Ping Bil Slowman; The global warming hoax reveiled

[Bill Sloman]

On Nov 21, 11:41 pm, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Sat, 21 Nov 2009 13:10:31 -0800) it happened Joerg
inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote in <7mr3a8F3jab6...@mid.individual.net>:

One can wonder what the real truth is, about temperature, and then again about
what causes it, you know there were, and will be, ice ages, nobody
was having coal plants in the previous one to create CO2 (in the Netherlands they now want to store the CO2
in the ground under my house almost), so, all feeble science.

Time to sell? Once this sort of "project" has moved along far enough you
might not be able to, for the price you'd want.

Could be, I already looked up if CO2 was heavier then air (it is):
 http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090611040945AAPt3oV
else it would be very dangerous to live here.
But some geological processes could push it upwards, you would get suffocated in your sleep,
nowhere to run, even if you found out what was happening.
CO2 detector, oxygen equipment, fast car or helicopter, and you MAY have a chance

If for some reason pressure shifts down there and a bubble gets pushed
up you may not have time to start the turbo-shaft engine in your
helicopter. Besides you sitting there slumped over the controls, it also
needs some oxygen to work.

Of course, if this were likely to happen, Barendrecht would have
vanished in a giant fireball sometime in the last few thousand years,
when the - now exhausted - natural gas field under the town had pushed
a bubble of natural gas up to the surface.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5i0gwwjN8hkEa1SyfHo_b7LhZ3z2A

<snipped the rest of the idiot anxieties>

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmgen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Nov 22, 2:56 am, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Nov 21, 4:52 pm, Jon Kirwan <j...@infinitefactors.org> wrote:





On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 11:54:05 GMT, Jan Panteltje

pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
The global warming hoax revealed:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html?partne....

Quote from that article
This shows these are people willing to bend rules and
go after other people's reputations in very serious ways,' he said. Spencer
R. Weart, a physicist and historian who is charting the course of research
on global warming, said the hacked material would serve as 'great material
for historians.'
end quote

LOL.
Some science!

And that in a leftist newspaper!

The points are addressed in realclimate.org.  By Gavin, who is one of
those whose emails were disclosed and others who post there.  The
_truer_ feelings that some climate scientists have for some of the
public naysayers are exposed.  Oh, well.  Too bad.

It's not surprising they don't like their critics.  But as scientists
they shouldn't be
 a) resisting sharing their data,
 b) colluding to suppress competing publications,
 c) or directing one another--or anyone else--to delete their e-mails
wrt AR4.

Scientists cooperate, sometimes compete, but never conspire.

Scientists are human, and they conspire all the time. The great
majority of them have enough sense to avoid conspiring to keep
competent scientific work out of the literature, but everything else
is fair game.

And playing fair with scientific journals is a tolerably modern
virtue. In the nineteenth century there was an endless succession of
scientific journals in Germany. Every established journal eventually
fell under the influence of some god-professor or other, and stopped
publishing papers by anybody except his students and ex-students, so
the rest of the field would have to set up a new journal in order to
be able to publish their research.

The publishers eventually got wise to this, and made sure that they
could dump editors who were damaging the status (and thus the market
share) of the journals that they published, but it didn't happen
overnight.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[John Larkin]

On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 18:14:04 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Nov 22, 12:00 am, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 11:54:05 GMT, Jan Panteltje

pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
The global warming hoax revealed:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html?partne...

Quote from that article
This shows these are people willing to bend rules and
go after other people's reputations in very serious ways,' he said. Spencer
R. Weart, a physicist and historian who is charting the course of research
on global warming, said the hacked material would serve as 'great material
for historians.'
end quote

LOL.
Some science!

And that in a leftist newspaper!

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125883405294859215.html?mod=googlenew...

"In several of the emails, climate researchers discussed how to
arrange for favorable reviewers for papers they planned to publish in
scientific journals. At the same time, climate researchers at times
appeared to pressure scientific journals not to publish research by
other scientists whose findings they disagreed with."

Most scientists have a fair idea of who might be asked to review their
papers, and adjust the papers to encourage editors to go for the more
constructive and well-informed of the likely referees.

They also have opinions about the kind of work that other people do,
the reliability of the results that other scientists claim, and the
quality of the papers that they produce. Some people are bad enough
that they end up trying to publish in journals on the edges of their
field, where the editors won't know how untrustworthy they are.
Personal contacts often mean that they don't get away with it.

Some good stuff here:

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/com...

" The other paper by MM is just garbage – as you knew. De Freitas
again. Pielke is also losing all credibility as well by replying to
the mad Finn as well – frequently as I see it. I can’t see either of
these papers being in the next IPCC report. K and I will keep them out
somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature
is ! "

Obviously not intended for publication, but why would you ever think
that because scientists are obliged to publish sober and rational
arguments, they aren't emotionally involved in their work?

Because they respect the scientific method? Because they honor truth?

I thought they were obliged to publish their actual measured results,
not cherry-picked or outright fudged data.

Apparently not.

John

 

[Raveninghorde]

On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 18:03:41 +0000, Raveninghorde
<raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 05:53:00 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Nov 21, 6:54 am, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
The global warming hoax revealed:
 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html?partne...

Quote from that article
This shows these are people willing to bend rules and
go after other people's reputations in very serious ways,' he said. Spencer
R. Weart, a physicist and historian who is charting the course of research
on global warming, said the hacked material would serve as 'great material
for historians.'
end quote

LOL.
Some science!

And that in a leftist newspaper!

Summary:
http://doctorbulldog.wordpress.com/2009/11/20/the-telegraph-picks-up-on-the-hadley-cru-story/

Details:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/19/breaking-news-story-hadley-cru-has-apparently-been-hacked-hundreds-of-files-released/#more-12937


And a search engine for CRU emails

www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/

Interesting summary of issues here:

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/11/20/climate-cuttings-33.html

e.g

/quotes

Mann sends calibration residuals for MBH99 to Osborn. Says they are
pretty red, and that they shouldn't be passed on to others, this being
the kind of dirty laundry they don't want in the hands of those who
might distort it.(1059664704)

# Reaction to McIntyre's 2005 paper in GRL. Mann has challenged GRL
editor-in-chief over the publication. Mann is concerned about the
connections of the paper's editor James Saiers with U Virginia [does
he mean Pat Michaels?]. Tom Wigley says that if Saiers is a sceptic
they should go through official GRL channels to get him ousted.
(1106322460) [Note to readers - Saiers was subsequently ousted]

# Later on Mann refers to the leak at GRL being plugged.(1132094873)

/end quotes

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Sat, 21 Nov 2009 14:41:58 -0800) it happened Joerg
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in <7mr8loF3j4o64U1@mid.individual.net>:

Could be, I already looked up if CO2 was heavier then air (it is):
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090611040945AAPt3oV
else it would be very dangerous to live here.
But some geological processes could push it upwards, you would get suffocated in your sleep,
nowhere to run, even if you found out what was happening.
CO2 detector, oxygen equipment, fast car or helicopter, and you MAY have a chance


If for some reason pressure shifts down there and a bubble gets pushed
up you may not have time to start the turbo-shaft engine in your
helicopter. Besides you sitting there slumped over the controls, it also
needs some oxygen to work.

Yes, after I wrote that, I realised the copter and the car would not start... no oxygen.
Then the only way would be a helium balloon in the attic, with big flaps that open in the roof,
so it can take of vertically, and then, when in fresh air, have the wind blow you elsewhere.
Hot air balloon will not work either, no oxygen for the burners, and hydrogen is dangerous,
but could perhaps be used.
Like that balloon that real scientist makes in the movie 'Waterworld' (recommended movie),
the one he saves everybody with.

But they'd keep on driving their Volvos

Yup.

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Sat, 21 Nov 2009 17:44:10 -0800 (PST)) it happened Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
<c84b300f-508c-4a83-aaab-8964e64d30f1@l2g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>:

On Nov 21, 11:41 pm, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Sat, 21 Nov 2009 13:10:31 -0800) it happened Joerg
inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote in <7mr3a8F3jab6...@mid.individual.net>=
:

One can wonder what the real truth is, about temperature, and then ag=
ain about
what causes it, you know there were, and will be, ice ages, nobody
was having coal plants in the previous one to create CO2 (in the Neth=
erlands they now want to store the CO2
in the ground under my house almost), so, all feeble science.

Time to sell? Once this sort of "project" has moved along far enough y=
ou
might not be able to, for the price you'd want.

Could be, I already looked up if CO2 was heavier then air (it is):
 http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090611040945AAPt3oV
else it would be very dangerous to live here.
But some geological processes could push it upwards, you would get suff=
ocated in your sleep,
nowhere to run, even if you found out what was happening.
CO2 detector, oxygen equipment, fast car or helicopter, and you MAY hav=
e a chance

If for some reason pressure shifts down there and a bubble gets pushed
up you may not have time to start the turbo-shaft engine in your
helicopter. Besides you sitting there slumped over the controls, it also
needs some oxygen to work.

Of course, if this were likely to happen, Barendrecht would have
vanished in a giant fireball sometime in the last few thousand years,
when the - now exhausted - natural gas field under the town had pushed
a bubble of natural gas up to the surface.

Well, think Groningen (a place in The Netherlands where natural gas is pumped up),
many an small earthquake has happened there because of the ground caving in,
I could feel some of those here.
Of course once you start filling up those cavities with _millions_of_tons_ of CO2,
more instability will happen.
You only need a cloud pushed up of 2 meters high for more then five minutes
to kill all lifeforms in the area.
I do not see you climb a tree when half conscious snapping for air.

So it is an idiotic idea, does not do any good for anybody,
and an other folly you seem to support, just like global warming.
I would state it this way:
If we asked all politicians that voted for it, to accept the death penalty if anything
went wrong, would they still vote for it?
I think there would be very few votes in favour.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Nov 22, 1:07 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On a sunny day (Sat, 21 Nov 2009 17:44:10 -0800 (PST)) it happened Bill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote in
c84b300f-508c-4a83-aaab-8964e64d3...@l2g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>:





On Nov 21, 11:41 pm, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Sat, 21 Nov 2009 13:10:31 -0800) it happened Joerg
inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote in <7mr3a8F3jab6...@mid.individual.net>> >:

One can wonder what the real truth is, about temperature, and then ag> >ain about
what causes it, you know there were, and will be, ice ages, nobody
was having coal plants in the previous one to create CO2 (in the Neth> >erlands they now want to store the CO2
in the ground under my house almost), so, all feeble science.

Time to sell? Once this sort of "project" has moved along far enough y> >ou
might not be able to, for the price you'd want.

Could be, I already looked up if CO2 was heavier then air (it is):
 http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090611040945AAPt3oV
else it would be very dangerous to live here.
But some geological processes could push it upwards, you would get suff> >ocated in your sleep,
nowhere to run, even if you found out what was happening.
CO2 detector, oxygen equipment, fast car or helicopter, and you MAY hav> >e a chance

If for some reason pressure shifts down there and a bubble gets pushed
up you may not have time to start the turbo-shaft engine in your
helicopter. Besides you sitting there slumped over the controls, it also
needs some oxygen to work.

Of course, if this were likely to happen, Barendrecht would have
vanished in a giant fireball sometime in the last few thousand years,
when the - now exhausted - natural gas field under the town had pushed
a bubble of natural gas up to the surface.

Well, think Groningen (a place in The Netherlands where natural gas is pumped up),
many an small earthquake has happened there because of the ground caving in,
I could feel some of those here.

The ground above the gas field can move up and down, but whatever
sealed the gas field for a few hundred million years has to have
survived a lot of similar perturbations.

Of course once you start filling up those cavities with _millions_of_tons_ of CO2,
more instability will happen.

Less, actually, since you are replacing the original natural gas and
restoring the status quo that had been in place for a feww hundred
million years.

You only need a cloud pushed up of 2 meters high for more then five minutes
to kill all lifeforms in the area.

Sure. But you have to have some realistic idea of how the CO2 would
percolate up through more than a mile of geology to form that 2 metre
thick layer. In Lake Victoria, the CO2 rich layer of water in the
depths of the lake turned itself into a kind of geyser to get up to
the surface. I presume that your unfettered imagination is postulating
a similar kind of never-before-seen pseudo-volcanic event under
Barendrecht. Learn a bit more about the subject and you will rapidly
feel less anxious.

I do not see you climb a tree when half conscious snapping for air.

Since there weren't any volcanic outbursts of natural gas in the
hudreds of milion years that the natural gas field soent waitng under
Barendrecht, you have a very good chance of dying of old age long
before - several hundred millions years before - you might want to
climb a tree to get away from any CO2 that escaped. Your denial of
anthropogenic global warming - if widely shared - would see you
clambering up the same tree to get above the waters of the expanded
North Sea in a rather shorter time.

So it is an idiotic idea, does not do any good for anybody,
and an other folly you seem to support, just like global warming.

The idiotic ideas and the folly are all yours. You are getting excited
about a totally improbable potential disaster, and ignoring the real
problem.

I would state it this way:
If we asked all politicians that voted for it, to accept the death penalty if anything
went wrong, would they still vote for it?
I think there would be very few votes in favour.

But your proposition - that we ignore anthropogenic global warming
because you can't be bothered to get your head around the scientific
evidence - has a finite possibility of condemning the whole human race
to death in a global extinction, which hasn't stopped you voting for
it.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Nov 22, 10:17 am, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 18:03:41 +0000, Raveninghorde





raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 05:53:00 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Nov 21, 6:54 am, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
The global warming hoax revealed:
 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html?partne...

Quote from that article
This shows these are people willing to bend rules and
go after other people's reputations in very serious ways,' he said. Spencer
R. Weart, a physicist and historian who is charting the course of research
on global warming, said the hacked material would serve as 'great material
for historians.'
end quote

LOL.
Some science!

And that in a leftist newspaper!

Summary:
http://doctorbulldog.wordpress.com/2009/11/20/the-telegraph-picks-up-....

Details:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/19/breaking-news-story-hadley-cru-....

And a search engine for CRU emails

www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/

Interesting summary of issues here:

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/11/20/climate-cuttings-33...

e.g

/quotes

Mann sends calibration residuals for MBH99 to Osborn. Says they are
pretty red, and that they shouldn't be passed on to others, this being
the kind of dirty laundry they don't want in the hands of those who
might distort it.(1059664704)

Seems reasonable, considering what you do with evidence that directly
contradicts your propositions.

# Reaction to McIntyre's 2005 paper in GRL. Mann has challenged GRL
editor-in-chief over the publication. Mann is concerned about the
connections of the paper's editor James Saiers with U Virginia [does
he mean Pat Michaels?]. Tom Wigley says that if Saiers is a sceptic
they should go through official GRL channels to get him ousted.
(1106322460) [Note to readers - Saiers was subsequently ousted]

# Later on Mann refers to the leak at GRL being plugged.(1132094873)

/end quotes- Hide quoted text -

Since being a climate sceptic requires that you don't understand the
evidence, it is usually a symptom of scientific incompetence, which is
a perfectly valid reason for getting rid of an editor.

In your capacity as a climate sceptic who doesn't understand the
scientific evidence you may not be susceptible to this argument, but
that doesn't invalidate it.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Sun, 22 Nov 2009 06:20:23 -0800 (PST)) it happened Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
<36aa404c-b398-49ea-9967-67847862bc57@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>:

But your proposition - that we ignore anthropogenic global warming
because you can't be bothered to get your head around the scientific
evidence - has a finite possibility of condemning the whole human race
to death in a global extinction, which hasn't stopped you voting for
it.

*Evidence*??????, do you have a reading problem?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
http://doctorbulldog.wordpress.com/2009/11/20/the-telegraph-picks-up-on-the-hadley-cru-story/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/19/breaking-news-story-hadley-cru-has-apparently-been-hacked-hundreds-of-files-released/#more-12937
And all over the internet.
Manipulated data, scientific fraud, defamation of real scientists with different data and vision.

Is that your evidence?
Clearly for scientist 'to stand on the shoulders of giants' does not make them great.
Those are merely dwarfs standing on the shoulders of giants, and that looks a lot like you.
A *real* scientist is capable of analytical thinking and unbiased observation.
That is how the real giants came about.
I have to say that our education system mostly creates parrots, and does
not put a lot, if any, weight on making students think for themselves.
You seem to be the victim of such a system.
My condolences, the hardwiring of your brain at your age cannot be corrected,
that wiring is formed at a very young age, perhaps before or during the first 4 years.
People like Al Gore are deforming the younger generation's brains with their
'poor polar bear dies of global warming' crap.
A generation lost.
Now let's build some nuclear plants, have nice clean energy, and, just like France, pollute all of the Netherlands
with fresh plutonium...
See, I think *I* am the realists here.
But, with a bit of care we *can* have nice safe clean nuclear power.
And no more coal mine victims.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Nov 22, 5:14 am, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 18:14:04 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman





bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Nov 22, 12:00 am, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 11:54:05 GMT, Jan Panteltje

pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
The global warming hoax revealed:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html?partne....

Quote from that article
This shows these are people willing to bend rules and
go after other people's reputations in very serious ways,' he said. Spencer
R. Weart, a physicist and historian who is charting the course of research
on global warming, said the hacked material would serve as 'great material
for historians.'
end quote

LOL.
Some science!

And that in a leftist newspaper!

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125883405294859215.html?mod=googlenew....

"In several of the emails, climate researchers discussed how to
arrange for favorable reviewers for papers they planned to publish in
scientific journals. At the same time, climate researchers at times
appeared to pressure scientific journals not to publish research by
other scientists whose findings they disagreed with."

Most scientists have a fair idea of who might be asked to review their
papers, and adjust the papers to encourage editors to go for the more
constructive and well-informed of the likely referees.

They also have opinions about the kind of work that other people do,
the reliability of the results that other scientists claim, and the
quality of the papers that they produce. Some people are bad enough
that they end up trying to publish in journals on the edges of their
field, where the editors won't know how untrustworthy they are.
Personal contacts often mean that they don't get away with it.

Some good stuff here:

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/com....

" The other paper by MM is just garbage – as you knew. De Freitas
again. Pielke is also losing all credibility as well by replying to
the mad Finn as well – frequently as I see it. I can’t see either of
these papers being in the next IPCC report. K and I will keep them out
somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature
is ! "

Obviously not intended for publication, but why would you ever think
that because scientists are obliged to publish sober and rational
arguments, they aren't emotionally involved in their work?

Because they respect the scientific method? Because they honor truth?

There's no contradiction between emotional involvement and respecting
the scientific method.

I thought they were obliged to publish their actual measured results,
not cherry-picked or outright fudged data.

They are. Adjusting papers to persuade editors to select constructive
referees is primarily a matter of choosing the right papers to cite in
the introduction of the paper and and in the discusion of the
conclusions.

For preferred referees you cite papers for which they are first
authors and you try to avoid citing non-preferred referees or a least
confine yourself to papers where they aren't first authors. Careful
choice of synonyms can also be useful in in directing an editor's
thoughts towards the righ referee.

Apparently not.

Wrong. Cherry-picking and fudging data is a career-wrecking crime, and
since such data doesn't replicate when somebody else does the
experiment, you have to be an idiot as well as a psychopath to try it.

The denialists have been claiming that Mann fudged his data for years,
despite the fact that some dozen subsequent independent studies have
confirmed his results - the latest replication come from lake botton
samples from long-lived lakes in northern Canada, where they have been
slicing the cores into slivers half a millimetre thick and extracting
climate data. The Proceedings of the (US) National Academy of Science
got quite excited about it.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

On Nov 21, 11:14 pm, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 18:14:04 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman



bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Nov 22, 12:00 am, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 11:54:05 GMT, Jan Panteltje

pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
The global warming hoax revealed:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html?partne....

Quote from that article
This shows these are people willing to bend rules and
go after other people's reputations in very serious ways,' he said. Spencer
R. Weart, a physicist and historian who is charting the course of research
on global warming, said the hacked material would serve as 'great material
for historians.'
end quote

LOL.
Some science!

And that in a leftist newspaper!

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125883405294859215.html?mod=googlenew....

"In several of the emails, climate researchers discussed how to
arrange for favorable reviewers for papers they planned to publish in
scientific journals. At the same time, climate researchers at times
appeared to pressure scientific journals not to publish research by
other scientists whose findings they disagreed with."

Most scientists have a fair idea of who might be asked to review their
papers, and adjust the papers to encourage editors to go for the more
constructive and well-informed of the likely referees.

They also have opinions about the kind of work that other people do,
the reliability of the results that other scientists claim, and the
quality of the papers that they produce. Some people are bad enough
that they end up trying to publish in journals on the edges of their
field, where the editors won't know how untrustworthy they are.
Personal contacts often mean that they don't get away with it.

Some good stuff here:

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/com....

" The other paper by MM is just garbage – as you knew. De Freitas
again. Pielke is also losing all credibility as well by replying to
the mad Finn as well – frequently as I see it. I can’t see either of
these papers being in the next IPCC report. K and I will keep them out
somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature
is ! "

Obviously not intended for publication, but why would you ever think
that because scientists are obliged to publish sober and rational
arguments, they aren't emotionally involved in their work?

Because they respect the scientific method? Because they honor truth?

I thought they were obliged to publish their actual measured results,
not cherry-picked or outright fudged data.

Apparently not.

John

What the e-mails reveal more than anything is that these aren't
scientists, but advocates.

They're not objective, open-minded, dispassionate seekers of the
truth. They're heavily invested in preconceived models, which they're
determined to mold Nature to fit.

Doesn't mean they're wrong, of course. But it does make them
unreliable as "authorities."


--
Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Sat, 21 Nov 2009 15:00:17 -0800) it happened John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in
<ojrgg5dgttd1th8l7pcdam5oc5b6pdkbbm@4ax.com>:

On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 11:54:05 GMT, Jan Panteltje
pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

The global warming hoax revealed:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Quote from that article
This shows these are people willing to bend rules and
go after other people's reputations in very serious ways,' he said. Spencer
R. Weart, a physicist and historian who is charting the course of research
on global warming, said the hacked material would serve as 'great material
for historians.'
end quote

LOL.
Some science!

And that in a leftist newspaper!



http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125883405294859215.html?mod=googlenews_wsj


"In several of the emails, climate researchers discussed how to
arrange for favorable reviewers for papers they planned to publish in
scientific journals. At the same time, climate researchers at times
appeared to pressure scientific journals not to publish research by
other scientists whose findings they disagreed with."



Some good stuff here:

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/hadley_hacked/

" The other paper by MM is just garbage – as you knew. De Freitas
again. Pielke is also losing all credibility as well by replying to
the mad Finn as well – frequently as I see it. I can’t see either of
these papers being in the next IPCC report. K and I will keep them out
somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature
is ! "


John

ftp://panteltje.com/pub/little_pizzas_img_1635.jpg

 

[John Larkin]

On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 06:45:03 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Nov 22, 5:14 am, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 18:14:04 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman





bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Nov 22, 12:00 am, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 11:54:05 GMT, Jan Panteltje

pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
The global warming hoax revealed:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html?partne...

Quote from that article
This shows these are people willing to bend rules and
go after other people's reputations in very serious ways,' he said. Spencer
R. Weart, a physicist and historian who is charting the course of research
on global warming, said the hacked material would serve as 'great material
for historians.'
end quote

LOL.
Some science!

And that in a leftist newspaper!

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125883405294859215.html?mod=googlenew...

"In several of the emails, climate researchers discussed how to
arrange for favorable reviewers for papers they planned to publish in
scientific journals. At the same time, climate researchers at times
appeared to pressure scientific journals not to publish research by
other scientists whose findings they disagreed with."

Most scientists have a fair idea of who might be asked to review their
papers, and adjust the papers to encourage editors to go for the more
constructive and well-informed of the likely referees.

They also have opinions about the kind of work that other people do,
the reliability of the results that other scientists claim, and the
quality of the papers that they produce. Some people are bad enough
that they end up trying to publish in journals on the edges of their
field, where the editors won't know how untrustworthy they are.
Personal contacts often mean that they don't get away with it.

Some good stuff here:

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/com...

" The other paper by MM is just garbage – as you knew. De Freitas
again. Pielke is also losing all credibility as well by replying to
the mad Finn as well – frequently as I see it. I can’t see either of
these papers being in the next IPCC report. K and I will keep them out
somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature
is ! "

Obviously not intended for publication, but why would you ever think
that because scientists are obliged to publish sober and rational
arguments, they aren't emotionally involved in their work?

Because they respect the scientific method? Because they honor truth?

There's no contradiction between emotional involvement and respecting
the scientific method.

I thought they were obliged to publish their actual measured results,
not cherry-picked or outright fudged data.

They are. Adjusting papers to persuade editors to select constructive
referees is primarily a matter of choosing the right papers to cite in
the introduction of the paper and and in the discusion of the
conclusions.

For preferred referees you cite papers for which they are first
authors and you try to avoid citing non-preferred referees or a least
confine yourself to papers where they aren't first authors. Careful
choice of synonyms can also be useful in in directing an editor's
thoughts towards the righ referee.

Apparently not.

Wrong. Cherry-picking and fudging data is a career-wrecking crime, and
since such data doesn't replicate when somebody else does the
experiment, you have to be an idiot as well as a psychopath to try it.

But climate is not subject to experiment. Historically, science has
tended to be erratic, faddish, and usually wrong until corrected by
experiment.

John

 

[John Larkin]

On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 11:07:53 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Nov 22, 1:48 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 06:45:03 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman



bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Nov 22, 5:14 am, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 18:14:04 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman

bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Nov 22, 12:00 am, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 11:54:05 GMT, Jan Panteltje

pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
The global warming hoax revealed:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html?partne...

Quote from that article
This shows these are people willing to bend rules and
go after other people's reputations in very serious ways,' he said. Spencer
R. Weart, a physicist and historian who is charting the course of research
on global warming, said the hacked material would serve as 'great material
for historians.'
end quote

LOL.
Some science!

And that in a leftist newspaper!

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125883405294859215.html?mod=googlenew...

"In several of the emails, climate researchers discussed how to
arrange for favorable reviewers for papers they planned to publish in
scientific journals. At the same time, climate researchers at times
appeared to pressure scientific journals not to publish research by
other scientists whose findings they disagreed with."

Most scientists have a fair idea of who might be asked to review their
papers, and adjust the papers to encourage editors to go for the more
constructive and well-informed of the likely referees.

They also have opinions about the kind of work that other people do,
the reliability of the results that other scientists claim, and the
quality of the papers that they produce. Some people are bad enough
that they end up trying to publish in journals on the edges of their
field, where the editors won't know how untrustworthy they are.
Personal contacts often mean that they don't get away with it.

Some good stuff here:

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/com...

" The other paper by MM is just garbage – as you knew. De Freitas
again. Pielke is also losing all credibility as well by replying to
the mad Finn as well – frequently as I see it. I can’t see either of
these papers being in the next IPCC report. K and I will keep them out
somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature
is ! "

Obviously not intended for publication, but why would you ever think
that because scientists are obliged to publish sober and rational
arguments, they aren't emotionally involved in their work?

Because they respect the scientific method? Because they honor truth?

There's no contradiction between emotional involvement and respecting
the scientific method.

I thought they were obliged to publish their actual measured results,
not cherry-picked or outright fudged data.

They are. Adjusting papers to persuade editors to select constructive
referees is primarily a matter of choosing the right papers to cite in
the introduction of the paper and and in the discusion of the
conclusions.

For preferred referees you cite papers for which they are first
authors and you try to avoid citing non-preferred referees or a least
confine yourself to papers where they aren't first authors. Careful
choice of synonyms can also be useful in in directing an editor's
thoughts towards the righ referee.

Apparently not.

Wrong. Cherry-picking and fudging data is a career-wrecking crime, and
since such data doesn't replicate when somebody else does the
experiment, you have to be an idiot as well as a psychopath to try it.

But climate is not subject to experiment. Historically, science has
tended to be erratic, faddish, and usually wrong until corrected by
experiment.

These guys want to replace confirmation by experiment with proof by
correlation. Which they're in a unique position to ensure.

Or proof by simulation. Simulation of extremely nonlinear chaotic
systems whose dynamics and forcing inputs are largely unknown.

They're the ones with infinite government funding, they're the
official interface to and gate-keepers of the raw data, and they're
not letting other people have it. Why? Because the data do not
support their model.

That's wrong.

Wrong morally and most likely wrong in fact.

John

 

On Nov 22, 1:48 pm, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 06:45:03 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman



bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Nov 22, 5:14 am, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 18:14:04 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman

bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Nov 22, 12:00 am, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 11:54:05 GMT, Jan Panteltje

pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
The global warming hoax revealed:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html?partne...

Quote from that article
This shows these are people willing to bend rules and
go after other people's reputations in very serious ways,' he said.. Spencer
R. Weart, a physicist and historian who is charting the course of research
on global warming, said the hacked material would serve as 'great material
for historians.'
end quote

LOL.
Some science!

And that in a leftist newspaper!

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125883405294859215.html?mod=googlenew...

"In several of the emails, climate researchers discussed how to
arrange for favorable reviewers for papers they planned to publish in
scientific journals. At the same time, climate researchers at times
appeared to pressure scientific journals not to publish research by
other scientists whose findings they disagreed with."

Most scientists have a fair idea of who might be asked to review their
papers, and adjust the papers to encourage editors to go for the more
constructive and well-informed of the likely referees.

They also have opinions about the kind of work that other people do,
the reliability of the results that other scientists claim, and the
quality of the papers that they produce. Some people are bad enough
that they end up trying to publish in journals on the edges of their
field, where the editors won't know how untrustworthy they are.
Personal contacts often mean that they don't get away with it.

Some good stuff here:

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/com...

" The other paper by MM is just garbage – as you knew. De Freitas
again. Pielke is also losing all credibility as well by replying to
the mad Finn as well – frequently as I see it. I can’t see either of
these papers being in the next IPCC report. K and I will keep them out
somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature
is ! "

Obviously not intended for publication, but why would you ever think
that because scientists are obliged to publish sober and rational
arguments, they aren't emotionally involved in their work?

Because they respect the scientific method? Because they honor truth?

There's no contradiction between emotional involvement and respecting
the scientific method.

I thought they were obliged to publish their actual measured results,
not cherry-picked or outright fudged data.

They are. Adjusting papers to persuade editors to select constructive
referees is primarily a matter of choosing the right papers to cite in
the introduction of the paper and and in the discusion of the
conclusions.

For preferred referees you cite papers for which they are first
authors and you try to avoid citing non-preferred referees or a least
confine yourself to papers where they aren't first authors. Careful
choice of synonyms can also be useful in in directing an editor's
thoughts towards the righ referee.

Apparently not.

Wrong. Cherry-picking and fudging data is a career-wrecking crime, and
since such data doesn't replicate when somebody else does the
experiment, you have to be an idiot as well as a psychopath to try it.

But climate is not subject to experiment. Historically, science has
tended to be erratic, faddish, and usually wrong until corrected by
experiment.

These guys want to replace confirmation by experiment with proof by
correlation. Which they're in a unique position to ensure.

They're the ones with infinite government funding, they're the
official interface to and gate-keepers of the raw data, and they're
not letting other people have it. Why? Because the data do not
support their model.

That's wrong.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[Joerg]

Bill Sloman wrote:

On Nov 21, 11:41 pm, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Sat, 21 Nov 2009 13:10:31 -0800) it happened Joerg
inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote in <7mr3a8F3jab6...@mid.individual.net>:
One can wonder what the real truth is, about temperature, and then again about
what causes it, you know there were, and will be, ice ages, nobody
was having coal plants in the previous one to create CO2 (in the Netherlands they now want to store the CO2
in the ground under my house almost), so, all feeble science.
Time to sell? Once this sort of "project" has moved along far enough you
might not be able to, for the price you'd want.
Could be, I already looked up if CO2 was heavier then air (it is):
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090611040945AAPt3oV
else it would be very dangerous to live here.
But some geological processes could push it upwards, you would get suffocated in your sleep,
nowhere to run, even if you found out what was happening.
CO2 detector, oxygen equipment, fast car or helicopter, and you MAY have a chance
If for some reason pressure shifts down there and a bubble gets pushed
up you may not have time to start the turbo-shaft engine in your
helicopter. Besides you sitting there slumped over the controls, it also
needs some oxygen to work.

Of course, if this were likely to happen, Barendrecht would have
vanished in a giant fireball sometime in the last few thousand years,
when the - now exhausted - natural gas field under the town had pushed
a bubble of natural gas up to the surface.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5i0gwwjN8hkEa1SyfHo_b7LhZ3z2A

snipped the rest of the idiot anxieties

Oh yeah?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Nyos

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.

 

[Joerg]

Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Sat, 21 Nov 2009 14:41:58 -0800) it happened Joerg
invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in <7mr8loF3j4o64U1@mid.individual.net>:

Could be, I already looked up if CO2 was heavier then air (it is):
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090611040945AAPt3oV
else it would be very dangerous to live here.
But some geological processes could push it upwards, you would get suffocated in your sleep,
nowhere to run, even if you found out what was happening.
CO2 detector, oxygen equipment, fast car or helicopter, and you MAY have a chance

If for some reason pressure shifts down there and a bubble gets pushed
up you may not have time to start the turbo-shaft engine in your
helicopter. Besides you sitting there slumped over the controls, it also
needs some oxygen to work.

Yes, after I wrote that, I realised the copter and the car would not start... no oxygen.
Then the only way would be a helium balloon in the attic, with big flaps that open in the roof,
so it can take of vertically, and then, when in fresh air, have the wind blow you elsewhere.
Hot air balloon will not work either, no oxygen for the burners, and hydrogen is dangerous,
but could perhaps be used.
Like that balloon that real scientist makes in the movie 'Waterworld' (recommended movie),
the one he saves everybody with.

Probably your only chance would be an oxygen pack for each family member
and a corresponding number of electric mopeds. I guess you guys couldn't
call the bromfietsen then

Plus a LOUD CO2 alarm.

[...]

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.

 

[Joerg]

Bill Sloman wrote:

On Nov 22, 5:14 am, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 18:14:04 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman





bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Nov 22, 12:00 am, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

[...]

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/com...
" The other paper by MM is just garbage – as you knew. De Freitas
again. Pielke is also losing all credibility as well by replying to
the mad Finn as well – frequently as I see it. I can’t see either of
these papers being in the next IPCC report. K and I will keep them out
somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature
is ! "
Obviously not intended for publication, but why would you ever think
that because scientists are obliged to publish sober and rational
arguments, they aren't emotionally involved in their work?
Because they respect the scientific method? Because they honor truth?

There's no contradiction between emotional involvement and respecting
the scientific method.

Did you really read John's quote? Quote of quote: "K and I will keep
them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review
literature is ! "

If this was truly said then I have lost all respect for those guys. Any
and all. But they have already lost much of it a long time ago, at least
in this neighborhood (which is full of engineers).

[...]

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.

 

[Raveninghorde]

On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 14:04:45 -0800, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

Bill Sloman wrote:
On Nov 22, 5:14 am, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 18:14:04 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman





bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Nov 22, 12:00 am, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

[...]

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/com...
" The other paper by MM is just garbage – as you knew. De Freitas
again. Pielke is also losing all credibility as well by replying to
the mad Finn as well – frequently as I see it. I can’t see either of
these papers being in the next IPCC report. K and I will keep them out
somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature
is ! "
Obviously not intended for publication, but why would you ever think
that because scientists are obliged to publish sober and rational
arguments, they aren't emotionally involved in their work?
Because they respect the scientific method? Because they honor truth?

There's no contradiction between emotional involvement and respecting
the scientific method.


Did you really read John's quote? Quote of quote: "K and I will keep
them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review
literature is ! "

If this was truly said then I have lost all respect for those guys. Any
and all. But they have already lost much of it a long time ago, at least
in this neighborhood (which is full of engineers).

[...]

I like this one:

/quote

The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the
moment and it is a travesty that we can't.

/end quote

But the science is settled

Awaits a follow up from a George Soros shill.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Nov 22, 4:35 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On a sunny day (Sun, 22 Nov 2009 06:20:23 -0800 (PST)) it happenedBill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote in
36aa404c-b398-49ea-9967-67847862b...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>:

But your proposition - that we ignore anthropogenic global warming
because you can't be bothered to get your head around the scientific
evidence - has a finite possibility of condemning the whole human race
to death in a global extinction, which hasn't stopped you voting for
it.

*Evidence*??????, do you have a reading problem?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html?partne...

inaccessible

http://doctorbulldog.wordpress.com/2009/11/20/the-telegraph-picks-up-...

Denialist rubbish

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/19/breaking-news-story-hadley-cru-...

Highlights stuff that denialists do seem to have gotten excited about,
mainly by imputing implausible evil significance to the tolerably
innocuous content.

The reading problem seems to be yours.

And all over the internet.
Manipulated data, scientific fraud, defamation of real scientists with different data > and vision.

There's no evidence of data being manipulated - just the usual
discussion of preliminary data that doesn't make sense - and equally
no evidence of scientific fraud.

Other scientists are certainly criticised - much more openly than
would be usual in a document intended to be published - but there's no
defamation that I can see, and while the people being criticised may
be "real" scientists in the sense of have written papers that have
been published in peer-reviewed journals and cited in other peer-
reviewed publications, I recognised a couple of the names being
criticised and understood exactly why they might not be popular with
more mainstream figures.

Is that your evidence?

Private e-mails hacked from a web-site suddenly constitute scientific
evidence? Try the American Institute of Physics web page for a rather
more coherent story.

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/

Clearly for scientist 'to stand on the shoulders of giants' does not make them great.

Since Newton's comment was in fact a rather unsubtle dig at Hooke, who
was very short, it represents historical evidence that even great
scieintists can be remarkably petty.

Those are merely dwarfs standing on the shoulders of giants, and that looks a lot like you.

Your opinion on scientific matters isn't either well-informed or
interesting.

A *real* scientist is capable of analytical thinking and unbiased observation.
That is how the real giants came about.

"Real giants" had the good luck to be working in the right place at
the right time. They did have to be capable of analytical thinkig and
unbiased observation, but these skills are rather more wide-spread
than you seem to think, and well-represented in the IPCC.

I have to say that our education system mostly creates parrots, and does
not put a lot, if any, weight on making students think for themselves.

It clearly failed you. I can name a number of people who had better
luck.

You seem to be the victim of such a system.

You may like to think so, but I didn't get a Ph.D. in physical
chemistry by regurgitating what I'd been fed by my lecturers, and
their lectures were even less relevant to my subsequent career as an
electronic engineer.

My condolences, the hardwiring of your brain at your age cannot be corrected,
that wiring is formed at a very young age, perhaps before or during the first 4 years.

This is a very out-dated idea. One's brain remains plastic as long as
you keep on learning new stuff - London taxi-drivers develop a
demonstrably larger hippocampus as they learn their way around the
city.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/677048.stm

People like Al Gore are deforming the younger generation's brains with their
'poor polar bear dies of global warming' crap.

Not as much as the denialist nitwits who claim that adding CO2 to the
atmosphere doesn't add to the greenhouse effect.

A generation lost.

Perhaps not. anything that gets them interested in science - as
opposed to beleidswettenschap (aka business studies) - has to be a
step in the right direction.

Now let's build some nuclear plants, have nice clean energy, and, just like France,
pollute all of the Netherlands with fresh plutonium...

The French haven't yet had their nuclear accident - the nuclear
pollution in the Netherlands is basically what we got from Chernobyl.

See, I think *I* am the realist here.

A "realist" who is frightened of CO2 getting out of an exhausted
natural gas field that managed to retain natural gas for a couple of
hundred million years?

But, with a bit of care we *can* have nice safe clean nuclear power.

Providing that "bit of care" is going to be more difficult than you
seem to think. Read the the reports of what went wrong at Three Mile
Island and Chernobyl, and think about how many safety systems the
operators managed to by-pass to create their particular disasters.

And no more coal mine victims.

Apart from the ones who die due to freak weather conditions that have
become more common at the earth warms up. In that sense the British
policeman who just died when a bridge washed away under him in today's
floods is a "coal mine victimn".

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen