Ping Bil Slowman; The global warming hoax reveiled

[John Fields]

On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 18:06:24 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Nov 28, 4:24 pm, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@My-
Web-Site.com> wrote:
On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 18:19:17 -0600, John Fields





jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 10:44:15 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

On Nov 28, 4:44 am, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.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.

---
I'd certainly keep it from becoming a consensus by showing you up for
the fraud you are.

There you go again. I'm not a fraud, but you are too ignorant and dumb
to get to grips with the evidnece that makes this obvious to the
better equipped.

---
As is typical with frauds, instead of honestly addressing the issues
causing contention, trying to resolve them amicably, and taking your
lumps when you deserve them, you resort to invective in order to try to
silence your critics.

A cowardly practice, at best, and exactly what one would expect of a
"scientist"  who pretends to be clad in shining armor.

This says it best, I think...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ja7cuVh96AI&feature=related

I'm in for a penny and I can afford a pound or two, so let's talk a
little about why you proposed that energy can be extracted from the
magnetic field surrounding a conductor carrying an alternating current
by wrapping a solenoid around it.

Can it be done when the axis of the solenoid is congruent with the axis
of the conductor?  

The ball's in your court and, unlike you, the better equipped of us know
how to speel and  don't write "evidnece"
JF

Most fraudulent scientists are smart enough to slink quietly away when
their fraud is discovered.  Slowman has no such IQ.

Jim Thompson and John Fields both think that I'm a fraud.

---
Actually, Bill, we _know_ you're a fraud.

And we're just the tip of the iceberg, I'm sure, so the longer you keep
on posting to USENET and your posts are examined by more and more
critical eyes and minds, the more obvious the fact that you're a fraud
will become.
---

This is - of course - a devastating blow to my self-esteem, since I've always had
such a high opinion of their judgement, but somehow I guess I'll learn
to live with this public humiliation.

---
You reap what you sow.
---

But I guess I'll stick around until they get around to telling us
which of my hypothetical frauds they have discovered.

This may take a while.

---
Just off the top of my head, the most recent was the power line and
solenoid debacle where you didn't know that you can't extract energy
from an AC power line by wrapping a solenoid around it and then, after
being proven wrong, pretended that you knew it all along.

Then there was the 24 oscillator fiasco where you only admitted you were
wrong by attributing my success in eliminating lockup to luck.

And, need I mention the plethora of damnations you've posted against the
humble 555 being the device of choice for a cheap one-shot or astable in
_any_ circuit you've "designed?"

Yeah, I guess I do.

More to the point though, why are you on this group in the first place?

It's not like you're any good at, or enjoy, circuit design.

If you were we'd have seen a lot more circuit designs from you over the
years but, as it stands, all you're doing is using this group as a
springboard from which you can spew your vitriol and political garbage
over a population which, I'm pretty sure, would rather see you gone if
that's all you have to "offer".

JF

 

[Jon Kirwan]

On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 07:05:59 -0800, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

Jon Kirwan wrote:
On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 09:49:13 -0800, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

Jon Kirwan wrote:

[...]

There is an increased hydrologic cycle. In some cases, precipitation
(in terms of annual averages) may not even change, but the
distribution over the year may.

For example, in my area (which, by the way, is where Andrew Fountain
is .. or was .. located... who is a primary contact regarding Mt.
Shasta's glaciers), the precipitation is remaining similar on an
annual basis, but is shifting away from summer/fall precipitation
(which used to be a near constant complaint I'd hear from California
transplants) and towards winter/spring. Larger annual amplitude,
similar average value. It does have a real impact, though. We will
have to create more summer-time storage to supply the 1.5 million
people who depend upon the glaciers now for their fresh water supply
during late summer. Glaciers, normally quite decently sized here in
Portland and northward, are receding quite rapidly. We've lost almost
50% of the mass balance at Mt. Hood, for example, and expect to see it
reach zero in the late summertime perhaps in 30 years or so if the
current rate remains unchanged. The reasons why these mountains are
losing them faster than some areas is largely understood -- they are
neither insulated by lots of rock, nor highly reflective by being
completely free of rock; instead, they have the right mix of loose
gravel and dirt on them for higher melt rates. We've had a few unique
_slides_ that took out important roadways in the last few years, as
well. (As you can see, I can cherry-pick data, too.

I am not disputing that. As I wrote in my reply to Bill, there are
glaciers in Europe that are going almost totally bare. What the
warmingists don't seem to grasp or sometimes deny tooth and nail is that
this is quite normal.

I don't buy this, at all. Sorry.

Yes, the world has been warmer. Yes, glaciers have been much less in
abundance. Yes, oceans have been much higher. Etc., etc.

None of this means these are directions we want to head. ...

I do, because I do not like winters

hehe. Joerg, I'm Swedish. Transparent skin, freckles, starkly blonde
hair (lightly golden, I'm told), and I develop 2nd degree blisters
after 20 minutes in the LA sun. As you can imagine, I __love__
overcast skies!!! (Which I may still keep a lot of, up here.)

say there isn't an historically unique rate of change in evidence
today. Nor does it say humans aren't having a pervasive impact that
contributes strongly to both the sign (+ or -) and the magnitude of
recent rates.

You are right. But there is also no proof that humans do.

Proof is not to be had in science. It's something you learn to live
with and even embrace with understanding.

You simply are placing yourself against what the current state of
science theory and result says. And that's not a very smart place to
put yourself unless you are in a position to claim a comprehensive
exposure to it. The scientists active in these areas make it their
business.

You've done nothing to convince me that you are in a better position
to be able to say "this is quite normal," Joerg. It may sting a
little to realize that I would take their word over yours. But in
this case, I do. It's as basic as that.

Ok, I accept your opinion. But on the same token I have not been
convinced that this is not normal. I would have hoped that there'd be
some link about that increased hydrologic cycle, like an article from
reputable scientists and none that use "tricks".

I think you must be referring to those letters I recently downloaded
(cripes, that was a lot to wade through) when saying "tricks." I've
used the exact same term in my own work, though. And I think you may
have in yours, as well. And neither of us meant it in a bad way or a
disingenuous one. I use the term, not infrequently, when talking to
other mathematicians about some approach to solving a problem. In
short, I saw nothing particularly sinister on that point. I did find
some aspects of what I read objectionable, though. But none of it
affected my opinion about the broader science conclusions. Just of
people. Oh, well.

I have watched as the science has gone from fits and starts (for
example, with R&S 1971 paper on CO2 and aerosols) and uncertainty
everywhere to a re-alignment and a course that has gradually improved
over time. You probably have NOT (but you may have) have spent as
much time as I have, reading early papers, reading criticisms of them,
seeing how certain initial impressions were challenged, fixed,
rechallenged, etc. I have watched and read. And I've seen the
transitions as new ideas, better quality minds were injected into the
field, and science tools were applied, and watched the overall quality
of the work product improve over time. I've been following all this
since about 1987, when I was first got involved in Dobson meters and
had all manner of science reports tossed at me. I now frequently
write lead researchers, directly, and ask for copies of their work and
some discussions, at times. I don't even waste a moment doing that
when I want to know more, now. And that experience has been generally
good, as well, though not always.

In short, it's not a matter of entirely looking from the sidelines or
entirely just placing my "trust" somewhere. That trust has been
earned by hard work, both on my end and theirs. I am still nothing
more than an amateur, here. And I still interpret science work
product incorrectly because I don't fully grasp all the ideas. And I
get my face slapped, at times, by those scientists who feel a need to
let me know when I mis-state their work product or the overall arch of
some area they are working within. And I have learned the hard way,
by trying my own hand at the physics and deduction to specifics, that
their work (where it is better understood and I have a chance at
taking my own pot-shot at it because I don't need to worry so much
about whether or not it is well-grounded and can find a variety of
sources which agree) is applied appropriately. So it is a little more
than simple acceptance of their authority. I've questioned things at
times when the knowledge was less-certain, gotten the fuller taste of
their opinions at the time, tried my own hand at it, and then watched
over time as the data and experimental results gradually came in over
time... and saw just how well they had informed me at the outset about
not only what they felt they knew, but also what they felt they didn't
know. Their scores, by my measure, were remarkable. So it's been
earned.

Here's some quotes from last week's report:

"Has global warming recently slowed down or paused?

"No. There is no indication in the data of a slowdown or pause in the
human-caused climatic warming trend. The observed global temperature
changes are entirely consistent with the climatic warming trend of
~0.2 °C per decade predicted by IPCC, plus superimposed short-term
variability (see Figure 4). The latter has always been – and will
always be – present in the climate system. Most of these short-term
variations are due to internal oscillations like El Nińo – Southern
Oscillation, solar variability (predominantly the 11-year Schwabe
cycle) and volcanic eruptions (which, like Pinatubo in 1991, can cause
a cooling lasting a few years).

See the first sentence there? It's quite typical in such reports. They
assume they _know_ it's human cause while IMHO they do not.

This is a summary report intended to do a quick paste-up of the most
recent published results. It isn't intended to make the attribution,
itself. That is the purpose of the IPCC's formal process and has
already been well documented via the IPCC AR4 (and the TAR, if you
want to go back that far.) Attribution is a matter of a lot of
different papers, too. And it also develops out of the fact that no
one has been able to successfully provide an alternative theory that
can explain what is now the overwhelming weight of abundant
observation.

If you see correlated noise spikes in some signal node and you also
_know_ that there is a handy, low impedance output clock source
somewhere that just happens to have the same frequency, and no one
else has a good alternative for you... well, you pretty much feel like
you _know_ what the cause is. And, in fact, there is abundant theory
in electronics to tell you, as well, exactly _how_ the one can couple
into the other. Plus, you then have pretty good knowledge about how
to abate the problem, based upon those theories.

Of course, if someone _did_ come up with another viable theory and if
that theory _could_ also explain those noise spikes, then you'd have
to consider that, as well.

If someone (not an electronics engineer, but someone who is a welder,
let's say) just says to you, "well, there is no _proof_ of your theory
about the source of the correlated noise" you'd probably just go and
'fix the problem' with a solution developed out of well-understood
theory and show them that it fixes the problem. In the Earth's case,
we can't do that. It would be nice if we could, because then you'd be
convinced. But sadly, the experiment is ongoing right now and we are
all engaged in arguing about what solution to try and no one is
willing to yet get behind your solution or mine or any one else's. So
we are just stuck, looking on.

In the case of the correlated noise in a circuit and that welder who
isn't convinced (but must be before he will allow you to screw with
his circuit), if you weren't allowed to try your solution just to see,
then you'd still know you were right because you have abundant theory
and experimental result and practice from elsewhere to make you very
certain you know the right answer... but you'd be barred from "proving
it" because that welder (and other welders, janitors, business
managers, and pretty much everyone around the place) won't let you
show them until you prove this specific case.... which you can't,
unless you are allowed to try your hand and show them.

Similar thing. We are in a situation where the science had reached
the point where attribution is unambiguous given the lack of an
alternative (and there is no other viable alternative that explains
observation, right now) and where existing theory does actually
explain it (some of the theory, such as radiation physics, is
extremely well understood both within and without the laboratory
environment and can be fairly easily shown to anyone who cares enough
to work for their own opinion.)

"If one looks at periods of ten years or shorter, such short-term
variations can more than outweigh the anthropogenic global warming
trend. For example, El Nińo events typically come with global-mean
temperature changes of up to 0.2 °C over a few years, and the solar
cycle with warming or cooling of 0.1 °C over five years (Lean and Rind
2008). However, neither El Nińo, nor solar activity or volcanic
eruptions make a significant contribution to longer-term climate
trends. For good reason the IPCC has chosen 25 years as the shortest
trend line they show in the global temperature records, and over this
time period the observed trend agrees very well with the expected
anthropogenic warming.

"Nevertheless global cooling has not occurred even over the past ten
years, contrary to claims promoted by lobby groups and picked up in
some media. In the NASA global temperature data, the past ten 10-year
trends (i.e. 1990-1999, 1991-2000 and so on) have all been between
0.17 and 0.34 °C warming per decade, close to or above the expected
anthropogenic trend, with the most recent one (1999-2008) equal to
0.19 °C per decade. The Hadley Center data most recently show smaller
warming trends (0.11 °C per decade for 1999-2008) primarily due to the
fact that this data set is not fully global but leaves out the Arctic,
which has warmed particularly strongly in recent years.

Better get in line for the coming winter clothes sales

http://www.cobybeck.com/illconsidered/images/hadcrut-jan08.png

[ snipped the IPCC article quote]

Jon, I assume you know by know that I (and a lot of other) don't give
much of a hoot what the IPCC writes. Let alone believe it.

Well, I think that is your political choice to make. As it is,
others. I've been involved both directly (in developing and testing
instrumentation) and indirectly (as a hobbyist looking on from the
outside) for many years now. And I've completely disagreed with the
central thrust of active climate scientists beforehand and was, slowly
over time, forced piecemeal to change my opinion. It's been a long,
hard path for me and it took many years to gradually come around
through hard work and effort __ON MY PART__.

You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make them drink. In the
end, the only way to know yourself is to apply your skills and talents
directly to some aspect or facet and see where it takes you. And I
mean, seriously and fully engage yourself. I've done that. It was
painful and a damn lot of time and effort on my part. Sometimes, I
wish I'd just accepted things and not wasted that time. But I did and
in the process I have earned my thick callouses.

Like playing guitar, you don't get the callouses just standing on the
sidelines and kibitzing about it. Or complaining about the music you
hear. You get the scars and callouses by working out, yourself.
Making it personal and paying the price.

Been there, done that, learned my lessons.

A few thousand years ago they wear also iceless or
nearly iceless, as evidence by the findings of ancient weaponry, shoes,
coins, and the typical litter that unfortunately always happens along
major thoroughfares. They must have lacked an "Adopt-a-Highway" program
back then ;-)

Since they found Roman coins there the last warm period without ice on
the glacier cannot have been be that long ago:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7580294.stm


That aside, some places, due to the increased cycle will experience
increases and some decreases. The total global precipitation will
slightly increase.

From the Copenhagen Diagnosis, recently released:

"Post IPCC AR4 research has also found that rains become
more intense in already-rainy areas as atmospheric water vapor
content increases (Pall et al. 2007; Wentz et al. 2007; Allan
and Soden 2008). These conclusions strengthen those of earlier
studies and are expected from considerations of atmospheric
thermodynamics. However, recent changes have occurred faster
than predicted by some climate models, raising the possibility
that future changes will be more severe than predicted.

"...

"In addition to the increases in heavy precipitation, there have
also been observed increases in drought since the 1970s
(Sheffield and Wood 2008), consistent with the decreases in
mean precipitation over land in some latitude bands that have
been attributed to anthropogenic climate change (Zhang et al.
2007).

"The intensification of the global hydrological cycle with
anthropogenic climate change is expected to lead to further
increases in precipitation extremes, both increases in very
heavy precipitation in wet areas and increases in drought in dry
areas. While precise figures cannot yet be given, current studies
suggest that heavy precipitation rates may increase by 5% - 10%
per °C of warming, similar to the rate of increase of atmospheric
water vapor."


See above: cannot be proven, current studies suggest. All assumptions.

That wasn't it's purpose. It's a summary designed to fold in new
information. You need to go back to the IPCC AR4, in particular
Working Group I's work. And even then, all you get is a summary as
the IPCC AR4 doesn't do the actual observation and theoretical work.
All they do is interpret and summarize the actually work. For the
actual knowledge, you have to go find all the relevant source
materials and read each and every one of them and then sit down and
try your own hand at it.

You are asking a cat to act like a dog. The report (nor any of
climate science) attempts to "prove" anything. But you are totally
wrong to say "all assumptions." That is obviously over-reaching, and
I am pretty sure you know it is, too. Even if you were right on the
broader point (which you aren't), you must know that is going
overboard. (There is no need to make absolute statements to make your
point -- all it shows me is that you feel the need to speak more
loudly, to shout, in order to make your argument seem stronger.)

Proof isn't to be had. You know that. And "it" isn't "all
assumptions" and you know that, too.

On a separate topic, I thought you might be interested in the GLIMS
numbers for the glaciers on Mt. Shasta:

(Unnamed, I think) G237813E41427N 1950-07-01 58849
G237815E41410N 1950-07-01 58850
Konwakiton Glacier G237805E41400N 1950-07-01 58851
Watkins Glacier G237821E41403N 1950-07-01 58852
Whitney Glacier G237787E41415N 1950-07-01 58853
G237804E41420N 1950-07-01 58854
Bolam Glacier G237799E41421N 1950-07-01 58855
G237803E41424N 1950-07-01 58856
G237813E41422N 1950-07-01 58857
Hotlum Glacier G237814E41418N 1950-07-01 58858
G237818E41416N 1950-07-01 58859

You can use those to secure data on those from the GLIMS dataset. Not
that it probably matters. But there it is because I wasted my time
looking for them. Oh, well.
Thanks, but right now I have to first find some inductors for an EMI
case

hehe. Well, I wasted my time already. So there.

All I got there was "view database", didn't go to a database. Then "view
catalog", and only the name of scientists came up. What does it say?
That the Shasta glaciers shrink?

Hehe. I've no idea what it says!! I assume you are right and that it
will show growth. It's just that I wasted my time finding that damned
stuff so I was darned well going to pass it on to someone!!

No pun intended but so far this discussio took the usual route of deviation:

a. Notion that a particular glacier grows.

b. Answer that this is due to increased precipitation.

c. I bring link where the precip data is in there since 1948, such trend
not obvious at all.

d. Deviation to other things, no proof that my assumption "c" is clearly
wrong (and it might be).

The point I was making isn't the above thread of thought. I would
have imagined that you'd have remembered where I went. But it seems
you've lost your way in all these details. My apologies.

My point doesn't depend on whether or not ONE particular glacier is
growing or shrinking or whether or not someone can offer a specific
explanation about it, either way. Climate is averages. You point to
a specific glacier (or set of glaciers) and point out that they are
growing, as though that is meaningful. My point is that an isolated
data point, whether that data point covers 1 year or 30 years, has no
importance whatsoever when discussing 30-year _global_ averages. You
need to be comprehensive in your view. You weren't. That was my
point. End of story.

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
Not the point when talking about averages, is it?

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.
Accepted.

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.
Understood. It is the __attribution__ that you are questioning. In
many cases, it's worth keeping that in view. Not __everything__ in
the world is 100% due to humans.
True. But the question is whether it's 90%, 50%, or maybe only 2%. That
where warmingists are often making shaky assumptions.

Of course that's an important question. It's been answered, to a
sufficient degree to be useful.

I have some serious doubts about that. Especially after the recent email
revelations.

I've read through a lot of them. I find two main issues there that
offend my sensibilities. But they aren't things that in any way
affect my understanding of climate science, itself. No, I'm not going
to go into the details right now. Because it would only be a
distraction into my emotional reactions (and perhaps yours) and that
takes away from a discussion of science theory and observation.

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
Those cases have been addressed in the literature. I've read a few
and felt those I saw were reasoned as well as my ignorance allowed me
to determine and didn't overstate or understate the cases. I can
track down more and we can read them together, if you are interested
in reading more comprehensively on these specifics. At that point,
I'd probably take what you said afterwards as a much more serious
criticism.
Thing is, there's tons and tons of other cases. I mean, guys like old
Oetzi was for sure not doing a glacier hike just for the fun of it. He
was probably hunting on fertile grounds that were ice-free, and then
from what archaeologists have determined killed if not murdered up there.
[...]

In other words, you don't want to spend the time needed to gain a
comprehensive view. I can accept that. But realize what it means as
far as my taking your opinion on any of this.

My feeling here is that climate science is huge. Really huge. No one
masters all of it. But if you can't even be bothered to take a point
you are making -- not something someone else decides to say or write,
but something you decide on your own is true enough that you are
willing to place yourself in a position of making claims about it --
and follow through with even that single thing long enough to find out
where it takes you when you gain a fuller view of even that tiny
corner of things....

All I did is point out some things that happened in the past. Such as
mostly ice free passage ways that existed not too long ago, a few
thousand years, and that existed for a long time. Things that scientists
and also Bill constantly try to brush aside, things that are proven.

I don't think you did point out anything. You need to be
comprehensive in your view, before you can do that. And so far as
I've seen, not only have you not done that but you haven't indicated
to me a willingness to do it in the future, either. I don't know
anything about this, except one or two summaries I've glimpsed. I
know I don't know anything here. And I'm quite willing to walk this
path with you, if you are serious about it. I've no idea where it
would take us. Perhaps we'd wind up exactly where you predict we
would, largely ignorant right now. Perhaps somewhere entirely
different. I don't know. But without supplying our intellects and
hard work, we never will now for ourselves, either. And my point is
that unless and until you (or I) do the work at hand, our opinions on
this subject really aren't worth the electrons with which they are
written.

Well, why should I care, then?

Yeah. It takes work. So what? Spend it, or don't. But if you
don't, even in cases where you feel comfortable talking strongly about
it... then it undermines (to me) what you say. You either care about
your opinion or you don't. And if you don't, why should I? (On this
subject, obviously. On many others, I'm all ears.)

Just like nearly all other people, I have to rely on work by scientists
because I either can't do it, don't want to do it or simply don't have
the time to do it. It is the same in business where micro-management
spells doom. You have to trust others or you go under together with the
whole company. Because you haven't done it all by yourself does not mean
you can't have and voice an opinion.

When looking at the behavior of a substantial number of climate
scientists over the last few years I found lots of red flags. The latest
emails are by far the biggest. IMHO a respectable scientists never ever
thinks that way, let alone write it. I find that highly unprofessional
and it has now thoroughly undermined whatever trust was left for me in
their scientific "evidence". Sorry, but that's the way I see it.

What I do not want is hip-shot actions such as CO2 taxes or dangerous
and untested stuff like CO2 sequestration underneath areas where people
live, all based on science that I now highly question. And believe me, I
am not alone, the number of people around here that believe the IPCC has
dwindled drastically.

What is much more important for me is what each and every one of us is
_personally_ doing to reduce their carbon, smog and other footprints. I
am ready to go to the mat about that at any time.

You and I look at similar things and reach different conclusions. I
will argue that the reason has nothing to do with differences in life
perspectives -- because you and I, I think, have already tested enough
of that and I believe that while we would disagree about some things I
think you and I would agree about a lot more. And I know enough to
trust your intuition, experience, and general background. I believe
that it is because you simply haven't put in enough personal sweat
here. And I think that is all it is.

On the subject of the exchanges, I've read a lot of them myself. And
in a couple of cases, can say that I 'kind of' know the individuals
involved and enough of what was meant. As I wrote, there are two
things that bothered me after going through years of such exchanges.
But none of it affects the actual _work_ I've done or the
understandings I've earned in the process or the opinions of my own
I've changed as I've learned over time. That is all personally my own
sweat and effort and no one can take that away from me -- least of all
two things I find unprofessional in tone, but otherwise not affecting
what I've learned and done. And as I said, I'm not going to divert a
discussion and have to deal with your emotions, my emotions, and the
emotions of others in some free-for-all -- few of whom have actually
spent any significant part of their own life's blood on the subject. I
know what I'd wish a few had had better sense than... but I live with
the good and bad in all of us, so I can take a longer view here.

Jon

 

[John Fields]

On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 18:44:08 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Nov 28, 4:49 am, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 07:12:48 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman

bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
The aim is to educate you to the point where you can save yourself -
there still seems to be quite a way to go.

---
Oh, please...

The all-merciful guru wants to teach the human race to save themselves;
but only if they do it _his_ way.

John Fields seems think that learning to understand the science that
underpins our understanding of anthropogenic global warming is
equivalent to being indoctrinated in some kind of religious cult.

---
Not at all.

It's obvious that if one wants to understand the impact of anthropogenic
global warming on our good earth or if, in fact, anthropogenic global
warming exists and, if it does, is good or bad, one must get into the
nitty-gritty of it all.

The thing that disturbs me about your presentation is that it seems to
be coming, not from Nijmegen, but from Guyana.

JF

 

[John Fields]

On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 21:05:35 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Nov 28, 4:35 am, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 00:43:51 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman

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

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.
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.

---
Seems to me that your accusation that Larkin here regurgitates
propaganda he's picked up elsewhere is PKB.

John, you really don't have to remind us that you can't tell the
difference between peer-reviewed scientific publications and the kind
of rubbish that denialist web-sites spread around. Get yourself a
scientific education and you might be able to do better.

---
Since the "science" of predicting anthropogenic global warming seems to
be bogged down by the tug-of-war between you alarmists and the
denialists, instead of getting emotionally involved in the fray and
dumping a lot of energy into who might and who might not be right, and
because I don't give a shit, I prefer to stand on the sidelines and
just watch the game.

As far as a scientific education goes, I suggest you get the latest
edition of Schaum's Outline Series' "Theory and Problems of College
Physics" and study up on "Electromagnetic Induction", in order to find
out why a solenoid wrapped around a conductor carrying an alternating
current won't extract energy from the varying magnetic field surrounding
the conductor, cheater.

JF

 

[Joerg]

Jon Kirwan wrote:

On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 07:05:59 -0800, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

Jon Kirwan wrote:
On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 09:49:13 -0800, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

Jon Kirwan wrote:
[...]


Yes, the world has been warmer. Yes, glaciers have been much less in
abundance. Yes, oceans have been much higher. Etc., etc.

None of this means these are directions we want to head. ...
I do, because I do not like winters

hehe. Joerg, I'm Swedish. Transparent skin, freckles, starkly blonde
hair (lightly golden, I'm told), and I develop 2nd degree blisters
after 20 minutes in the LA sun. As you can imagine, I __love__
overcast skies!!! (Which I may still keep a lot of, up here.)

Careful. A friend of Swedish descent with similar skin complexion died
from melanoma about three years ago :-(

say there isn't an historically unique rate of change in evidence
today. Nor does it say humans aren't having a pervasive impact that
contributes strongly to both the sign (+ or -) and the magnitude of
recent rates.
You are right. But there is also no proof that humans do.

Proof is not to be had in science. It's something you learn to live
with and even embrace with understanding.

You simply are placing yourself against what the current state of
science theory and result says. And that's not a very smart place to
put yourself unless you are in a position to claim a comprehensive
exposure to it. The scientists active in these areas make it their
business.

You've done nothing to convince me that you are in a better position
to be able to say "this is quite normal," Joerg. It may sting a
little to realize that I would take their word over yours. But in
this case, I do. It's as basic as that.
Ok, I accept your opinion. But on the same token I have not been
convinced that this is not normal. I would have hoped that there'd be
some link about that increased hydrologic cycle, like an article from
reputable scientists and none that use "tricks".

I think you must be referring to those letters I recently downloaded
(cripes, that was a lot to wade through) when saying "tricks." I've
used the exact same term in my own work, though. And I think you may
have in yours, as well. ...

Nope, I haven't. And won't. Don't ever use that word in anything that is
to be submitted to agencies such as FDA or FAA ;-)

... And neither of us meant it in a bad way or a
disingenuous one. I use the term, not infrequently, when talking to
other mathematicians about some approach to solving a problem. In
short, I saw nothing particularly sinister on that point. I did find
some aspects of what I read objectionable, though. But none of it
affected my opinion about the broader science conclusions. Just of
people. Oh, well.

I don't mind the word but in the context it sure sounded like an attempt
to "somehow" paper over the recent cooling trend. Because it doesn't fit
into their grand scheme I guess.

I have watched as the science has gone from fits and starts (for
example, with R&S 1971 paper on CO2 and aerosols) and uncertainty
everywhere to a re-alignment and a course that has gradually improved
over time. You probably have NOT (but you may have) have spent as
much time as I have, reading early papers, reading criticisms of them,
seeing how certain initial impressions were challenged, fixed,
rechallenged, etc. I have watched and read. And I've seen the
transitions as new ideas, better quality minds were injected into the
field, and science tools were applied, and watched the overall quality
of the work product improve over time. I've been following all this
since about 1987, when I was first got involved in Dobson meters and
had all manner of science reports tossed at me. I now frequently
write lead researchers, directly, and ask for copies of their work and
some discussions, at times. I don't even waste a moment doing that
when I want to know more, now. And that experience has been generally
good, as well, though not always.

Mine has not been so good. Upon very polite requests I was at times
basically told to go away. I have published stuff myself and every
single inquiry was answered to the best of what I could do. I consider
that a matter of decency but some scientists nowadays seem not to. This
was back in the 90's when it required much more work, copying, buying
stamps, writing envelopes, trudging down to the mailbox (in Europe they
don't pick up at the house mailboxes). Nowadays all they'd have to do is
send a link.

Anyhow, a refusal to disclose underlying data makes me extremely
suspicious and distrustful of scientific "work".

In short, it's not a matter of entirely looking from the sidelines or
entirely just placing my "trust" somewhere. That trust has been
earned by hard work, both on my end and theirs. I am still nothing
more than an amateur, here. And I still interpret science work
product incorrectly because I don't fully grasp all the ideas. And I
get my face slapped, at times, by those scientists who feel a need to
let me know when I mis-state their work product or the overall arch of
some area they are working within. And I have learned the hard way,
by trying my own hand at the physics and deduction to specifics, that
their work (where it is better understood and I have a chance at
taking my own pot-shot at it because I don't need to worry so much
about whether or not it is well-grounded and can find a variety of
sources which agree) is applied appropriately. So it is a little more
than simple acceptance of their authority. I've questioned things at
times when the knowledge was less-certain, gotten the fuller taste of
their opinions at the time, tried my own hand at it, and then watched
over time as the data and experimental results gradually came in over
time... and saw just how well they had informed me at the outset about
not only what they felt they knew, but also what they felt they didn't
know. Their scores, by my measure, were remarkable. So it's been
earned.

Ok, great that you had such experience. I often didn't. What I do not
like is that people who aren't climate scientists and have not put a lot
of work into it are sometimes brushed aside. I would never ever do that
to a novice or a casual requester. It's against my moral principles.

Here's some quotes from last week's report:

"Has global warming recently slowed down or paused?

"No. There is no indication in the data of a slowdown or pause in the
human-caused climatic warming trend. The observed global temperature
changes are entirely consistent with the climatic warming trend of
~0.2 °C per decade predicted by IPCC, plus superimposed short-term
variability (see Figure 4). The latter has always been – and will
always be – present in the climate system. Most of these short-term
variations are due to internal oscillations like El Nińo – Southern
Oscillation, solar variability (predominantly the 11-year Schwabe
cycle) and volcanic eruptions (which, like Pinatubo in 1991, can cause
a cooling lasting a few years).
See the first sentence there? It's quite typical in such reports. They
assume they _know_ it's human cause while IMHO they do not.

This is a summary report intended to do a quick paste-up of the most
recent published results. It isn't intended to make the attribution,
itself. That is the purpose of the IPCC's formal process and has
already been well documented via the IPCC AR4 (and the TAR, if you
want to go back that far.) Attribution is a matter of a lot of
different papers, too. And it also develops out of the fact that no
one has been able to successfully provide an alternative theory that
can explain what is now the overwhelming weight of abundant
observation.

If you see correlated noise spikes in some signal node and you also
_know_ that there is a handy, low impedance output clock source
somewhere that just happens to have the same frequency, and no one
else has a good alternative for you... well, you pretty much feel like
you _know_ what the cause is. And, in fact, there is abundant theory
in electronics to tell you, as well, exactly _how_ the one can couple
into the other. Plus, you then have pretty good knowledge about how
to abate the problem, based upon those theories.

To say it arrogantly I believe I have a better handle on that noise
stuff than many climate guys on the climate

<ducking>

Of course, if someone _did_ come up with another viable theory and if
that theory _could_ also explain those noise spikes, then you'd have
to consider that, as well.

Exactly. And that (considering others) is one of my points of contention
with IPCC.

If someone (not an electronics engineer, but someone who is a welder,
let's say) just says to you, "well, there is no _proof_ of your theory
about the source of the correlated noise" you'd probably just go and
'fix the problem' with a solution developed out of well-understood
theory and show them that it fixes the problem. In the Earth's case,
we can't do that. It would be nice if we could, because then you'd be
convinced. But sadly, the experiment is ongoing right now and we are
all engaged in arguing about what solution to try and no one is
willing to yet get behind your solution or mine or any one else's. So
we are just stuck, looking on.

Meantime we are missing the boat in so many more important areas. Like
developing safe and efficient nuclear power generation. Everyone wants
electric cars to be the future, wants it carbon-free, and nobody has the
foggiest idea where the juice shall come from. Instead we are pushed
towards wasting our time and energy with carbon credits, taxes and
whatnot. That's what I am squarely against. If we are concerned about
the environment, and I am, then we've got to roll up our sleeves and
find technical solutions for the real issues at hand. Like what our
energy sources will be in the future.

In the case of the correlated noise in a circuit and that welder who
isn't convinced (but must be before he will allow you to screw with
his circuit), if you weren't allowed to try your solution just to see,
then you'd still know you were right because you have abundant theory
and experimental result and practice from elsewhere to make you very
certain you know the right answer... but you'd be barred from "proving
it" because that welder (and other welders, janitors, business
managers, and pretty much everyone around the place) won't let you
show them until you prove this specific case.... which you can't,
unless you are allowed to try your hand and show them.

Similar thing. We are in a situation where the science had reached
the point where attribution is unambiguous given the lack of an
alternative (and there is no other viable alternative that explains
observation, right now) and where existing theory does actually
explain it (some of the theory, such as radiation physics, is
extremely well understood both within and without the laboratory
environment and can be fairly easily shown to anyone who cares enough
to work for their own opinion.)

We do have alternatives. Nuclear power is just one example but it ain't
ready yet. If we'd only be willing to invest in the research again
instead of imposing some <expletive swallowed> carbon tax that just
feeds yet another fat bureaucracy.

"If one looks at periods of ten years or shorter, such short-term
variations can more than outweigh the anthropogenic global warming
trend. For example, El Nińo events typically come with global-mean
temperature changes of up to 0.2 °C over a few years, and the solar
cycle with warming or cooling of 0.1 °C over five years (Lean and Rind
2008). However, neither El Nińo, nor solar activity or volcanic
eruptions make a significant contribution to longer-term climate
trends. For good reason the IPCC has chosen 25 years as the shortest
trend line they show in the global temperature records, and over this
time period the observed trend agrees very well with the expected
anthropogenic warming.

"Nevertheless global cooling has not occurred even over the past ten
years, contrary to claims promoted by lobby groups and picked up in
some media. In the NASA global temperature data, the past ten 10-year
trends (i.e. 1990-1999, 1991-2000 and so on) have all been between
0.17 and 0.34 °C warming per decade, close to or above the expected
anthropogenic trend, with the most recent one (1999-2008) equal to
0.19 °C per decade. The Hadley Center data most recently show smaller
warming trends (0.11 °C per decade for 1999-2008) primarily due to the
fact that this data set is not fully global but leaves out the Arctic,
which has warmed particularly strongly in recent years.
Better get in line for the coming winter clothes sales

http://www.cobybeck.com/illconsidered/images/hadcrut-jan08.png

[ snipped the IPCC article quote]

Jon, I assume you know by know that I (and a lot of other) don't give
much of a hoot what the IPCC writes. Let alone believe it.

Well, I think that is your political choice to make. As it is,
others. I've been involved both directly (in developing and testing
instrumentation) and indirectly (as a hobbyist looking on from the
outside) for many years now. And I've completely disagreed with the
central thrust of active climate scientists beforehand and was, slowly
over time, forced piecemeal to change my opinion. It's been a long,
hard path for me and it took many years to gradually come around
through hard work and effort __ON MY PART__.

You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make them drink. In the
end, the only way to know yourself is to apply your skills and talents
directly to some aspect or facet and see where it takes you. And I
mean, seriously and fully engage yourself. I've done that. It was
painful and a damn lot of time and effort on my part. Sometimes, I
wish I'd just accepted things and not wasted that time. But I did and
in the process I have earned my thick callouses.

Like playing guitar, you don't get the callouses just standing on the
sidelines and kibitzing about it. Or complaining about the music you
hear. You get the scars and callouses by working out, yourself.
Making it personal and paying the price.

Been there, done that, learned my lessons.

Agree. But nevertheless every one of us has to build their opinion about
it (along with a gazillion other issues) because eventually we'll be
asked to make some decisions. Be that at the ballot box or elsewhere.
And not everyone has the time or intellectual wherewithall to delve deep
into the matter. Therefore, many of us must rely on being fed the
"condensed version". That version must be credible to the people and I
think many climate scientists have done themselves a great disservice by
their behavior, and I don't just mean the recent emails.

[IPCC material snipped]

See above: cannot be proven, current studies suggest. All assumptions.

That wasn't it's purpose. It's a summary designed to fold in new
information. You need to go back to the IPCC AR4, in particular
Working Group I's work. And even then, all you get is a summary as
the IPCC AR4 doesn't do the actual observation and theoretical work.
All they do is interpret and summarize the actually work. For the
actual knowledge, you have to go find all the relevant source
materials and read each and every one of them and then sit down and
try your own hand at it.

You are asking a cat to act like a dog. The report (nor any of
climate science) attempts to "prove" anything. ...

But is was sure written in that style, along the lines "you've got
questions, we've got the answers". While they don't have them.

... But you are totally
wrong to say "all assumptions." That is obviously over-reaching, and
I am pretty sure you know it is, too. Even if you were right on the
broader point (which you aren't), you must know that is going
overboard. (There is no need to make absolute statements to make your
point -- all it shows me is that you feel the need to speak more
loudly, to shout, in order to make your argument seem stronger.)

Proof isn't to be had. You know that. And "it" isn't "all
assumptions" and you know that, too.

There is no proof. But there is clear evidence of some past things, like
the stuff I pointed out. For example, the notion that many glaciers have
been mostly free of ice not too long ago is fact. There is proof. Roman
coins have no ability to "tunnel themselves" through thick ice and land
at just the right spot.

[...]

No pun intended but so far this discussio took the usual route of deviation:

a. Notion that a particular glacier grows.

b. Answer that this is due to increased precipitation.

c. I bring link where the precip data is in there since 1948, such trend
not obvious at all.

d. Deviation to other things, no proof that my assumption "c" is clearly
wrong (and it might be).

The point I was making isn't the above thread of thought. I would
have imagined that you'd have remembered where I went. But it seems
you've lost your way in all these details. My apologies.

I wasn't meaning you but the thought process of many other AGW
prononents including some in this NG.

My point doesn't depend on whether or not ONE particular glacier is
growing or shrinking or whether or not someone can offer a specific
explanation about it, either way. Climate is averages. You point to
a specific glacier (or set of glaciers) and point out that they are
growing, as though that is meaningful. My point is that an isolated
data point, whether that data point covers 1 year or 30 years, has no
importance whatsoever when discussing 30-year _global_ averages. You
need to be comprehensive in your view. You weren't. That was my
point. End of story.

It ain't end of story for me. For example I am not a proponent of simply
papering over the recent cooling trend. That is not just an isolated
event. A trend that obviously has even some bigshot climate scientists
from the AGW party concerned, as evidenced in the leaked emails.

[...]

I have some serious doubts about that. Especially after the recent email
revelations.

I've read through a lot of them. I find two main issues there that
offend my sensibilities. But they aren't things that in any way
affect my understanding of climate science, itself. No, I'm not going
to go into the details right now. Because it would only be a
distraction into my emotional reactions (and perhaps yours) and that
takes away from a discussion of science theory and observation.

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
Those cases have been addressed in the literature. I've read a few
and felt those I saw were reasoned as well as my ignorance allowed me
to determine and didn't overstate or understate the cases. I can
track down more and we can read them together, if you are interested
in reading more comprehensively on these specifics. At that point,
I'd probably take what you said afterwards as a much more serious
criticism.
Thing is, there's tons and tons of other cases. I mean, guys like old
Oetzi was for sure not doing a glacier hike just for the fun of it. He
was probably hunting on fertile grounds that were ice-free, and then
from what archaeologists have determined killed if not murdered up there.
[...]
In other words, you don't want to spend the time needed to gain a
comprehensive view. I can accept that. But realize what it means as
far as my taking your opinion on any of this.

My feeling here is that climate science is huge. Really huge. No one
masters all of it. But if you can't even be bothered to take a point
you are making -- not something someone else decides to say or write,
but something you decide on your own is true enough that you are
willing to place yourself in a position of making claims about it --
and follow through with even that single thing long enough to find out
where it takes you when you gain a fuller view of even that tiny
corner of things....
All I did is point out some things that happened in the past. Such as
mostly ice free passage ways that existed not too long ago, a few
thousand years, and that existed for a long time. Things that scientists
and also Bill constantly try to brush aside, things that are proven.

I don't think you did point out anything. You need to be
comprehensive in your view, before you can do that. ...

I believe the findings by the Swiss at Schnidljoch were pretty powerful.
If you don't think so, ok, then we differ in opinion here.

... And so far as
I've seen, not only have you not done that but you haven't indicated
to me a willingness to do it in the future, either. I don't know
anything about this, except one or two summaries I've glimpsed. I
know I don't know anything here. And I'm quite willing to walk this
path with you, if you are serious about it. I've no idea where it
would take us. Perhaps we'd wind up exactly where you predict we
would, largely ignorant right now. Perhaps somewhere entirely
different. I don't know. But without supplying our intellects and
hard work, we never will now for ourselves, either. And my point is
that unless and until you (or I) do the work at hand, our opinions on
this subject really aren't worth the electrons with which they are
written.

But I believe the skepticisim towards some conclusions is worth it,
because they may be premature. That's my whole point.

Well, why should I care, then?

Yeah. It takes work. So what? Spend it, or don't. But if you
don't, even in cases where you feel comfortable talking strongly about
it... then it undermines (to me) what you say. You either care about
your opinion or you don't. And if you don't, why should I? (On this
subject, obviously. On many others, I'm all ears.)
Just like nearly all other people, I have to rely on work by scientists
because I either can't do it, don't want to do it or simply don't have
the time to do it. It is the same in business where micro-management
spells doom. You have to trust others or you go under together with the
whole company. Because you haven't done it all by yourself does not mean
you can't have and voice an opinion.

When looking at the behavior of a substantial number of climate
scientists over the last few years I found lots of red flags. The latest
emails are by far the biggest. IMHO a respectable scientists never ever
thinks that way, let alone write it. I find that highly unprofessional
and it has now thoroughly undermined whatever trust was left for me in
their scientific "evidence". Sorry, but that's the way I see it.

What I do not want is hip-shot actions such as CO2 taxes or dangerous
and untested stuff like CO2 sequestration underneath areas where people
live, all based on science that I now highly question. And believe me, I
am not alone, the number of people around here that believe the IPCC has
dwindled drastically.

What is much more important for me is what each and every one of us is
_personally_ doing to reduce their carbon, smog and other footprints. I
am ready to go to the mat about that at any time.

You and I look at similar things and reach different conclusions. I
will argue that the reason has nothing to do with differences in life
perspectives -- because you and I, I think, have already tested enough
of that and I believe that while we would disagree about some things I
think you and I would agree about a lot more. And I know enough to
trust your intuition, experience, and general background. I believe
that it is because you simply haven't put in enough personal sweat
here. And I think that is all it is.

That's where we differ a bit and I think that's ok. My position is that
it is not always necessary to put tons of sweat into an issue to develop
an opinion on it. There are only about 700,000 hours in the average
person's life and that's a limit. Sometimes we must trust experts. To me
that trust is very important.

On the subject of the exchanges, I've read a lot of them myself. And
in a couple of cases, can say that I 'kind of' know the individuals
involved and enough of what was meant. As I wrote, there are two
things that bothered me after going through years of such exchanges.
But none of it affects the actual _work_ I've done or the
understandings I've earned in the process or the opinions of my own
I've changed as I've learned over time. That is all personally my own
sweat and effort and no one can take that away from me -- least of all
two things I find unprofessional in tone, but otherwise not affecting
what I've learned and done. And as I said, I'm not going to divert a
discussion and have to deal with your emotions, my emotions, and the
emotions of others in some free-for-all -- few of whom have actually
spent any significant part of their own life's blood on the subject. I
know what I'd wish a few had had better sense than... but I live with
the good and bad in all of us, so I can take a longer view here.

Good points.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

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

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Nov 26, 3:53 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On a sunny day (Thu, 26 Nov 2009 15:18:18 -0800 (PST)) it happenedBill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote in
c32889da-14b3-40f6-8ab0-0a6519317...@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>:

On Nov 26, 7:35 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On a sunny day (Thu, 26 Nov 2009 10:07:13 -0800 (PST)) it happenedBill Sl> >oman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote in
6e3552a1-ae05-4a2c-835f-9f245f6d0...@m25g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>:

<snipped a long intersaction that didn't strike me as having any
religion in it>

I am so sorry, SO SORRY SOOOOOOOOOO I did not realize that this is your *religion*.

Would you like to identify the particular element of text that brought
on this epiphany?

Ron L. Hubbard made a lot of money out of religion, and science isn't
paying me too well at the moment.

I do not argue religious beliefs with people, it is not possible.

You don't argue at all as far as I can see - just reiterate your silly
ideas. The concept of evidence seems to have passed you by.
Incidentally, I've just checked out the GroenLinks web-site

http://groenlinks.nl/

and it doesn't seem to contain an reference to moving us all into
unheated grass huts. Did you have some other greenies in mind, or was
that piece of information delivered to you by personal revelation?

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Nov 29, 10:41 am, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com>
wrote:

On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 08:27:20 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman

bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Nov 29, 5:53 am, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 17:55:50 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman

bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Nov 28, 3:58 am, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 00:38:11 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman

bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Nov 27, 2:44 am, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 15:18:18 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman

bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Nov 26, 7:35 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On a sunny day (Thu, 26 Nov 2009 10:07:13 -0800 (PST)) it happenedBill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote in
6e3552a1-ae05-4a2c-835f-9f245f6d0...@m25g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>:

Without the [fossile] energy companies there would be no media, no energy> >> >> >> >> >,
as your car does not run on electricity (yet).
Without those machines, used to build cities, roads, transport goods, the> >> >> >> >> >re would be no civilisation
and not even internet, and no printing material, no paper, some paper man> >> >> >> >> >ufacturers have their own power plants.

And if we keep on digging up fossil carbon and burning it, all these
nice things will go away again.

Been there.
Now wake up from your green dreams.

An ironic appeal, since it comes from someone who clearly doesn't know
what he is talking about.

mm, why do you say that of everybody except your comic book scientists?

I don't say it about everybody, but there are a number of people who
post here on subjects that they know very little about, and they quite
often post total nonsense.

---
Like about being able to extract energy from a varying magnetic field
surrounding a conductor by wrapping a solenoid around the conductor?

Joel Koltner was making a joke. The smiley should have told you that.

---
He wasn't making a joke, he was being humorous in his presentation, you
wretch.

But, whether he was making a joke or not is immaterial, since I _proved_
my point by experimentation and presented the data and method for anyone
who cared to replicate the experiment to do so.

Few people are so lacking in a sense of proportion that they'd bother..

You really are no scientist are you?

And I'd suddenly become a "scientist" if I started wasting my time on
experiments that told me nothing I didn't already know, about a
subject in which I wasn't interested?

---
At this point, what with the deceit you practice ...

The deceit I practice? Perhaps you'd like to identify a specific
deceit. I've certainly told you things that you don't believe, but it
would have been deceitful to tell you what you wanted to hear.

<snipped the rest, whatever it was>

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Nov 29, 11:24 am, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On a sunny day (Sun, 29 Nov 2009 10:32:54 -0800 (PST)) it happenedBill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote in
4f60819e-9ee3-4ec2-8e4e-2068d5c3a...@c34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>:

And I have learned other languages - French, German, and a little
Russian. I've never used any of them enough to be truly fluent, and
learning Dutch compleltely destroyed my capacity to speak German,
though I now understand it a bit better than I used to.

Now all you need is to understand climate cycles a bit better.

This is pretty much my understanding of the climate cycles up to now

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

Since our injecting loads of CO2 into the atmosphere - enough to cause
enough heating already to substatially decrease the ice-cover within
the Arctic Circle - seems to be over-riding the positive feedbacks
that amplifed the the small forcing from the Milankovitch Effect
enough to let it explain the ice age to interglacial oscillation, this
is of strictly historical interest.

I can't really see the necessity to understand something that isn't
happening any more.

Idiot conservatives do keep on acting as if the world hasn't changed
right up to the moment that the change overwhelms them, so it probably
wouldn't be a good idea to acquire you "understanding" of natural
cycles, or your total ignorance of the physics that drove them.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Nov 27, 9:38 am, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Nov 27, 6:44 am, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:





On a sunny day (Fri, 27 Nov 2009 01:33:39 -0800 (PST)) it happenedBill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote in
c66059e5-cc29-4007-8344-3abc11935...@d10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>:

Jan's point - in context - is that Exxon-Mobil should get a free pass
to continue to extract and burn fossil carbon because it's
predecessors helped to set up the infra-structure that currently
sustains us, but will evnetually bring us down if we keep on burning
fossil carbon at the current rate.

That is not accurate, for the nth time I stated many times we should move towards nuclear power.
But it will not be anytime soon nuke power can replace all our energy sources, so Exxon & friends
will be with us for a long time with oil.

It would be nice if you did not start every post with "You know nothing I know everything',
although that is your religion, no need to push that on anyone OK?

I understood you perfectly Jan, if it makes you feel any better.  A
few others didn't, but I guess that's just a hazard of internet and
text postings.

James Arthur also posts total nonsense, even if he is more pretentious
about it. One can understand his fellow-feeling for Jan.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Nov 29, 12:31 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com>
wrote:

On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 11:00:30 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman





bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Nov 29, 5:10 am, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On a sunny day (Sat, 28 Nov 2009 21:05:35 -0800 (PST)) it happenedBill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote in
dc44176d-0d2d-43b4-b9b5-a498b93c3...@e27g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>:

John, you really don't have to remind us that you can't tell the
difference between peer-reviewed scientific publications and the kind
of rubbish that denialist web-sites spread around. Get yourself a
scientific education and you might be able to do better.

I will take John's understanding of science anytime over yours.

Sure. We've noticed. What you may not have noticed is that his set of
silly ideas doesn't have all that much in common with your set of
silly ideas.

People who understand science do have the advantage of defending the
same coherent set of ideas.

---
I'm sure that Jan and the rest of us here who actually _do_ science
defend the coherent set of ideas which includes experimentation as part
of the scientific method.

You, on the other hand, seem to pooh-pooh it as an unnecessary exercise
best left to churls and pretend to practice science by mounting endless
tirades where nothing matters but _your_ opinion.

I think you are confusing experimentation - which involves findng out
something you don't know already - and theatrical gestures.

You need to find a more gullible audience.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Nov 29, 2:28 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 21:05:35 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman





bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Nov 28, 4:35 am, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 00:43:51 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman

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

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.
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.

---
Seems to me that your accusation that Larkin here regurgitates
propaganda he's picked up elsewhere is PKB.

John, you really don't have to remind us that you can't tell the
difference between peer-reviewed scientific publications and the kind
of rubbish that denialist web-sites spread around. Get yourself a
scientific education and you might be able to do better.

---
Since the "science" of predicting anthropogenic global warming seems to
be bogged down by the tug-of-war between you alarmists and the
denialists, instead of getting emotionally involved in the fray and
dumping a lot of energy into who might and who might not be right, and
because I don't give a shit,  I prefer to stand on the sidelines and
just watch the game.

The denialists are not doing science or prediction, just working the
creationist trick of pulling scientific papers out of context and
using them to claim uncertainty where none actually exists. By calling
the scientific concenus "alarmists" you make it clear that you don't
understand this fairly unsubtle distinction. This isn't altogether
surprising. Since you don't exactly keep up to date in electronics, it
would be really surprising if you followed "Physics Today" or read
"Scientific American" .

<snipped John Fields flogging a dead straw man>

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Joerg]

Bill Sloman wrote:

On Nov 29, 9:21 am, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Bill Slomanwrote:
On Nov 24, 6:03 pm, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Bill Slomanwrote:
On Nov 24, 3:28 am, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Bill Slomanwrote:
On Nov 22, 11:04 pm, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Bill Slomanwrote:
On Nov 22, 5:14 am, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 18:14:04 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Nov 22, 12:00 am, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
[...]
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/com...
Presumably this kind of evidence is a little too hard to fake.
All one has to do is look at Al Gore, his mansions and all. Living
green. Yeah, right.
He was rich long before he was active against global warming, even
though his book "Earth in the Balance" dates back to 1992.
A preacher that doesn't live by his teachings? We oughta, coulda,
shoulda, but not me?

There you go, thinking that anthropogenic global warming is a
religion, rather than a well-established scientific theory.

It was meant as an example. A pastor who cruises around in a Rolls Royce
and preaches modesty will not find a lot of followers.

Presumably Al Gore has done the rational calculation that says his
energy slurping life-style allows him to persuade more people that
anthropogenic global warming is real than he could reach if he
confined himself to lectuing only to venues that he could reach on a
bicycle, and that his influence on this larger audiece will more than
compensate for the extra CO2 emissions that he has generated in
getting to them.

It makes sense to me.

He needs all these gigantic mansions to "deliver his message"? ROFL! Now
that really takes the cake ...

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?
This is the usual reference
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/sep/20/oilandpetrol.business
which reports the British Royal Society's letter to Exxon-Mobil
So? Quote "In a letter earlier this month to Esso, the UK arm of
ExxonMobil, the Royal Society cites its own survey which found that
ExxonMobil last year distributed $2.9m to 39 groups that the society
says misrepresent the science of climate change"

That is propaganda in my eyes. If the IPCC says that others
"misrepresent" the science that doesn't mean a thing to me anymore. At
least not right now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial
Quote "... sent letters that "attack the UN's panel as 'resistant to
reasonable criticism and dissent and prone to summary conclusions that
are poorly supported by the analytical work'"

Remember the recently leaked emails? If that isn't enough proof of
"resistant to reasonable criticism" of scientists to you then I can't
help you.

If you knew a little bit more about the subject you'd be aware that
the resistance wasn't to "reasonable criticism" but to politically
motivated harassment. The fuss about the recent e-mails is essentially
another steaming heap of denialist propaganda, designed to appeal to
lunatic conspiracy theory fans like Ravinghorde.

Ah yes, critical voices are political harrassment. Where have I heard
that before? No, we really don't want to go there ...

We hear a great deal about how the editor of Climate Research got the
boot for publishing a scandalously bad paper that the denialsists
happen to like. We don't hear that Lindzen was publishing his rather
better, if evnetually falsified, sceptical papers in other journals at
the same time without generating any kind of fuss.

is more comprehensive, and
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/global_warmi...
points to a very comprehensive report by the Union of Concerned
Scientists (UCS).
Ah yes, the usual witch hunt. By a "union of concerned scientists".

The quality is a lot better than "the usual witch hunt". They cite
their sources, and Exxon-Mobil hasn't bothered to try to sue them or
even smear them. You don't seem to have noticed that some of the
people who are now telling you that the case for anthropogenic global
warming isn't as strong as the scientific community claims, were
telling you - a decade or so ago - that smoking wasn't as damaging to
your health as those medical alarmists were telling you back then.

It is all a little transparent when you take the time to look.

I've asked for _proof_ where Exxon _fudged_ science. Sorry, but you did
not deliver that.

I did. You couldn't be bothered to understand it.

Because they were not proof. Not a single speck of evidence in there
where they were caught _fudging_ science. Just the usual propaganda that
less and less people believe.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

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

 

[Malcolm Moore]

On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 13:27:38 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

Malcolm Moore wrote:
dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

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.

No, you don't.

This saga shows you're the proven fuzzy writer.

I think I've been extremely clear. Excruciatingly, tediously,
tiringly so, in this post-mortem.

I understood Jan. You didn't.

Oh dear, the fact you've reached that conclusion reinforces my
original view. Your comprehension abilities are woefully lacking.
Don't bother to explain how you reached that conclusion.

So, if you don't understand me at
least I'm in good company.

Grin. The company of those who post erroneous information about the
status of an author.

Bill stated a fact--a fact unrelated to Jan's point, you contend
below--without explaining what he thought it proved, or how it
related. That's fuzzy writing.

Bill could've said "The fact that France gets 80% of its electrical
power from nuclear plants proves XYZ." That would've been clear
writing.

And you could have just written "Although France gets the majority of
its electricity from nuclear energy, its total energy..." That would
have been clear writing. No need for a "fact check".

That you didn't write clearly (and surely you don't expect others to
use a higher level of clarity than you're prepared to express
yourself) reinforces my original view that you misread Bill's
statement as refering to France's total energy use.

snip


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.

And there we have it.

Stating a new, unrelated fact is not a response, that's talking past
someone. If Bill meant his claim as a related response, it was
wrong. If he meant it as a new, interesting fact, it was non-
responsive.


Bill explains later that he meant it as a response, which is how I
treated it.

Either way, it leaves a misleading notion w.r.t. the extent of
France's independence from fossil fuels

It was only misleading for those who missed the word "electric".

I thought it interesting that even France is so dependent on fossil
fuels. Even more than 82% (of total energy), if they use coal.

So you should have stated that rather than offering a "fact check."

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

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Nov 29, 7:41 pm, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 09:10:51 -0800, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid
wrote:





Bill Slomanwrote:
On Nov 28, 4:25 pm, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Bill Slomanwrote:
On Nov 28, 12:54 pm, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Bill Slomanwrote:
On Nov 27, 5:46 pm, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Bill Slomanwrote:
On Nov 27, 2:17 pm, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Jon Kirwan wrote:
On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 10:43:33 -0800, 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:

And neither the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period were
particularly dramatic temperature excursions. Denialists do claim that
the existence of these small and local excursions proves that the
warming that we are seeing at the moment isn't anthropogenic, but the
logic doesn't really hold up.

To make the argument work you have to claim - and prove - that CO2
isn't a greenhouse gas, or that the measured concentrations in the
atmosphere aren't higher than they have been for 650,000 years (as
recorded in the ice core data) and probably for the last 20 million
years (if you trust the geological data).

No, warmingists have to prove that CO2 _is_ causing trouble for us.

The human cost of serious CO2 reduction would be immense, especially
in the poorest countries. Climate researchers have an overpowering
moral obligation to be honest and keep an open mind.

The poorest countries don't burn enough fossil carbon that serious CO2
reduction would involve them, and the human costs of not reducing our
CO2 are also very likely to be immense, especially in poorer
countries, which are already having trouble growing enough food to
feed their people.

Climate researchers are entirely aware of their obligations to be
honest and keep and open mind - particularly when they are all aware
that if they did find a convincing alternative explanation for the
last century's worth of of global warming, they'd become media stars
and be catapulted to the top of their profession.

The denialist web-sites that you seem to patronise are under no such
obligation to be honest, and they'd lose their subsidies if they
admitted that the scientific case for anthropogenic global warming was
actually rather solid - as it is.

And don't take James Arthur's word for it - he has now twice
demonstrated that he doesn't know what he is talking about, despite
his claims of high-placed friends in climatological circles and
intimate acquaintance with their computer code.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Nov 29, 3:52 am, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 18:05:57 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Nov 28, 1:40 pm,Bill Sloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
Ravinghorde and his fellow conspiracy theorists want to see this as
the scandalous ejection of an editor who was brave enough to publish a
dissenting paper, but they can't be bothered to produce the paper and
explain why it provoked such an intense response when the people who
published Lindzen's dissenting papers have got off scot-free.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

This (above) is why many serious scientists dare not voice contrary
opinions--they'd get lynched, and they know it.

This is one more of James Arthur's fatuous opinions. There are
sceptcal senior scientists around - albeit not many of them, and their
sceptical papers regularly get falsified - but they aren't being
lynched.

One of the requisites of a serious scientist is guts. In fact, bravery
is fundamental to a lot of important activities.

Very possibly. But nobody has produced any evidence to show that any
climate scientist has actually been intimidated. It is frequently
claimed by the denialist propaganda machine, who have to find some
way of explaining why the vast majority of climate scientists regard
anthropogenic global warming as a well-established theory, but they
have yet to find a convincing example of actual intimidation.

Lindzen did claim that Hendrik Tennekes was fired from his job as the
head of Royal Dutch Meteorological Institute because of his sceptical
views, but in fact he retired at 65 - he might have been able to
continue working if he been working for an American or Australian
institution, but the Dutch are still depressingly age-ist.

Brave people are able to think, because fear doesn't distort their
perceptions or reasoning. And brave people make the best partners in
most any activity, because you can never trust a coward.

Inspiring stuff, if totally irrelevant.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Jon Kirwan]

On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 16:12:56 -0800, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

Jon Kirwan wrote:
On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 07:05:59 -0800, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

Jon Kirwan wrote:
On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 09:49:13 -0800, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

Jon Kirwan wrote:
[...]

Yes, the world has been warmer. Yes, glaciers have been much less in
abundance. Yes, oceans have been much higher. Etc., etc.

None of this means these are directions we want to head. ...
I do, because I do not like winters

hehe. Joerg, I'm Swedish. Transparent skin, freckles, starkly blonde
hair (lightly golden, I'm told), and I develop 2nd degree blisters
after 20 minutes in the LA sun. As you can imagine, I __love__
overcast skies!!! (Which I may still keep a lot of, up here.)

Careful. A friend of Swedish descent with similar skin complexion died
from melanoma about three years ago :-(

I'm careful. I don't take chances. I spend time outside at latitude
45N or northward (or nighttime!)

Speaking of which, my most energetic time ... the moments outside when
I'm at my peak and absolutely loving it is when there is a deep layer
of snow (three feet or more) and ice about and it's a semi-clear night
with just a few clouds and some brisk winds blowing about, with
ambients from about -5C to +4C. I consider 4C to be t-shirt weather
and often go outside with shorts and t-shirt at those times.

I'm basically "at home" with snow and ice. It's my element.

say there isn't an historically unique rate of change in evidence
today. Nor does it say humans aren't having a pervasive impact that
contributes strongly to both the sign (+ or -) and the magnitude of
recent rates.
You are right. But there is also no proof that humans do.

Proof is not to be had in science. It's something you learn to live
with and even embrace with understanding.

You simply are placing yourself against what the current state of
science theory and result says. And that's not a very smart place to
put yourself unless you are in a position to claim a comprehensive
exposure to it. The scientists active in these areas make it their
business.

You've done nothing to convince me that you are in a better position
to be able to say "this is quite normal," Joerg. It may sting a
little to realize that I would take their word over yours. But in
this case, I do. It's as basic as that.
Ok, I accept your opinion. But on the same token I have not been
convinced that this is not normal. I would have hoped that there'd be
some link about that increased hydrologic cycle, like an article from
reputable scientists and none that use "tricks".

I think you must be referring to those letters I recently downloaded
(cripes, that was a lot to wade through) when saying "tricks." I've
used the exact same term in my own work, though. And I think you may
have in yours, as well. ...

Nope, I haven't. And won't. Don't ever use that word in anything that is
to be submitted to agencies such as FDA or FAA ;-)

hehe. Well, I think these letters were private, as well. I use such
lingo all the time with folks I know well and personally trust. If
some of my private emails to companies were released, there are some
I'd definitely wish were better expressed.

... And neither of us meant it in a bad way or a
disingenuous one. I use the term, not infrequently, when talking to
other mathematicians about some approach to solving a problem. In
short, I saw nothing particularly sinister on that point. I did find
some aspects of what I read objectionable, though. But none of it
affected my opinion about the broader science conclusions. Just of
people. Oh, well.

I don't mind the word but in the context it sure sounded like an attempt
to "somehow" paper over the recent cooling trend. Because it doesn't fit
into their grand scheme I guess.

I read the same text (well, I don't really know that... did you read
the emails in their fuller context or did you read someone else's
"selection" of them?) And as I said, there were two things that
bothered me. But none of it changed the attribution of 'recent'
climate forcing, in my view.

You mention "sounded like," above. I really don't want to get into
the details for reasons I've already stated, but I would just like to
suggest that 'sounds-like' does not mean 'is.' You may feel there is
a strong argument in there. I don't, after having read a lot of it.

I think the only way to find out about their motivation is to ask them
about it. And you've already said as much as the fact that you
wouldn't trust their responses to such questions. So that pretty much
leaves this discussion at a stand-still.

I have watched as the science has gone from fits and starts (for
example, with R&S 1971 paper on CO2 and aerosols) and uncertainty
everywhere to a re-alignment and a course that has gradually improved
over time. You probably have NOT (but you may have) have spent as
much time as I have, reading early papers, reading criticisms of them,
seeing how certain initial impressions were challenged, fixed,
rechallenged, etc. I have watched and read. And I've seen the
transitions as new ideas, better quality minds were injected into the
field, and science tools were applied, and watched the overall quality
of the work product improve over time. I've been following all this
since about 1987, when I was first got involved in Dobson meters and
had all manner of science reports tossed at me. I now frequently
write lead researchers, directly, and ask for copies of their work and
some discussions, at times. I don't even waste a moment doing that
when I want to know more, now. And that experience has been generally
good, as well, though not always.

Mine has not been so good. Upon very polite requests I was at times
basically told to go away. I have published stuff myself and every
single inquiry was answered to the best of what I could do. I consider
that a matter of decency but some scientists nowadays seem not to. This
was back in the 90's when it required much more work, copying, buying
stamps, writing envelopes, trudging down to the mailbox (in Europe they
don't pick up at the house mailboxes). Nowadays all they'd have to do is
send a link.

I find that surprising. I'd have to read your exchanges, though.

Hmm, would you like to make _them_ public, just as this recent
disclosure seems to have done for others? (Do you feel confident
enough about your communications here that they could survive my
scrutiny in this public forum? Or would you feel a lot like some of
these scientists may?) Just teasing, really.

But I have to say that the worst I've experienced from a scientist is
being ignored. And many of the papers have multiple authors, so I'm
always able to secure papers I want without paying for them. Also, I
can get the conversations I want.. just not always _when_ I'd like
them. An example I remember well was a case where the scientist had
been off in Japan for a month and I felt ignored. But when he got
back, I got a phone call and we talked for a while -- both about his
trip and what he felt was brewing as a result, as well as what I'd
originally been asking after.

I simply lack an explanation for your experiences, given mine.

Anyhow, a refusal to disclose underlying data makes me extremely
suspicious and distrustful of scientific "work".

In general, there is no profit for a science team to duplicate work.
If they duplicate the work and get the same or similar results from
it, they've merely stared at their belly buttons and wasted a lot of
money in the process. If they duplicate the work and find an error,
then a correction is made and science moves on. But the team doesn't
really get much credit for it. It reflects more upon the team that
made the error. The ones finding it merely did a 'clean up' job that
shows they can follow procedure like they should be able to and really
doesn't reflect on their creativity and ability to "do science." So
again, they wasted their time even if they helped fix an error that
someone else should have caught.

An example of this later case is the artifact of the diurnal
correction that had been incorrectly applied to MSU T2LT raw data by
Roy Spencer and John Christy. For years, scientists outside this
inner circle had been "clubbed" by the University of Alabama's results
that conflicted with pretty much every other approach by teams all
over the world. Both Spencer and Christy were repeatedly asked to go
back through their methodology to see if they could find an error.
Over and over, they insisted they didn't need to do that. Finally,
Carl Mears and Frank Wentz apparently got sick and tired enough with
the continuing conflict that they decided to waste their own precious
time to duplicate the efforts by Spencer and Christy. That effort, by
all rights, should have been Spencer and Christy's efforts. But since
they weren't taking action, if finally all came to a head. In any
case, Mears and Wentz went through all the trouble to secure the data
sets and then attempt to duplicate the processing. In the end, they
discovered an error in the diurnal correction used by the Alabama
team. Once shown their error -- and it took them four or five months
to admit it -- they publicly made corrections to their processing and
republished old data which then, while on the lower end of the
spectrum, was "within" the range of error of the results of other work
long since published. At that point, though, Spencer and Christy's
work had been tarnished and Remote Sensing Systems began publishing
their own analysis in parallel. It happens. But there isn't much
credit given for this. Just credit taken away.

Most scientists want to find creative new approaches to answering
questions that will confirm or disconfirm the work of others -- not
duplicate the exact same steps. Or they want to solve new problems.
That illustrates creativity and leads to a reputation. Novelty is
important.

_Methods_ and _results_ are disclosed, though. But software programs
and interim data aren't that important. If you are going to attempt
replication (and sometimes you do want to, as mentioned), you want to
do it with a "fresh eye" to the problem so that you actually have a
chance to cross-check results. You need to walk a similar path, of
course. To do that, you want to know the methodology used. And of
course you need the results to check outcomes in the end. That's all
anyone really needs.

If you are creative enough to take a different approach entirely in
answering the questions, then you don't even need that.

The methods and sources used are an important trail to leave. And
they leave that much, consistently. Beyond that, it's really just too
many cooks in the kitchen. If you can't dispute or replicate knowing
methods and sources, then perhaps you shouldn't be in the business at
all.

When you say "underlying data," I haven't yet encountered a case where
I was prevented access if I were able to show that I could actually
understand their methods and apply the data, appropriately. That's
rare, in my case, of course. But in the few cases where I've asked, I
have either been provided sources for the data (without question) or
else, when asked, it was clearly not with an eye to block my access
but really to ascertain whether or not I was able to understand it. It
takes time to explain things and they have a right to weigh if it is
worth their time and effort trying to educate every tom, dick, and
harry that comes by their way. But I can't recall ever being denied
something that I actually wanted. Perhaps, because I know my
limitations and don't ask for something I'm not prepared to use (or
learn about before asking for it.)

Not in my experience.

If you want to point out the specific letter that bothers you (quote a
significant sentence or two so I can find it in my saved copies), I'd
be happy to look at the case and see what I think of it. I might even
write and ask about it -- though I won't necessarily expect an answer.
Might get one, though. But I could at least offer my take on it, if I
knew a specific case you were considering.

In short, it's not a matter of entirely looking from the sidelines or
entirely just placing my "trust" somewhere. That trust has been
earned by hard work, both on my end and theirs. I am still nothing
more than an amateur, here. And I still interpret science work
product incorrectly because I don't fully grasp all the ideas. And I
get my face slapped, at times, by those scientists who feel a need to
let me know when I mis-state their work product or the overall arch of
some area they are working within. And I have learned the hard way,
by trying my own hand at the physics and deduction to specifics, that
their work (where it is better understood and I have a chance at
taking my own pot-shot at it because I don't need to worry so much
about whether or not it is well-grounded and can find a variety of
sources which agree) is applied appropriately. So it is a little more
than simple acceptance of their authority. I've questioned things at
times when the knowledge was less-certain, gotten the fuller taste of
their opinions at the time, tried my own hand at it, and then watched
over time as the data and experimental results gradually came in over
time... and saw just how well they had informed me at the outset about
not only what they felt they knew, but also what they felt they didn't
know. Their scores, by my measure, were remarkable. So it's been
earned.

Ok, great that you had such experience. I often didn't. What I do not
like is that people who aren't climate scientists and have not put a lot
of work into it are sometimes brushed aside. I would never ever do that
to a novice or a casual requester. It's against my moral principles.

I think one most sensible people distinguish when to spend their time
and when not to. You do that. So do I. Some people writing in this
group (and other groups) are both ignorant AND willfully so AND where
it is clear they won't spend their own time "getting better." If you
decide that is the case, you don't write. Why should you? We all
have better things to do. On the other hand, if you have a serious
inquiry from someone who _is_ ignorant but at least shows some earlier
work -- even if that effort was in the wrong direction, it was engaged
seriously -- then you may feel better about trying to correct them or
point out some thought of yours that may help them.

Climate science is fraught with well-funded confusion, discord, and
the sewing of far less certainty where there is far more available.
Some scientists are ... wary. They've been caught flat-footed. (I
have been, too.) They might imagine a sincere request, respond in a
fair minded way, and have it cherry-picked and plastered without
context or understanding. At some point, one gets kind of sick and
tired of that, you know?

I do my diligence, first. By reading their recent work and related
materials, for example. When I write to them, I almost always have
something to say that shows them that I've done some work on my own.
That always seems to help a lot. It shows I respect their time by
first spending my own and therefore am obviously not out to just waste
theirs. A dialogue can start from there. But it really helps to not
ask others to spend their time when you haven't spent your own, first.

In a similar way, it helps to know that someone has at least tried to
understand a BJT and maybe even build some things they want to
understand a little better, but don't, when posting a BJT question. If
a poster hasn't ever read a single page of a single book on the
subject, never tried anything, and just jumps in with some completely
random request for "plase expln me how the bjt wroks?" question,
well... yeah.. it's not likely to get anything but suggestions to go
put in some time first (and maybe even learning some English, too.)

Scientists are people.

Here's some quotes from last week's report:

"Has global warming recently slowed down or paused?

"No. There is no indication in the data of a slowdown or pause in the
human-caused climatic warming trend. The observed global temperature
changes are entirely consistent with the climatic warming trend of
~0.2 °C per decade predicted by IPCC, plus superimposed short-term
variability (see Figure 4). The latter has always been – and will
always be – present in the climate system. Most of these short-term
variations are due to internal oscillations like El Nińo – Southern
Oscillation, solar variability (predominantly the 11-year Schwabe
cycle) and volcanic eruptions (which, like Pinatubo in 1991, can cause
a cooling lasting a few years).
See the first sentence there? It's quite typical in such reports. They
assume they _know_ it's human cause while IMHO they do not.

This is a summary report intended to do a quick paste-up of the most
recent published results. It isn't intended to make the attribution,
itself. That is the purpose of the IPCC's formal process and has
already been well documented via the IPCC AR4 (and the TAR, if you
want to go back that far.) Attribution is a matter of a lot of
different papers, too. And it also develops out of the fact that no
one has been able to successfully provide an alternative theory that
can explain what is now the overwhelming weight of abundant
observation.

If you see correlated noise spikes in some signal node and you also
_know_ that there is a handy, low impedance output clock source
somewhere that just happens to have the same frequency, and no one
else has a good alternative for you... well, you pretty much feel like
you _know_ what the cause is. And, in fact, there is abundant theory
in electronics to tell you, as well, exactly _how_ the one can couple
into the other. Plus, you then have pretty good knowledge about how
to abate the problem, based upon those theories.

To say it arrogantly I believe I have a better handle on that noise
stuff than many climate guys on the climate

ducking

Well, between you and me, I bet you do. Climate is _very_ difficult
to master. Science breaks down into two main approaches --
reductionism and large number statistics. Reduction works great on
problems where ignoring small influences leaves a "good enough"
understanding. Statistics work great in large numbers of events. But
for systems with large numbers of highly correlated, but complex
interactions then neither reduction nor statistics work all that well.
Disease flows through populations fit this latter case. There are
well known processes by which disease passes from person to person,
but the processes by which people interact are... difficult to fully
master. Statistics doesn't work nearly as well as you might imagine
because these processes don't fall into nice Poisson events that
integrate into nice gaussian bell shaped distributions. And there are
so many important factors that reductionism is tough going, as well.

For a time, climate science was more like that Gordian Knot. Data was
scarce, theories were available but nowhere near enough of them, etc.
But as time went by, those large-scale important interactions were
gradually teased apart. Today, it's still very difficult work but at
least more tractable than before. I don't want to minimize the
difficulties. But I also don't want to suggest that they haven't been
addressed with hard and largely successful work.

Of course, if someone _did_ come up with another viable theory and if
that theory _could_ also explain those noise spikes, then you'd have
to consider that, as well.

Exactly. And that (considering others) is one of my points of contention
with IPCC.

Well, you can make the point. But you really have no idea because you
haven't put in the work required. So how should I take this 'point'?
It really isn't made until it is made from an informed position.
Otherwise it's just a random shot in the dark.

If someone (not an electronics engineer, but someone who is a welder,
let's say) just says to you, "well, there is no _proof_ of your theory
about the source of the correlated noise" you'd probably just go and
'fix the problem' with a solution developed out of well-understood
theory and show them that it fixes the problem. In the Earth's case,
we can't do that. It would be nice if we could, because then you'd be
convinced. But sadly, the experiment is ongoing right now and we are
all engaged in arguing about what solution to try and no one is
willing to yet get behind your solution or mine or any one else's. So
we are just stuck, looking on.

Meantime we are missing the boat in so many more important areas. Like
developing safe and efficient nuclear power generation. Everyone wants
electric cars to be the future, wants it carbon-free, and nobody has the
foggiest idea where the juice shall come from. Instead we are pushed
towards wasting our time and energy with carbon credits, taxes and
whatnot. That's what I am squarely against. If we are concerned about
the environment, and I am, then we've got to roll up our sleeves and
find technical solutions for the real issues at hand. Like what our
energy sources will be in the future.

Well, I'm not going to argue much here. Nuclear power can be safe --
the problems are mostly with people, not technical ones. A totally
safe reactor (you could use dynamite to blow the control rods out of
it) was demonstrated back in the 1950's. It's old news. But the
politics and profit motives are another thing. I completely agree on
the electric car point you make. On the carbon credit/tax/whatever
issue, I think we are sadly stuck with the politics of power and
capital and I don't know what to do there. We should have a carbon
tax and ALL of the money received from it should go straight back to
the public and NOT into the pockets of politicians and capital. But
the problem is, while we may be able to pass laws here, money and
power will make damned sure their pockets are lined and that everyone
else loses out. And the public will NOT support graft like that. So
until they can find a way to get that back into _our_ pockets and not
relining the pockets of those already lined with gold... I don't think
the public can get behind the idea. Yet everything else will fail to
achieve the needed results. Oh, well. Life (or the lack of it) in
the real world.

The only thing left is to do what you suggest... roll up our sleeves
and work at real issues facing us. I think those nearer the top of
the food chain will keep fighting each other and the rest of us so as
to see who is left in the game of "musical chairs" they are involved
in right now. It's up to us, or not.

In the case of the correlated noise in a circuit and that welder who
isn't convinced (but must be before he will allow you to screw with
his circuit), if you weren't allowed to try your solution just to see,
then you'd still know you were right because you have abundant theory
and experimental result and practice from elsewhere to make you very
certain you know the right answer... but you'd be barred from "proving
it" because that welder (and other welders, janitors, business
managers, and pretty much everyone around the place) won't let you
show them until you prove this specific case.... which you can't,
unless you are allowed to try your hand and show them.

Similar thing. We are in a situation where the science had reached
the point where attribution is unambiguous given the lack of an
alternative (and there is no other viable alternative that explains
observation, right now) and where existing theory does actually
explain it (some of the theory, such as radiation physics, is
extremely well understood both within and without the laboratory
environment and can be fairly easily shown to anyone who cares enough
to work for their own opinion.)

We do have alternatives. Nuclear power is just one example but it ain't
ready yet. If we'd only be willing to invest in the research again
instead of imposing some <expletive swallowed> carbon tax that just
feeds yet another fat bureaucracy.

Hmm. I hadn't read this, earlier. You anticipated my reply and I
anticipated yours, too. As I said, the public won't get behind a
carbon tax that will merely line the pockets of power or capital. So
we agree there.

Nuclear power has a number of very good alternatives, if we can just
get around to fashioning the right people-mechanisms around them. I've
written at some length on these subjects and won't bore you with that
unless you ask. But suffice it that I see the nuclear power problem
as essentially a human one. Solve that and the rest unfolds.
Technical and science knowledge is already there, ready to go. (And
there are human systems that can work... I know of a few... but enough
people with opportunity to move on this simply won't go there because
of some handcuffs that may mean to them, so we collectively remain at
square one.)

"If one looks at periods of ten years or shorter, such short-term
variations can more than outweigh the anthropogenic global warming
trend. For example, El Nińo events typically come with global-mean
temperature changes of up to 0.2 °C over a few years, and the solar
cycle with warming or cooling of 0.1 °C over five years (Lean and Rind
2008). However, neither El Nińo, nor solar activity or volcanic
eruptions make a significant contribution to longer-term climate
trends. For good reason the IPCC has chosen 25 years as the shortest
trend line they show in the global temperature records, and over this
time period the observed trend agrees very well with the expected
anthropogenic warming.

"Nevertheless global cooling has not occurred even over the past ten
years, contrary to claims promoted by lobby groups and picked up in
some media. In the NASA global temperature data, the past ten 10-year
trends (i.e. 1990-1999, 1991-2000 and so on) have all been between
0.17 and 0.34 °C warming per decade, close to or above the expected
anthropogenic trend, with the most recent one (1999-2008) equal to
0.19 °C per decade. The Hadley Center data most recently show smaller
warming trends (0.11 °C per decade for 1999-2008) primarily due to the
fact that this data set is not fully global but leaves out the Arctic,
which has warmed particularly strongly in recent years.
Better get in line for the coming winter clothes sales

http://www.cobybeck.com/illconsidered/images/hadcrut-jan08.png

[ snipped the IPCC article quote]

Jon, I assume you know by know that I (and a lot of other) don't give
much of a hoot what the IPCC writes. Let alone believe it.

Well, I think that is your political choice to make. As it is,
others. I've been involved both directly (in developing and testing
instrumentation) and indirectly (as a hobbyist looking on from the
outside) for many years now. And I've completely disagreed with the
central thrust of active climate scientists beforehand and was, slowly
over time, forced piecemeal to change my opinion. It's been a long,
hard path for me and it took many years to gradually come around
through hard work and effort __ON MY PART__.

You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make them drink. In the
end, the only way to know yourself is to apply your skills and talents
directly to some aspect or facet and see where it takes you. And I
mean, seriously and fully engage yourself. I've done that. It was
painful and a damn lot of time and effort on my part. Sometimes, I
wish I'd just accepted things and not wasted that time. But I did and
in the process I have earned my thick callouses.

Like playing guitar, you don't get the callouses just standing on the
sidelines and kibitzing about it. Or complaining about the music you
hear. You get the scars and callouses by working out, yourself.
Making it personal and paying the price.

Been there, done that, learned my lessons.

Agree. But nevertheless every one of us has to build their opinion about
it (along with a gazillion other issues) because eventually we'll be
asked to make some decisions. Be that at the ballot box or elsewhere.
And not everyone has the time or intellectual wherewithall to delve deep
into the matter. Therefore, many of us must rely on being fed the
"condensed version". That version must be credible to the people and I
think many climate scientists have done themselves a great disservice by
their behavior, and I don't just mean the recent emails.

[IPCC material snipped]

Do you remember watching "China Syndrome?" Jack Lemmon played a
character who _knew_ things cold, but couldn't communicate the
technical issues to a listening public who wasn't ready to understand
them and could only see a "crazy man" talking. Yet he was right. The
problem was that the issues themselves required education and training
to fathom well. And the public couldn't follow.

Suppose, just for argument's sake, that there is a group of people
with a lot of capital at risk and a sincere desire to control the
voting public on an issue.

People respond well to the science of emotional appeal and propaganda.
(In fact, the science is so well refined now that it is sometimes
scary.) Sound bites are easily manufactured and played. Emotional
wedges found and used. Images, not facts, presented.

An example is McDonald's ads. They show happy faces on a beautiful
family, with nary a care in the world between them. Not a word about
the quality of the food, what nutrition is provided, etc. Nothing
technical, at all. No evidence presented. Just pretty images that
convey emotional well-being and goodness. And it works. Well.

Now, for argument's sake, let's say there is a group of scientists who
have a very difficult, very technical subject that taxes the very
state of human science. It's not even easy if you are trained in the
subject to get your mind wrapped around the bulk of it. These
scientists have two choices. They can face the pretty images and nice
platitudes with more of their own and just play out the battle on the
same propaganda battleground and forget wasting any effort on the
facts. Or they can focus on the facts... and lose the audience in the
process. Either way, they lose. They lose the audience if they try
to convey the complex issues, the knowns and unknowns, etc. And in
losing the audience, lose the war. If they choose to go with the
propaganda approach and do the pretty picture and sound bites crap,
they fail because they lose the one advantage they actually OWN....
the science facts in the situation... the one, single thing that
actually separates them from the public fray of every other political
issue. And when they sink to that level, they will get uncovered for
their perfidy. And even if their competition is equally guilty, the
public won't care because the scientists will have lost their respect.

If you haven't gotten it yet, I think almost all of the chips are on
the side of those willing to use all means necessary. The scientists
can't let themselves slide to that level. But in refusing to be just
as bad, just as willing to use any tool that works, they bind their
own feet and give the other side no contest at all.

The only real choice they have is to stay the course and retain the
one thing they have -- science fact. But that means they are running
a race with a gunny sack tied around their feet and the other sides
are having a hay day with that. Oh, well. They can only hope that
they can run the turtle's race and believe that slow and steady will
win. Maybe it will, maybe it won't.

Yes, it is frustrating. And yes, sometimes that frustration reaches
out in letters. Oh, well.

See above: cannot be proven, current studies suggest. All assumptions.

That wasn't it's purpose. It's a summary designed to fold in new
information. You need to go back to the IPCC AR4, in particular
Working Group I's work. And even then, all you get is a summary as
the IPCC AR4 doesn't do the actual observation and theoretical work.
All they do is interpret and summarize the actually work. For the
actual knowledge, you have to go find all the relevant source
materials and read each and every one of them and then sit down and
try your own hand at it.

You are asking a cat to act like a dog. The report (nor any of
climate science) attempts to "prove" anything. ...

But is was sure written in that style, along the lines "you've got
questions, we've got the answers". While they don't have them.

They do, really. Have you ever cracked open a book on these subjects?
Try, "Atmospheric and Oceanic Fluid Dynamics," for size. Then repeat
yourself above. It's there, Joerg. It's just damned hard to master
well. You need to work. That's the problem here.

wrong to say "all assumptions." That is obviously over-reaching, and
I am pretty sure you know it is, too. Even if you were right on the
broader point (which you aren't), you must know that is going
overboard. (There is no need to make absolute statements to make your
point -- all it shows me is that you feel the need to speak more
loudly, to shout, in order to make your argument seem stronger.)

Proof isn't to be had. You know that. And "it" isn't "all
assumptions" and you know that, too.

There is no proof. But there is clear evidence of some past things, like
the stuff I pointed out. For example, the notion that many glaciers have
been mostly free of ice not too long ago is fact. There is proof. Roman
coins have no ability to "tunnel themselves" through thick ice and land
at just the right spot.

Again, we are going to go back and forth. Make a commitment to gain a
comprehensive view here. Until then, I've nothing to add. I'm
ignorant on the subject and I'm not willing to work for a serious
opinion here if you aren't, too. One good turn deserves another. But
if you won't work for it, why should I?

No pun intended but so far this discussio took the usual route of deviation:

a. Notion that a particular glacier grows.

b. Answer that this is due to increased precipitation.

c. I bring link where the precip data is in there since 1948, such trend
not obvious at all.

d. Deviation to other things, no proof that my assumption "c" is clearly
wrong (and it might be).

The point I was making isn't the above thread of thought. I would
have imagined that you'd have remembered where I went. But it seems
you've lost your way in all these details. My apologies.

I wasn't meaning you but the thought process of many other AGW
prononents including some in this NG.

My point doesn't depend on whether or not ONE particular glacier is
growing or shrinking or whether or not someone can offer a specific
explanation about it, either way. Climate is averages. You point to
a specific glacier (or set of glaciers) and point out that they are
growing, as though that is meaningful. My point is that an isolated
data point, whether that data point covers 1 year or 30 years, has no
importance whatsoever when discussing 30-year _global_ averages. You
need to be comprehensive in your view. You weren't. That was my
point. End of story.

It ain't end of story for me. For example I am not a proponent of simply
papering over the recent cooling trend. That is not just an isolated
event. A trend that obviously has even some bigshot climate scientists
from the AGW party concerned, as evidenced in the leaked emails.

I don't think anything has been papered over. Climate scientists are
always working at difficulties and trying to find answers. Same with
evolution, though I don't mean to suggest that climate science is as
well understood, yet.

I have some serious doubts about that. Especially after the recent email
revelations.

I've read through a lot of them. I find two main issues there that
offend my sensibilities. But they aren't things that in any way
affect my understanding of climate science, itself. No, I'm not going
to go into the details right now. Because it would only be a
distraction into my emotional reactions (and perhaps yours) and that
takes away from a discussion of science theory and observation.

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
Those cases have been addressed in the literature. I've read a few
and felt those I saw were reasoned as well as my ignorance allowed me
to determine and didn't overstate or understate the cases. I can
track down more and we can read them together, if you are interested
in reading more comprehensively on these specifics. At that point,
I'd probably take what you said afterwards as a much more serious
criticism.
Thing is, there's tons and tons of other cases. I mean, guys like old
Oetzi was for sure not doing a glacier hike just for the fun of it. He
was probably hunting on fertile grounds that were ice-free, and then
from what archaeologists have determined killed if not murdered up there.
[...]
In other words, you don't want to spend the time needed to gain a
comprehensive view. I can accept that. But realize what it means as
far as my taking your opinion on any of this.

My feeling here is that climate science is huge. Really huge. No one
masters all of it. But if you can't even be bothered to take a point
you are making -- not something someone else decides to say or write,
but something you decide on your own is true enough that you are
willing to place yourself in a position of making claims about it --
and follow through with even that single thing long enough to find out
where it takes you when you gain a fuller view of even that tiny
corner of things....
All I did is point out some things that happened in the past. Such as
mostly ice free passage ways that existed not too long ago, a few
thousand years, and that existed for a long time. Things that scientists
and also Bill constantly try to brush aside, things that are proven.

I don't think you did point out anything. You need to be
comprehensive in your view, before you can do that. ...

I believe the findings by the Swiss at Schnidljoch were pretty powerful.
If you don't think so, ok, then we differ in opinion here.

I don't know anything comprehensive about that. So no real opinion
about it.

... And so far as
I've seen, not only have you not done that but you haven't indicated
to me a willingness to do it in the future, either. I don't know
anything about this, except one or two summaries I've glimpsed. I
know I don't know anything here. And I'm quite willing to walk this
path with you, if you are serious about it. I've no idea where it
would take us. Perhaps we'd wind up exactly where you predict we
would, largely ignorant right now. Perhaps somewhere entirely
different. I don't know. But without supplying our intellects and
hard work, we never will now for ourselves, either. And my point is
that unless and until you (or I) do the work at hand, our opinions on
this subject really aren't worth the electrons with which they are
written.

But I believe the skepticisim towards some conclusions is worth it,
because they may be premature. That's my whole point.

Well, that is a point you can always keep. It's not a discerning one,
though, because it is "always true" and makes no distinctions.

Well, why should I care, then?

Yeah. It takes work. So what? Spend it, or don't. But if you
don't, even in cases where you feel comfortable talking strongly about
it... then it undermines (to me) what you say. You either care about
your opinion or you don't. And if you don't, why should I? (On this
subject, obviously. On many others, I'm all ears.)
Just like nearly all other people, I have to rely on work by scientists
because I either can't do it, don't want to do it or simply don't have
the time to do it. It is the same in business where micro-management
spells doom. You have to trust others or you go under together with the
whole company. Because you haven't done it all by yourself does not mean
you can't have and voice an opinion.

When looking at the behavior of a substantial number of climate
scientists over the last few years I found lots of red flags. The latest
emails are by far the biggest. IMHO a respectable scientists never ever
thinks that way, let alone write it. I find that highly unprofessional
and it has now thoroughly undermined whatever trust was left for me in
their scientific "evidence". Sorry, but that's the way I see it.

What I do not want is hip-shot actions such as CO2 taxes or dangerous
and untested stuff like CO2 sequestration underneath areas where people
live, all based on science that I now highly question. And believe me, I
am not alone, the number of people around here that believe the IPCC has
dwindled drastically.

What is much more important for me is what each and every one of us is
_personally_ doing to reduce their carbon, smog and other footprints. I
am ready to go to the mat about that at any time.

You and I look at similar things and reach different conclusions. I
will argue that the reason has nothing to do with differences in life
perspectives -- because you and I, I think, have already tested enough
of that and I believe that while we would disagree about some things I
think you and I would agree about a lot more. And I know enough to
trust your intuition, experience, and general background. I believe
that it is because you simply haven't put in enough personal sweat
here. And I think that is all it is.

That's where we differ a bit and I think that's ok. My position is that
it is not always necessary to put tons of sweat into an issue to develop
an opinion on it. There are only about 700,000 hours in the average
person's life and that's a limit. Sometimes we must trust experts. To me
that trust is very important.

You are wrong on this. You really need some thick callouses developed
from real, hard work of your own. And that's where I'll leave that.

On the subject of the exchanges, I've read a lot of them myself. And
in a couple of cases, can say that I 'kind of' know the individuals
involved and enough of what was meant. As I wrote, there are two
things that bothered me after going through years of such exchanges.
But none of it affects the actual _work_ I've done or the
understandings I've earned in the process or the opinions of my own
I've changed as I've learned over time. That is all personally my own
sweat and effort and no one can take that away from me -- least of all
two things I find unprofessional in tone, but otherwise not affecting
what I've learned and done. And as I said, I'm not going to divert a
discussion and have to deal with your emotions, my emotions, and the
emotions of others in some free-for-all -- few of whom have actually
spent any significant part of their own life's blood on the subject. I
know what I'd wish a few had had better sense than... but I live with
the good and bad in all of us, so I can take a longer view here.

Good points.

Thanks. I've enjoyed your replies, as well.

Jon

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Nov 29, 3:09 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 17:59:33 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman





bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Nov 28, 4:19 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 10:44:15 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman

bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Nov 28, 4:44 am, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.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.

---
I'd certainly keep it from becoming a consensus by showing you up for
the fraud you are.

There you go again. I'm not a fraud, but you are too ignorant and dumb
to get to grips with the evidnece that makes this obvious to the
better equipped.

---
As is typical with frauds, instead of honestly addressing the issues
causing contention, trying to resolve them amicably, and taking your
lumps when you deserve them, you resort to invective in order to try to
silence your critics.

John Fields has learned the word 'amicable". It is sad that he shows
no evidence of knowing what it means.

---
Really?

I get along quite well with almost everybody here, while you, with your
neverending pomposity and penchant for using deception to foment discord
seem to have trouble getting along with _anybody_.
---

John Field's self-image is healthily positive, but regrettably
unrealistic.

snipped the usual rubbish

---
Of course...

Pretend what you can't counter is worthless.

No need to pretend.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Nov 29, 10:26 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com>
wrote:

On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 18:06:24 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman





bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Nov 28, 4:24 pm, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@My-
Web-Site.com> wrote:
On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 18:19:17 -0600, John Fields

jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 10:44:15 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

On Nov 28, 4:44 am, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.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.

---
I'd certainly keep it from becoming a consensus by showing you up for
the fraud you are.

There you go again. I'm not a fraud, but you are too ignorant and dumb
to get to grips with the evidnece that makes this obvious to the
better equipped.

---
As is typical with frauds, instead of honestly addressing the issues
causing contention, trying to resolve them amicably, and taking your
lumps when you deserve them, you resort to invective in order to try to
silence your critics.

A cowardly practice, at best, and exactly what one would expect of a
"scientist"  who pretends to be clad in shining armor.

This says it best, I think...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ja7cuVh96AI&feature=related

I'm in for a penny and I can afford a pound or two, so let's talk a
little about why you proposed that energy can be extracted from the
magnetic field surrounding a conductor carrying an alternating current
by wrapping a solenoid around it.

Can it be done when the axis of the solenoid is congruent with the axis
of the conductor?  

The ball's in your court and, unlike you, the better equipped of us know
how to speel and  don't write "evidnece"
JF

Most fraudulent scientists are smart enough to slink quietly away when
their fraud is discovered.  Slowman has no such IQ.

Jim Thompson and John Fields both think that I'm a fraud.

---
Actually, Bill, we _know_ you're a fraud.

Sure, and you KNOW that the moon is made of green cheese.

And we're just the tip of the iceberg,

More like the dregs of the usenet'svast collection of kooks.

I'm sure, so the longer you keep
on posting to USENET and your posts are examined by more and more
critical eyes and minds, the more obvious the fact that you're a fraud
will become.

Fine. I've been posting for more than decade now, so I really ought to
be a by-word.

This is - of course - a devastating blow to my self-esteem, since I've always had
such a high opinion of their judgement, but somehow I guess I'll learn
to live with this public humiliation.

---
You reap what you sow.
---

But I guess I'll stick around until they get around to telling us
which of my hypothetical  frauds they have discovered.

This may take a while.

---
Just off the top of my head, the most recent was the power line and
solenoid debacle

<snipped the rest of John Fields deluded babble. He didn't realise
that Joel Koltner was making a joke, got all excited and did an
EXPERIMENT and has been trying to convert this pratfall into something
less embarassing ever since>

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Nov 29, 10:51 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com>
wrote:

On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 18:44:08 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman





bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Nov 28, 4:49 am, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 07:12:48 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman

bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
The aim is to educate you to the point where you can save yourself -
there still seems to be quite a way to go.

---
Oh, please...

The all-merciful guru wants to teach the human race to save themselves;
but only if they do it _his_ way.

John Fields seems think that learning to understand the science that
underpins our understanding of anthropogenic global warming is
equivalent to being indoctrinated in some kind of religious cult.

---
Not at all.

It's obvious that if one wants to understand the impact of anthropogenic
global warming on our good earth or if, in fact, anthropogenic global
warming exists and, if it does, is good or bad, one must get into the
nitty-gritty of it all.

What do you want to know about? I'm not going to get a job as a
climate scientist, but at least I know enough to be able to
demonstrate that James Arthur doesn't know what he is talking about.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Nov 27, 7:40 pm, Rich Grise <richgr...@example.net> wrote:

Bill Slomanwrote:

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.

You're obviously speaking from personal experince. ;-)

Sure. I've seen it happen. I once inadvertently provoked a Ph.D.
researcher at Texas Instruments (U.K.) into doing it to himself.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen