Ping Bil Slowman; The global warming hoax reveiled

Bill Sloman · Dec 2, 2009

On Dec 1, 9:36 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Nov 28, 10:36 pm,Bill Sloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

On Nov 28, 5:15 pm, dagmargoodb...@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:
Or just do an error-budget analysis. The AGW contribution alleged
from CO2 is, well, not even clear. A range of estimates from ~0.25 to
1 W/m^2 out of roughly 300W/m^2 has been offered. (That wide an
uncertainty band is pretty pathetic on its face, isn't it?)

<snipped a load of unspecific dancing around the point>

http://atoc.colorado.edu/~seand/headinacloud/?p=204

gives a figure of 1.66 W/m˛, with a range between 1.49 and 1.83 W/m˛.

The NOAAA web-site, which you snipped

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/

doesn't give a specific figure, but does give a graph - Figure 3 - of
the measured CO2 forcing rising with CO2 concentration, showing it to
have reached 1.7 Watts per square metre. The introduction at the top
of the web-page makes it clear that the uncertainty on this figure is
around 10%, which matches the Colorado numbers.

Your claim was

"The AGW contribution alleged from CO2 is, well, not even clear. A
range of estimates from ~0.25 to
1 W/m^2 out of roughly 300W/m^2 has been offered."

You can't substantiate this claim, or tell us where you got it, and in
fact it seems to be flat out wrong.

Do tell us again how much you know about climate modelling, and about
the excellent advice you can get from someone directly involved in the
subject - we need a good laugh.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen>

Jim Thompson · Dec 2, 2009

On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 07:03:57 -0800, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

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!

537 posts in this thread so far, many over 400 lines, mostly written
by people who aren't very good with electronics.

Get a life, guys. You'll never be good climatologists. If you work at
it, you may aspire to being passable circuit designers.

John

John Fields · Dec 2, 2009

On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 01:22:27 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Nov 27, 2:44 am, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:

I don't say it about everybody, but there are a number of people who
post here on subjects that they know very little about, and they quite
often post total nonsense.

---
Like about being able to extract energy from a varying magnetic field
surrounding a conductor by wrapping a solenoid around the conductor?

A subject on which you have posted a lot of nonsense. You did take
that joke seriously, as if there was some doubt that it was a joke,
and since then you have been wasting bandwidth trying to to claim that
my treating it as a joke meant that I didn't understand that it was
joke.

One expects puppies to chase their own tails, but it is unusual to see
an adult so wound up in his own misconceptions.

---
Indeed, and now that you've been shown that a solenoid won't work in the
way you originally thought it did, you should be wagging your tail
instead of chasing it.

JF

Jim Thompson · Dec 2, 2009

On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 09:57:13 -0600, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 01:22:27 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Nov 27, 2:44 am, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:

I don't say it about everybody, but there are a number of people who
post here on subjects that they know very little about, and they quite
often post total nonsense.

---
Like about being able to extract energy from a varying magnetic field
surrounding a conductor by wrapping a solenoid around the conductor?

A subject on which you have posted a lot of nonsense. You did take
that joke seriously, as if there was some doubt that it was a joke,
and since then you have been wasting bandwidth trying to to claim that
my treating it as a joke meant that I didn't understand that it was
joke.

One expects puppies to chase their own tails, but it is unusual to see
an adult so wound up in his own misconceptions.

---
Indeed, and now that you've been shown that a solenoid won't work in the
way you originally thought it did, you should be wagging your tail
instead of chasing it.

JF

Jan Panteltje · Dec 2, 2009

On a sunny day (Wed, 02 Dec 2009 07:03:57 -0800) it happened John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in
<5a0dh59m47e9og9983fn9316ckrni4jrqt@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!

537 posts in this thread so far, many over 400 lines, mostly written
by people who aren't very good with electronics.

Get a life, guys. You'll never be good climatologists. If you work at
it, you may aspire to being passable circuit designers.

John

So spoke the great master circuit plumber _)

John Larkin · Dec 2, 2009

On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 16:29:08 GMT, Jan Panteltje
<pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

On a sunny day (Wed, 02 Dec 2009 07:03:57 -0800) it happened John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in
5a0dh59m47e9og9983fn9316ckrni4jrqt@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!

537 posts in this thread so far, many over 400 lines, mostly written
by people who aren't very good with electronics.

Get a life, guys. You'll never be good climatologists. If you work at
it, you may aspire to being passable circuit designers.

John

So spoke the great master circuit plumber _)

in sci.electronics.design

John

Jim Thompson · Dec 2, 2009

On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 09:03:19 -0800, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 16:29:08 GMT, Jan Panteltje
pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

On a sunny day (Wed, 02 Dec 2009 07:03:57 -0800) it happened John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in
5a0dh59m47e9og9983fn9316ckrni4jrqt@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!

537 posts in this thread so far, many over 400 lines, mostly written
by people who aren't very good with electronics.

Get a life, guys. You'll never be good climatologists. If you work at
it, you may aspire to being passable circuit designers.

John

So spoke the great master circuit plumber _)

in sci.electronics.design

John

Bill Sloman · Dec 2, 2009

On Dec 1, 5:29 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 23:17:00 -0800, "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.

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

---
Yes, you're right.

The points I made were valid

The claim his said I was making is entirely his own invention.

and my science was clean,

Since he invented the claim he wanted to disagree with, it ought to
have been.

no matter how he
chooses to rail on, so it's time to disengage.

He's finally realised that he has been talking to himself, at
ridiculous length, and now he is putting a brave face on slinking back
into his box.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Bill Sloman · Dec 2, 2009

On Dec 2, 3:06 am, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 16:37:32 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman

bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Dec 1, 3:27 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 16:40:28 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman

bill.slo...@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.

I understand it well enough. You had a solenoid and bunch of wires and
you wanted to play with them.

---
Ah, I see.

You really _did_ finally understand the experiment and now you're just
trying to do damage control by clipping the part that shows you had no
clue that a passive clamp-on ammeter uses a toroidal transformer for the
sensor.

Here's the part you clipped:

Your whole campaign seems to be based on things that I didn't say,
rather than anything I said. You have concocted this fantasy where I'm
supposed to have taken you seriously, and my failure to respond to
your carry-on is supposed to have been based on some lack of
understanding on my part, rather than a very clear understanding that
John Fields had got another bee in his bonnet and needed to be jeered
at.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Joerg · Dec 2, 2009

Jon Kirwan wrote:

On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 15:58:34 -0800, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

Jon Kirwan wrote:
On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 08:06:55 -0800, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

Jon Kirwan wrote:
[...]

... 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.
I completely disagree with you on this point, Joerg. It shows such
naivety that it is shocking to me. I've already talked about, and you
admitted, that propaganda works on the bulk of the population. There
is no good reason to cooperate in making the job of propagandists
easier. Mud simply sticks. That's the end of it. You don't give
them more ammo to work with, if you can avoid it.
Even just contemplating to skirt the law (by dodging FOIA) is not my
understanding of ethical work. But ok, we'll never agree on this one.

I didn't say "ethical." Don't change the goal posts on me in the
middle of a run. I am talking about you recommend that "an honest
climate scientist should not be afraid of dirt." The reality of the
science and effectiveness of propaganda in an era of sound bites and
images and a near complete lack of factual content is manifest. In a
perfect world, I'd agree. We don't live in one.

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?" ;-)
I'll look later when I get some time. I probably WON'T get enough
time to form an opinion about it, though. Too busy over the next few
months and I _know_ in advance that it will take me weeks of research
to become comprehensively informed, if not months. I even suspect
_you_ aren't comprehensively informed on this. So maybe I should wait
until you agree with me, jointly, to walk the same walk here and both
become _fully_ informed on this issue before I proceed. Why should I
waste my precious weeks of life, if you aren't willing?
All I want is that AGW folks take this stuff into consideration. I have
looked for this because when I read in one AGW-related article that such
glacier conditions have never existed in civilized times I remembered
details from history classes, about the Romans, and that just didn't
jibe. Sure enough, it didn't.

Read your comments here, again. But do so from the point of view of
someone outside of you. I am staying on target about gaining a fully
comprehensive view before deciding on the basis of some very sparse
points you cleave onto, that there is systemic, cross-discipline
perfidy going on in climate research. Do you realize the grand sweep
of your accusations -- the sheer and unbridled magnitude of them? And
based upon what, exactly? Some article you read and some history
class or two? And unwilling to actually dig fully into it? Is that
it? And you don't feel the need to engage _any_ facet fully, but
would instead prefer to simply keep your beliefs on this wan basis
rather than perhaps go the extra mile?

No. My message to scientists (which they won't read anyhow ...) is
simply this: Look at this, and this, and that, and please explain it to
us. For example why Schnidljoch was nearly free of ice. Or why AGW
proponent scientists have predicted that the Himalaya glaciers will be
mostly gone in 30 years while Russian scientists claimed it'll take ten
times that long (no, I don't have that article anymore). I neither have
the time nor the scientific background to find out. That's why we
taxpayers _pay_ guys that do. They need to do this job, not you and I.

I honestly have NO IDEA at all where your point will take me. I might
conclude exactly as you seem so eager and willing to conclude, after
we get through it in detail -- perhaps a few months from now. And I'm
willing to track down appropriate individuals, share communications
with you and them, and see where it takes you and me without
preconceptions -- because I have none, being completely ignorant right
now. And even then, you aren't willing to put in effort (seemingly
happy if I do, but not if you do) and would prefer to simply remain
with an accusatory finger pointed outward?

I don't accuse, I am saying that we should look at additional
information outside IPCC. Because I feel that some sort of censoring is
going on there. Not sure of the extent but that will (hopefully) come
out in the now ongoing investigations.

You have the right to control your time, Joerg. And I respect that
choice. But I don't know what to say, really, to an accusation where
the accuser isn't willing to do their due diligence first. I will
simply have to wait until you feel ready, I suppose, if ever. Let me
know. I'd probably enjoy the experience.

It's not me who is accusing, it's scientists whom I took the liberty to
quote. I know you probably don't like the guy but we all must keep an
open ear, and if it is true what he says in brief here then that would
be quite significant:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/30/playing-hide-and-seek-behind-the-trees/

Before you tell me that I haven't spent 2000+ hours researching please
note that I said "if"

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

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

Joerg · Dec 2, 2009

Jon Kirwan wrote:

On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 15:47:48 -0800, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

Jon Kirwan wrote:
On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 07:45:06 -0800, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

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:
[...]

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.
I'm bothered by some of them, too. But you know? The emails I copied
out are some megabytes in size and cover _some_ interactions of _some_
people involved. They are a 'random snapshot' of some kind, but also
selective by their very nature. I think if the fuller context were
out there (all emails by all climate scientists) we'd find more, but
still on balance would find serious people working generally hard to
do serious and meaningful work, fairly and honestly. There will be
exceptions, of course. And some will obviously be less professional
and still others will do poor work, as well, that others know about
and snipe on about. But I think the _weight_ of it would be something
to be proud of.

As I said, though, these are people like you and me.
Granted, many of them will be. But some clearly are not. I am quite
concerned when statements like in those emails are coming from people
higher up in the pecking order of an organization that is supposed to
work for the common good.

I have seen it too many times that something leaked from an
organization, it was said "oh, it's just very few bad apples" and then
an investigation found a huge morass. I hope that's not so in this case
but I believe an investigation is most certainly in order at this point.

I'll leave it here. I don't know what you'd hope to achieve, either
way. An investigation to investigate what, exactly? The people or
the science? ...

Both.

... If the people, I suspect you will have it -- there is no
escaping that some folks in positions of power will use the event and
others will provide cover for themselves by staying out of the way. If
the science, then it will be active climate scientists who must do
that. And I don't think you will be satisfied there.

Now that things hit the fan, their arms are twisted and they can't
possibly dodge FOI the guys from the other side of the fence will have
access and that's a very good thing. So I might be satisfied

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

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

Joerg · Dec 2, 2009

Mark Zenier wrote:

In article <slrnhh1de5.65g.don@manx.misty.com>,
Don Klipstein <don@manx.misty.com> wrote:
(I have a bit of impression that the location in question is east rim of
the Central Valley ENE of Sacramento - any correction/clarification?
How about elevation? - that may matter in local or regional weather and
climate issues.)

(Remembering some trivia from some threads about aiming TV antennas to
pick up DTV).

http://www.airnav.com/airport/O61

Yup, that's it. Don't mention DTV to other residents in this area, by
now many of them are extremely p....d about it.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

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

Rich Grise · Dec 2, 2009

Jon Kirwan wrote:

Read your comments here, again. But do so from the point of view of
someone outside of you. I am staying on target about gaining a fully
comprehensive view before deciding on the basis of some very sparse
points you cleave onto, that there is systemic, cross-discipline perfidy
going on in climate research. Do you realize the grand sweep of your
accusations -- the sheer and unbridled magnitude of them? And based
upon what, exactly?

Probably some of these:
http://eastangliaemails.com/

Hope This Helps!
Rich

Rich Grise · Dec 2, 2009

On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 16:52:40 -0800, dagmargoodboat wrote:

On Dec 1, 3:08 pm, Rich Grise <richgr...@example.net> wrote:
On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 11:12:09 -0800, dagmargoodboat wrote:

Even so, if the NAMDO--which affects temperatures and weather and
clouds--isn't understood, as you concede, how did those climate models
accurately project and integrate the effects of those clouds over all
that simulated time? If the GCM doesn't know how many, how
reflective, and how widespread the clouds are, how can it compute and
integrate the solar input to calculate total warming? It can't.

It's bogus.

Everybody knows Garbage In, Garbage Out.

Therefore, garbage into a garbage "model" yields Garbage Squared. ;-)

And here I thought you were going to say GI==> GM ==>"Policy" !

There's a difference? ;-)

Cheers!
Rich

John Fields · Dec 2, 2009

On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 08:10:38 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Dec 1, 5:29 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 23:17:00 -0800, "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.

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

---
Yes, you're right.

The points I made were valid

The claim his said I was making is entirely his own invention.

and my science was clean,

Since he invented the claim he wanted to disagree with, it ought to
have been.

no matter how he
chooses to rail on, so it's time to disengage.

He's finally realised that he has been talking to himself, at
ridiculous length, and now he is putting a brave face on slinking back
into his box.

---
Well, one last post to put everything into its proper perspective, and
then I'll let you get on with your ridiculous little mean-spirited life.

1. Joel Koltner commented that it would be possible to steal power by
wrapping a bunch of turns around a power line.

2. I said it wouldn't be possible and asked if he knew why.

3. He said because the federales would come and get you if you tried.

4. I stated that that wasn't it, it was because you can't get power to
transfer using a solenoid that way.

5. You jumped in saying I was wrong because 'power lines' is plural, and
because of that, current in the conductors would be going in opposite
directions and the magnetic fields generated about the conductors
would cancel

Notice _in particular_ that you didn't state that current wouldn't be
induced in the solenoid because it was a solenoid, but because of the
cancellation of the magnetic fields.

Then, in the very next breath, you went on to state that if the
conductors in the 'line' were separated and a clamp-on meter wrapped
around one of them then the conductors would act like the primary of
a transformer and power could be had out of the secondary.

Now, and this is very important, notice that you nowhere claimed that
power _couldn't_ be had from a solenoid wrapped around a conductor,
and you even went so far as to describe the deployment of the meter
as being _wrapped_ around the conductor, indicating that you thought
it _was_ a solenoid.

6. I then devised and ran my experiment in order to demonstrate that
your belief that power could be had from a solenoid was wrong,
whereupon you belittled the experiment while digesting its
meaning, waited a little while, and then proclaimed that you knew
it was a toroid all along and even tried to make it seem like it
was me who was proclaiming the solenoid the winner.

So there you have it, a little slice of the life story of Bill Sloman,
Weaver of Tangled Webs.

JF

Malcolm Moore · Dec 2, 2009

On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 12:01:48 GMT, Jan Panteltje
<pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

On a sunny day (Tue, 1 Dec 2009 17:27:17 -0800 (PST)) it happened Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
6a65fb45-1d30-40e4-a3ad-88c318eb0f31@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>:

On Dec 2, 12:47 am, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
Malcolm Moore <abor1953nee...@yahoodagger.co.nz> wrote:
dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

I thought it interesting that even France is so dependent on fossil
fuels. Even more than 82% (of total energy), if they use coal.

So you should have stated that rather than offering a "fact check."

Maybe. But Bill later said he meant France as an example of
independence from fossil fuels.

Huh? I don't remember saying that. The point was that France gets a a
substantial proportion of its energy from nuclear power stations,
while Jan seemed to be saying that everything is powered by burning
fossil carbon.

I never said that, and I was the one who made the case for nuclear power.
You are starting to be a twising lier, just like your fellow warmists.

You posted a lie here the other day when you forwarded a post from
us.politics describing someone as a professor when they certainly
aren't. I corrected you here on sed.

Have you posted back to us.politics pointing out this error? If not
why not? Do you condone lies from your side of the debate?

--
Regards
Malcolm
Remove sharp objects to get a valid e-mail address

Jon Kirwan · Dec 2, 2009

On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 09:56:35 -0800, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

Jon Kirwan wrote:
On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 15:47:48 -0800, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

Jon Kirwan wrote:
On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 07:45:06 -0800, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

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:
[...]

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.
I'm bothered by some of them, too. But you know? The emails I copied
out are some megabytes in size and cover _some_ interactions of _some_
people involved. They are a 'random snapshot' of some kind, but also
selective by their very nature. I think if the fuller context were
out there (all emails by all climate scientists) we'd find more, but
still on balance would find serious people working generally hard to
do serious and meaningful work, fairly and honestly. There will be
exceptions, of course. And some will obviously be less professional
and still others will do poor work, as well, that others know about
and snipe on about. But I think the _weight_ of it would be something
to be proud of.

As I said, though, these are people like you and me.
Granted, many of them will be. But some clearly are not. I am quite
concerned when statements like in those emails are coming from people
higher up in the pecking order of an organization that is supposed to
work for the common good.

I have seen it too many times that something leaked from an
organization, it was said "oh, it's just very few bad apples" and then
an investigation found a huge morass. I hope that's not so in this case
but I believe an investigation is most certainly in order at this point.

I'll leave it here. I don't know what you'd hope to achieve, either
way. An investigation to investigate what, exactly? The people or
the science? ...

Both.

I suspect one will happen, but not the other.

... If the people, I suspect you will have it -- there is no
escaping that some folks in positions of power will use the event and
others will provide cover for themselves by staying out of the way. If
the science, then it will be active climate scientists who must do
that. And I don't think you will be satisfied there.

Now that things hit the fan, their arms are twisted and they can't
possibly dodge FOI the guys from the other side of the fence will have
access and that's a very good thing. So I might be satisfied

Well, lawyers will have fun. But the communications will probably go
as you expected, now that yet another object lesson has been learned
-- they will use phone calls and private, out-of-band communications.

If I were active in this field, aware as I am of the divisiveness and
disingenuous behavior that surrounds these activities, I'd be
exclusively using public-key encryption and phone conversations for
anything other than official communications and publishable works and
regularly using disk-scrubbing (or a ball-peened hammer to beat it to
death) on my hard disks, routinely.

Regarding personal communications with my defenses down and being
frank with others, I'd act like I was asked to act when working for
Lockheed on highly specialized secret projects -- things go in to a
room or computer, but absolutely nothing leaves without being turned
to dust and useless rubble. Period.

Jon

Jan Panteltje · Dec 2, 2009

On a sunny day (Thu, 03 Dec 2009 10:35:24 +1300) it happened Malcolm Moore
<abor1953needle@yahoodagger.co.nz> wrote in
<08mdh5lafs2v2f5fhervp7np5mnmmgsn2q@4ax.com>:

On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 12:01:48 GMT, Jan Panteltje
pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

On a sunny day (Tue, 1 Dec 2009 17:27:17 -0800 (PST)) it happened Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
6a65fb45-1d30-40e4-a3ad-88c318eb0f31@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>:

On Dec 2, 12:47 am, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
Malcolm Moore <abor1953nee...@yahoodagger.co.nz> wrote:
dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

I thought it interesting that even France is so dependent on fossil
fuels. Even more than 82% (of total energy), if they use coal.

So you should have stated that rather than offering a "fact check."

Maybe. But Bill later said he meant France as an example of
independence from fossil fuels.

Huh? I don't remember saying that. The point was that France gets a a
substantial proportion of its energy from nuclear power stations,
while Jan seemed to be saying that everything is powered by burning
fossil carbon.

I never said that, and I was the one who made the case for nuclear power.
You are starting to be a twising lier, just like your fellow warmists.

You posted a lie here the other day when you forwarded a post from
us.politics describing someone as a professor when they certainly
aren't. I corrected you here on sed.

I did not see your correction.

Have you posted back to us.politics pointing out this error? If not
why not? Do you condone lies from your side of the debate?

It is not really that important, if he is prof or not,
as it does not change global temperature now or in the future.

--
Regards
Malcolm
Remove sharp objects to get a valid e-mail address

Jon Kirwan · Dec 2, 2009

On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 09:53:20 -0800, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

Jon Kirwan wrote:
On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 15:58:34 -0800, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

Jon Kirwan wrote:
On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 08:06:55 -0800, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

Jon Kirwan wrote:
[...]

... 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.
I completely disagree with you on this point, Joerg. It shows such
naivety that it is shocking to me. I've already talked about, and you
admitted, that propaganda works on the bulk of the population. There
is no good reason to cooperate in making the job of propagandists
easier. Mud simply sticks. That's the end of it. You don't give
them more ammo to work with, if you can avoid it.
Even just contemplating to skirt the law (by dodging FOIA) is not my
understanding of ethical work. But ok, we'll never agree on this one.

I didn't say "ethical." Don't change the goal posts on me in the
middle of a run. I am talking about you recommend that "an honest
climate scientist should not be afraid of dirt." The reality of the
science and effectiveness of propaganda in an era of sound bites and
images and a near complete lack of factual content is manifest. In a
perfect world, I'd agree. We don't live in one.

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?" ;-)
I'll look later when I get some time. I probably WON'T get enough
time to form an opinion about it, though. Too busy over the next few
months and I _know_ in advance that it will take me weeks of research
to become comprehensively informed, if not months. I even suspect
_you_ aren't comprehensively informed on this. So maybe I should wait
until you agree with me, jointly, to walk the same walk here and both
become _fully_ informed on this issue before I proceed. Why should I
waste my precious weeks of life, if you aren't willing?
All I want is that AGW folks take this stuff into consideration. I have
looked for this because when I read in one AGW-related article that such
glacier conditions have never existed in civilized times I remembered
details from history classes, about the Romans, and that just didn't
jibe. Sure enough, it didn't.

Read your comments here, again. But do so from the point of view of
someone outside of you. I am staying on target about gaining a fully
comprehensive view before deciding on the basis of some very sparse
points you cleave onto, that there is systemic, cross-discipline
perfidy going on in climate research. Do you realize the grand sweep
of your accusations -- the sheer and unbridled magnitude of them? And
based upon what, exactly? Some article you read and some history
class or two? And unwilling to actually dig fully into it? Is that
it? And you don't feel the need to engage _any_ facet fully, but
would instead prefer to simply keep your beliefs on this wan basis
rather than perhaps go the extra mile?

No. My message to scientists (which they won't read anyhow ...) is
simply this: Look at this, and this, and that, and please explain it to
us. For example why Schnidljoch was nearly free of ice. Or why AGW
proponent scientists have predicted that the Himalaya glaciers will be
mostly gone in 30 years while Russian scientists claimed it'll take ten
times that long (no, I don't have that article anymore). I neither have
the time nor the scientific background to find out. That's why we
taxpayers _pay_ guys that do. They need to do this job, not you and I.

I honestly have NO IDEA at all where your point will take me. I might
conclude exactly as you seem so eager and willing to conclude, after
we get through it in detail -- perhaps a few months from now. And I'm
willing to track down appropriate individuals, share communications
with you and them, and see where it takes you and me without
preconceptions -- because I have none, being completely ignorant right
now. And even then, you aren't willing to put in effort (seemingly
happy if I do, but not if you do) and would prefer to simply remain
with an accusatory finger pointed outward?

I don't accuse, I am saying that we should look at additional
information outside IPCC. Because I feel that some sort of censoring is
going on there. Not sure of the extent but that will (hopefully) come
out in the now ongoing investigations.

The IPCC is not the be-all and end-all. Others have said so in this
group, so have I. The United States, itself, has at least three
separate agencies doing their own investigations of the peer reviewed
literature (not to mention reviewing grant proposals and making
funding decisions well before any results are to be had) and they have
each come to similar conclusions -- but on their own. And the US
isn't the only country funding groups doing that.

You have the right to control your time, Joerg. And I respect that
choice. But I don't know what to say, really, to an accusation where
the accuser isn't willing to do their due diligence first. I will
simply have to wait until you feel ready, I suppose, if ever. Let me
know. I'd probably enjoy the experience.

It's not me who is accusing, it's scientists whom I took the liberty to
quote. I know you probably don't like the guy but we all must keep an
open ear, and if it is true what he says in brief here then that would
be quite significant:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/30/playing-hide-and-seek-behind-the-trees/

Before you tell me that I haven't spent 2000+ hours researching please
note that I said "if"

Okay. I think my main point here is that to remind you of something
you already know -- becoming sufficiently informed to say much at all
takes lots of effort. Just as it does for an engineer before they can
offer clients practical and realistic advice or produce successful
product designs. I'm sure you'd feel much as I would if some wildcat
without any training, experience, study and reading, or even serious
hobby experience started hanging out their shield to the public as an
electronics engineer or a PE.

Those who clearly have no personal investment of their own time,
practical work, and education can certainly run around dissenting in
public about electronics designers or perhaps their willingness to
collude with those in power to fleece the ill-informed public of their
hard earned money, for example. But it would be somewhat painful for
you to stand by and watch, I'd suppose. You know yourself and you
know that you are a fair-minded person and a capable one.

You might want to suggest that they spend a little time with you, walk
in your shoes... if you were being gentle about it and cared about
them. You might be a bit more abrupt, in other circumstances.

I'm willing to spend time... my time. And it's not easy to say that,
because I value it highly. It would affect my life, my kids, and
family. But for you, yes. But you have to be willing to reciprocate.
Otherwise, it's unfair. And I think you understand that fact.

We'll leave it there.

Jon

Joerg · Dec 2, 2009

Jon Kirwan wrote:

On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 09:56:35 -0800, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

Jon Kirwan wrote:
On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 15:47:48 -0800, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

Jon Kirwan wrote:

[...]

As I said, though, these are people like you and me.
Granted, many of them will be. But some clearly are not. I am quite
concerned when statements like in those emails are coming from people
higher up in the pecking order of an organization that is supposed to
work for the common good.

I have seen it too many times that something leaked from an
organization, it was said "oh, it's just very few bad apples" and then
an investigation found a huge morass. I hope that's not so in this case
but I believe an investigation is most certainly in order at this point.
I'll leave it here. I don't know what you'd hope to achieve, either
way. An investigation to investigate what, exactly? The people or
the science? ...
Both.

I suspect one will happen, but not the other.

I suspect the same as you. But at least I hope someone tries to find out
whether or not data has been "cooked".

... If the people, I suspect you will have it -- there is no
escaping that some folks in positions of power will use the event and
others will provide cover for themselves by staying out of the way. If
the science, then it will be active climate scientists who must do
that. And I don't think you will be satisfied there.
Now that things hit the fan, their arms are twisted and they can't
possibly dodge FOI the guys from the other side of the fence will have
access and that's a very good thing. So I might be satisfied

Well, lawyers will have fun. But the communications will probably go
as you expected, now that yet another object lesson has been learned
-- they will use phone calls and private, out-of-band communications.

If I were active in this field, aware as I am of the divisiveness and
disingenuous behavior that surrounds these activities, I'd be
exclusively using public-key encryption and phone conversations for
anything other than official communications and publishable works and
regularly using disk-scrubbing (or a ball-peened hammer to beat it to
death) on my hard disks, routinely.

Regarding personal communications with my defenses down and being
frank with others, I'd act like I was asked to act when working for
Lockheed on highly specialized secret projects -- things go in to a
room or computer, but absolutely nothing leaves without being turned
to dust and useless rubble. Period.

Except that you can't work like at Lockheed when in a taxpayer-funded
ivory tower. Sure, one can use phones or at least private email. There
have to be meeting minutes and all sorts of other traceable things. I've
worked in medical most of my life and there you cannot hide a thing. And
I never did. For example, if an FDA probe would find an email answer to
an issue but the email with the questions is nowhere to be found da big
red flag would be raised.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

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

Ping Bil Slowman; The global warming hoax reveiled

Bill Sloman

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

John Fields

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

Jan Panteltje

Guest

John Larkin

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

Bill Sloman

Guest

Bill Sloman

Guest

Joerg

Guest

Joerg

Guest

Joerg

Guest

Rich Grise

Guest

Rich Grise

Guest

John Fields

Guest

Malcolm Moore

Guest

Jon Kirwan

Guest

Jan Panteltje

Guest

Jon Kirwan

Guest

Joerg

Guest

Log in

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor