Ping Bil Slowman; The global warming hoax reveiled

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 12:25:47 GMT, Jan Panteltje
<pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

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.

;-)

I think the big energy companies do a superb job. They do real,
difficult work that makes the world better, unlike some whiners I
could name.

George is, as usual, dead on target here:

http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/will112209.php3

He's the best public thinker I know of.

John

 

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.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

 

On Nov 24, 6:35 am, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 07:08:17 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...@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

Even better, from Hans Von Storch:
"Also mails from/to Eduardo Zorita and myself are
included; also we have been subject of frequent
mentioning, usually not in a flattering manner.
Interesting exchanges, and evidences, are contained
about efforts to destroy "Climate Research"; that we
in the heydays of the hockeystick debate shared our
ECHO-G data with our adversaries; and that Mike
Mann was successful to exclude me from a
review-type meeting on historical reconstructions
in Wengen (demonstrating again his problematic
but powerful role of acting as a gatekeeper.)" --ibid

All you have to do is examine the models themselves to see they're
loaded with Finnegan's Finagling Factors.[1]
http://www-pcmdi.llnl.gov/ipcc/model_documentation/ipcc_model_documentation..php

A number of obvious negative feedbacks are omitted[2], they're laced
with assumptions of convenience that are wrong on their face--e.g.
assuming vegetation and ice sheets that never change--arbitrary
constants, and cloud models that don't reproduce reality.

[1] Finnegan's Finagling Factor: that number which, added to,
subtracted from, multiplied by, or divided into the number you
actually got, gives you the result you really wanted.
[2] Often not from neglect, but because no one knows how to quantify
or model them.

As a second measure of global climate models (GCM), we know from
actual life how poorly the models predict El Nino, or hurricanes, or
other near-term phenomena that depend on accurate understanding of
real temperature, deep ocean currents, or other quantities critical to
long-term projections (if those are even possible), but which are not
known well enough to make even short-term predictions.

As a 3rd measure of GCM, before you graced s.e.d. with your inquiries,
I related that I got that same info (above) from one of the persons
*responsible* for one of the main climate models. That person said
GCM are important and useful tools in understanding climate, and for
making predictions as far as several weeks into the future. Beyond
that, says (s)he, the models quickly diverge uselessly from reality.

None of this proves or disproves the basic contention--that CO2 is
warming the earth. But we're constantly sold AGW as fact based on
arguments of authority from people who do not know--no one understands
the global climate well enough to predict it--and on the authority of
these global climate models that were never meant to be so abused.

IOW, pseudo-science, politics, and pro-/e- motion.

Bahh.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[Joerg]

Bill Sloman wrote:

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.

All one has to do is look at Al Gore, his mansions and all. Living
green. Yeah, right.

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.

Got a link the _proves_ that Exxon tries to fudge science here? Similar
to those embarrassing email?

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

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

 

On Nov 24, 7:25 am, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On a sunny day (Tue, 24 Nov 2009 00:43:51 -0800 (PST)) it happened Bill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote in
be3e96e1-68fd-4366-b23d-5c7f15549...@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.

;-)

"These posts (and western civilization) made possible by Exxon-Mobil."

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[Robert Latest]

John Larkin wrote:

George is, as usual, dead on target here:

http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/will112209.php3

He's the best public thinker I know of.

He's a rotten thinker. He drools on and on about how new fossil fuel
reserves are discovered, yet he never realizes that they are limited
ressources which the industrialized nations are exploiting at the
expense of the less developed world and generations to come.

Then, of course, this seems to be a religious website. Probably a good
place to publish stories about Unlimited Fossil Fuel.

robert

 

[Joel Koltner]

"Robert Latest" <boblatest@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7n2nmtF3jg6u0U1@mid.uni-berlin.de...

He's a rotten thinker. He drools on and on about how new fossil fuel
reserves are discovered, yet he never realizes that they are limited
ressources which the industrialized nations are exploiting at the
expense of the less developed world and generations to come.

It's not quite that clear cut: At any limited resource becomes more scarce
there will naturally be research into alternatives. If we come up with a
really good, safe, and clean alternative to fossil fuels in the next 50 years
rather than, say, 250 years from now, those 200 intervening years of a cleaner
environment are surely worth something, yes?

Of course, I'm assuming that our clever monkey brains will be able to discover
those alternatives (and that they exist in the first place). Not everyone
agrees with that...

 

[Jim Thompson]

On 24 Nov 2009 18:41:33 GMT, Robert Latest <boblatest@yahoo.com>
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

George is, as usual, dead on target here:

http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/will112209.php3

He's the best public thinker I know of.

He's a rotten thinker. He drools on and on about how new fossil fuel
reserves are discovered, yet he never realizes that they are limited
ressources which the industrialized nations are exploiting at the
expense of the less developed world and generations to come.

Then, of course, this seems to be a religious website. Probably a good
place to publish stories about Unlimited Fossil Fuel.

robert

Ah, yes, Robert Latest. I had forgotten he even existed, then Joel
Koltner had to go and feed him :-(

...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 |

 

On Nov 24, 1:41 pm, Robert Latest <boblat...@yahoo.com> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

George is, as usual, dead on target here:

http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/will112209.php3

He's the best public thinker I know of.

He's a rotten thinker. He drools on and on about how new fossil fuel
reserves are discovered, yet he never realizes that they are limited
ressources which the industrialized nations are exploiting at the
expense of the less developed world and generations to come.

Then, of course, this seems to be a religious website. Probably a good
place to publish stories about Unlimited Fossil Fuel.

robert

All the third-world countries I've visited were held back by their
politics, not us driving cars.

Civil war, Marxism, cronyism--when the civil society is provoked,
unsettled, uncertain, gasping for breath, it cannot prosper.


--
Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[Raveninghorde]

On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 07:11:14 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Nov 24, 6:35 am, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 07:08:17 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...@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

Even better, from Hans Von Storch:
"Also mails from/to Eduardo Zorita and myself are
included; also we have been subject of frequent
mentioning, usually not in a flattering manner.
Interesting exchanges, and evidences, are contained
about efforts to destroy "Climate Research"; that we
in the heydays of the hockeystick debate shared our
ECHO-G data with our adversaries; and that Mike
Mann was successful to exclude me from a
review-type meeting on historical reconstructions
in Wengen (demonstrating again his problematic
but powerful role of acting as a gatekeeper.)" --ibid

All you have to do is examine the models themselves to see they're
loaded with Finnegan's Finagling Factors.[1]
http://www-pcmdi.llnl.gov/ipcc/model_documentation/ipcc_model_documentation.php

A number of obvious negative feedbacks are omitted[2], they're laced
with assumptions of convenience that are wrong on their face--e.g.
assuming vegetation and ice sheets that never change--arbitrary
constants, and cloud models that don't reproduce reality.

[1] Finnegan's Finagling Factor: that number which, added to,
subtracted from, multiplied by, or divided into the number you
actually got, gives you the result you really wanted.
[2] Often not from neglect, but because no one knows how to quantify
or model them.

As a second measure of global climate models (GCM), we know from
actual life how poorly the models predict El Nino, or hurricanes, or
other near-term phenomena that depend on accurate understanding of
real temperature, deep ocean currents, or other quantities critical to
long-term projections (if those are even possible), but which are not
known well enough to make even short-term predictions.

As a 3rd measure of GCM, before you graced s.e.d. with your inquiries,
I related that I got that same info (above) from one of the persons
*responsible* for one of the main climate models. That person said
GCM are important and useful tools in understanding climate, and for
making predictions as far as several weeks into the future. Beyond
that, says (s)he, the models quickly diverge uselessly from reality.

None of this proves or disproves the basic contention--that CO2 is
warming the earth. But we're constantly sold AGW as fact based on
arguments of authority from people who do not know--no one understands
the global climate well enough to predict it--and on the authority of
these global climate models that were never meant to be so abused.

IOW, pseudo-science, politics, and pro-/e- motion.

Bahh.

I just love this:

from:

http://borepatch.blogspot.com/search/label/junk%20science

17. Inserted debug statements into anomdtb.f90, discovered that
a sum-of-squared variable is becoming very, very negative!

...

For those unfamiliar with this problem, computers use a single
“bit” to indicate sign. If that is set to a “1? you get one sign
(often negative, but machine and language dependent to some extent)
and if it is “0? you get another (typically positive).

OK, take a zero, and start adding ones onto it. We will use a very
short number (only 4 digits long, each can be a zero or a one. The
first digit is the “sign bit”). I’ll translate each binary number into
the decimal equivalent next to it.

0000 zero
0001 one
0010 two
0011 three
0100 four
0101 five
0110 six
0111 seven
1000 negative (may be defined as = zero, but oftentimes
defined as being as large a negative number as you can
have via something called a 'complement'). So in this
case NEGATIVE seven
1001 NEGATIVE six
1010 NEGATIVE five (notice the 'bit pattern' is exactly the
opposite of the "five" pattern... it is 'the complement').
1011 NEGATIVE four
1100 NEGATIVE three
1101 NEGATIVE two
1110 NEGATIVE one
1111 NEGATIVE zero (useful to let you have zero without
needing to have a 'sign change' operation done)
0000 zero

Sometimes the 1111 pattern will be “special” in some way. And
there are other ways of doing the math down at the hardware level, but
this is a useful example.

You can see how adding a digit repeatedly grows to a large value
(the limit) then “overflows” into a negative value. This is a common
error in computer math and something I was taught in the first couple
of weeks of my very first programming class ever. Yes, in FORTRAN.

This is, quite frankly, a complete n00b error. Anybody working in
industry who made this mistake would find himself in the "bottom 5%"
group come annual review time, and would very likely get a suggestion
to look for work elsewhere.

OK, so the University of East Anglia has some bad programmers. So
what? Well, this means that large parts of the climate models have
never had a design review or code review. This means that the model is
essentially unaudited for correctness. This means that there's no
assurance that it produces output that's sane - even discounting for
Dr. Jone's code to "fix" divergence.

 

[Raveninghorde]

On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 20:30:00 +0000, Raveninghorde
<raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

and this:

http://www.devilskitchen.me.uk/2009/11/data-horribilis-harryreadmetxt-file.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheDevilsKitchen+%28The+Devil%27s+Kitchen%29&utm_content=Netvibes

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Tue, 24 Nov 2009 11:55:33 -0800) it happened "Joel Koltner"
<zapwireDASHgroups@yahoo.com> wrote in
<WSWOm.236734$8m4.184475@en-nntp-07.dc1.easynews.com>:

"Robert Latest" <boblatest@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7n2nmtF3jg6u0U1@mid.uni-berlin.de...
He's a rotten thinker. He drools on and on about how new fossil fuel
reserves are discovered, yet he never realizes that they are limited
ressources which the industrialized nations are exploiting at the
expense of the less developed world and generations to come.

It's not quite that clear cut: At any limited resource becomes more scarce
there will naturally be research into alternatives. If we come up with a
really good, safe, and clean alternative to fossil fuels in the next 50 years
rather than, say, 250 years from now, those 200 intervening years of a cleaner
environment are surely worth something, yes?

Of course, I'm assuming that our clever monkey brains will be able to discover
those alternatives (and that they exist in the first place). Not everyone
agrees with that...

For example:
http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/24/osmotic-power-debuts-in-norway/
2kW so far, but can be bigger.

 

[Joel Koltner]

<dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ccd55e6a-2676-4460-9bc3-65b5524cd2a8@u20g2000vbq.googlegroups.com...
"Conserve. That means using more efficient devices (e.g. replacing T12
fluorescents with T8s), and using them more wisely (e.g. turning off
Al Gore's lights when he's not home). That's possible, with zero
technical risk, and perhaps 40-50% payback."

Agreed, people certainly should make an effort to not just waste resources
when not doing so has zero or a very small cost. I'm all for legally required
standards for fuel economy, appliance efficiency, etc. -- but of course
there's always debate on just where the line should be drawn. (E.g., most
recently here the debate on plasma TVs...)

 

On Nov 24, 2:55 pm, "Joel Koltner" <zapwireDASHgro...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

"Robert Latest" <boblat...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:7n2nmtF3jg6u0U1@mid.uni-berlin.de...

He's a rotten thinker. He drools on and on about how new fossil fuel
reserves are discovered, yet he never realizes that they are limited
ressources which the industrialized nations are exploiting at the
expense of the less developed world and generations to come.

It's not quite that clear cut: At any limited resource becomes more scarce
there will naturally be research into alternatives.  If we come up with a
really good, safe, and clean alternative to fossil fuels in the next 50 years
rather than, say, 250 years from now, those 200 intervening years of a cleaner
environment are surely worth something, yes?

Of course, I'm assuming that our clever monkey brains will be able to discover
those alternatives (and that they exist in the first place).  Not everyone
agrees with that...

Conserve. That means using more efficient devices (e.g. replacing T12
fluorescents with T8s), and using them more wisely (e.g. turning off
Al Gore's lights when he's not home). That's possible, with zero
technical risk, and perhaps 40-50% payback.


--
Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[Rich Grise]

On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 10:48:36 -0800, John Larkin wrote:

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

Wrong. Cherry-picking and fudging data is a career-wrecking crime,

Unless you're a warmingist. Then there's BIG bucks in it.

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.

So, you admit that the warmingists are idiots and psychopaths.

Kind of a surprise that you'll admit this, but not that they're idiots
and psychopaths.

And what experiment? The one that's going to bankrupt the whole world?

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Joerg]

Bill Sloman wrote:

On Nov 24, 1:18 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On a sunny day (Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:02:34 -0800 (PST)) it happenedBill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote in
53439409-1c59-4180-846c-a5019132d...@j9g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>:

Sad, but not exactly a volcanic eruption. Since you have not
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

Gypsum, geothermal heating and damage does pick it up twice on the
first page, so Joerg should have been able to find it. It was his
fact, not mine, and his responsibility to validate it.

Well, I did. But anyhow, all I wanted to show was how easy it is for
homo sapiens to do something really, really stupid in order to "solve"
some environmental concern quickly. So I fully understand Jan when he
says he doesn't want to live on top of a gigantic CO2 bubble. I most
certainly would not want to either.

[...]

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

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

 

On Nov 24, 3:37 pm, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 20:30:00 +0000, Raveninghorde

raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

and this:

http://www.devilskitchen.me.uk/2009/11/data-horribilis-harryreadmetxt...

OMG, that's rich. Try searching the HARRY_READ_ME.TXT file

http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/HARRY_READ_ME.txt

for "cloud." (Clouds' influence on insolation is ~10^2 greater than
the AGW hypothesized from CO2.)

A few years ago I downloaded and read some of the FORTRAN code for one
of the models.

What trash.


James Arthur

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Nov 24, 1:18 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On a sunny day (Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:02:34 -0800 (PST)) it happenedBill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote in
53439409-1c59-4180-846c-a5019132d...@j9g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>:

Sad, but not exactly a volcanic eruption. Since you have not
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

Gypsum, geothermal heating and damage does pick it up twice on the
first page, so Joerg should have been able to find it. It was his
fact, not mine, and his responsibility to validate it.

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!

I'm not per se interested in changing the climate cycles, I'm
interested in getting people to think, which - if it worked - might
get them to think sensibly about anthropogenic global warming, amongst
other topics.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Nov 24, 2:00 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 18:20:53 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman





bill.slo...@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/-Hidequoted 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.
---

You can criticise the practitioners to your heart's content. I'm
interested in the science, and it doesn't happen to be bullshit.

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.
---

That you can't tell the difference between me and a full-time academic
gives a pretty accurate measure of your - nonexistent - perspicacity
in the area.

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 going 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.
---

Dream on.

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  
---

Your discipline? You clearly specialise in rural ignorance, but this
isn't usually elevanted to the dignity of a discipline.

And your conviction that the data has been cooked is based on a
credulous belief that Ravinghorde and favourite nitwit conspiracy
theorists have got it right. If Exxon-Mobile were suddenly to see some
profit in beleiving in anthropogenic global warming you'd presumably
be just as ready to believe the output of their propaganda mill
telling you that the data hadn't been cooked after all.

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

---
How would _you_ know?

On account of having had to acquire some physical insight in order to
get a Ph.D. in physical chemistry

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.

A rather artificial literary conceit. It doesn't mean anything, in
this context, except that you must have plagiarised it from somebody
with literary ambitions.

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 one of these "plausible lies" is?

Ravinghorde really does want to believe the haul of private e-mails
does contain something genuinely scandalous, but he's out of luck.

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."

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Exxon-Funded_Skeptics

Exxon-Mobil has to publish the accounts that show where they spend
their money, and they have - and apparently still are - spending
millions on funding denialist groups.

The British Royal Society isn't in the habit of endorsing idiotic
conspiracy theories, but Exxon-Mobil managed to irritate them enough
to earn a public rebuke

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/sep/20/oilandpetrol.business

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.
---

It's highly unlikely that AWG "caused" Katrina. The anthropogenic
global warming that we have had so far has made Katrina-sized
hurricanes somewhat more likely than than they were before 1750, but
there aren't enough hurricanes per year for the increased risk to be
statistically significant - the standard deviation on discrete events
can't be less than the square root of the number of events, so you
need a lot of events to let you see a small increase.

We've had 0.74 ą 0.18 °C (1.33 ą 0.32 °F) of global warming since
1900. Nobody has much hope that it will be less than 2°C by the end of
this century. We probably won't have to wait anything likw as long to
have a statistically significant difference by then.

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/

In reality, I do have a couple of facts. One is that sea surface
temperatures above 26.5°C favour hurricane growth, and that higher sea
surface temperatures correlate with more intense hurricanes. Global
warming implies both larger areas of tropical ocean above 26.5C for a
greater proportion of the summer - whence more hurricanes - and more
xtensive areas where the surface temperature is even warmer, whence
more intense hurricanes.

Granting your lack of physical insight, this probably means no more to
you than would telling you that the Great Spaghetti Monster responds
to higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere by winding up more
hurricanes and winding them up tighter, but the arguement couched in
terms of sea surface temperature has the advantage of being persuasive
to people who know something about the subject.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Nov 24, 1:02 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On a sunny day (Mon, 23 Nov 2009 15:59:10 -0800 (PST)) it happenedBill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote in
196b7d9d-d84f-4aff-af02-d2220b491...@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.

You need to read it a little more carefully. For "thousands of years",
substitute "millions of years".

Continental drift isn't all that fast

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/ZhenHuang.shtml

suugests 2cm to 7cm/per year, 20 to 70 metres per millenium, 20 to 70
kilometeres per million years.

Climate change happens rather faster. Ice ages and inter-glacials used
to cycle with a period of about 100,00 years, and if we hadn't pushed
up the concentrations of greenhouse gases we'd be due for another ice
age any millenium now.

The Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum happened rather faster still, and
the Younger Dryas even faster.

<snipped the rest of your ill-informed maunderings>

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen