Ping Bil Slowman; The global warming hoax reveiled

[Bill Sloman]

On Nov 24, 2:49 am, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

Bill Slomanwrote:
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 bicarbonate in the ground-water.

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

Trust you, you are the alarmist, everything bad can happen, though you
don't know quite how. Your imagination could use a little more
discipline.

<snipped the irrelevant - if real - example of something going wrong
in a gradual way.
But thanks for the link. It's nice to engage in discussion with people
with some - if perhaps not quite enough - respect for facts>

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Nov 25, 1:51 am, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

Bill Slomanwrote:
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.

You live in Oregon. Here is a web site that gives the locations of
potentially active volcanoes in your state.

http://www.nationalatlas.gov/dynamic/dyn_vol-or.html

I'd suggest that if you are worried by potential sources of danger
under your feet, you should pack up and move to Barendrecht
immediately.

http://scienceray.com/earth-sciences/five-worst-volcanic-disasters-in-history/

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Nov 24, 12:35 pm, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

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

<snip>

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

You have posted links to some terminally inept work by climate
sceptics - some by people who obviously haven't even heard of the
Suess Effect.

Preventing the publication of that sort of rubbish, or ousting the
editors who were incompetent or corrupt enough to publish it, would
strike me as the kind of behaviour expected of senior scientists aware
of their responsibilities in their area of expertise.

And you don't seem to have noticed that George Monbiot went on to
satirise your position even more obviously.

"Our co-option of the physical world has been just as successful. The
thinning of the Arctic ice cap was a masterstroke. The ring of secret
nuclear power stations around the Arctic Circle, attached to giant
immersion heaters, remains undetected, as do the space-based lasers
dissolving the world’s glaciers."

Once again, your inability to understand what you posting has made you
look remarkably dim.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Joerg]

Bill Sloman wrote:

On Nov 24, 2:49 am, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Bill Slomanwrote:

[...]

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 bicarbonate in the ground-water.
Trust us, we are the government, nothing bad will happen. Yeah

Trust you, you are the alarmist, everything bad can happen, though you
don't know quite how. Your imagination could use a little more
discipline.

No imagination there, it's based on living and watching a few decades.
Lots of things have gone wrong where we as the population were told it
couldn't. I remember as a kid when folks were told that a major reactor
meltdown could never really happen and certainly nobody in Europe would
be affected. Then Tshernobyl happened ...

snipped the irrelevant - if real - example of something going wrong
in a gradual way.
But thanks for the link. It's nice to engage in discussion with people
with some - if perhaps not quite enough - respect for facts

But why did you initially dismiss it as urban legend? That was a tad
disappointing.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

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

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Nov 24, 4:11 pm, dagmargoodb...@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>

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.

James Arthur doesn't know the difference between a global climate
model, which predicts over a span of year and a global weather model
which falls to pieces in about two weeks.

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

http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev28_2/text/cli.htm

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.

A remarkable example of pretentious ignorance, pontificating as if it
knew what it was talking about on the basis of a misunderstood dinner
party conversation.

I've seen some spectacular pratfalls in my time, but this particular
combination of fatuous ignorance and self-satisfied pomposity is going
to take some beating.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Nov 25, 1:03 am, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

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.

This from a nitwit who doesn't know the difference between a weather
model - which is susceptible to the butterfly effect - and a climate
modoel - which isn't.

There's no point in reminding people that Ravinghorde is in conspiracy
theory heaven, reading global significance into students - presumably
undergraduates, though I'd have expected modern high school students
to be able to do better - being very bad amateur programmers. James
Arthur seesm to be equally addled, but he isn't quite as obvious about
it.

--
Bill Sloman, Nih=jmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Nov 24, 1:25 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On a sunny day (Tue, 24 Nov 2009 00:43:51 -0800 (PST)) it happenedBill 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.

BP and Shell both have the sense to acknowledge that anthropogenic
global warming is real and both have started diversifying into more
sustainable activities.

You don't seem to have realised the burning fossil carbon isn't the
only way to generate energy. It is - currently - the cheapest source
of power, but only because we aren't paying enough to cover the damage
that is being caused by the CO2 emitted, and the rather higher charges
needed to cover the damage that is going to be caused when we've
saturated the oceans with CO2.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Greegor]

Did you see where that British climatologist
challenged Al Gore to debate global warming?

Al hasn't taken him up on it yet.

So how long until the people caught in
their deceptions with these e-mails claim
their privacy was violated, as with the
ACORN tapes? They'll go down in
history too, won't they?



http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html

November 21, 2009
Hacked E-Mail Is New Fodder for Climate Dispute
By ANDREW C. REVKIN
Hundreds of private e-mail messages and documents hacked from a
computer server at a British university are causing a stir among
global warming skeptics, who say they show that climate scientists
conspired to overstate the case for a human influence on climate
change.

The e-mail messages, attributed to prominent American and British
climate researchers, include discussions of scientific data and
whether it should be released, exchanges about how best to combat the
arguments of skeptics, and casual comments — in some cases derisive —
about specific people known for their skeptical views. Drafts of
scientific papers and a photo collage that portrays climate skeptics
on an ice floe were also among the hacked data, some of which dates
back 13 years.

In one e-mail exchange, a scientist writes of using a statistical
“trick” in a chart illustrating a recent sharp warming trend. In
another, a scientist refers to climate skeptics as “idiots.”

Some skeptics asserted Friday that the correspondence revealed an
effort to withhold scientific information. “This is not a smoking gun;
this is a mushroom cloud,” said Patrick J. Michaels, a climatologist
who has long faulted evidence pointing to human-driven warming and is
criticized in the documents.

Some of the correspondence portrays the scientists as feeling under
siege by the skeptics’ camp and worried that any stray comment or data
glitch could be turned against them.

The evidence pointing to a growing human contribution to global
warming is so widely accepted that the hacked material is unlikely to
erode the overall argument. However, the documents will undoubtedly
raise questions about the quality of research on some specific
questions and the actions of some scientists.

In several e-mail exchanges, Kevin Trenberth, a climatologist at the
National Center for Atmospheric Research, and other scientists discuss
gaps in understanding of recent variations in temperature. Skeptic Web
sites pointed out one line in particular: “The fact is that we can’t
account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty
that we can’t,” Dr. Trenberth wrote.

The cache of e-mail messages also includes references to journalists,
including this reporter, and queries from journalists related to
articles they were reporting.

Officials at the University of East Anglia confirmed in a statement on
Friday that files had been stolen from a university server and that
the police had been brought in to investigate the breach. They added,
however, that they could not confirm that all the material circulating
on the Internet was authentic.

But several scientists and others contacted by The New York Times
confirmed that they were the authors or recipients of specific e-mail
messages included in the file. The revelations are bound to inflame
the public debate as hundreds of negotiators prepare to negotiate an
international climate accord at meetings in Copenhagen next month, and
at least one scientist speculated that the timing was not
coincidental.

Dr. Trenberth said Friday that he was appalled at the release of the e-
mail messages.

But he added that he thought the revelations might backfire against
climate skeptics. He said that he thought that the messages showed
“the integrity of scientists.” Still, some of the comments might lend
themselves to being interpreted as sinister.

In a 1999 e-mail exchange about charts showing climate patterns over
the last two millenniums, Phil Jones, a longtime climate researcher at
the East Anglia Climate Research Unit, said he had used a “trick”
employed by another scientist, Michael Mann, to “hide the decline” in
temperatures.

Dr. Mann, a professor at Pennsylvania State University, confirmed in
an interview that the e-mail message was real. He said the choice of
words by his colleague was poor but noted that scientists often used
the word “trick” to refer to a good way to solve a problem, “and not
something secret.”

At issue were sets of data, both employed in two studies. One data set
showed long-term temperature effects on tree rings; the other,
thermometer readings for the past 100 years.

Through the last century, tree rings and thermometers show a
consistent rise in temperature until 1960, when some tree rings, for
unknown reasons, no longer show that rise, while the thermometers
continue to do so until the present.

Dr. Mann explained that the reliability of the tree-ring data was
called into question, so they were no longer used to track temperature
fluctuations. But he said dropping the use of the tree rings was never
something that was hidden, and had been in the scientific literature
for more than a decade. “It sounds incriminating, but when you look at
what you’re talking about, there’s nothing there,” Dr. Mann said.

In addition, other independent but indirect measurements of
temperature fluctuations in the studies broadly agreed with the
thermometer data showing rising temperatures.

Dr. Jones, writing in an e-mail message, declined to be interviewed.

Stephen McIntyre, a blogger who on his Web site, climateaudit.org, has
for years been challenging data used to chart climate patterns, and
who came in for heated criticism in some e-mail messages, called the
revelations “quite breathtaking.”

But several scientists whose names appear in the e-mail messages said
they merely revealed that scientists were human, and did nothing to
undercut the body of research on global warming. “Science doesn’t work
because we’re all nice,” said Gavin A. Schmidt, a climatologist at
NASA whose e-mail exchanges with colleagues over a variety of climate
studies were in the cache. “Newton may have been an ass, but the
theory of gravity still works.”

He said the breach at the University of East Anglia was discovered
after hackers who had gained access to the correspondence sought
Tuesday to hack into a different server supporting realclimate.org, a
blog unrelated to NASA that he runs with several other scientists
pressing the case that global warming is true.

The intruders sought to create a mock blog post there and to upload
the full batch of files from Britain. That effort was thwarted, Dr.
Schmidt said, and scientists immediately notified colleagues at the
University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit. The first posts
that revealed details from the files appeared Thursday at The Air
Vent, a Web site devoted to skeptics’ arguments.

At first, said Dr. Michaels, the climatologist who has faulted some of
the science of the global warming consensus, his instinct was to
ignore the correspondence as “just the way scientists talk.”

But on Friday, he said that after reading more deeply, he felt that
some exchanges reflected an effort to block the release of data for
independent review.

He said some messages mused about discrediting him by challenging the
veracity of his doctoral dissertation at the University of Wisconsin
by claiming he knew his research was wrong. “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.”
----------------------------
Contrary to over-reaching claims by media
publishers, this is covered by the FAIR USE
exceptions to the copyright laws.






On Nov 23, 11:03 am, 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?

Yet taking research "dole" from the government.

Scumbags!







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

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

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

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

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

The sky ?

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

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



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

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

John

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

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

       How severe can senility be?  Just check out Slowman.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Nov 25, 5:40 am, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

Bill Slomanwrote:
On Nov 24, 2:49 am, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Bill Slomanwrote:

[...]





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 bicarbonate in the ground-water.
Trust us, we are the government, nothing bad will happen. Yeah

Trust you, you are the alarmist, everything bad can happen, though you
don't know quite how. Your imagination could use a little more
discipline.

No imagination there, it's based on living and watching a few decades.
Lots of things have gone wrong where we as the population were told it
couldn't. I remember as a kid when folks were told that a major reactor
meltdown could never really happen and certainly nobody in Europe would
be affected. Then Tshernobyl happened ...

snipped the irrelevant - if real - example of something going wrong
in a gradual way.
But thanks for the link. It's nice to engage in discussion with people
with some - if perhaps not quite enough - respect for facts

But why did you initially dismiss it as urban legend? That was a tad
disappointing.

I didn't dismiss it - I was just bitching about the absence of a link
to the detailed account.

"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. "

The phrase "I could wonder" falls a long way short of dismissal.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Nov 24, 4:04 pm, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 00:43:51 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman





bill.slo...@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.

Whenever you get on th defensive you boast about running a successful
business.

Time is never going to have a Circuit Designer of the Year on its
front cover - the "successful businessman" aspect of your work is what
gives you get your social status.

Are you into the 2012 cult?

Just far enough to know that nitwits like Rice Grise take it
seriously, that it depends on some imagined feature of the Inca
calender, and there are suggestions that 2012 isn't the magic year
that it is claimed to be. It's just another form of astrology and
appeals to the same kinds of fruitcakes.

You should know me well enough to have been able to predict that
answer, or something very like it.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

John- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

 

[Raveninghorde]

On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 19:26:54 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

SNIP

Paranoid Bill, the Soros shill, you'll enjoy this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEiLgbBGKVk&feature=player_embedded

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Tue, 24 Nov 2009 16:36:08 -0800 (PST)) it happened Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
<1fc4cb23-4899-43a0-b863-117f62eae253@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>:

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.

If I say 'cookie', do I need to supply a wikipedia reference it exists?

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 cycle=
s 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.

Sensibly thinking about it leads to the insight that the anthropogenic component is insignificant in the view of the big climate cycles.

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Tue, 24 Nov 2009 18:48:50 -0800 (PST)) it happened Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
<634df863-e735-40eb-adfe-20a8c6419dce@d10g2000yqh.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) wil=
l 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

I was not referring to continental drift (why bring that in), but to the position of glaciers,
and where the water will be.
If you studied the past of the Netherlands, you would know that it was largely water,
and large parts of it are now 'polders', where water was only a few hundred years ago.
These days they are 'giving back areas to the water', as a safety basin to prevent
flooding via the rivers elsewhere.
But the glaciers, those will further retreat from Europe, and north of America,
only to come back then later, in thousands of years cycles.

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Tue, 24 Nov 2009 20:03:18 -0800 (PST)) it happened Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
<e8d9dfe9-9805-4503-bd9a-662f0098cc80@v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>:

On Nov 24, 1:25 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On a sunny day (Tue, 24 Nov 2009 00:43:51 -0800 (PST)) it happenedBill Sl=
oman
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 origin=
ating from
your overheated globe.

BP and Shell both have the sense to acknowledge that anthropogenic
global warming is real and both have started diversifying into more
sustainable activities.

You don't seem to have realised the burning fossil carbon isn't the
only way to generate energy.

You really are beginning to sound like an idiot nut case.
After all the case I made here for nuclear power.
Just admit you have no clue and are wrong.

 

[Raveninghorde]

On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 19:55:40 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

There's no point in reminding people that Ravinghorde is in conspiracy
theory heaven, reading global significance into students - presumably
undergraduates, though I'd have expected modern high school students
to be able to do better - being very bad amateur programmers. James
Arthur seesm to be equally addled, but he isn't quite as obvious about
it.

Conspiracy theory heaven?

Who goes on about Exon-Mobil, big oil and coal? Who keeps calling
people shills of big oil?

But hey since you are in to conspiracy theories explain this:

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/11/25/whos-been-spinning-in-my-newspaper.html

So Briffa is a student? "; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for
decline!!"

/quote

From the programming file called "briffa_sep98_d.pro":

yyy=reform(compmxd(*,2,1))
;mknormal,yyy,timey,refperiod=[1881,1940]
;
; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
;
yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$
2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
if n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,'Oooops!'
;
yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,timey)

/end quote

 

[Raveninghorde]

On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 04:55:19 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Nov 25, 10:57 am, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 19:26:54 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman

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

SNIP

Paranoid Bill, the Soros shill, you'll enjoy this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEiLgbBGKVk&feature=player_embedded

I wasn't sufficiently interested to turn up the audio.

And which of your daft conspiracy theories includes George Soros? And
why?

http://www.politicaltruthandfact.com/nbishop/2008/02/the-george-soro.html

does suggest that the demented right wing in the USA resents his
campaign contributions to at least one Democratic candidate, but I
hadn't noticed that you were out of touch wth reality along that axis
as well.

Wake up and smell the coffee. You're dancing to the Soros tune.

So if sourcewatch isn't just a leftist/commie site to denounce
unbelievers they will have a file on Soros.

Soros is playing big in climate change. For example:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aMU3BkV3yqPU

/quote

Billionaire George Soros, looking to address the “political problem”
of climate change, said he will invest $1 billion in clean-energy
technology and create an organization to advise policy makers on
environmental issues.

/end quote

And he is linked to realclimate.org home of Mann and Schmidt as well
as funding Hansen. For example:

/quote

Domain ID105219760-LROR
Domain Name:REALCLIMATE.ORG
Created On:19-Nov-2004 16:39:03 UTC
Last Updated On:30-Oct-2005 21:10:46 UTC
Expiration Date:19-Nov-2007 16:39:03 UTC
Sponsoring Registrar:eNom, Inc. (R39-LROR)
Status:OK
Registrant ID:B133AE74B8066012
Registrant Name:Betsy Ensley
Registrant Organization:Environmental Media Services
Registrant Street1:1320 18th St, NW
Registrant Street2:5th Floor
Registrant Street3:
Registrant City:Washington
Registrant State/ProvinceC
Registrant Postal Code:20036
Registrant Country:US
Registrant Phone:+1.2024636670

Additional Details
Here is the ZoomInfo on Betsy:

# Betsy Ensley, Web Editor/Program Coordinator: Betsy joined the staff
of EMS in April 2002 as a program assistant for EMS's toxics program.
Presently, she manages BushGreenwatch.org, a joint EMS-MoveOn.org
public awareness website, and coordinates environmental community
media efforts to protect and improve environmental and public health
safeguards. Before coming to EMS, Betsy interned at the U.S.
Department of State in the office of the Assistant Secretary, Bureau
of Educational and Cultural Affairs. Betsy graduated with honors from
the University of Iowa in 2000, where she majored in Global Studies
with thematic focus on war, peace and security. She minored in Asian
languages.

It looks like part of Betsy's salary is paid by MoveOn.org who is
funded by George Soros.

/end quote

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Nov 25, 12:09 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On a sunny day (Tue, 24 Nov 2009 18:48:50 -0800 (PST)) it happenedBill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote in
634df863-e735-40eb-adfe-20a8c6419...@d10g2000yqh.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) wil> >l 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

I was not referring to continental drift (why bring that in), but to the position of
glaciers, and where the water will be.
If you studied the past of the Netherlands, you would know that it was largely water,
and large parts of it are now 'polders', where water was only a few hundred years ago.

Not so much water as swamp. The polders are now below sea level
because the land dried out after it was empoldered, and shrank.

These days they are 'giving back areas to the water', as a safety basin to prevent
flooding via the rivers elsewhere.

Very sensible, even if the farmers hate it.

But the glaciers, those will further retreat from Europe, and north of America,
only to come back then later, in thousands of years cycles.

Since we've messed up the positive feedback that drove that cycle and
added more than enough CO2 and methane to the atmosphere, the glacier
aren't going to be coming back any time soon.

The shapes and locations ofof the continents will still be pretty much
the same. I doubt if the world will look that different.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Nov 25, 12:00 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On a sunny day (Tue, 24 Nov 2009 16:36:08 -0800 (PST)) it happenedBill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote in
1fc4cb23-4899-43a0-b863-117f62eae...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>:

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.

If I say 'cookie', do I need to supply a wikipedia reference it exists?

Google writes a tracking cookie to your computer whenever you do a
search, so you don't have to bother.

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 cycle> >s 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.

Sensibly thinking about it leads to the insight that the anthropogenic component is insignificant in the view of the big climate cycles.

Sorry. That is insensible non-thinking, otherwise known as wishful
thinking. I think you'd better think it out again, after you've
learned a bit more about greenhouse gases and how they work.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Wed, 25 Nov 2009 04:31:12 -0800 (PST)) it happened Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
<dfeab536-fe22-48ed-a245-0ab80e75c5e3@p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>:

On Nov 25, 12:00 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On a sunny day (Tue, 24 Nov 2009 16:36:08 -0800 (PST)) it happenedBill Sl=
oman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote in
1fc4cb23-4899-43a0-b863-117f62eae...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>:

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.

If I say 'cookie', do I need to supply a wikipedia reference it exists?

Google writes a tracking cookie to your computer whenever you do a
search, so you don't have to bother.

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 cy=
cle=
s 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.

Sensibly thinking about it leads to the insight that the anthropogenic co=
mponent is insignificant in the view of the big climate cycles.

Sorry. That is insensible non-thinking, otherwise known as wishful
thinking. I think you'd better think it out again, after you've
learned a bit more about greenhouse gases and how they work.

There is no proof whatsover that CO2 levels have caused warming in the past.
And even if you assumed CO2 levels did, where did the CO2 come from?
It is much more simple (Occam's) to think CO2 levels went up because the warmer climate
had more animals populate the earth....
But even that may not be so.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Nov 25, 12:31 pm, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 19:55:40 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman

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

There's no point in reminding people that Ravinghorde is in conspiracy
theory heaven, reading global significance into students - presumably
undergraduates, though I'd have expected modern high school students
to be able to do better - being very bad amateur programmers. James
Arthur seesm to be equally addled, but he isn't quite as obvious about
it.

Conspiracy theory heaven?

Who goes on about Exon-Mobil, big oil and coal? Who keeps calling
people shills of big oil?

The British Royal Society, amonst others

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

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

http://exxonsecrets.org/html/listorganizations.php

Exxonsecrets is based on data extracted from their published accounts
- under US Law they have to list the organisations that they are
funding.

You should recognise at least some of the names since you quote their
output with tedious regularity.

But hey since you are in to conspiracy theories explain this:

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/11/25/whos-been-spinning-...

So Briffa is a student? "; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for
decline!!"

/quote

From the programming file called "briffa_sep98_d.pro":

yyy=reform(compmxd(*,2,1))
;mknormal,yyy,timey,refperiod=[1881,1940]
;
; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
;
yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,­$
2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
if n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,'Oooops!'
;
yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,timey)

/end quote

Why should I? I've got no idea what he was trying to do or why - and
neither would you, if you weren't in the habit of imputing the worst
possible motives to everybody who doesn't share your daft delusions.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen