Ping Bil Slowman; The global warming hoax reveiled

[JosephKK]

On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 14:13:59 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Nov 27, 10:19 pm, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Nov 26, 9:18 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Nov 26, 5:26 pm,Bill Sloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

James Arthur thinks that climate models can't predict any more than a
fortnight ahead before they blow up. Oddly enough they can, but
weather models can't.

If I ever wrote that, it was a mistake. But I don't believe I ever
did. (But since you keep saying it, and Joerg lives in Oregon, it
must be true.)

You said it all right. You seem to have - very wisely - requested that
your post was not to be archived, and have managed to contain your
outrage at being caught making a fool of yourself until the original
evidence had evaporated.

No, if I said it, it's still here in the archives. Maybe you've
confused me with someone else.

My information on GCMs came from reading their summaries (supplied by
each GCM group), reading as much of one global climate model's FORTRAN
spaghetti source-code as I could stand, and, mostly, _directly_ from
one of the world's preeminent experts, who works on them.

So, I've always known the difference.


The last FORTRAN i worked with at all (F77 many years ago) did not

seem very spaghetti code friendly. It did not seem particularly
structured code friendly either. (not that i knew that back then.)

Please send me a file or two of FORTRAN spaghetti code, i am curious
about what it looks like.

<snip>

 

[JosephKK]

On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 18:23:42 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Nov 28, 5:50 pm, "JosephKK"<quiettechb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 18:43:49 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Nov 23, 1:10 pm, krw <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

snip

Climatology can't "predict" history, yet some idiots want to use it to
control everyone.  Politicians (are) like that.

Climatology predicts history fine with a little bit of curve-fitting.
Climatrology, like astrology (or maybe let's call it climatrollogy),
looks into the future.

SOL James, but it doesn't, at least if you use the same model the AGW
group does.  Even others that contain any of the canonical
presumptions of AGW fail to reconcile with well documented history.

SOL? I don't understand. The meaning I know doesn't work here.

But, I was referring to a whim I posted wayyy back, that you can curve-
fit a polynomial that mimics history to perfection, yet has zero
predictive value. E.g. the stock market, where that gets tried and is
a temporary fad every few years, until it blows up.

Much of the evolution of the main models fits that description--build
it, then monkey with the constants until it seems stable, as opposed
to a) inputting precise measurements of b) accurately known parameters
into c) models that faithfully duplicate physical processes.

I'm told that pre-twiddling the early models railed, either freezing
atmosphere, or melting lead.

Communication glitch. I was applying Squat Out of Luck to the AGW
models being worthwhile. For much the same reasons you cite.

 

[JosephKK]

On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 12:41:47 -0600, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 08:27:20 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

So you have demonstrated what Bill is to your satisfaction. Well and
good.

Could you now just ignore him, even you are getting frustrated with
the way his evasions waste everybody's time.

What is it JT says? Something like "Let him die, alone and
forgotten".

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Dec 1, 8:17 am, "JosephKK"<quiettechb...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 12:41:47 -0600, John Fields

jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 08:27:20 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

So you have demonstrated what Bill is to your satisfaction.  Well and
good.

John Fields is easily satisfied.

In his "solenoid" rant, he has invented a statement that he thinks I
made - in the relevant thread I never even posted the word "solenoid"
- and congratulates himself for carrying out a perfectly useless
"experiment" to prove that the statement that he had invented isn't
actually true. I didn't take him seriously at the time, and if you
hadn't shown signs of taking him seriously I'd have continued to
confine myself to jeering at him.

If you feel the need to waste your time on this non-issue, check out
the thread "Batteryless current clamps?" which started on November 17
2009. John's florid delusions started appearing a couple of days
later.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Mon, 30 Nov 2009 17:42:42 -0800 (PST)) it happened Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
<7139b36e-0c66-44fa-9532-02a046bf8577@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>:

You, and your grass shack?

The claim about the "greenies" wanting us to move into unheated grass
shacks came from you. I can't remember seeing any such policy in any
of the Greenpeace literature that my wife used to get, and I'm
begiining to get the impression that you invented it.

The general impression greenies leave is this:
Save the birds, the bugs, the fish, anything except humans.
Stop all energy production and industrialisation.
Live like a bird in nature but grass shack will do, but be careful not to step on the grass.

Did not you notice?

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Mon, 30 Nov 2009 18:45:10 -0800 (PST)) it happened Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
<747b02f7-9d2c-4bd2-9ecd-5c2ece16ae1b@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>:

On Nov 30, 2:52 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 16:05:30 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman

bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
I can't really see the necessity to understand something that isn't
happening any more.

---

Here; read a little Santayana:

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

The last ice age ended about 11,000 years ago. I don't think that
anybody could be expected to remember it.

Jan was encouraging me to understand the Earth's natural cycles, which
demands a little more involvement than merely remembering them, and is
- in any event - somewhat ironic, since the current understanding of
the causes of the ice ages leads directly to the conclusion that there
aren't going to be any more "natural" climate cycles to understand,
because anthropogenic effects have overwhelmed th natural driving
forces.

Bull, your data A is in th@ noise!

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Mon, 30 Nov 2009 19:22:25 -0800) it happened Jon Kirwan
<jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote in
<dm29h5p0hamjd472a4aca1othp30ee77eq@4ax.com>:

I didn't read the web site, but you reminded me. When the USS
Vincennes fired upon and destroyed an Iranian airliner with about 300
people aboard, the data tapes were ordered by the Reagan
Administration to be shipped to Washington DC for analysis. I was
working on ISAR at the time and knew a little about the equipment
aboard and capabilities -- technical and personnel-wise. There was no
need to ship the tapes (because all of the needed capability for
analysis was present aboard the ship, itself.)

So I remember telling a co-worker at Lockheed that "The article said
the original tapes are being sent. I bet no duplicates will be found
and the original tapes will be 'lost' tomorrow."

Sure enough, sure as the sun will rise in the morning, the very next
day the news announced that somehow the tapes were completely lost and
that there was no duplicates made nor any other way to recover the
data.

Gee. I wonder why.

Actually, I know why.

Jon

Yes, and data can be created at will, like weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
This is how governments control you, the masses.
And the governments are controlled by the 'captains of industry'.
And those need to make max profits.
And the shareholders push them for max profits.
And you buy the shares, and are shareholder.
Positive feedback loop.
Instability, wars, cyclic.

 

[Uwe Hercksen]

Joerg schrieb:

Bill mentioned "the glaciers aren't going to be coming back any time
soon" which isn't right.

Hello,

it is not possible that the ice volume a shrinking glacier lost in
several decades is replaced in several years again.

Bye

 

[Uwe Hercksen]

Jim Thompson schrieb:

Uninformed leftist loon.

Hello,

are you able to proof the "uninformed" in any way?

Bye

 

[John Fields]

On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 16:40:28 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Nov 30, 3:37 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 19:34:39 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman

bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

snipped the usual pleasantries

Hardly, since the experiment was done in order to show you (I even
emailed it to you, remember, since for some reason you can't access
abse?) that you were wrong about being able to extract energy from the
varying magnetic field surrounding a conductor by wrapping a solenoid
around it.

The solenoid was entirely your idea. A clamp-on meter - which is what
I was talking about - isn't a solenoid, but a toroidal transformer
core which can be opened and closed. The output power - such as it is
- is extracted from a second wiinding wrapped around part of that
core.

This creates a perfectly conventional transformer with a single-turn
primary - one of the power companies active lines runs inside the
toroid, and the rest run outside, forming a rather loosely wound
single turn.

You didn't understand this and got excited and ran your "experiment"
with a solenoid and a bunch of wires - a configuration that has
nothing to do with clamp-on meters

---
I see you _still_ don't understand the experiment.

If you did, you'd have realized that there were two different
configurations; one with a solenoid wound around a conductor carrying an
alternating current, and the other with a toroid surrounding the
conductor.

Then, the annotation should have led you to see that with the solenoid
surrounding the conductor, the open-circuit output voltage and
short-circuit output current from the solenoid were truly miniscule,
while the same outputs from the solenoid were significant.

Here's the data:


SOLENOID TOROID T/S
----------+----------+-------
CURRENT 4.17ľA 34.1mA 818

VOLTAGE 28.81ľV 11.295V 3.92e5


T/S is the ratio of the outputs, so you can see how truly disparate they
are.
---

If I thought that you had enough sense to realise this, I'd say that
you were the fraud,

---
What a strange thing to say!

Since I obviously understood it by making it one of the cases in my
experiment and showing the instrumentation used and the data obtained,
how could I possibly be a fraud?

You, however, parading around with your newly acquired information about
how the transformer on a clamp-on ammeter is wound, as if you knew it
from the beginning, do seem to fit the bill quite nicely
---

but in fact you are merely a loud-mouthed and
persistent fool.

---
Well, since you do have trouble separating fact from fantasy, let's just
say that you're in no position to judge...

JF

 

[Joerg]

Jon Kirwan wrote:

On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 17:25:27 -0800, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

Jon Kirwan wrote:
On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 14:25:52 -0800, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

Jon Kirwan wrote:
much snipped, my apologies

In general, there is no profit for a science team to duplicate work.
If they duplicate the work and get the same or similar results from
it, they've merely stared at their belly buttons and wasted a lot of
money in the process. If they duplicate the work and find an error,
then a correction is made and science moves on. But the team doesn't
really get much credit for it. It reflects more upon the team that
made the error. The ones finding it merely did a 'clean up' job that
shows they can follow procedure like they should be able to and really
doesn't reflect on their creativity and ability to "do science." So
again, they wasted their time even if they helped fix an error that
someone else should have caught.

An example of this later case is the artifact of the diurnal
correction that had been incorrectly applied to MSU T2LT raw data by
Roy Spencer and John Christy. For years, scientists outside this
inner circle had been "clubbed" by the University of Alabama's results
that conflicted with pretty much every other approach by teams all
over the world. Both Spencer and Christy were repeatedly asked to go
back through their methodology to see if they could find an error.
Over and over, they insisted they didn't need to do that. Finally,
Carl Mears and Frank Wentz apparently got sick and tired enough with
the continuing conflict that they decided to waste their own precious
time to duplicate the efforts by Spencer and Christy. That effort, by
all rights, should have been Spencer and Christy's efforts. But since
they weren't taking action, if finally all came to a head. In any
case, Mears and Wentz went through all the trouble to secure the data
sets and then attempt to duplicate the processing. In the end, they
discovered an error in the diurnal correction used by the Alabama
team. Once shown their error -- and it took them four or five months
to admit it -- they publicly made corrections to their processing and
republished old data which then, while on the lower end of the
spectrum, was "within" the range of error of the results of other work
long since published. At that point, though, Spencer and Christy's
work had been tarnished and Remote Sensing Systems began publishing
their own analysis in parallel. It happens. But there isn't much
credit given for this. Just credit taken away.

Most scientists want to find creative new approaches to answering
questions that will confirm or disconfirm the work of others -- not
duplicate the exact same steps. Or they want to solve new problems.
That illustrates creativity and leads to a reputation. Novelty is
important.

_Methods_ and _results_ are disclosed, though. But software programs
and interim data aren't that important. ...
But raw input data is. That's what it was about.
Yes. However, raw data has been fairly easy to attain, my experience.
Very much _unlike_ raw data in the clinical/medical field where
_everyone_ seems to consider it highly proprietary.

Mind telling me what raw data you asked for?
Sea level data. A FTP link would have sufficed.

That isn't raw data, Joerg. It's digested and developed from several
methods applied to a range of data sets taken in a variety of ways
from sites all over the world, each of which have their unique
characteristics that need to be understood and applied to develop a
sense of 'global sea level'.... all of which goes through refinements
and changes, from time to time. Assuming, of course, that you meant
to have "global sea level data" when you wrote "sea level data."

It would have helped you a lot had you known what you were looking
for.

I did. I asked for the local water level _readings_. Before that request
I had already found quite a few data sets on my own. When that data did
not corroborate what they had published I asked for more of that data.
To be able to understand where their conclusions came from.

Have you ever sat down and actually _read_ a report on these kinds of
subjects? I mean, really just one of them? Or the IPCC AR4
discussion, even? If you had, you'd know that "sea level data" isn't
"raw data" without my saying so.

Here, take a look at this one from this year:

http://www.igsoc.org/annals/50/50/a50a043.pdf

1.12mm/year, or 0.77mm per the other guys. Whew, we won't drown then )

Since you were discussing mountain glaciers earlier, you have given me
a segue. It's really a very simple paper that illustrates the issues
involved when trying to see if there is a way to develop an improved
understanding by joining datasets from different sources and means.

Now, I think you can understand the reaction if you were writing to
some scientist about glaciers and asking for "glacier levels." They
wouldn't really know what you meant if you were asking for the raw
data. Which raw data?

I often deal with this when writing module specs. Since I can never
assume how well versed the readers will be there is a lot of underlying
data and explanations. A regular engineer like you and I won't read
those but they are still provided.

If the AGW folks want to make a case they better do the same, be open.
Especially now since the trust of the public has been thoroughly shaken.

Suppose I asked you about the getting access to "capacitor values?"
You might wonder, "Um... which types of capacitors? What values,
exactly? Do they need to know about temperature or voltage effects?
What application is this for?" Etc. And then you'd begin to wonder
if the questioner had any clue, at all, asking like that.

But I would not brush them off.

I would.

This is why I said it helps if you inform yourself by actually doing
some serious, sit-down reading of the material. Get familiar with the
issues of the day. Learn a little, first. By then, you can refine
your questions to something they can make good sense of and place it
into a context they understand.

I mean, how many times have you seem people writing in about
electronics and asking some bizarrely phrased question that makes it
patently obvious they have no clue, at all? And you know, before even
thinking about answering, that anything you say will only make it
worse? "There is too much current for my radio to work right. How
can I lower the current?" Stuff like that where you not only know
they have no clue, you know there is NO CHANCE that you can give a
short, directed answer that helps, either.

Then I ask questions. Like "What is it that you don't like with the
sound of your radio?"

It really does help a lot to do some reading on your own before going
around asking questions.

I don't mean to be flip or abrupt, Joerg. Your question is the kind
of question that non-specialists really might have to help them think
about things. But you also have to understand this from the side of
someone who is deep into the details (like you are, here.) Consider
how you might have to respond in similar circumstances.

The data you asked for isn't 'raw data.'

It may not be called that and I only used that expression here for
brevity. What I asked for was sea level data from stations. Can't be
that hard.

... If you are going to attempt
replication (and sometimes you do want to, as mentioned), you want to
do it with a "fresh eye" to the problem so that you actually have a
chance to cross-check results. You need to walk a similar path, of
course. To do that, you want to know the methodology used. And of
course you need the results to check outcomes in the end. That's all
anyone really needs.

If you are creative enough to take a different approach entirely in
answering the questions, then you don't even need that.

The methods and sources used are an important trail to leave. And
they leave that much, consistently. Beyond that, it's really just too
many cooks in the kitchen. If you can't dispute or replicate knowing
methods and sources, then perhaps you shouldn't be in the business at
all.

When you say "underlying data," I haven't yet encountered a case where
I was prevented access if I were able to show that I could actually
understand their methods and apply the data, appropriately. ...
Why is it that one would only give out data if using "their methods"?
I didn't say "using their methods," Joerg. I said that I understood
them, or tried to. In some cases, I frankly didn't fully apprehend
what they did and they simply helped me to understand them and then
still gave me access. In any case, I wasn't saying that was a "gate
keeper" as you seem to have imagined. If you read my writing with
understanding, you've have gleened that I was suggesting that they
want to know if I am semi-serious or just some random gadfly.

I sure would NOT want to get jerked around by every nut and, if I
refused, to then get tarred and feathered by you because I decided I
didn't feel up to it.
But if the scientist took the time to write a few sentences, why not
just send a link to a web site with the data?

Because it doesn't exist? Sometimes, the data is developed as an
output of specific methods applied to a range of datasets coming from
a variety of sources of varying pedigree/provenance and there are a
host of error bounds and other assumptions, known about and unknown,
applied in order to generate an internal result that is then
summarized. The interim data is internal and, frankly, doesn't really
matter. They've disclosed the methodology and sources in the paper
and they very well may not wish to send you the internal work product.

Then I would have appreciated a link to that paper.

Doesn't bother me in the least, if so. I've had to replicate results
by following procedures. In fact, it's good for you to have to work
for it, like that. Helps you understand things better when you have
to do it, yourself, too.

It doesn't have to be
exhaustive, just some place from where one can probe further and, most
of all, something from official sources (such as NOAA or other
countries' agencies).

May not be there. However, the raw data (like tree ring counts from
some Scottish researcher looking at a certain set of preserved trees
at a particular museum) is often available. Now, if you want that
tree ring data from yet another researcher looking at fossilized trees
from Tibet, 10 years earlier, then you might need to contact someone
else. And if you want that fused together in some kind of new data
set, you might need to contact someone else... if that fused data is
the explicit OUTPUT of a paper.

Just like in electronics. You get to know the signal inputs,
conditions, and drive requirements... up to a point. And you get to
know the outputs... up to a point. As far as the internals go? Maybe.
Maybe not. If you are informed, you can probably "work it out" on
your own. You don't need them to disclose everything. It's not
entirely different, except that scientists disclose a LOT more I think
and take a less-proprietary approach. So even better, in my opinion.
But you really don't _need_ the internal work product. You can access
the raw data inputs because they are usually the explicit outputs of
someone else's work. You can use the outputs, too. But you don't
have a right to dig into the internal stuff.... if you want it, you
really need to ask VERY NICELY and you need to let them know a lot
more about you and what you intend to do with it.

All I wanted was the input and it's got to be there. Measurements,
averages, from the stations.

I'd want the same thing. Otherwise, I might spend the next 10 years
of my life having to either teach that person step by step or else
have them paste my name all over the internet, saying that they have
all this data directly from me all the while completely and totally
misinterpreting it to everyone else... but looking like they know
stuff because __I__ gave them the data and I cannot deny that fact.

Nope, I would not refuse. One can give out the data plus a link to
teaching material. I often point email requesters that are more in the
league of your example "my radio uses too much of the wrong current" to
web sites thta teach the basics. In this day and age there is an
abundance, and learning is essentially free. When I began answering
requests in the late 80's and early 90's that was not the case at all,
lots more work. Yet I always answered them (they had my address from
publications).

Basically, I treat them respectfully as I'd want to be treated by
someone else asking _me_ for a favor. Do that and you get a long
ways, my experience.
That's what I always do. In requests as in replies.

It's good practice. I wish I followed it as well as you do.

That's exactly what I'd not want to do. In my case all I wanted to look
at is where exactly sea levels were rising and by how much. After
finding lots of data from places where it didn't happen I was brushed
off with the remark "Well, the ocean is not a bathtub". Here, I would
have expected a set of data that shows that I am wrong. But ... nada. Great.

snip of material I'll respond to later when I have time
Do you honestly feel they owe you an education, Joerg? It's a lot
better to show that you've at least made some effort on your own.
YMMV, of course. Act as you want to. I'm just suggesting...
I did not want an education, just a hint as to where underlying data
might be. I don't think that's asking too much.

Maybe you are. Maybe you aren't. But "sea level data" doesn't cut it
unless you are more specific.

Well, I got some of it on my own and told them, so they knew exactly
what I was after. I just wanted some more (that I couldn't find), from
areas which corroborate their claims. But anyhow, it's history, I am not
interested in that particular data anymore.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

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

 

[John Fields]

On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 18:02:12 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Nov 29, 7:52 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 10:32:54 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman

bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Nov 29, 5:08 am, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
You living in the Netherlands so long, I would have expected you to speak Dutch too.

I do. I passed NT2 (Dutch as a second language) in reading, listening
and speaking someyears ago. I didn't pass on my written Dutch - nobody
has ever wanted me to write Dutch so I've never had enough practice to
get rid of the minor grammatical errors.

---
Then you didn't pass on your written English, either, I surmise.

Oddly enough, they didn't test me on that - it was a test of my
comptetence in Dutch.

---
But, obviously, if the criteria the Dutch used to fail your written
Dutch were used by your instructor of English, your lack of
"comptetence" in written English wouldn't have allowed you to pass that
either.

JF

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 23:17:00 -0800,
"JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 12:41:47 -0600, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 08:27:20 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:


So you have demonstrated what Bill is to your satisfaction. Well and
good.

Could you now just ignore him, even you are getting frustrated with
the way his evasions waste everybody's time.

What is it JT says? Something like "Let him die, alone and
forgotten".

I'm always pleased to note that I'm the highest standard for Slowman's
disdain, but please don't feed the jerk. Let him die that most
unpleasant of deaths... alone ;-)

--
...Jim Thompson

| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 12:53:55 +0100, Uwe Hercksen
<hercksen@mew.uni-erlangen.de> wrote:

Jim Thompson schrieb:

Uninformed leftist loon.

Hello,

are you able to proof the "uninformed" in any way?

Bye

If glaciers can go away in a certain time frame, doesn't it make sense
that they could return in the same time frame?

Are you trying to be Slowman's replacement.

You will be trivial to take care of ;-)

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

 

[John Fields]

On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 18:07:14 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Nov 30, 4:12 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:

Experimentation isn't used to find out something you don't know, it's
used to confirm whether what you think you know is either right or
wrong.

In other words, to find out whether something you think you know is
true or false. If you knew it was true, you wouldn't bother doing the
experiment.

---
Not true.

In this case I knew that what I knew was true, but since you were of the
opinion that it was false, I performed the experiment to give you a
real-world, replicatable base from which to evaluate my position.

Of course you chose to denigrate it, but that's what you always do when
you're faced with irrefutable facts with which you disagree.
---

So you really aren't a scientist, just an actor?
---

You need to find a more gullible audience.

---
You mean like the one that believes _your_ crap?

No. That requres background knowledge and a measure of intelligence.
You don't seem to have quite enough of either.

---
Really?

A genius must surely be thought of as an imbecile from the point of view
of an idiot.

JF

 

[Joerg]

Jon Kirwan wrote:

On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 17:19:59 -0800, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

Jon Kirwan wrote:
On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 14:25:52 -0800, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

Jon Kirwan wrote:
snip
If you want to point out the specific letter that bothers you (quote a
significant sentence or two so I can find it in my saved copies), I'd
be happy to look at the case and see what I think of it. I might even
write and ask about it -- though I won't necessarily expect an answer.
Might get one, though. But I could at least offer my take on it, if I
knew a specific case you were considering.
Don't remember the link but a quick search turned up some of them in an
article. Tell me this isn't true:

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/emails-that-damn-cru-head-jones
I really hate that link -- bastard ads. I need to disable the things,
someday.

Suggesting that it may be best to destroy some data in case a FOIA
request comes in ... I mean, can it get any more gross than that?
Okay. Before I commment, let's be a little more precise about it,
Joerg.

The quote your web site provides is, "Think I’ve managed to persuade
UEA to ignore all further FOIA requests if the people have anything to
do with Climate Audit." I used the word "destroy" and searched your
web site for a quote that includes that word and didn't find it. So
I'm going to ask you to point out where they quote a climate scientist
saying they'd destroy data if an FOIA request arrives, on your web
site. ...
Quote, in the first email on that page: "If they ever hear there is a
Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file
rather than send to anyone."

That's an emotional comment and probably wishful thinking, not a
certain promise to act. I might write something like that if I felt
harassed.

Please don't do that in any public role. Can get you into legal trouble
even if something can't be found later, especially if they can't find
out who dunnit.

Yes, it may be pretty stupid to say.

It's gross, IMHO.

Quote, further down: "A couple of things – don’t pass on either…

2. You can delete this attachment if you want. Keep this quiet also, but
this is the person who is putting in FOI requests for all emails Keith
and Tim have written and received re Ch 6 of AR4. We think we’ve found a
way around this."

Okay. Let's pop up the mail and post the whole thing, Joerg:

: Mike, Ray, Caspar,
:
: A couple of things - don't pass on either.
:
: 1. Have seen you're RC bet. Not entirely sure this is the right way
: to go, but it will drum up some discussion.
:
: Anyway Mike and Caspar have seen me present possible problems
: with the SST data (in the 1940s/50s and since about 2000). The
: first of these will appear in Nature on May 29. There should be
: a News and Views item with this article by Dick Reynolds. The
: paper concludes by pointing out that SSTs now (or since about
: about 2000, when the effect gets larger) are likely too low.
: This likely won't get corrected quickly as it really needs more
: overlap to increase confidence.
:
: Bottom line for me is that it appears SSTs now are about 0.1
: deg C too cool globally. Issue is that the preponderance of
: drifters now (which measure SST better but between 0.1 and
: 0.2 lower than ships) mean anomalies are low relative to the
: ship-based 1961-90 base.
:
: This also means that the SST base the German modellers used
: in their runs was likely too warm by a similar amount. This
: applies to all modellers, reanalyses etc.
:
: There will be a lot of discussion of the global T series with
: people saying we can't even measure it properly now.
:
: The 1940s/50s problem with SSTs (the May 29 paper) also means
: there will be warmer SSTs for about 10 years. This will move
: the post-40s cooling to a little later - more in line with
: higher sulphate aerosol loading in the late 50s and 1960s70s.
:
: The paper doesn't provide a correction. This will come, but
: will include the addition of loads more British SSTs for WW2,
: which may very slightly cool the WW2 years.
:
: More British SST data have also been digitized for the late
: 1940s. Budget constraints mean that only about half the RN
: log books have been digitized. Emphasis has been given to
: the South Atlantic and Indian Ocean log books.
:
: As an aside, it is unfortunate that there are few in the
: Pacific. They have digitized all the logbooks of the ships
: journeys from the Indian Ocean south of Australia and NZ
: to Seattle for refits. Nice bit of history here - it turns
: out that most of the ships are US ones the UK got under the
: Churchill/Roosevelt deal in early 1940. All the RN bases
: in South Africa, India and Australia didn't have parts for
: these ships for a few years.
:
: So the German group would be stupid to take your bet. There
: is a likely ongoing negative volcanic event in the offing!
:
: 2. You can delete this attachment if you want. Keep this quiet
: also, but this is the person who is putting in FOI requests
: for all emails Keith and Tim have written and received re
: Ch 6 of AR4. We think we've found a way around this.
:
: I can't wait for the Wengen review to come out with the
: Appendix showing what that 1990 IPCC Figure was really
: based on.
:
: The Garnaut review appears to be an Australian version of
: the Stern Report.
:
: This message will self destruct in 10 seconds!
:
: Cheers
: Phil

Now that you can read the whole thing, tell me exactly what you think
these emails are about and why you imagine they are trying to find a
way around having to disclose them. I can think of a lot of reasons.
There is a great deal of frank conversations that proceed in arguments
about which side of the bread the butter should go. And sometimes,
the heated discussions that led up to a final draft really were
expected, by those participating, to be (and should be) kept private.
An shotgun FOI request, made in the hope of finding anything and
something to create confusion out of would indeed be fought hard
against.

Of course, if I _presumed_ at the outset that they were evil and
sinister... then some of my thoughts might simply go in the direction
of supporting that assumption. But open your mind enough to allow the
idea of presuming they aren't evil liars, but faced with someone
putting in FOI requests just to hassle them and hopefully find
something they can misquote and use in the public venue without
context. (Hmm. Maybe like this letter.) If you don't start with the
'evil' assumption, you might find there are other ways to read this.

One has to approach this neutral and with only the law in mind. In
America we are blessed with some excellent laws that truly empower the
public, such as FOIA.

So, if this work and also the emails were done on the public nickel and
FOIA grants the public rightful access to that, then nobdoy is entitled
to take the standpoint "Oh, but I don't like that and I will find away
to dodge this requirement". Nobody.

What should happen now is a solicitation of denied or shorted FOIA
requests. Should be easy because the requesters will be eager to furnish
such information. Then see what was delivered or not delivered. Then,
find out whether there was something that should have and ask why it
wasn't. If necessary under oath.

What I don't get is why they put this sort of stuff in emails, and under
their work accounts. I mean, technically they could have used some
hotmail account or whatever. Or the phone.

By the way, I'd love to see the 10 million emails "lost" by the last
Bush administration. I _do_ imagine there is a lot that would
interest the public. And legitimately, too; not just some prurient
interest.

I'd assume the current administration would be busy exploring this if
there was anything they suspected.

Looking for a way around FOIA is illegal, at least in America. I don't
know about the legal consequences in the UK.

No. Looking for a way around FOI requests in the US is often
considered 'standard practice.' If you are so naive as to think
otherwise, you really need to get out more. There are good reasons
and bad. Some good reasons might be that responding fully to the FOI
might create a new precedent or be considered excessive. An FOI
request, for example, for ALL FEDERAL AND STATE DISTRICT AND CIRCUIT
COURT RECORDS GOING BACK TO 1781 might be such a nasty beast.

Why? Then you simply charge reasonable fees and if the requester still
wants to go ahead I believe the budget crises, clerk layoffs and such in
many districts would be solved

Perfectly horrible in terms of scope. And responding to it might set
a precedent that even crazy-minded requests like that must be equally
met.

Only for requesters with fat bank accounts. Remember, FOIA information
is _not_ always free of charge. They can't charge $100 for a dozen pages
but they can for a box full of pages.

Regardless, looking for an out is NOT illegal. What would be trouble
would be having a court order specific compliance with the request and
then to refuse even that much. Scoping the lay of the land about it,
or 'wanting' to find a way to avoid a response, isn't in and of itself
illegal. It's just normal.

I never said anything criminal has happened. But openly thinking about
dodging a rule or law would be a good hint to probe further. Many people
have been caught because they talked about their strategies.

... Also, take note that they are talking about dealing with what
really _is_ a gadfly -- Climate Audit. I'd like you to point out, on
this site, where a climate scientist is quoted saying this about any
other requestor (your statement above doesn't identify Climate Audit
and I consider that an error in presenting the problem, Joerg.)
No. FOIA is FOIA. If a data source falls under that law the holder of
the data does not have the right to decide on his own to disobey such
law. Unless national security is affected, of course, but then he'd have
the obligation to notify authorities about that.

If only it were that clear.

It is. In case of doubt a court would need to decide.

Also note that I wrote "_If_ data really has been deleted ...". Meaning
I do not accuse them. But I would really want someone to investigate
because they are influencing public policy.

Okay. So we can set aside the accusation of deleting climate data.

I didn't accuse but said that there is a chance that it happened, not
that it did happen or so-and-so did it. Of course there will now be many
people who say it happened and the PR for the AGW folks will turn very
ugly. Lots of opinions are formed at the neighorhood pub, after a few
brewskys.

In
some countries that is considered a criminal act (when you actually
delete it) and AFAIR a probe into this has been contemplated by two US
congressmen. And I think they are darn right to demand one now.

If data really has been deleted in this sense I guess some folks better
look for a nice place somewhere where they have no extradition. Maybe
Brazil?
snip of more I'll have time for, later
I'll admit this to you. The comment I quoted from your web site is
one of the two things that bothered me. But you really seem to be
seeing things there I don't, too. So lay this out carefully for me.
I'd like to see what you see, and what supports it.
Hope I did above

Maybe. We'll see.

Anyway, yes I have a problem with this kind of frank comment. But I
saw the fuller context. I'd like to know if you went to the actual
exchanges, yourself, or if all you've done is read some angry summary
and got angry yourself without taking _your_ time to see for yourself.
Unless you or someone else proves that these emails were faked or pulled
out of some hat then this is very serious. And I hope the two
congressmen who want to have this investigated prevail with their
efforts. The people of this world have a right to get to the ground of this.

Oh, I think the emails are real. Though I can't say for sure, of
course. Could be doctored. But what I've read through 'looks real'
to me. So I tentatively conclude they are.

Some of them bother me. But I realize that these people are real
humans who have genuine emotions. I take the good with the bad, as I
said before. None of us are perfect.

No, we aren't. However, the style in those emails is something I have
never ever seen in business. It is a style that I do not like and that
raises suspicion.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

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

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Tue, 1 Dec 2009 07:03:08 -0800 (PST)) it happened Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
<783e8bc3-404a-4357-9a3e-48202ba2301b@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>:

the causes of the ice ages leads directly to the conclusion that there
aren't going to be any more "natural" climate cycles to understand,
because anthropogenic effects have overwhelmed th natural driving
forces.

Bull, your data A is in that noise!

One wonders why Jan thinks that.

Look, even specialised scientists working years on that issue cannot agree it is above noise level.
Only Bill Sloman thinks so, and some other AGW fanatics.

How many sigma do you have proof of?
from non cooked data?
Nobody knows right?
But we *do* know ice ages came and went, without us helping.
Ice ages will keep coming, and will keep going.
We need the energy to cope with that.
24/7 available energy at that.
No climate dependent like win and sun dependent.
Now you could have thought of that yourself

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Dec 1, 6:50 am, "JosephKK"<quiettechb...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 08:09:09 -0600, John Fields

jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 17:59:33 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

On Nov 28, 4:19 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 10:44:15 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman

bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Nov 28, 4:44 am, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 03:07:11 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman

bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Nov 26, 8:33 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 09:36:14 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman

bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
It is a pity that I got it wrong. Peer review would probably have
prevented this.

James Arthur happens to be wrong - his concurrence doesn't create a
concensus, which in practice is confined to the opinions of people who
know what they are talking about.

---
Then nothing you post would lead to the creation of a consensus..

Certainly not to a concensus of which you'd form a part.

---
I'd certainly keep it from becoming a consensus by showing you up for
the fraud you are.

There you go again. I'm not a fraud, but you are too ignorant and dumb
to get to grips with the evidnece that makes this obvious to the
better equipped.

---
As is typical with frauds, instead of honestly addressing the issues
causing contention, trying to resolve them amicably, and taking your
lumps when you deserve them, you resort to invective in order to try to
silence your critics.

John Fields has learned the word 'amicable". It is sad that he shows
no evidence of knowing what it means.

---
Really?

I get along quite well with almost everybody here, while you, with your
neverending pomposity and penchant for using deception to foment discord
seem to have trouble getting along with _anybody_.
---

snipped the usual rubbish

---
Of course...

Pretend what you can't counter is worthless.

JF

And believe it or not I like and respect John Fields, Jim Thompson,
Michael Terrell, Vladimir Vassilevsk, Jeorg, Jan P., Don K., James
Arthur, Spehro, Martin Brown, Nico Cosel, Phil Hobbs, Frank Buss,
Dimiter Popov, and many more.

I'm sure that they all can be likeable, in the right environment, and
can do respectable work in specific areas.

I've got no reason to like John Fields, Jim Thompson or Michael
Terrell. Their enthusiams for spouting total nonsense is irritating,
and some of the nonsense they come up with is.despicable.

James Arthur, Ravinghorde, John Larkin, Rich Grise and Jan Panteltje
have a similar enthusiasm for spouting nonsense, but they are deluded
rather than vicious.

I don't always agree with Jeorg, but like, Johm Larkin, Phil Hobbs,
and Spehro Pefhany, he's one of the people who make the group worth
following. Martin Brown, Vladimir Vassilevsky, Don Klipstein, Nico
Cosel and Frank Buss are in the same league, but I know less about
their areas of expertise.

Dimiter Popov has yet to catch my attention - or that of the Google
Gropus search engine. He doesn seem to post here at all.

I notice that you didn't endorse krw, who is another one of the
offensive right-wing nitwits, but he posts so little on-topic that
he's easy to miss.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Dec 1, 12:35 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On a sunny day (Mon, 30 Nov 2009 18:45:10 -0800 (PST)) it happenedBill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote in
747b02f7-9d2c-4bd2-9ecd-5c2ece16a...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>:





On Nov 30, 2:52 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 16:05:30 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman

bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
I can't really see the necessity to understand something that isn't
happening any more.

---

Here; read a little Santayana:

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

The last ice age ended about 11,000 years ago. I don't think that
anybody could be expected to remember it.

Jan was encouraging me to understand the Earth's natural cycles, which
demands a little more involvement than merely remembering them, and is
- in any event - somewhat ironic, since the current understanding of
the causes of the ice ages leads directly to the conclusion that there
aren't going to be any more "natural" climate cycles to understand,
because anthropogenic effects have overwhelmed th natural driving
forces.

Bull, your data A is in that noise!

One wonders why Jan thinks that. He clearly hasn't studied the data in
any kind of detail, and he clearly has notstudied the sort of physics
that would let him make much sense of what is ther to be studied, but
he still comes across as having total confidence in his daft ideas.

It would seemt that he is the kind of over-confident twit who can
"grasp things at glance" that the denialist propaganda is engineered
to suck in.

To his credit, he doesn't like the emotionalised propaganda that
Greenpeace spreads about, but that may reflect hs distaste for the
content of the message, rather than the way they chose to sell it.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Joerg]

Jon Kirwan wrote:

On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 18:37:34 -0800, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

Jon Kirwan wrote:
On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 14:25:52 -0800, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

Jon Kirwan wrote:
snip

I think one most sensible people distinguish when to spend their time
and when not to. You do that. So do I. Some people writing in this
group (and other groups) are both ignorant AND willfully so AND where
it is clear they won't spend their own time "getting better." If you
decide that is the case, you don't write. Why should you? We all
have better things to do. On the other hand, if you have a serious
inquiry from someone who _is_ ignorant but at least shows some earlier
work -- even if that effort was in the wrong direction, it was engaged
seriously -- then you may feel better about trying to correct them or
point out some thought of yours that may help them.

Climate science is fraught with well-funded confusion, discord, and
the sewing of far less certainty where there is far more available.
Some scientists are ... wary. They've been caught flat-footed. (I
have been, too.) They might imagine a sincere request, respond in a
fair minded way, and have it cherry-picked and plastered without
context or understanding. At some point, one gets kind of sick and
tired of that, you know?

I do my diligence, first. By reading their recent work and related
materials, for example. When I write to them, I almost always have
something to say that shows them that I've done some work on my own.
That always seems to help a lot. It shows I respect their time by
first spending my own and therefore am obviously not out to just waste
theirs. A dialogue can start from there. But it really helps to not
ask others to spend their time when you haven't spent your own, first.

In a similar way, it helps to know that someone has at least tried to
understand a BJT and maybe even build some things they want to
understand a little better, but don't, when posting a BJT question. If
a poster hasn't ever read a single page of a single book on the
subject, never tried anything, and just jumps in with some completely
random request for "plase expln me how the bjt wroks?" question,
well... yeah.. it's not likely to get anything but suggestions to go
put in some time first (and maybe even learning some English, too.)
True. Sometimes I simply point them to "The Art of Electronics"
Indeed! I like to also point to a book (upon which I'm now quoted on
the backside proving his lack of good taste!) --

Ian Getreu's "Modeling the Bipolar Transistor"

-- which is now finally again available as a Lulu reprint.
Wonderful!

hehe. Now if the two people in the world who may care would just buy
a copy!

My wife would scold me if I got another historical book. A few years ago
I vowed to clean house so I don't occupy all the hallway closets with my
business stuff

Now would be time to market this to universities. I think that students
wanting to head for chip design should read it. Although the era of the
BJT is essentially over in many, many markets.

[...]

Hmm. I hadn't read this, earlier. You anticipated my reply and I
anticipated yours, too. As I said, the public won't get behind a
carbon tax that will merely line the pockets of power or capital. So
we agree there.
But body politicus might sock it to us and impose a carbon tax anyhow.
Because it's a gravy train for them, like almost all taxes are.
I _hate_ this "fact of life," Joerg. I think it is disgusting and
vile. And I think you are right. Bastards, all. But there it is.

(Frankly, I think the public _could_ at least give some fair
consideration to the idea _if_ the funds were returned to them in a
manner that was appropriate and fairly handled and didn't wind up
instead paying down some debt they'd forced down our throats at a
different time or lining someone's already deep pockets. The public
understands the idea of fairness well and also is quite properly very
incensed and angered by unfair treatment. I not only agree, I'd get
angry, too.)
This is _the_ reason why we must get to the ground of what really goes
on behind the curtains of AGW proponents. Because once a carbon tax is
there pork will be doled out, and it will not leave us even if the whole
AGW really does turn out to be a hoax (which I think it could ...).
Remember how we kept financing the Spanish-American war until a few
years ago?

I'll give you more examples. I had to drive from here, in Oregon, to
Chicago. When I reached Michigan and especially Illinois there were
all these toll booths. Seemed like every 2 or 3 miles. Supposedly,
to pay for the roads. Which is patently false. They had been paid
for decades before. And they were collecting a LOT MORE than the
maintenence costs were, after. These were INTERSTATE HIGHWAYS paid
for by FEDERAL TAXES!! My money. Your money. These were not some
local drag, either.

That was sheer crap.

Out here, in the Portland metro area (1.5 million people big) there
was a bridge built across the Columbia river as part of I5. When it
went in, they added tolls. I paid 25 cents to cross the bridge, 'back
in the day.' They said that when the bridge was paid for, the tolls
would come out. Sure enough, when the capital costs were paid, they
pulled the tolls and it's now free to travel across.. these last
decades.

Back east, if a toll goes in... it stays forever. So I'm told by
those living there, anyway.

Wrong-minded and liars besides. At least here, our politicians did
the right thing. It does happen.

Now you know exactly why I am squarely against a carbon tax or anything
of that sort. Taxing is what lots of AGW folks want and the public
doesn't want.

[...]

Instead, I see stone-walling, blocking, shouts, accusation.
At whom, exactly? Climate Audit? If so, doesn't bother me in the
slightest. I completely understand. I wish they maintained a better
outward appearance. But I do understand. I spent years debating in
personal, 1:1 email, with one of those at Climate Audit. I'm fine
with ignoring them. I finally had to admit that years of his
disrespectful yelling at me was at an end and stopped responding to
him. So I personally understand.
That's personal preference. But it gives no right to scientists to
refuse a FOIA request or contemplate doing that. Not in my eye and also
not in that of the law.

As I wrote in another email, I don't know if "looking for a way out"
is actually illegal. And you've admitted that "destroying data" is
more your suggesting than an explicit admission you uncovered. So
think the jury is still out. ...

That's the point, I hope there is going to be a jury. Or a judge.

... And yes, if Climate Audit gave me an FOI
request, I'd probably assume it wasn't because they were serious about
applying informed analysis to see if there was a real error (because
there is a place and time for that they can already use) but instead
because they are "looking for dirt" to use in smearing people.

An honest climate scientist should not be afraid of dirt.

As you admit earlier here, the McDonald's approach _works_. Just
paint an emotion and people are driven like sheep by it. And this
technical stuff is beyond their ken, anyway. Or they don't have the
time because they have a life, too. So a good smear compaign works
wonders. Always has. Always will. And reading through emails is a
great way to find some really nice 'sizzle.' The public won't care
about the meat, anyway.

Yep. And I hope those scientists have learned their lesson, that one
does not write such stuff.

[...]

snip
Joerg:
I believe the findings by the Swiss at Schnidljoch were pretty powerful.
If you don't think so, ok, then we differ in opinion here.
I don't know anything comprehensive about that. So no real opinion
about it.
Then I might use your own words: You need to bone up on this stuff.
No, I don't. If you want to inform me more fully because it is
important _to you_ that I know about it, that's fine. The mere fact
that I'm ignorant really means that I don't know everything there is
to know. But I already knew that. Oh, well.
Now you are contradicting yourself. You told me that I need to dive
deeper into climate science to have an opinion. I told you that you need
to dive deeper into the climate of the past and now suddenly that is wrong?

No, I'm just saying I don't know anything about "Schnidljoch." Never
even heard of it until I read your words. It does happen to be true
that I live a limited life.

See? Same here. I've got to work to earn a living, then there needs to
be family time, and volunteer work which I won't sacrifice to study
reams of climate stuff because then I'd let people down. This is why we
all must rely on other source we can trust for much of our opinion-building.

History is very important, and quite well documented because the Romans
were sort of perfectionists in this area. Archaeologists always came
across as honest and modest folks, at let to me. So when they find
evidence I usually believe them. And they did find evidence here, big time.
I think you are making too much out of far too little. But I don't
know what you see and perhaps you will be able to walk me through your
path so that I get it and agree with you. I already said a couple of
things bother me about the released letters and I've just today
admitted one of the general areas of that. None of it changes what
the knowledge I've gained in specific areas where I've spent my time.
Not in the least.
Schnidljoch is just one example of many, of passes in the Alps that have
been mostly or completely free of ice in the not too distant past (Roman
era). There is proof of that and I have pointed that out, with link. You
can actually go there and look at the stuff they found. Then it got
colder and they became covered in thick ice, became glaciers,
unpassable, uninhabitable. Just like large swaths of Greenland did. Now
the ice begins to melt again and lots of scientists panic ;-)

[...]

Well, I suppose I need you to inform me about all this.

In a nutshell, this is the story of what happened (a lot of the more
detailed write-ups are in German):

http://www.oeschger.unibe.ch/about/press_coverage/article_de.html?ID=182

I can almost here some of the guys from East Anglia exclaim "Oh s..t!
Why did they have to find this?" ;-)

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

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