Ping Bil Slowman; The global warming hoax reveiled

[Bill Sloman]

On Nov 22, 10:50 pm, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

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

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

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5i0gwwjN8hkEa1SyfHo...

snipped the rest of the idiot anxieties

Oh yeah?

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

Lake Nyos is a deep lake and the water was saturated with CO2 from the
bottom up. The pressure at the bottom of the lake is a lot higher than
at the surface, so the CO2 concentration at the bottom of the lake was
a lot higher than that at the top.

This is an unstable situation, and once a part of the deeper water
started moving towards the surface, the CO2 started coming out of
solution, making that volume of water and CO2 less dense, so that it
rose more rapidly.

As your web-site says a "300-foot (91 m) fountain of water and foam
formed at the surface of the lake".

The CO2 to be stored a couple of kilometres under Barendrecht, in an
exhausted natural gas field, would have a rather tougher time getting
out. The natural gas field held the the natural gas under Barendrecht
without letting it out since Barendrecht started keeping written
records, and most likely for a few hundred million years before that,
so the two situations don't seem to be entirely comparable.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Nov 22, 7:48 pm, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

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





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

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

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

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

LOL.
Some science!

And that in a leftist newspaper!

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

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

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

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

Some good stuff here:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Apparently not.

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

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

Darwin's Theory of Evolution wasn't based on experiment. Neither is
modern astronomy.
Would you like to detail the errati, faddish and incorrect parts of
these areas of science?

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Nov 22, 8:34 pm, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

LOL.
Some science!

And that in a leftist newspaper!

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

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

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

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

Some good stuff here:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Apparently not.

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

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

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

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

Weather is chaotic, Climate is pretty predictable - as farmers have
been proving for the past few millenia.

Simulating climate is a whole lot easier than simulating weather,
which doesn't make it easy. A recent copy of the IEEE Spectrum had an
article on a proposed "cloud computer" which is to be a processor
powerful enough to run climate simulations that are fine-grained
enough - cells around a a kilometre across - to include cloud
formation directly.

They're the ones with infinite government funding,

If they had "infinite funding" they'd have their "cloud computer" now.

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

That's wrong.

Wrong morally and most likely wrong in fact.

The claim is wrong - the data does support their models - and it is
immoral in that James Arthur is slandering scientists by making claims
that he can't support, beyond a poorly remembered dinner-table
conversation that he does seem to lack the scieintific training to
have understood correctly.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Nov 22, 11:04 pm, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

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

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

[...]

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

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

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

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

There are "peer-reviewed" journals around whose editors have been
known to publish denialist propaganda of zero academic merit without
sending it out for review.

As long as there wasn't money to be made out of publishing pseudo-
academic articles, the scientific community could afford to be pretty
relaxed about what constituted a peer-reviewed journal. Exxon-Mobil
and similar organisations with a large financial interest in denying
anthrpogenic global warming have created a situation where tighter
definitions are desirable.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Nov 23, 12:36 am, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

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





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

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

[...]

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

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

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

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

[...]

I like this one:

/quote

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

/end quote

But the science is settled

The science is clear enough, but the data that is required to verify
the likeliest explanation - changes in heat distribution due to the
North Atlantic and Pacific Multidecadal Oscillations - depends on a
bunch of data-collecting robots that haven't been out there for long
enough yet.

http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/global_change_analysis.html#circ

There's your travesty. I've told you about this before - it is a pity
you are too ill-informed to be able to process and absorb the
information.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Nov 22, 4:08 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Nov 21, 11:14 pm, John Larkin





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

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

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

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

LOL.
Some science!

And that in a leftist newspaper!

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

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

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

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

Some good stuff here:

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

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

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

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

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

Apparently not.

John

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

Successful scieintists have to be good advocates for their own ideas.

They're not objective, open-minded, dispassionate seekers of the
truth.  

No they are objective, open-minded, passionate seekers of the truth,
and particularly of those aspects of the truth that can be written up
in attention-getting papers.

They're heavily invested in preconceived models, which they're
determined to mold Nature to fit.

Most scientists have a heavy investment in the model that is currently
popular in their field, but they all know that if they can come up
with a better model they can wipe the floor with the competition.

Very few are silly enough to try to mould Nature to produce the kind
of publication they need - it does happen, and it makes the front
pages when they get caught.

And they do get caught, because science is all about consilience.
Everybody's results have to make sense when they are compared with
everybody else's results and those that don't get a lot of attention.

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

Says James Arthur, in a remarkable implausible claim of authority.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Nov 22, 8:07 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Nov 22, 1:48 pm, John Larkin





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

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

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

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

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

LOL.
Some science!

And that in a leftist newspaper!

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

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

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

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

Some good stuff here:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Apparently not.

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

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

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

Astronomy has had to struggle with exactly the same problem. I presume
you also are going to rip down all the observatories and insist that
the sun really does go around the earth.

They're the ones with infinite government funding,

"Infinite"?

They're the
official interface to and gate-keepers of the raw data, and they're
not letting other people have it.

You must be thinking of Roy Spencer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_(scientist)

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

"One widely reported satellite temperature record, developed by Roy
Spencer and John Christy at the University of Alabama in Huntsville
(UAH), is currently version 5.2 which corrects previous errors in
their analysis for orbital drift and other factors. The record comes
from a succession of different satellites and problems with inter-
calibration between the satellites are important, especially NOAA-9,
which accounts for most of the difference between the RSS and UAH
analyses [15]. NOAA-11 played a significant role in a 2005 study by
Mears et al. identifying an error in the diurnal correction that leads
to the 40% jump in Spencer and Christy's trend from version 5.1 to 5.2.
[16]"

 Why?  Because the data do not support their model.

It comes a lot closer now that Roy Spencer finally got around to
correcting the data for which he was responsible.

That's wrong.

It would be wrong, if it were true. In fact the evidence for
anthropogenic global warming has been convincing since the ice core
data became available in the 1990's and is irrefutable now. The
denialists don't seem to have noticed, but Exxon-Mobil and similar
interested parties might be less generous with their support if the
denialist propaganda machine confined itself to verifiable facts.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[ChrisQ]

John Larkin wrote:

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

At last, a clear voice amongst all the noise .

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

Apparently not.

John

If the work is publicly funded, then it should be available to any
interested party. Apparently not though, which begs the question, why ?.
What are they trying to hide ?.

Otoh, just suppose that some western governments wanted to reduce
dependence on fossil fuel for strategic / national security reasons.
What scam could they come up with to justify the tremendous sacrifices
required from the voters ?. It's a win win situation as well. When the
earth doesn't turn to toast, they can say they were right, the
sacrifices were worth it and everyone will be thankfull and praise
various graven images ......

Regards,

Chris

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Sun, 22 Nov 2009 15:36:28 -0800 (PST)) it happened Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
<66cb3666-675c-447c-949d-eb6e666ffcab@h10g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>:

Climate warming ice age:
http://www.world-mysteries.com/alignments/mpl_al3b.htm
http://www.sci.ccny.cuny.edu/~stan/d_clim.pdf

As Joerg pointed out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Nyos

Idiot.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Nov 23, 12:06 pm, ChrisQ <m...@devnull.com> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

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

At last, a clear voice amongst all the noise .



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

Apparently not.

John

If the work is publicly funded, then it should be available to any
interested party. Apparently not though, which begs the question, why ?.
What are they trying to hide ?.

I've answered this question before. Researchers publish their data in
the peer-reviewed scientific literature. They do a lot of work on the
raw data to make it accessible and understandable. If a third party
wants access to the raw data, the researchers have to a do a lot more
work to provide a user-friendly interface that lets these third
parties make sense of the raw data, and in the process they make it
easier for other scientists to take advantage of the pick and shovel
work that they have done to build up their position in their area.

All of this means that researchers aren't trying to hide their raw
data - they are just trying to avoid having to put in a lot of work
that won't advance them in their field, and will allow others to
advance themselves at their expense.

Otoh, just suppose that some western governments wanted to reduce
dependence on fossil fuel for strategic / national security reasons.
What scam could they come up with to justify the tremendous sacrifices
required from the voters?

They'd have had to have started early. Anthropogenic global warming
was first hypothesised around a century ago.

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

It's a win win situation as well. When the
earth doesn't turn to toast, they can say they were right, the
sacrifices were worth it and everyone will be thankfull and praise
various graven images ......

Unfortunately the eath is already turning to - rather soggy - toast.
Where do you think the remarkably heavy rain that has been falling in
the Lake District came from? How come it can suddenly knock over five
bridges that had survived a couple of hundred years of British
weather?

We've only had 0.74 ą 0.18 °C (1.33 ą 0.32 °F) of warming so far,

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

but there's no way we can avoid this getting up to 2°C over the next
century, beyond which we have to start worrying about methane
clathrates coming apart, which could offer us a chance to enjoy an re-
run of the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum

Some human beings might survive such an excursion, but our current
civilisation would be toast, and there'd be a pretty spectacular
population crash.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 04:12:23 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Nov 23, 12:06 pm, ChrisQ <m...@devnull.com> wrote:
John Larkin wrote:

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

At last, a clear voice amongst all the noise .



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

Apparently not.

John

If the work is publicly funded, then it should be available to any
interested party. Apparently not though, which begs the question, why ?.
What are they trying to hide ?.

I've answered this question before. Researchers publish their data in
the peer-reviewed scientific literature. They do a lot of work on the
raw data to make it accessible and understandable. If a third party
wants access to the raw data, the researchers have to a do a lot more
work to provide a user-friendly interface that lets these third
parties make sense of the raw data, and in the process they make it
easier for other scientists to take advantage of the pick and shovel
work that they have done to build up their position in their area.

All of this means that researchers aren't trying to hide their raw
data - they are just trying to avoid having to put in a lot of work
that won't advance them in their field, and will allow others to
advance themselves at their expense.

Otoh, just suppose that some western governments wanted to reduce
dependence on fossil fuel for strategic / national security reasons.
What scam could they come up with to justify the tremendous sacrifices
required from the voters?

They'd have had to have started early. Anthropogenic global warming
was first hypothesised around a century ago.

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

It's a win win situation as well. When the
earth doesn't turn to toast, they can say they were right, the
sacrifices were worth it and everyone will be thankfull and praise
various graven images ......

Unfortunately the eath is already turning to - rather soggy - toast.
Where do you think the remarkably heavy rain that has been falling in
the Lake District came from? How come it can suddenly knock over five
bridges that had survived a couple of hundred years of British
weather?

So now you are using local weather events as proof of climate change.
So what do you make of the recent record-setting cold snaps across the
USA?

Geez, I'm sure glad you don't design electronics. Stick to obsessing
about climate; that will keep you from doing much real harm.

John

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 08:43:35 -0800, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 04:12:23 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Nov 23, 12:06 pm, ChrisQ <m...@devnull.com> wrote:
John Larkin wrote:

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

At last, a clear voice amongst all the noise .



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

Apparently not.

John

If the work is publicly funded, then it should be available to any
interested party. Apparently not though, which begs the question, why ?.
What are they trying to hide ?.

I've answered this question before. Researchers publish their data in
the peer-reviewed scientific literature. They do a lot of work on the
raw data to make it accessible and understandable. If a third party
wants access to the raw data, the researchers have to a do a lot more
work to provide a user-friendly interface that lets these third
parties make sense of the raw data, and in the process they make it
easier for other scientists to take advantage of the pick and shovel
work that they have done to build up their position in their area.

All of this means that researchers aren't trying to hide their raw
data - they are just trying to avoid having to put in a lot of work
that won't advance them in their field, and will allow others to
advance themselves at their expense.

Heaven forbid you "scientists" actually contributed to society, rather
than selfishly floating only your own boat?

Yet taking research "dole" from the government.

Scumbags!

Otoh, just suppose that some western governments wanted to reduce
dependence on fossil fuel for strategic / national security reasons.
What scam could they come up with to justify the tremendous sacrifices
required from the voters?

They'd have had to have started early. Anthropogenic global warming
was first hypothesised around a century ago.

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

It's a win win situation as well. When the
earth doesn't turn to toast, they can say they were right, the
sacrifices were worth it and everyone will be thankfull and praise
various graven images ......

Unfortunately the eath is already turning to - rather soggy - toast.
Where do you think the remarkably heavy rain that has been falling in
the Lake District came from?

The sky ?

How come it can suddenly knock over five
bridges that had survived a couple of hundred years of British
weather?

Same as ours in the US... even without rain... poor or no maintenance.
Over there in Brit-stony-land I'd guess they'd never ever been
re-grouted.

So now you are using local weather events as proof of climate change.
So what do you make of the recent record-setting cold snaps across the
USA?

Geez, I'm sure glad you don't design electronics. Stick to obsessing
about climate; that will keep you from doing much real harm.

John

Sno-o-o-o-ort ;-)

...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 |

How severe can senility be? Just check out Slowman.

 

[Don Klipstein]

In <16f3e1ab-eafe-4837-bb21-3b3ff93ae361@f10g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
Bill Sloman wrote in large part:

On Nov 23, 12:06 pm, ChrisQ <m...@devnull.com> wrote:

If the work is publicly funded, then it should be available to any
interested party. Apparently not though, which begs the question, why ?.
What are they trying to hide ?.

I've answered this question before. Researchers publish their data in
the peer-reviewed scientific literature. They do a lot of work on the
raw data to make it accessible and understandable. If a third party
wants access to the raw data, the researchers have to a do a lot more
work to provide a user-friendly interface that lets these third
parties make sense of the raw data, and in the process they make it
easier for other scientists to take advantage of the pick and shovel
work that they have done to build up their position in their area.

All of this means that researchers aren't trying to hide their raw
data - they are just trying to avoid having to put in a lot of work
that won't advance them in their field, and will allow others to
advance themselves at their expense.

I thought someone mentioned in a previous thread an answer to this,
often already done:

Publish the raw data with some time delay, such as a year, after what it
was used for was published.

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

 

[Joerg]

Bill Sloman wrote:

On Nov 22, 10:50 pm, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Bill Slomanwrote:
On Nov 21, 11:41 pm, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Sat, 21 Nov 2009 13:10:31 -0800) it happened Joerg
inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote in <7mr3a8F3jab6...@mid.individual.net>:
One can wonder what the real truth is, about temperature, and then again about
what causes it, you know there were, and will be, ice ages, nobody
was having coal plants in the previous one to create CO2 (in the Netherlands they now want to store the CO2
in the ground under my house almost), so, all feeble science.
Time to sell? Once this sort of "project" has moved along far enough you
might not be able to, for the price you'd want.
Could be, I already looked up if CO2 was heavier then air (it is):
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090611040945AAPt3oV
else it would be very dangerous to live here.
But some geological processes could push it upwards, you would get suffocated in your sleep,
nowhere to run, even if you found out what was happening.
CO2 detector, oxygen equipment, fast car or helicopter, and you MAY have a chance
If for some reason pressure shifts down there and a bubble gets pushed
up you may not have time to start the turbo-shaft engine in your
helicopter. Besides you sitting there slumped over the controls, it also
needs some oxygen to work.
Of course, if this were likely to happen, Barendrecht would have
vanished in a giant fireball sometime in the last few thousand years,
when the - now exhausted - natural gas field under the town had pushed
a bubble of natural gas up to the surface.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5i0gwwjN8hkEa1SyfHo...
snipped the rest of the idiot anxieties
Oh yeah?

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

Lake Nyos is a deep lake and the water was saturated with CO2 from the
bottom up. The pressure at the bottom of the lake is a lot higher than
at the surface, so the CO2 concentration at the bottom of the lake was
a lot higher than that at the top.

This is an unstable situation, and once a part of the deeper water
started moving towards the surface, the CO2 started coming out of
solution, making that volume of water and CO2 less dense, so that it
rose more rapidly.

As your web-site says a "300-foot (91 m) fountain of water and foam
formed at the surface of the lake".

The CO2 to be stored a couple of kilometres under Barendrecht, in an
exhausted natural gas field, would have a rather tougher time getting
out. The natural gas field held the the natural gas under Barendrecht
without letting it out since Barendrecht started keeping written
records, and most likely for a few hundred million years before that,
so the two situations don't seem to be entirely comparable.

And then homo sapiens began poking holes into it using drilling rigs.
Very closely guarded, of course. This sort of guarding is unlikely to
continue once the financial interest is gone. IOW after the revenue from
gas is exhausted.

Another classic example is a small city in southern Germany. Forgot the
name but it even made the press over here. They had this wonderful idea
to install geothermal heat in the city hall. A few months later lots of
houses showed structural cracks. They found that they had drilled
through a gypsum layer and now water was ozzing up, letting that gypsum
layer swell. Looks like that city may be toast soon, pretty much all of
it. Whoops ...

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

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

 

[krw]

On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 09:53:23 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Nov 22, 8:44 pm, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Nov 22, 8:07 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Nov 22, 1:48 pm, John Larkin wrote:


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

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

Astronomy has had to struggle with exactly the same problem. I presume
you also are going to rip down all the observatories and insist that
the sun really does go around the earth.

Astronomy is easily confirmed, repeatably, to high accuracy, by
multiple observers around the world.

Climatrology can't predict a decade-long cooling trend even once it's
begun, nor can it explain it.

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

If your model contradicts Nature, your model is wrong.

Wrong is often useful (see above).

 

On Nov 22, 8:44 pm, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

On Nov 22, 8:07 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Nov 22, 1:48 pm, John Larkin wrote:


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

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

Astronomy has had to struggle with exactly the same problem. I presume
you also are going to rip down all the observatories and insist that
the sun really does go around the earth.

Astronomy is easily confirmed, repeatably, to high accuracy, by
multiple observers around the world.

Climatrology can't predict a decade-long cooling trend even once it's
begun, nor can it explain it.

If your model contradicts Nature, your model is wrong.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

 

On Nov 22, 8:44 pm, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

On Nov 22, 8:07 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Nov 22, 1:48 pm, John Larkin wrote:

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

Astronomy has had to struggle with exactly the same problem. I presume
you also are going to rip down all the observatories and insist that
the sun really does go around the earth.

They're the ones with infinite government funding,

"Infinite"?

They're the
official interface to and gate-keepers of the raw data, and they're
not letting other people have it.

You must be thinking of Roy Spencer

No, I was thinking of NASA-Goddard, the Hadley wing of the UK's
meteorological service, and the e-mails we've just seen wherein they
discuss how they've withheld embarrassing raw data.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Nov 23, 1:49 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On a sunny day (Sun, 22 Nov 2009 15:36:28 -0800 (PST)) it happenedBill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote in
66cb3666-675c-447c-949d-eb6e666ff...@h10g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>:

Climate warming ice age:
 http://www.world-mysteries.com/alignments/mpl_al3b.htm
 http://www.sci.ccny.cuny.edu/~stan/d_clim.pdf

Good. You should now understand what was going on during the Ice Ages

As Joerg pointed out:
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Nyos

And as I pointed out, a deep lake full of water saturated with CO2 is
unstable, and there is a obvious mechanism by which it can escape.

The CO2 that is going to be injected into the exhausted natural-gas
field several kilometres below Barendrecht doesn't have the same same
options, and should remain locked up as securely as the natural gas
that ti is intended to replace, which stayed put for a couple of
hundred millions years.

Idiot.

It is pretty idiotic to equate Lake Nyos with the situation
Barendrecht will be in after Sheel has been pumping CO2 into the gas
field for a few years.

Why not concentrate your attention on a disaster which is merely
highly unlikely to happen - a tsunami in the North Sea, or the kind of
extraordinary rainfall that has flooded the UK's Lake District?

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Nov 23, 6:53 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Nov 22, 8:44 pm,Bill Sloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

On Nov 22, 8:07 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Nov 22, 1:48 pm, John Larkin wrote:

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

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

Astronomy has had to struggle with exactly the same problem. I presume
you also are going to rip down all the observatories and insist that
the sun really does go around the earth.

Astronomy is easily confirmed, repeatably, to high accuracy, by
multiple observers around the world.

Some aspects of it are.

Climatrology can't predict a decade-long cooling trend even once it's
begun, nor can it explain it.

In the context of global warming, the climatologists don't have to
predict or explain it - it's just low-level short-term noise.

And in fact there is a plausible explanation - the North Atlantic and
Pacific Multidecadal Oscillations. Unfortunately, the Argo project -
which will eventually collect the data to validate or falsify this
particular hypothesis - has only been running for a few years, which
isn't long enough to yield immediate answers when you are looking at a
multidecadal oscillation.

If your model contradicts Nature, your model is wrong.

The climatologists models don't contradict nature, they just don't
model it with perfect fidelity. The whole point about modelling is to
look at simple approximations to a more complicated reality -
something that is simple enough that you can run the simulations
faster than they world they are modelling evolves in real time.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Nov 23, 7:10 pm, krw <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 09:53:23 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com
wrote:





On Nov 22, 8:44 pm,Bill Sloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Nov 22, 8:07 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Nov 22, 1:48 pm, John Larkin wrote:

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

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

Astronomy has had to struggle with exactly the same problem. I presume
you also are going to rip down all the observatories and insist that
the sun really does go around the earth.

Astronomy is easily confirmed, repeatably, to high accuracy, by
multiple observers around the world.

Climatrology can't predict a decade-long cooling trend even once it's
begun, nor can it explain it.

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

Nobody wants to "control everybody". As long as you can power your air-
conditioner from a sustainable power source, nobody is going to give a
damn which power source you choose.

Burning more fossil carbon - so that your air-conditioner, as well as
everybody elses, is going to have to work harder - isn't going to be a
socially acceptable choice.

If your model contradicts Nature, your model is wrong.

Wrong is often useful (see above).

Unfortunately for you, and Exxon-Mobil, the model isn't wrong, just
not optimised for short term weather prediction.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen