge amount, but say $800 for an average 8 page article ain't
so bad.

SC is a business like any other. It is neither a charity nor a
peer-reviewed journal. For an experienced professionally qualified
engineer or scientist a reasonable hourly rate for contract or consulting
work
at the moment is at least $100. Most of us would charge minimum $1000 per
day. If you claim you can write an 8-page article on a novel topic, in
addition to prototype construction and testing, in less than 1 day, then
you are
delusional. Once again remember the old saying, pay peanuts, get
monkeys.

That's the typical response I expected, as you aren't the first.
So you were interested in getting something published in SC, but now you
refuse to because they don't pay enough?
Ever heard of doing something for the fun and satisfaction of it, and
helping others?
Seeing as that you have (had?) some interest in SC as a reader, what's wrong
with contributing?
You certainly cared enough about SC to complain...

I'm surpsied a person of your obvious high standing in the professional
engineering community even reads a hobby magazine like SC...

A guy like you should be able to churn out a great article in no
time, yes? SC will usually put good articles in pretty quick, within
a month or two.

OK, now we are getting down to the personal stuff.

No, just asking you to put your talent where your anoynmous mouth is.
You slag off at SC for their poor content and then aren't willing to
contribute anything yourself even though you claim to be more than capable
to do so.

You've made precisely zero money writing to and reading this forum, how
about you turn some of that energy into a publication for us all to enjoy?
And Leo will even pay you a few bucks, ain't he nice?

You have no idea who I am, what my qualifications are or what experience
or publications I have.

So, tell us.

BTW, why would I care?, it has nothing to do with anything. Your words speak
for yourself. But given that you are criticising publications, I am
interested in what you have contributed, so show us.

Given that you consider your "Renew" contribution is a career highlight

LOL, hardly!
I did it for fun and the desire to contribute something, try it some time,
you might actually like it.

I don't think I have much to worry about if we were ever to compare
CV's.

*yawn*

No David, your solar air heater is not different or any better than
the scores of others that are detailed on the Web and other places. You
know as well as I do that designs similar, if not identical, have been
around
in local libraries for years before 2005. Here are a few:

Years? try decades.
I make no claims for my content being completely original, I just built my
own version and thought it would be nice to publish and share with other
people. And shock horror, many people found it very valuable. Shame you have
such a seemingly low opinion on freely sharing and contributing knowledge.

If I'm wrong, show us stuff you have contributed, or start contributing.

Lets get a few other things straight while we are at it. The topic I
postedwas about the editor of SC using his magazine for promoting
unscientificviews about climate change. You have chosen to ignore
this important point.

Correct, my choice. You get no say in it, sorry.

Given that you are attempting to get some income from SC

I don't do it for the money, that's laughable. The small amount of money I
get is nothing and does not even come close to paying for my time or support
effort involved in doing stuff like this. I do it because it's fun and I
like to contribute.
Ask any contributor and they will tell you the same thing.
Try it some time, you might like it.

and that globalwarming is the greatest problem ever faced by
humans

No actually, overpopulation and nuclear weapons are.

do you think yoursilence may indicate something about your ethics?

No I don't actually, my silence indicates precisely nothing. Anything
perceived from my silence is just your active imagination.

BTW, I've criticised SC more than my fair share of times.

If you knew anything about me, you'd know I do give more than a toss about
the environment. I would have thought my Solar Sponge article hinted at
that?

Is this the best you can come up with?"AGW? Solar? Whale
farts? or Phil's Tea Leaves?, take your pick or inventyour own. Still
sad to see though, I like glaciers." ?

It was a poor(?) attempt at humour, something some on this group actually
enjoy occasionally!

Finally, a few words of advice.

Advice from an anonymous usenet poster?, this should be a hoot...

If you want to be taken seriously as a professional then
spending vast amounts of time on a USENET group such asthis, which is
well known to be overpopulated by personality disorderedindividuals,

Oh the irony!

Once again, I contribute and have helped countless people through this and
other forums. And likewise they have helped me on occasion in return.
Show us what you have contributed.

and promoting internet dating services on your own pages, isnot going
to help you in the long term.

I actually wrote an Internet Dating book a long time ago, in case you missed
it. Yet another contribution of mine. Want a copy?, I'll send you one for
free. It's ok if it's an anonymous PO box to go along with your anonymous
usenet profile, really.

Regards
Dave.

--
---------------------------------------------
Check out my Electronics Engineering Video Blog & Podcast:
http://www.eevblog.com