Ping Bil Slowman; The global warming hoax reveiled

[Bill Sloman]

On Nov 23, 7:34 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:
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.

I don't think that you can validate that claim. Raw data is - in any
event - uninterpretable without a lot of processing, so your claim is
a non sequiteur.

Not just libel, but fatuous libel.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Nov 23, 5:43 pm, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 04:12:23 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman

bill.slo...@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?

One of the regular predictions of the effects of global warming is a
higher frequency of extreme weather. The logic is that global warming
means more water vapour in the atmosphere, and the engine that drives
weather is the energy released when water vapour condenses.

Extreme weather can be hot or cold, wet or dry, which does put
proponents of anthropogenic global warming in the catbird seat when
some extreme weather shows up.

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

And if you concentrated on electronics, which you do know something
about, rather than potificating about climate change, where you
ignorance makes you a total sucker for the most fatuaous denialist
rubbish, you'd be less of a menance.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 16:31:49 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Nov 23, 5:43 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 04:12:23 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman

bill.slo...@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?

One of the regular predictions of the effects of global warming is a
higher frequency of extreme weather. The logic is that global warming
means more water vapour in the atmosphere, and the engine that drives
weather is the energy released when water vapour condenses.

Extreme weather can be hot or cold, wet or dry, which does put
proponents of anthropogenic global warming in the catbird seat when
some extreme weather shows up.

Like, for instance, when it rains for 40 days and 40 nights?

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

And if you concentrated on electronics, which you do know something
about, rather than potificating about climate change, where you
ignorance makes you a total sucker for the most fatuaous denialist
rubbish, you'd be less of a menance.

I do concentrate on electronics... a lot. I have about 11 or so
interesting projects at various stages of development, and a bunch
more we're thinking about.

But why does being skeptical of some nonlinear/chaotic computer models
constitute "menace"? The science must be very, very fragile if it
can't bear my humble skepticism in an obscure newsgroup. I suppose
that's another reason they hide their raw data and cook the peer
reviews.

Well, the AGW fad has peaked. What anti-civilization paranoia will be
next, do you think?

John

 

[Joerg]

Bill Sloman wrote:

On Nov 23, 6:31 pm, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Bill Slomanwrote:
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.

And the natural gas field that used to be there didn't survive an
earthquake or two over the couple of hundred years it was hanging
around waiting for ome Dutchman to drill that hole?

Not an earthquake that was able to rupture things down there. A drilled
hole, very different thing. And yes, I did work in an oil field and went
through the scare when the gas bubble siren wailed. Pretty much
smack-dab in the middle of the North Sea, on an anchored
semi-submersible. Definitely not a great place to be when a bubble wafts
upwards. Luckily it hissed off and I am still here

Even granting a slow leak through the pipe that they are now going to
use to put CO2 into the gas-field, there is a couple of kilometres of
water saturated geology between the gas-filed and the surface. You
aren't going to get a Lake Nyos-style 300 foot geyser of CO2, just a
bit more calcium and magnesium bicrabonate in the ground-water.

Trust us, we are the government, nothing bad will happen. Yeah

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 ...

Sad, but not exactly a volcanic eruption. Since you have identified
the city or found a URL to back up this story, I could wonder whether
it was the sort of urban legend that the Prussians invent whenever
they talk to people about the Bavarians.

Nope, it is very sad reality. Had to finish a client project and now
that it is finished I looked but the more informative links are all in
German:

http://www.neueenergie.net/index.php?id=1848

Scroll down to "Der Fall Staufen"

A very brief summary in English (except that a lot more buildings are
damaged by now):

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1583323/Geothermal-probe-sinks-German-city.html

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

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

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Nov 23, 6:03 pm, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@My-
Web-Site.com> wrote:

On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 08:43:35 -0800, John Larkin

jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 04:12:23 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
bill.slo...@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?

Jim seems to think that the semiconductor industry that pays for his
journeyman design skills was entirely set up by free market
capitalists who never took a cent from the government.

Yet taking research "dole" from the government.

Actually, they mostly work at universities, and the best of them get
research grants to do scientific research on the side, some of which
gets turned into the technology which - amongst other things - created
the industry that allowed Jim to get fat and block up arteries to have
them cleaned out by technology developed on the back of other
scientific advances.

If more of them had got a little more "dole" they might have worked
out how to stop Jim getting overweight in the first place.

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 ?

Jim gets the first step right. He now needs to ask how it got into the
sky above the Lake District.

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.

Quite a few of the bridge that went down were stone bridges that have
lasted several hundred years. I don't think the British have forgotten
how to do grouting in the last few decades. In fact it looks as the
river-bed got scoured out from under the bridges by improbably heavy
rain.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8374616.stm

The bridges were designed to withstand a once on 200 years flood (plus
a safety margin) and the floods were a lot worse than that.

<snip>

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Joerg]

Bill Sloman wrote:

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.

Ahm, didn't he write "even if _we_ have to redefine what the peer-review
literature is" ? Note the word "we" in there.

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.

Yeah, the usual conspiracy theory. I think the notion of the whole AGW
scheme being a gravy train has more credibility than that. At least
that's what people around my neighborhood are thinking.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

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

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Nov 23, 6:31 pm, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

Bill Slomanwrote:
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.

And the natural gas field that used to be there didn't survive an
earthquake or two over the couple of hundred years it was hanging
around waiting for ome Dutchman to drill that hole?

Even granting a slow leak through the pipe that they are now going to
use to put CO2 into the gas-field, there is a couple of kilometres of
water saturated geology between the gas-filed and the surface. You
aren't going to get a Lake Nyos-style 300 foot geyser of CO2, just a
bit more calcium and magnesium bicrabonate in the ground-water.

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 ...

Sad, but not exactly a volcanic eruption. Since you have identified
the city or found a URL to back up this story, I could wonder whether
it was the sort of urban legend that the Prussians invent whenever
they talk to people about the Bavarians.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

On Nov 23, 1:10 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.

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

If your model contradicts Nature, your model is wrong.

Wrong is often useful (see above).

That's Mencken's game--
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an
endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." --H.L. Mencken

Martin likes that quote too--wonder where he went.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

 

On Nov 23, 7:19 pm, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

On Nov 23, 7:34 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:
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.

I don't think that you can validate that claim. Raw data is - in any
event - uninterpretable without a lot of processing, so your claim is
a non sequiteur.

Not just libel, but fatuous libel.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Don't you ever check anything? Here are a couple random e-mails off
the top:


==== Exhibit #1 ==="From: Phil Jones
To: mann@xxx
Subject: Fwd: CCNet: PRESSURE GROWING ON CONTROVERSIAL RESEARCHER TO
DISCLOSE SECRET DATA
Date: Mon Feb 21 16:28:32 2005
Cc: “raymond s. bradley” , “Malcolm Hughes”

Mike, Ray and Malcolm,
The skeptics seem to be building up a head of steam here ! Maybe we
can use
this to our advantage to get the series updated !
Odd idea to update the proxies with satellite estimates of the lower
troposphere
rather than surface data !. Odder still that they don’t realise that
Moberg et al used the
Jones and Moberg updated series !
Francis Zwiers is till onside. He said that PC1s produce hockey
sticks. He stressed
that the late 20th century is the warmest of the millennium, but
Regaldo didn’t bother
with that. Also ignored Francis’ comment about all the other series
looking similar
to MBH.
The IPCC comes in for a lot of stick.
Leave it to you to delete as appropriate !
Cheers
Phil
PS I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU
station temperature data.
Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of
Information Act !"

==== Exhibit #2 ===‘”Options appear to be:

1. Send them the data
2. Send them a subset removing station data from some of the countries
who made us pay in the normals papers of Hulme et al. (1990s) and also
any number that David can remember. This should also omit some other
countries like (Australia, NZ, Canada, Antarctica). Also could extract
some of the sources that Anders added in (31-38 source codes in J&M
2003). Also should remove many of the early stations that we coded up
in the 1980s.
3. Send them the raw data as is, by reconstructing it from GHCN. How
could this be done? Replace all stations where the WMO ID agrees with
what is in GHCN. This would be the raw data, but it would annoy
them.”‘

==============
Misdirection, shell games with multiple data sets, substituting data
sets, suppressing / not disclosing embarrassing data.

Lovely, eh?

And now, a gift: having been penetrated, it'll be a lovely excuse for
them to purge all those inconvenient truths, won't it?

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Nov 24, 3:43 am, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Nov 23, 1:10 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.

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

If your model contradicts Nature, your model is wrong.

Wrong is often useful (see above).

That's Mencken's game--
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an
endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." --H.L. Mencken

Weapons of mass desctruction - which have never been found - fit
Menken's picture rather better than anthropogenic global warming, for
which there is a raft of evidence (though it does take a smidgin of
scientific education to make it comprehensible).

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Nov 24, 3:28 am, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

Bill Slomanwrote:
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.

Ahm, didn't he write "even if _we_ have to redefine what the peer-review
literature is" ? Note the word "we" in there.

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.

Yeah, the usual conspiracy theory. I think the notion of the whole AGW
scheme being a gravy train has more credibility than that. At least
that's what people around my neighborhood are thinking.

With a lot of help from denialist propaganda. It is a bit odd that the
denialist propaganda machine hasn't got reports of IPCC members
driving around in Lamborginis while living in the lap of luxury. If
they had traded their academic integrity for a mess of pottage you'd
expect other academics in related fields to have noticed some change
in their life-style.

Presumably this kind of evidence is a little too hard to fake.

Sourcewatch gets its data from Exxon-Mobil's published accounts, which
provide rather better evidence than the kinds of conspiracy theories
with which Ravinghorde regales us.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Nov 24, 2:42 am, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 16:31:49 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman

bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Nov 23, 5:43 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 04:12:23 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman

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

<snip>

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?

One of the regular predictions of the effects of global warming is a
higher frequency of extreme weather. The logic is that global warming
means more water vapour in the atmosphere, and the engine that drives
weather is the energy released when water vapour condenses.

Extreme weather can be hot or cold, wet or dry, which does put
proponents of anthropogenic global warming in the catbird seat when
some extreme weather shows up.

Like, for instance, when it rains for 40 days and 40 nights?

That doesn't seem to have happened recently.

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

And if you concentrated on electronics, which you do know something
about, rather than potificating about climate change, where you
ignorance makes you a total sucker for the most fatuaous denialist
rubbish, you'd be less of a menance.

I do concentrate on electronics... a lot. I have about 11 or so
interesting projects at various stages of development, and a bunch
more we're thinking about.

But why does being skeptical of some nonlinear/chaotic computer models
constitute "menace"? The science must be very, very fragile if it
can't bear my humble skepticism in an obscure newsgroup.

Your scepticism is nether humble nor yours. You pick up neatly
packaged chunks of scepticism from your frieindly neighbourhood
denialist propaganda machine and regurgitate them here.

I suppose that's another reason they hide their raw data and cook the peer
reviews.

Since they "hide" their raw data because it is incomprehensible and
"cook" their peer reviews - to the limited extent that they can
influence editors - by preferentially citing the work of people known
to produce constructive reviews, this is just another piece of
evidence that you know very little about the way science works. You
may sell remarkable scientific measuring instruments to scientific
research laboratories, but you clearly don't often get to drink coffee
with the people who use your gear.

Well, the AGW fad has peaked. What anti-civilization paranoia will be
next, do you think?

The enthusiasm of Exxon-Mobil and similar fossil-carbon extraction
companies for filling the media with anti-scientific propaganda aimed
at blocking the changes to our civilisation that will be needed to
prevent it's collapse (and the consequent population implosion) does
imply that there are a lot of rich people around exhibiting a rather
dangerous form pf psychopathic short-term self-interest.

One might hope that they might grow out of it, but Jahred Diamond's
book "Collapse" makes it pretty clear that the leaders of a failing
society will have their attention firmly fixed on maintaining their
status within that society - in your case, your status as a successful
businessman - right up to the point where it starts collapsing around
their ears.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Raveninghorde]

On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 07:08:17 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

SNIP

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

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

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

It's not just the emails.

This comment is in a few of the source files:

;****** APPLIES A VERY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION FOR DECLINE*********


http://coast.gkss.de/staff/storch/

/quote

I would assume that more interesting issues will be found in the
files, and that a useful debate about the degree of politicization of
climate science will emerge. A conclusion could be that the principle,
according to which data must be made public, so that also adversaries
may check the analysis, must be really enforced. Another conclusion
could be that scientists like Mike Mann, Phil Jones and others should
no longer participate in the peer-review process or in assessment
activities like IPCC.

/end quote

And some rats are trying to sacrifice Phil Jones to save AGW

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/11/23/the-knights-carbonic/

/quote

Worse still, some of the emails suggest efforts to prevent the
publication of work by climate sceptics(5,6), or to keep it out of a
report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(7). I believe
that the head of the unit, Phil Jones, should now resign. Some of the
data discussed in the emails should be re-analysed.

/end quote

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Mon, 23 Nov 2009 15:59:10 -0800 (PST)) it happened Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
<196b7d9d-d84f-4aff-af02-d2220b491a42@p36g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>:

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 Sl=
oman
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

Climate cycles will happen, I have always stated that we should have the energy sources to cope with that.
If *if* you did read the other link's material,
then you would understand that Europe (and the world for that matter) will look very different
thousands of years from now, as it did thousands of years in the past.
Mass migration will happen, property will change value,
and _no_silly_CO2_storage_plan_ will change that in any significant way, except to more endanger people NOW,
and make money for the climate nut cases, so they can add some more climate taxes, like taxes on energy and what not,
taxes on kilometres driven, anything, using this fairy tale that we have control over the climate to tax us even more.
Driving the prices up, basically a greenies plot to kill humanity and give the land to the birds.

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.

*SHOULD* is the word, and of course it will not, it will leak into the ground water too,
changing its pH, causing all sorts of disasters, maybe even kill that little microbe
the greenies so much want to protect, the animal lobby should go after them.

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.

I mentioned earth quakes in Groningen, if you had read the news,
you would know that Groningen, Friesland, and Drenthe have been selected as 'good places to store CO2 underground'.
I do not live in Barendrecht, and if they want to commit suicide there by pumping CO2 under it,
well so be it.
But I do not want it under my house.

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?

Or you posting more global warming crap?
I was putting my attention to that, very likely, event.
hehe

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:02:34 -0800 (PST)) it happened Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
<53439409-1c59-4180-846c-a5019132dd4f@j9g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>:

Sad, but not exactly a volcanic eruption. Since you have identified
the city or found a URL to back up this story, I could wonder whether
it was the sort of urban legend that the Prussians invent whenever
they talk to people about the Bavarians.

Well, you could have googled:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Staufen_im_Breisgau

And, that is not the only case that exists.
There was a more recent one IIRC.

The only urban legend here is that you think you can change climate cycles by posting less about global warming.
Or was it more?
I think less, because that saves energy, CO2, so get on with it!

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Tue, 24 Nov 2009 00:43:51 -0800 (PST)) it happened Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
<be3e96e1-68fd-4366-b23d-5c7f15549e78@t18g2000vbj.googlegroups.com>:

The enthusiasm of Exxon-Mobil and similar fossil-carbon extraction
companies for filling the media with anti-scientific propaganda aimed
at blocking the changes to our civilisation that will be needed to
prevent it's collapse (and the consequent population implosion) does
imply that there are a lot of rich people around exhibiting a rather
dangerous form pf psychopathic short-term self-interest.

Hey, if it was not for Exxon-Mobil and the other energy companies,
there would be no media, no energy, and no way to spread the ideas originating from your overheated globe.

;-)

 

[John Fields]

On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 18:20:53 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Nov 22, 2:36 am, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 11:46:02 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman

bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Nov 21, 7:03 pm, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 05:53:00 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com
wrote:

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

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

LOL.
Some science!

And that in a leftist newspaper!

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

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

And a search engine for CRU emails

www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/-Hide quoted text -

Ravinghorde is going to be even more of a nuisance than he is at the
moment.

His ignorance is such that he regularly quotes real scientific papers
to support arguments that they actively contradict.

Given a bunch of private e-mails that he can quote out of context, he
can be predicted to find "evidence" for life-time's worth of insane
conspiracy theories.

---
Interesting.

The sky is falling around the doom and gloom boys, and especially around
that insufferable fatass Al Gore leech, and you're still kissing their
asses because you don't want to admit that you were blinded by their
bullshit "science".

If you had had the benefit of a scientific education you might be
aware that the science involved isn't bullshit.

---
If you had had the benefit of English being your first language, you
probably would have been aware that I was criticizing the practitioners,
not the practice.
---

If you'd ever worked
with academics, you'd be aware that they waste a lot of time on office
politics.

---
I consider you to be an academic, and your demeanor here certainly lends
credence to your comment.
---

The e-mails are going to give Ravinghorde a lot of pleasure
- I won't say innocent because he is going to use them to indulge his
passion for idiotic conspiracy theories - but they aren't goig to make
a blind bit of difference to the science.

---
To the science, of course not.

To the practitioners and their slimy tricks, it should make a great deal
of difference in the future to those who believe that: "Once burned,
your fault; twice burned, my fault.
---

But it's not really your fault, poor baby, and because you don't know
enough about it to allow you to make objective decisions about the
conclusions come to by your suicidols, you then tie in with them since
they're a bunch of crooks who talk the same language you do.

You are welcome to review the literature and come to your own
conclusions.

---
Of course, but with the data being cooked and my discipline being other
than climatology, I'd be hard pressed to detect the chicanery
---

You haven't ever displayed any kind of physical insight,

---
How would _you_ know?

You float on the surface and display a convex negative meniscus about
99% of the time, and when someone _does_ throw you a little pearl of
surfactant you dog-paddle as hard as you can to keep from going under.
---

so it is unlikely that your insight will be worth much, but this is a
democratic society, so Exxon-Mobil and similar firms are free to spend
millions of dollars concocting plausible lies good enough to persuade
the unsophisticated voter to let them keep on making money by digging
up and selling fossil carbon for use as fuel.

---
Seems that the doom and gloom boys have been caught with their hands in
the cookie jar as far as plausible lies goes, and your criticism of what
you call Raveninghhorde's: "passion for idiotic conspiracy theories"
seems hypocritical when laid next to your: "Exxon-Mobil and similar
firms are free to spend millions of dollars concocting plausible lies
good enough to persuade the unsophisticated voter to let them keep on
making money by digging up and selling fossil carbon for use as fuel."
---

New Orleans didn't tell you anything, but it is outside the borders of
Texas.

---
What New Orleans told me was that we have a lot to learn about
controlling the aftermath of a disaster, and your crack about it being
outside the borders of Texas is just an intimation that we're provincial
hicks who can't see past the ends of our noses; a typical trick a lying
cheat like you would try to pull when you have no evidence that AGW
caused Katrina but you want it to seem like you do.
---

You will probably have to lose Galveston again before the penny
drops.

---
You have no _facts_, of course, and if you believe AGW had anything to
do with that hurricane, I suggest this makes sense to you:

http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/

JF

 

On Nov 24, 3:08 am, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

On Nov 24, 3:43 am, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:



On Nov 23, 1:10 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.

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

If your model contradicts Nature, your model is wrong.

Wrong is often useful (see above).

That's Mencken's game--
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an
endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." --H.L. Mencken

Weapons of mass desctruction - which have never been found - fit
Menken's picture rather better than anthropogenic global warming, for
which there is a raft of evidence (though it does take a smidgin of
scientific education^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hfraud to make it comprehensible).

Last line, above, corrected.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 06:37:56 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Nov 23, 9:43 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Nov 23, 1:10 pm, krw <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

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:

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.

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

Oooo, "climastrology"--even better.

That's a keeper.

John

 

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 00:43:51 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Nov 24, 2:42 am, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 16:31:49 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman

bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Nov 23, 5:43 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 04:12:23 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman

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

snip

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?

One of the regular predictions of the effects of global warming is a
higher frequency of extreme weather. The logic is that global warming
means more water vapour in the atmosphere, and the engine that drives
weather is the energy released when water vapour condenses.

Extreme weather can be hot or cold, wet or dry, which does put
proponents of anthropogenic global warming in the catbird seat when
some extreme weather shows up.

Like, for instance, when it rains for 40 days and 40 nights?

That doesn't seem to have happened recently.

Exactly. Bad weather has been happening for thousands of years.

The records are funny. When they say "coldest November in 80 years" I
think "then it was even colder 80 years ago."

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

And if you concentrated on electronics, which you do know something
about, rather than potificating about climate change, where you
ignorance makes you a total sucker for the most fatuaous denialist
rubbish, you'd be less of a menance.

I do concentrate on electronics... a lot. I have about 11 or so
interesting projects at various stages of development, and a bunch
more we're thinking about.

But why does being skeptical of some nonlinear/chaotic computer models
constitute "menace"? The science must be very, very fragile if it
can't bear my humble skepticism in an obscure newsgroup.

Your scepticism is nether humble nor yours. You pick up neatly
packaged chunks of scepticism from your frieindly neighbourhood
denialist propaganda machine and regurgitate them here.

I suppose that's another reason they hide their raw data and cook the peer
reviews.

Since they "hide" their raw data because it is incomprehensible and
"cook" their peer reviews - to the limited extent that they can
influence editors - by preferentially citing the work of people known
to produce constructive reviews, this is just another piece of
evidence that you know very little about the way science works. You
may sell remarkable scientific measuring instruments to scientific
research laboratories, but you clearly don't often get to drink coffee
with the people who use your gear.

Well, the AGW fad has peaked. What anti-civilization paranoia will be
next, do you think?

The enthusiasm of Exxon-Mobil and similar fossil-carbon extraction
companies for filling the media with anti-scientific propaganda aimed
at blocking the changes to our civilisation that will be needed to
prevent it's collapse (and the consequent population implosion) does
imply that there are a lot of rich people around exhibiting a rather
dangerous form pf psychopathic short-term self-interest.

One might hope that they might grow out of it, but Jahred Diamond's
book "Collapse" makes it pretty clear that the leaders of a failing
society will have their attention firmly fixed on maintaining their
status within that society - in your case, your status as a successful
businessman - right up to the point where it starts collapsing around
their ears.

I am not a businessman; I'm a circuit designer.

Are you into the 2012 cult?

John