Ping Bil Slowman; The global warming hoax reveiled

[Raveninghorde]

On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 07:37:17 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Nov 26, 11:40 am, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

The wikipedia article quotes IPCC numbers. Unfortunately anything from
the IPCC is suspect given that Mann/Jones et al seem to have acted as
bouncers for the consensus.

IPCC just collects numbers from the peer-reviewd literature. Those
numbers are generated by physicists on the basis of models of infra-
red absorbtion and emission through the atmosphere, and the authors
involved wouldn't come into contact with Mann, who works on old
climate data from trees and lake beds, and probably not with Philip D.
Jones, who seems to spend his time crunching current observations.

As usual, you enthusiasm for fatuous conspiracy theories is clouding
your vision.

Peer review? You are joking! Please keep up with the topic.

Peer review in climate science is less valid than using a ouja board.


/quotes

In one email, under the subject line “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL,” Phil Jones
of East Anglia writes to Mann: “I can’t see either of these papers
being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out
somehow--even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature
is!”

“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not
publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a
solution to that--take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I
think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate
peer-reviewed journal.

We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more
reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board...” and
they show in the temperature record, AMO and PDO
/end quotes

By the way, MEDIEVAL WARM PERIOD and LITTLE ICE AGE, which you deny,
are back. Your pope has changed his mind and they show in the
temperature record, AMO and PDO.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/27/told-ya-so-more-upside-down-mann-in-his-latest-paper/

But as Mann submitted before climategate he is still fudging the
record:

/quotes

yes, Tiljander series are still used as inverted.

This means that if a proxy has a strong inverted correlation to the
(two-pick?) local temperature, it gets picked – no matter what the
physical interpretation is! Since RegEM doesn’t care about the sign,
it is now really so that the sign does not matter to them anymore.
Anything goes!

/end quotes

 

[Raveninghorde]

On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 10:17:53 -0800, Rich Grise <richgrise@example.net>
wrote:

On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 20:37:00 -0800, dagmargoodboat wrote:
On Nov 26, 1:18 pm, John Larkin
On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 08:41:26 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com
On Nov 26, 6:26 am, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On a sunny day (Wed, 25 Nov 2009 17:46:50 -0800) it happened John
Larkin <jjSNIPlar...@highTHISlandtechnology.com> wrote in
On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 08:59:25 -0800, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid
Bill Sloman wrote:

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...

I live in Northern California, about 35 miles east of Sacramento.
And I am rather unafraid of volcanos, earthquakes and fires versus
some "grand" ideas of man to "solve" a perceived crisis.

Listen up, Joerg. If Sloman says you live in Oregon, you live in
Oregon. It's a peer-reviewed fact.

Yes, exactly, that is real science.

I also strongly insist that Joerg lives in Oregon, therefore, not only
is it a peer-reviewed fact, but there's also a consensus.

I have just run a simulation that proves that Joerg lives in Oregon.

There can be no more doubt.

After applying the appropriate correction factors, I too find that Joerg
lives in Oregon.

So, now we have independent confirmation.

I used to live in northern California, and what Joerg describes isn't
anything like where I was, so, I now have Faith that he lives in Oregon.

;-)
Rich

I have redefined the peer review process, Joerg now lives in
Indonesia.

 

[Raveninghorde]

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

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.

Nice to see Monbiot, in your favourite rag, is still calling for Jones
to be go and that Jones "advocating potentially criminal activity".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/nov/25/monbiot-climate-leak-crisis-response

/quote

When it comes to his handling of Freedom of Information requests,
Professor Jones might struggle even to use a technical defence. If you
take the wording literally, in one case he appears to be suggesting
that emails subject to a request be deleted, which means that he seems
to be advocating potentially criminal activity. Even if no other
message had been hacked, this would be sufficient to ensure his
resignation as head of the unit.

I feel desperately sorry for him: he must be walking through hell. But
there is no helping it; he has to go, and the longer he leaves it, the
worse it will get. He has a few days left in which to make an
honourable exit.

/end quote

 

[Rich Grise]

On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 12:23:27 -0600, krw wrote:

On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 10:10:09 -0800, Rich Grise <richgrise@example.net
On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 18:11:34 -0800, Joerg wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 08:59:25 -0800, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
Bill Sloman wrote:

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/

I live in Northern California, about 35 miles east of Sacramento. And
I am rather unafraid of volcanos, earthquakes and fires versus some
"grand" ideas of man to "solve" a perceived crisis.

Listen up, Joerg. If Sloman says you live in Oregon, you live in
Oregon. It's a peer-reviewed fact.

What I was told before I married my sweetheart: If the father-in-law
says that the water runs up the drain then it does run up the drain.

But he turned out to be a fun guy. Wish he was still around.

When I was stationed at Beale, we'd sometimes drive to Reno on the
weekends by the "back" route (through the mountain forests - real pretty
country); anyway, on the way back, there's an aqueduct that looks like
the water is running uphill. ;-)

I probably runs to the left, from which ever way you look at it too.

Actually, it's parallel to the road; the thing is, the road is a very
gentle downslope, which you don't notice, and it "feels" flat. It's like
you get inured or something. ;-)

I don't know how to get there except out the back gate of Beale - I'm sure
there's a highway number, but I never learned it - we always just went by
landmarks.

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Rich Grise]

On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 12:26:01 -0600, krw wrote:

On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 10:23:59 -0800, Rich Grise <richgrise@example.net
wrote:

On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 08:48:49 -0800, John Larkin wrote:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703499404574559630382048494.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

"Climategate" - I LOVE it! ;-) ;-) ;-)

Short version: "Weathergate"?

Mark Steyn: "Climaquiddick". ;-)
http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/peer-221438-reviewed-climate.html

Admittedly, he makes no bones about being a hard-right-winger.

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Raveninghorde]

On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 15:04:43 +1300, Malcolm Moore
<abor1953needle@yahoodagger.co.nz> wrote:

On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 09:47:17 +0000, Raveninghorde
raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 09:03:48 -0800, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

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

SNIP


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?

Here's a link to more AGW, academic global warming:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/25/uh-oh-raw-data-in-new-zealand-tells-a-different-story-than-the-official-one/#more-13215

/quote

But analysis of the raw climate data from the same temperature
stations has just turned up a very different result:

Gone is the relentless rising temperature trend, and instead there
appears to have been a much smaller growth in warming, consistent with
the warming up of the planet after the end of the Little Ice Age in
1850.

/end quote

For a bit of balance

http://hot-topic.co.nz/nz-sceptics-lie-about-temp-records-try-to-smear-top-scientist/

/quote

I’m not too impressed, especially when you see where the weather
station for National Institute of Water and Atmosphere (NIWA) is,
right on the rooftop next to the air conditioners:

/end quote

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/27/more-on-the-niwa-new-zealand-data-adjustment-story/#more-13287

 

[Joerg]

Jon Kirwan wrote:

On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 10:43:33 -0800, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

Jon Kirwan wrote:
On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 09:03:28 -0800, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

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

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.

Ahm, the glacier north of us on Mt.Shasta is growing ...

Maybe it hasn't heard of AGW and someone should tell it
Joerg, you should know better than to be this highly selective in what
you consider a good argument. Read this USA Today article from a year
and a half ago more closely:

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/environment/2008-07-08-mt-shasta-growing-glaciers_N.htm

Only problem is that the proof doesn't seem to be in the pudding:

http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMONtpre.pl?ca5983

Did you read through at least half the article I mentioned above?

Yes. Thing is, with all the AGW claims there ought to be a significant
average rise since 1948.

They should know better than to publish something like this without
_showing_ the underlaying statistics

Which publisher, Joerg? The link I mentioned or the link you did?

Yours, USA Today. Mine is affiliated with NOAA, which I believe even the
warmingists wouldn't dispute.

If you are talking about the USA Today article, my motivation was to
show you that you are being very selective in choosing that isolated
data point.

Just as I might choose a 6-sigma noise-spiked data point to try and
show you a rise when you know darned well the trend of the data was to
fall. You'd rightly point out my mistake.

As I did, yours.

I am not so sure it is one. But I also don't want to rule it out.

Here in Northern California people look at their water bills, they see
drought rates being charged more and more often. Warmingists predicted
we'd be swamped with precipitation by now. Didn't happen.

Then they look at their heating bills. Amounts of required fuel rising,
for example we went from 2 cords to 4 cords. So it ain't getting warmer.
We would never again buy a house with a pool around here.

This is a middle class neighborhood with a fairly high percentage of
engineers, so you'd normally assume people with a pretty level head.
Nearly all now think that AGW is just one gigantic ruse to raise taxes
in one way or another. Again, this is not me ranting, it's what we hear
from the people. Meaning voters

None of that changes anything about what I said. Climate is averages
and I think you _know_ this.

If you said, "the average voltage, at 1Hz bandwidth, at this node is 4
volts" and I responded by using a high bandwidth tool and pointing out
a 5 nanosecond spike at 8V and said, "no, it's 8V", you'd know I was
being disingenuous. And you'd be right.

And that 8V spike could be the root cause why a chip always fails so
you'd have made a valid and concerning observation

If you are interested in access to specific details, you might read:

http://nsidc.org/glims/

However, if scarfing through a database is a pain, an informed summary
of the circumstances of mountain glaciers around the world can be had
from: Cogley, J. G., 2009, "Geodetic and direct mass-balance
measurements: comparison and joint analysis," Annals of Glaciology 50,
96-100. I can get you a copy, if you intend to read it.

I know that most glaciers are receding for a while now. That has
happened in the past as well, and then they grew again. What I harbor
doubts about is that this is human-caused. These doubt haven't exactly
been reduced after the revelations of emails lately.

As you said, climate is averages, but we must look much, much farther
than just 50, 100 or 150 years. As has been discussed here before, there
has for example been homesteading and farming in areas of Greenland that
are now under a thick layer of ice. Of course that is an inconvenient
truth for warmingists. Bill might claim that Exxon-Mobil has gone there
in the dead of night, drilled holes, dropped some Viking tools and
artefacts down those holes and then poured water back into them

The average is remarkably different from your attempt at using an
isolated data point.

You did see the smiley after my initial comment "Maybe it hasn't heard
of AGW and someone should tell it", did you?

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

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

 

[John Larkin]

On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 16:25:02 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Nov 27, 9:44 am, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Nov 27, 11:48 am, John Larkin





jjSNIPlar...@highTHISlandtechnology.com> wrote:
On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 03:07:11 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman

bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Nov 26, 8:33 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 09:36:14 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman

bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
It is a pity that I got it wrong. Peer review would probably have
prevented this.

James Arthur happens to be wrong - his concurrence doesn't create a
concensus, which in practice is confined to the opinions of people who
know what they are talking about.

---
Then nothing you post would lead to the creation of a consensus.

Certainly not to a concensus of which you'd form a part.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870349940457455963038204...

John

Spot-on.

Anything but. The journalist is treating a highly necessary bit of
quality control as "suppresion of dissent". If they'd done theri job
properly, they'd have found this out.

Threatening journal editors is "quality control"?

John

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

John Larkin wrote:

On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 07:03:38 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Nov 26, 7:11 pm, John Larkin
jjSNIPlar...@highTHISlandtechnology.com> wrote:
On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 14:58:48 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman





bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Nov 24, 4:00 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 06:37:56 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...@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.

A genuine James Arthur pratfall. Not a collectible as all that - he
makes a fool of himself a little too often, and the market is getting
saturated.

I've known James for years, well before any encounters on SED. He's
funny, cheerful, an excellent electronics designer, a good cook, and
has a great singing voice. I have never known him to be a fool about
anything. But I ski faster than he does. Lots faster.

You are the group buffoon/churl/pain slut. I can't imagine why you
post here.

You've made it clear that you don't enjoy having your errors
corrected, and you probably think that it would be a nice idea to save
other people from similar discomfort, but you shoudl keep in mind that
looking like an idiot on sci.electronics.design can be a lot cheaper
than making a fool of yourself in front of paying customers.

Oh, you've finally noticed that this is an electronics design group.
Given that, what do you think matters here?

How are you doing in front of paying customers?


When it comes to anthropogenic global warming, you have posted enough
buffoon level-nonsense here that your endorsement of James as a non-
fool isn't entirely definitive.

All I've said about AGW is that there is reason to be skeptical. I'm
pleased that the majority of the population of the world is
increasingly in agreement with me. I'm thinking the joy ride is just
about over.


IIRR it has been some time since we had to remind you that climate
models weren't the same as weather models and were constructed in such
a way that they weren't susceptible to the butterfly effect.

It's been some time since you posted anything interesting or useful
about electronic design. Last thing I remember is your perplexity that
a simple oscillator simulation refused to squegg.


It would have been nice if you'd passed the message on to James. If
you had, he'd now look less like a buffoon, and I'd have saved some of
the time I put in on educating the barely educatable.

Hilarious. Why is it that useless, incompetant, and unemployed
"progressives" think that they are able to "educate" people who are
none of the above.

Sugar Bowl is open, very early in the season. It's rare that we can
ski over the Thanksgiving holidays. It's clouding up now and they are
predicting 10 to 12" of new snow starting this afternoon. Now *that*
is the sort of climate model I approve of.

It was 34 degrees in Ocala Thursday night. It's supposed to be 35
tonight.


--
The movie 'Deliverance' isn't a documentary!

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Nov 27, 10:43 am, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

Jon Kirwan wrote:
On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 09:03:28 -0800, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid
wrote:

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

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.

Ahm, the glacier north of us on Mt.Shasta is growing ...

Maybe it hasn't heard of AGW and someone should tell it

Joerg, you should know better than to be this highly selective in what
you consider a good argument.  Read this USA Today article from a year
and a half ago more closely:

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/environment/2008-07-08-mt-shasta...

Only problem is that the proof doesn't seem to be in the pudding:

http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMONtpre.pl?ca5983

They should know better than to publish something like this without
_showing_ the underlaying statistics

The underlying statistics are rather tricky. A glacier represents a
weighed average over quite a number of years - they don't flow fast -
and water that falls as snow in winter tends to be of more use to the
glacier than water that falls as rain in summer. There were some years
of very heavy rain from 1992 to 1998, and they presumably haven't got
to the end of the glaciers yet.

Here in Northern California people look at their water bills, they see
drought rates being charged more and more often. Warmingists predicted
we'd be swamped with precipitation by now. Didn't happen.

Isn't happening at the moment. Presumably the Northern Pacific
Multidecadal Oscillation is giving you dry phase,

Then they look at their heating bills. Amounts of required fuel rising,
for example we went from 2 cords to 4 cords. So it ain't getting warmer.
We would never again buy a house with a pool around here.

At the moment. Presumably the Northern Pacific Multidecadal
Oscillation is giving you cooler air from further north than it used
to (carrying less water vapour). In due course it will probably give
warmer wetter weather, with an added extra-global warming bonus.

This is a middle class neighborhood with a fairly high percentage of
engineers, so you'd normally assume people with a pretty level head.
Nearly all now think that AGW is just one gigantic ruse to raise taxes
in one way or another. Again, this is not me ranting, it's what we hear
from the people. Meaning voters

Sure. The propaganda funded by Exxon-Mobil and other fossil-carbon
extraction industries has been depressingly effective.

http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf

Exxon-Mobil - amongst others - have recycled the techniques and
organisations (and some of the people) that the tobacco companies had
used to minimise the impact of the scientific evidence about the
dangers of tobacco smoke.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Malcolm Moore]

On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 22:42:57 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Nov 26, 7:32 pm, Malcolm Moore wrote:
On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 08:25:05 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb... wrote:
On Nov 25, 11:32 pm, Malcolm Moore wrote:
On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 19:00:13 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb... wrote:

snip

snip old material

You have to grant me some leeway here because Bill's a fuzzy writer.
He works by implication and innuendo, so I had to infer that

I don't have to grant you anything. This saga shows you're the proven
fuzzy writer.

a) when Bill cited the impressive French nuclear capability as a
retort to Jan's statement, that
b) he meant it as some sort of rebuttal to Jan's statement.

Otherwise it's hard to see why he would've offered that as a response
to what Jan said.

So, I was not fact-checking French nuclear claims, but the importance
of "...the [fossile] energy companies..." to modern civilization,
taking France as the example.


snip old material

Naturally both are true: I understood Bill to be asserting, in his
ambiguous, ill-formed way, that power-generation needn't release
carbon, and, further, that France was an example of how civilization
could use nuclear power instead of fossil fuels.

Jan took it the same way, if you read his follow-ups.

So you both have comprehension problems. I understand Jan is not a
native english speaker so he deserves some leeway. I say that with
admiration because I am sadly monolingual.

So far we've heard you were fact checking, then it was bringing Bill
back on topic, and now it's "I wanted to know how dependent.  So I
added it up." Hmmm.

One flows from the other, obviously. To see whether France
exemplifies fossil-fuel independence requires adding up their fossil
fuel use, and comparing it to non-fossil fuel energy sources.


But I'm not foolish enough to try keeping Bill on any sort of topic--
that's like herding fish.

Why didn't you attempt to bring Jan back on topic? He was the first in
the thread to move away from the subject line when he mentioned
proposals to store CO2 underground near where he lives.

Because Jan and Bill are both free to talk about whatever they want,
naturally. And I have no interest in or opinion on CO2 stores.

I'm glad you now agree they can talk freely.

If you look at the subject for this thread you'll hopefully realise
your claim to have brought it back on point is complete nonsense. And
who appointed you thread controller of sed!

The thread topic was about a bunch of AGW promoters being caught
lying, manipulating data, conspiring against competitors, and so
forth.  Bill didn't like that topic, so he raised a fuss and a bunch
of strawmen so we'd all talk about something else.  Standard operating
procedure.

No, Bill responded to Jan's concerns about living above a CO2 store.
Subsequently the thread diverged into the usual wide ranging stuff. If
you can't handle that you'll need to leave usenet  

You snipped the comment you made which I was responding to. I've re-
inserted it.

I stand by my description.

As far as being thread controller, that's silly. Obviously anyone in
a conversation makes points, and sometimes presses those points when
they've not been answered.

There's still the matter of why you claimed to be fact checking Bill's
nuclear claims when you were apparently really trying to bring him
back on topic. I guess you also have trouble comprehending your own
writing.

I was fact-checking whether France could exist without fossil fuels,
since Jan said civilization depends on them, and Bill brought up
France as a counter-example.

Alternatively, Bill's just blabbering incoherently about something
that's irrelevant, and which has no bearing on what Jan said. So I
gave Bill the benefit of the doubt.

<snip old material>

snip


Bravo for your heart-felt defense of Bill--he's surrounded, out of
ammo, and sure could use the help.

I'm not defending Bill, I'm critiquing you.

I think you've just understood and taken Bill's statement-of-fact (on
France having nukes) as being a true statement all by itself.

Obviously it's true--we all know France has nukes.

But Jan and I took it as a wrong answer to Jan's claim, that the very
infrastructure we're using was built on fossil fuel.

There was no answer because there was no question. Bill made a correct
claim in response to Jan's correct claim.

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

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Nov 27, 8:48 am, John Larkin
<jjSNIPlar...@highTHISlandtechnology.com> wrote:

On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 03:07:11 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman





bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Nov 26, 8:33 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 09:36:14 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman

bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
It is a pity that I got it wrong. Peer review would probably have
prevented this.

James Arthur happens to be wrong - his concurrence doesn't create a
concensus, which in practice is confined to the opinions of people who
know what they are talking about.

---
Then nothing you post would lead to the creation of a consensus.

Certainly not to a concensus of which you'd form a part.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870349940457455963038204...

"Science" journalists who don't know much about science do tend to
take this line. The paper that Jones and Mann were objecting too
weren't a "dissenting view" but a scandalously inept piece of
denialist propaganda, whose publication prompted three members of the
editorial board to resign.

The publisher apparently got the message, fired the editor and
replaced him with one of three board members who had resigned.

Ravinghorde will probably see this as an example of the academic mafia
trampling on the First Amendment right of everybody to publish what
they like, but the scientific community has always insisted that
papers published in peer-reviewd journals meet certain well-known
quality standards, and when these standards haven't been met the
community does tend to move in to enforce better quality control (in
precisely the kinds of ways that Mann and Jones discussed). This is an
integral part of the scientific method.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Nov 27, 9:44 am, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Nov 27, 11:48 am, John Larkin





jjSNIPlar...@highTHISlandtechnology.com> wrote:
On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 03:07:11 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman

bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Nov 26, 8:33 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 09:36:14 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman

bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
It is a pity that I got it wrong. Peer review would probably have
prevented this.

James Arthur happens to be wrong - his concurrence doesn't create a
concensus, which in practice is confined to the opinions of people who
know what they are talking about.

---
Then nothing you post would lead to the creation of a consensus.

Certainly not to a concensus of which you'd form a part.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870349940457455963038204...

John

Spot-on.

Anything but. The journalist is treating a highly necessary bit of
quality control as "suppresion of dissent". If they'd done theri job
properly, they'd have found this out.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Nov 27, 10:26 am, krw <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 10:23:59 -0800, Rich Grise <richgr...@example.net
wrote:

On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 08:48:49 -0800, John Larkin wrote:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870349940457455963038204....

"Climategate" - I LOVE it! ;-) ;-) ;-)

Short version: "Weathergate"?

krw is as ignorant as James Arthur - he too doesn't know the
difference between climate and weather.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Nov 27, 12:23 pm, Rich Grise <richgr...@example.net> wrote:

On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 12:26:01 -0600, krw wrote:
On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 10:23:59 -0800, Rich Grise <richgr...@example.net
wrote:

On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 08:48:49 -0800, John Larkin wrote:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870349940457455963038204....

"Climategate" - I LOVE it! ;-) ;-) ;-)

Short version: "Weathergate"?

Mark Steyn: "Climaquiddick". ;-)http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/peer-221438-reviewed-climate.html

Admittedly, he makes no bones about being a hard-right-winger.

And has not done his due diligence. If he'd asked anybody who knew
anything about the subject he'd have learned that his

"The trouble with outsourcing your marbles to the peer-reviewed set is
that, if you take away one single thing from the leaked documents,
it's that the global warm-mongers have wholly corrupted the "peer-
review" process."

is talking about the process of cleaning up the peer-review process
after a rogue editor had corrupted it by publishing a scandalously
inept paper that happened to be wrong in a way that suited the
denialists.

Mark Steyn may just be inept, but Exxon-Mobil has been known to pay
good money for exactly this kind of "ineptitude".

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Nov 27, 11:12 am, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 07:37:17 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman

bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Nov 26, 11:40 am, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
The wikipedia article quotes IPCC numbers. Unfortunately anything from
the IPCC is suspect given that Mann/Jones et al seem to have acted as
bouncers for the consensus.

IPCC just collects numbers from the peer-reviewd literature. Those
numbers are generated by physicists on the basis of models of infra-
red absorbtion and emission through the atmosphere, and the authors
involved wouldn't come into contact with Mann, who works on old
climate data from trees and lake beds, and probably not with Philip D.
Jones, who seems to spend his time crunching current observations.

As usual, you enthusiasm for fatuous conspiracy theories is clouding
your vision.

Peer review? You are joking! Please keep up with the topic.

Peer review in climate science is less valid than using a ouja board.

/quotes

In one email, under the subject line “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL,” Phil Jones
of East Anglia writes to Mann: “I can’t see either of these papers
being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out
somehow--even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature
is!”

“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not
publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a
solution to that--take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I
think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate
peer-reviewed journal.

We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more
reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board...” and
they show in the temperature record, AMO and PDO
/end quotes

The unfortunate thing for your happy delusion was that Jones and Mann
were getting upset over a real failure of peer-review, sufficiently
flagrant to prompt three members of the editorial board of the journal
to resign.

The scandal cost the editor his job, and he was replaced by one of the
board members who had resigned.

Granting your enthusiasm for comicla conspiracy theories, you will
probably see this as the scientific mafia suppressing dissent, but the
reality was that it was the scientific community imposing a spot of
quality control.

By the way, MEDIEVAL WARM PERIOD and LITTLE ICE AGE, which you deny,
are back. Your pope has changed his mind and they show in the
temperature record, AMO and PDO.

They have always showed up on some temperature records, as I have
pointed out to your before on a number of occasions. They just don't
show up at the same time all over the world, so they aren't excursions
in global temperature, just redistributions of the heat flux flowing
from the equator to the poles.

<snipped the usual denialist ravings>

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Nov 27, 2:16 pm, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 19:12:43 +0000, Raveninghorde

raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

SNIP

More rats jumping ship.

Alarmist Andrew Revkin of the New York Times:

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/27/a-climate-scientist-on-c...

A long blog but includes a bit from Mike Hulme of University of East
Anglia (home of leaked emails).

/quotes

The key lesson to be learned is that not only must scientific
knowledge about climate change be publicly owned — the I.P.C.C. does a
fairly good job of this according to its own terms — but the very
practices of scientific enquiry must also be publicly owned, in the
sense of being open and trusted. From outside, and even to the
neutral, the attitudes revealed in the emails do not look good. To
those with bigger axes to grind it is just what they wanted to find.

The tribalism that some of the leaked emails display is something more
usually associated with social organization within primitive cultures;
it is not attractive when we find it at work inside science.

It is also possible that the institutional innovation that has been
the I.P.C.C. has run its course. Yes, there will be an AR5 but for
what purpose? The I.P.C.C. itself, through its structural tendency to
politicize climate change science, has perhaps helped to foster a more
authoritarian and exclusive form of knowledge production - just at a
time when a globalizing and wired cosmopolitan culture is demanding of
science something much more open and inclusive.

/end quotes

This is fairly sensible stuff, if a little unrealistic.

The denialism industry - which is distinct from climate sceptiicism -
does quite a lot to foster the "tribalism" that Mike Hulme complains
about.

http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf

Unfortuately, if you look at the way top-level science is organised
you get to realise that the top of any speciality is a tribe-sized
group - around 150 people who know one another and trust one another.
This isn't somethig that is dictated by the organisations involved, it
is a consequence of the fact that human beings have spent most of
their evolutionary history in tribe-sized groups, and collaborate most
effectively when organised into groups of this size.

When a specialty gets too big or too successful, it splits into sub-
specialities that can be run by tribe-szed groups.

The behaviour within such groups is tribal because they - for all
practical purposes - tribes and that is the way that tribes work best.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Jon Kirwan]

On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 10:43:33 -0800, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

Jon Kirwan wrote:
On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 09:03:28 -0800, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

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

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.

Ahm, the glacier north of us on Mt.Shasta is growing ...

Maybe it hasn't heard of AGW and someone should tell it

Joerg, you should know better than to be this highly selective in what
you consider a good argument. Read this USA Today article from a year
and a half ago more closely:

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/environment/2008-07-08-mt-shasta-growing-glaciers_N.htm

Only problem is that the proof doesn't seem to be in the pudding:

http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMONtpre.pl?ca5983

Did you read through at least half the article I mentioned above?

They should know better than to publish something like this without
_showing_ the underlaying statistics

Which publisher, Joerg? The link I mentioned or the link you did?

If you are talking about the USA Today article, my motivation was to
show you that you are being very selective in choosing that isolated
data point.

Just as I might choose a 6-sigma noise-spiked data point to try and
show you a rise when you know darned well the trend of the data was to
fall. You'd rightly point out my mistake.

As I did, yours.

Here in Northern California people look at their water bills, they see
drought rates being charged more and more often. Warmingists predicted
we'd be swamped with precipitation by now. Didn't happen.

Then they look at their heating bills. Amounts of required fuel rising,
for example we went from 2 cords to 4 cords. So it ain't getting warmer.
We would never again buy a house with a pool around here.

This is a middle class neighborhood with a fairly high percentage of
engineers, so you'd normally assume people with a pretty level head.
Nearly all now think that AGW is just one gigantic ruse to raise taxes
in one way or another. Again, this is not me ranting, it's what we hear
from the people. Meaning voters

None of that changes anything about what I said. Climate is averages
and I think you _know_ this.

If you said, "the average voltage, at 1Hz bandwidth, at this node is 4
volts" and I responded by using a high bandwidth tool and pointing out
a 5 nanosecond spike at 8V and said, "no, it's 8V", you'd know I was
being disingenuous. And you'd be right.

If you are interested in access to specific details, you might read:

http://nsidc.org/glims/

However, if scarfing through a database is a pain, an informed summary
of the circumstances of mountain glaciers around the world can be had
from: Cogley, J. G., 2009, "Geodetic and direct mass-balance
measurements: comparison and joint analysis," Annals of Glaciology 50,
96-100. I can get you a copy, if you intend to read it.

The average is remarkably different from your attempt at using an
isolated data point.

Jon

 

[Raveninghorde]

On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 19:12:43 +0000, Raveninghorde
<raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:


SNIP


More rats jumping ship.

Alarmist Andrew Revkin of the New York Times:

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/27/a-climate-scientist-on-climate-skeptics/#more-11377

A long blog but includes a bit from Mike Hulme of University of East
Anglia (home of leaked emails).

/quotes

The key lesson to be learned is that not only must scientific
knowledge about climate change be publicly owned — the I.P.C.C. does a
fairly good job of this according to its own terms — but the very
practices of scientific enquiry must also be publicly owned, in the
sense of being open and trusted. From outside, and even to the
neutral, the attitudes revealed in the emails do not look good. To
those with bigger axes to grind it is just what they wanted to find.

The tribalism that some of the leaked emails display is something more
usually associated with social organization within primitive cultures;
it is not attractive when we find it at work inside science.

It is also possible that the institutional innovation that has been
the I.P.C.C. has run its course. Yes, there will be an AR5 but for
what purpose? The I.P.C.C. itself, through its structural tendency to
politicize climate change science, has perhaps helped to foster a more
authoritarian and exclusive form of knowledge production - just at a
time when a globalizing and wired cosmopolitan culture is demanding of
science something much more open and inclusive.

/end quotes

 

[Jan Panteltje]

Here you go Bill:

Path: news.albasani.net!news.mixmin.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!74.125.46.134.MISMATCH!postnews.google.com!j11g2000vbi.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Last Post <last_post@primus.ca>
Newsgroups: sci.environment,talk.politics.misc,sci.physics,sci.geo.meteorology
Subject: A REMINDER: Scientists respond to Gore's warnings of climate
catastrophe "The Inconvenient Truth" is Indeed Inconvenient to Alarmists
Followup-To: sci.environment, talk.politics.misc, sci.physics,
sci.geo.meteorology
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 13:56:13 -0800 (PST)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 166
Message-ID: <005a9969-d2d7-4bb3-b0c9-2b72ce838d32@j11g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 173.206.238.115
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1259358974 1885 127.0.0.1 (27 Nov 2009 21:56:14 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 21:56:14 +0000 (UTC)
Cc: leonard78sp@primus.ca, ariadnemac@gmail.com, ssnark@gmail.com,
fisherp@rogers.ca
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: j11g2000vbi.googlegroups.com; posting-host=173.206.238.115;
posting-account=tkbCaAoAAAD55MKf-IoIWxoWvhFdEaZI
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X 10.4; en-US;
rv:1.9.1.5) Gecko/20091102 Firefox/3.5.5,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Xref: news.albasani.net sci.environment:256960 talk.politics.misc:3993748 sci.physics:1539029 sci.geo.meteorology:36862
Al Gore, Global warming, Inconvenient Truth

Scientists respond to Gore's warnings of climate catastrophe
"The Inconvenient Truth" is indeed inconvenient to alarmists

By Tom Harris
Monday, June 12, 2006

[Note: When Alarmists post data, all data is torqued
to account for warming in '06 and still today.]

"Scientists have an independent obligation to respect and present the
truth as they see it," Al Gore sensibly asserts in his film "An
Inconvenient Truth", showing at Cumberland 4 Cinemas in Toronto since
Jun 2. With that outlook in mind, what do world climate experts
actually think about the science of his movie?

Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James
Cook University, in Australia gives what, for many Canadians, is a
surprising assessment: "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak
that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his
film, are commanding public attention."

But surely Carter is merely part of what most people regard as a tiny
cadre of "climate change skeptics" who disagree with the "vast
majority of scientists" Gore cites?

No; Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental,
non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the
hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing
significant global climate change. "Climate experts" is the operative
term here. Why? Because what Gore's "majority of scientists" think is
immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in
the climate field.

Even among that fraction, many focus their studies on the impacts of
climate change; biologists, for example, who study everything from
insects to polar bears to poison ivy. "While many are highly skilled
researchers, they generally do not have special knowledge about the
causes of global climate change," explains former University of
Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball. "They usually can tell us
only about the effects of changes in the local environment where they
conduct their studies."

This is highly valuable knowledge, but doesn't make them climate
change cause experts, only climate impact experts.

So we have a smaller fraction.

But it becomes smaller still. Among experts who actually examine the
causes of change on a global scale, many concentrate their research on
designing and enhancing computer models of hypothetical futures.
"These models have been consistently wrong in all their scenarios,"
asserts Ball. "Since modelers concede computer outputs are not
"predictions" but are in fact merely scenarios, they are negligent in
letting policy-makers and the public think they are actually making
forecasts."

We should listen most to scientists who use real data to try to
understand what nature is actually telling us about the causes and
extent of global climate change. In this relatively small community,
there is no consensus, despite what Gore and others would suggest.

Here is a small sample of the side of the debate we almost never hear:

Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable
Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist
Professor Tim Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation
between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time
frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they
are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of
the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years." Patterson
asked the committee, "On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone
still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels
would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"

Patterson concluded his testimony by explaining what his research and
"hundreds of other studies" reveal: on all time scales, there is very
good correlation between Earth's temperature and natural celestial
phenomena such changes in the brightness of the Sun.

Dr. Boris Winterhalter, former marine researcher at the Geological
Survey of Finland and professor in marine geology, University of
Helsinki, takes apart Gore's dramatic display of Antarctic glaciers
collapsing into the sea. "The breaking glacier wall is a normally
occurring phenomenon which is due to the normal advance of a glacier,"
says Winterhalter. "In Antarctica the temperature is low enough to
prohibit melting of the ice front, so if the ice is grounded, it has
to break off in beautiful ice cascades. If the water is deep enough
icebergs will form."

Dr. Wibjorn Karlen, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography
and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden, admits, "Some
small areas in the Antarctic Peninsula have broken up recently, just
like it has done back in time. The temperature in this part of
Antarctica has increased recently, probably because of a small change
in the position of the low pressure systems."

But Karlen clarifies that the 'mass balance' of Antarctica is positive
- more snow is accumulating than melting off. As a result, Ball
explains, there is an increase in the 'calving' of icebergs as the ice
dome of Antarctica is growing and flowing to the oceans. When
Greenland and Antarctica are assessed together, "their mass balance is
considered to possibly increase the sea level by 0.03 mm/year - not
much of an effect," KarlEn concludes.

The Antarctica has survived warm and cold events over millions of
years. A meltdown is simply not a realistic scenario in the
foreseeable future.

Gore tells us in the film, "Starting in 1970, there was a precipitous
drop-off in the amount and extent and thickness of the Arctic ice
cap." This is misleading, according to Ball: "The survey that Gore
cites was a single transect across one part of the Arctic basin in the
month of October during the 1960s when we were in the middle of the
cooling period. The 1990 runs were done in the warmer month of
September, using a wholly different technology."

Karlen explains that a paper published in 2003 by University of Alaska
professor Igor Polyakov shows that, the region of the Arctic where
rising temperature is supposedly endangering polar bears showed
fluctuations since 1940 but no overall temperature rise. "For several
published records it is a decrease for the last 50 years," says Karlen

Dr. Dick Morgan, former advisor to the World Meteorological
Organization and climatology researcher at University of Exeter, U.K.
gives the details, "There has been some decrease in ice thickness in
the Canadian Arctic over the past 30 years but no melt down. The
Canadian Ice Service records show that from 1971-1981 there was
average, to above average, ice thickness. From 1981-1982 there was a
sharp decrease of 15% but there was a quick recovery to average, to
slightly above average, values from 1983-1995. A sharp drop of 30%
occurred again 1996-1998 and since then there has been a steady
increase to reach near normal conditions since 2001."

Concerning Gore's beliefs about worldwide warming, Morgan points out
that, in addition to the cooling in the NW Atlantic, massive areas of
cooling are found in the North and South Pacific Ocean; the whole of
the Amazon Valley; the north coast of South America and the Caribbean;
the eastern Mediterranean, Black Sea, Caucasus and Red Sea; New
Zealand and even the Ganges Valley in India. Morgan explains, "Had the
IPCC used the standard parameter for climate change (the 30 year
average) and used an equal area projection, instead of the Mercator
(which doubled the area of warming in Alaska, Siberia and the
Antarctic Ocean) warming and cooling would have been almost in
balance."

Gore's point that 200 cities and towns in the American West set all
time high temperature records is also misleading according to Dr. Roy
Spencer, Principal Research Scientist at The University of Alabama in
Huntsville. "It is not unusual for some locations, out of the
thousands of cities and towns in the U.S., to set all-time records,"
he says. "The actual data shows that overall, recent temperatures in
the U.S. were not unusual."

Carter does not pull his punches about Gore's activism, "The man is an
embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of
whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda
crusade is mostly based on junk science."

In April sixty of the world's leading experts in the field asked Prime
Minister Harper to order a thorough public review of the science of
climate change, something that has never happened in Canada.
Considering what's at stake - either the end of civilization, if you
believe Gore, or a waste of billions of dollars, if you believe his
opponents - it seems like a reasonable request.