Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration
Circuitsmith
workbench, so I’m sharing my experience of the special occasion. I’m
not going to wax poetic about the “tube sound” but I will talk about
the design and my efforts toward restoration.
You’ll find photos at http://picasaweb.google.com/circuitsmith/ConradJohnson
The subject at hand is a pre-amplifier that appears to have been made
in the early ‘80s (1982 or later). It uses vacuum tubes in the signal
path and high voltage rectifier, a hand full of transistors to
regulate the B+ voltages and IC regulators to supply the tube
filaments with DC voltage.
The reason it crossed my path is a small child was playing with it;
repeatedly turning it on and off. The resulting hot-switching
transients opened up several resistors in the HV power supply and blew
one of the two filament regulators. I also found the output mute
circuit inoperative and a shaky mod job of replacing capacitors.
Thankfully, the owner had a schematic.
Clearly the designer gives high priority to supplying clean DC power
to the amplifiers. Each cascode triode stage has its own R-C filter (8
total) after the voltage regulator. These filters take up a sizeable
chunk of the main PC board. The 12X4 rectifier delivers a nominal
output of 510VDC. Seems quaint in this age of MP3 players that run on
one AA cell. Unfortunately the rectifier filament is not on a separate
transformer winding, so the heater-cathode voltage is also 510V, far
in excess of the 100V average 400V peak max rating listed in my RCA
tube manual for the 12X4. This is one oversight in an otherwise
conservative design. Line level, phono and filament grounds are
loosely coupled with big Rs and small Cs.
The smoothing capacitors were originally two 200uF 350V caps in series
but whoever “re-capped” the unit replaced them with a “universal”
60-90uF 500V cap in parallel with one of several 20uF non-electrolytic
and put a 2K resistor in series with the rectifier cathode to reduce
the voltage (to 430V nominal) and keep from over stressing the cap.
Unfortunately this nearly eliminates the regulators ability to
tolerate low line voltage. I restored the original configuration with
two Nichicon high temp (105C) 220uF 350V caps and bleeder resistors. I
like the idea of some extra resistance to limit cathode current of the
rectifier since it feeds such a large smoothing capacitor (10-20uF
would be run-of-the-mill with a 12X4) so I replaced the 2K with a 649
ohm 3W resistor. Now the HV regulators deliver clean DC down to a line
voltage of 104VAC.
The first HV regulator uses a stack of zener diodes, fed a constant
current, plus an emitter follower to deliver 410VDC. Four R-C filters
provide extra smoothing to each high level amplifying stage. The Cs
were originally 60uF electrolytics but have been replaced with non-
electrolytic 20uF units. All the Rs were blown from the switching
transients. A couple of the zeners were shorted and reduced the output
voltage to ~350V. The second regulator starts with the 410V and uses
more zeners and an emitter follower to deliver 380V to the low level
phono amplifiers, through 4 more R-C filters.
The mute circuit uses a relay and a unijunction transistor to short
the output lines to ground for approx. one minute after the unit is
turned on. There is also a mute button on the front that controls this
relay. A wise choice, considering it was able to deliver a 200V peak-
to-peak sine wave without clipping, driven from the phono input. This
circuit had been bypassed however. A timing capacitor became leaky and
prevented the timer from timing out. Evidently, someone mistakenly
changed the relay and miswired the replacement. I restored the circuit
to its original configuration.
Another relay and timer to prevent hot switching would make the unit
more robust and toddler resistant.
Tim Brown
circuitsmith * at * verizon * dot * net
David Nebenzahl
> Clearly the designer gives high priority to supplying clean DC power
> to the amplifiers. Each cascode triode stage has its own R-C filter (8
> total) after the voltage regulator. These filters take up a sizeable
> chunk of the main PC board. The 12X4 rectifier delivers a nominal
> output of 510VDC. Seems quaint in this age of MP3 players that run on
> one AA cell. Unfortunately the rectifier filament is not on a separate
> transformer winding, so the heater-cathode voltage is also 510V, far
> in excess of the 100V average 400V peak max rating listed in my RCA
> tube manual for the 12X4. This is one oversight in an otherwise
> conservative design.
So any thoughts of adding a filament transformer for the rectifier? Is
there room for one? What's the downside to this: reduced rectifier life?
Arc-over?
Interesting stuff; thanks for posting.
--
You were wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it.
- a Usenet "apology"
Phil Allison
"Circuitsmith"
" The 12X4 rectifier delivers a nominal output of 510VDC.
Unfortunately the rectifier filament is not on a separate
transformer winding, so the heater-cathode voltage is also 510V, far
in excess of the 100V average 400V peak max rating listed in my RCA
tube manual for the 12X4. This is one oversight in an otherwise
conservative design. "
** The heater-cathode rating for a 6X4 or 12X4 is 450 volts - long as the
heater is negative with respect to the cathode.
They are designed for circuits where there is no independent ( ie floating)
heater supply.
http://tubedata.itchurch.org/sheets/137/6/6X4.pdf
The 100 volt figure applies only when the heater is positive wrt to the
cathode.
.... Phil
Circuitsmith
So the RCA and Sylvania specs disagree on this matter. It's still
operating beyond the Sylvania spec.
Circuitsmith
> So any thoughts of adding a filament transformer for the rectifier? Is
> there room for one? What's the downside to this: reduced rectifier life?
> Arc-over?
The main problem would be where to put the transformer and not
introduce hum into the phono section.
Phil Allison
"Circuitsmith"
>" Phil Allison"
> "Circuitsmith"
>
> " The 12X4 rectifier delivers a nominal output of 510VDC.
> Unfortunately the rectifier filament is not on a separate
> transformer winding, so the heater-cathode voltage is also 510V, far
> in excess of the 100V average 400V peak max rating listed in my RCA
> tube manual for the 12X4. This is one oversight in an otherwise
> conservative design. "
>
> ** The heater-cathode rating for a 6X4 or 12X4 is 450 volts - long as the
> heater is negative with respect to the cathode.
>
> They are designed for circuits where there is no independent ( ie
> floating)
> heater supply.
>
> http://tubedata.itchurch.org/sheets/137/6/6X4.pdf
>
> The 100 volt figure applies only when the heater is positive wrt to the
> cathode.
>
So the RCA and Sylvania specs disagree on this matter.
** No they do NOT !!!
YOU are persistently misreading the data.
The "RCA Receiving Tube Manual" has the figure of " -450 " volts measured
from heater to cathode.
The positive figures are for the opposite heater-cathode polarity
http://208.190.133.201/tubes/rc25/818b.gif
It's still operating beyond the Sylvania spec.
** Only by a small percentage and clearly well able to do so.
.... Phil
Patrick Turner
> It’s not often that genuine “high-end” audio equipment crosses my
> workbench, so I’m sharing my experience of the special occasion. I’m
> not going to wax poetic about the “tube sound” but I will talk about
> the design and my efforts toward restoration.
> You’ll find photos athttp://picasaweb.google.com/circuitsmith/ConradJohnson
I once fully rewired a CJ preamp from 1986 but the mods were so
numerous it un-became a CJ and instead became something I could be
proud of and which would be an improvement to the whole function. The
PT was removed to a box remote to the preamp to reduce hum, especially
with the phono stage I put in like the schematic at
http://www.turneraudio.com.au/preamp-10tube-integrated-2006.htm, see
sheet1 1/2 way down the page.
The phono stage can be used with low output MC.
I forget how much power supply circuitry I dumped where it belonged.
Its so easy to design something better than the preamps made by CJ in
the 1980s, or better than anything made by anyone from those old days.
Something like an old CJ or ARC preamp is the perfect way to start
really experimenting to learn.
Just pull out the tubes and desolder all parts within sight. Build a
complete remote PSU to ensure silent operation. Use a carpenters
chisel and hammer to gently remove all tracks off all boards and sand
the boards clean. Just use the existing box to be creative with signal
circuitry only. Just make sure you never use so many parts as the
makers such as CJ or ARC. They have too many parts. Sure the boards
have holes, but some will become useful. Then you start with a block
diagram and stern set of design aims for performance and you learn so
much. new tracks can be placed with 1.2mm dia solid copper wire hooked
through the boards, and it isn't hard to with the board out on the
bench to allow you flatten hooks on wires in the board. All R&C parts
can be surface mounted to your wire tracks. Chuck out all the old R&C
parts and only use new ones.
Think 10 times before you drill a hole anywhere, think 10 times about
how to keep your wiring tidy. Think 12 times about where to place
things while thinking about what might be affected.
I don't like seeing ANY parts on the tube side of the board except
electro caps and hot running power resistors mounted well off a board
or fixed to a heatsink. But keep all C and R well away from tubes.
Everything else should be underneath with NO capacitors placed near
anything hot or dissallowing access to anything else. So I prefer Wima
630V red box polyprop caps siliconed to the board. Some ppl insist on
large size exotic capacitors, get them before you start re-wiring and
figure carefully where they go or else it will all look like the dog's
breakfast you can see in the photos you show. Everything should end up
really Hard Wired and truly point to point. Dust and pollution does
not settle on parts under the boards.
All amps should be todler proof all the time. If an amp cannot be
turned on/off often for a long period it has been poorly designed.
I don't like tube rectifiers. Better the tube diodes are retired when
you make a separate PSU in a remote box. You can get a higher B+ but
you have more headroom to drop down with filter R. The current even
with increased revised current values will not be huge, and draw id
re
I don't use much B+ regulation in preamps because I use some simple
CRCRC filtering using lots of 470uF caps.
But a simple shunt reg for B+ to the first phono stage is a good idea
because VLF rail noise is amplified by the high LF gain of the phono
stages.
Patrick Turner.
Circuitsmith
It says"PEAK value -450 max".
What part of "average value 100 max" do you not understand??
Over is over, and certainly NOT conservative in my book.
Tim Brown
Circuitsmith
>
> Use a carpenters
> chisel and hammer to gently remove all tracks off all boards and sand
> the boards clean.
I really don't think that's what the client wanted.
Tim Brown
Phil Allison
It says"PEAK value -450 max".
What part of "average value 100 max" do you not understand??
** YOU are one PIG arrogant fucking, fuckhead.
Clearly 100max = +100 volts
Fuck off and DIE you smug cunt.
..... Phil
Phil Allison
"Circuitshit"
I really don't think that's what the client wanted.
** No "client" needs a smug turd like you anywhere near them
FOAD.
.... Phil
Circuitsmith
You forgot to compare me to Hitler, which would have officially
finished this USENET conversation.
Have a fabulous life,
Tim Brown
Bret L
> On Feb 13, 11:07 am, Circuitsmith <circuitsm...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > It’s not often that genuine “high-end” audio equipment crosses my
> > workbench, so I’m sharing my experience of the special occasion. I’m
> > not going to wax poetic about the “tube sound” but I will talk about
> > the design and my efforts toward restoration.
> > You’ll find photos athttp://picasaweb.google.com/circuitsmith/ConradJohnson
>
> I once fully rewired a CJ preamp from 1986 but the mods were so
> numerous it un-became a CJ and instead became something I could be
> proud of and which would be an improvement to the whole function. The
> PT was removed to a box remote to the preamp to reduce hum, especially
That's right, and you know, that Andy Warhol soup can painting that
sold in New York awhile ago did not look as good as the one I painted
in high school. I should buy it and rework it for improved appearance,
then resell it. I should make a good profit that way, right?
When one buys a product from a modern high end audio company, they
are buying a certain vision of how things are supposed to be. It's
radically more cost effective to build from scratch than to modify
most of these products, especially because the kind of mods you
describe render the product unresaleable.
Years ago I knew a guy who bought an expensive sports car at auction.
It turned out that someone had replaced the original engine with an
American V8, and in doing so had made major structural modifications
that were economically irreversible. He sold it for peanuts to another
guy who did likewise and finally, a serious collector of the marque
bought the car, stripped off all the usable parts, and had the hulk
hauled down to the crusher where he paid a fair bonus to the crusher
operator to have him crunch it while he videotaped the procedure. He
sent copies to several people including the shop that did the butch
job and the owner who paid for it. Similar fates have befallen
drastically modified audio equipment.
If you don't like a piece, if it has value it's smarter to sell it
and build one from scratch your own way.
Bret L
Phil is autistic and needs a phone magneto to be wired to his nuts
and cranked a few times.
Bret L
Where did that rule come from?
Why does comparison to Hitler "officially finish" Usenet threads, but
not, say, Stalin???
Hitler was bad, but not as bad as Stalin.
David Nebenzahl
> On Feb 13, 10:25 am, Circuitsmith <circuitsm...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> On Feb 13, 11:16 am, "Phil Allison" <phi...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>> Fuck off and DIE you smug cunt.
>>
>> You forgot to compare me to Hitler, which would have officially
>> finished this USENET conversation.
>
> Where did that rule come from?
>
> Why does comparison to Hitler "officially finish" Usenet threads, but
> not, say, Stalin???
Because the person who invented Godwin's Law (that would be Godwin, I
guess) said so.
Which is a silly answer, of course, because it's silly to think of it as
a rule, which is the common misunderstanding. Even as a
moderately-accurate observation of human behavior in discussion forums
such as this, it's often not correct at all.
David Nebenzahl
> On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 13:09:55 -0800, David Nebenzahl
> <nob...@but.us.chickens> wrote:
>
>> On 2/13/2010 11:52 AM Bret L spake thus:
>>
>>> On Feb 13, 10:25 am, Circuitsmith <circuitsm...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Feb 13, 11:16 am, "Phil Allison" <phi...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Fuck off and DIE you smug cunt.
>>>>
>>>> You forgot to compare me to Hitler, which would have officially
>>>> finished this USENET conversation.
>>>
>>> Where did that rule come from?
>>>
>>> Why does comparison to Hitler "officially finish" Usenet threads, but
>>> not, say, Stalin???
>>
>>Because the person who invented Godwin's Law (that would be Godwin, I
>>guess) said so.
>
> Actually, Godwin's Law is merely a whimsical observation that states
> ""As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a
> comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."
>
> It makes no specific judgment as to appropriateness.
>
>> Which is a silly answer, of course, because it's silly to think of
>> it as a rule, which is the common misunderstanding. Even as a
>> moderately-accurate observation of human behavior in discussion
>> forums such as this, it's often not correct at all.
>
> What people are 'interpreting' Godwin's Law as is "reductio ad
> Hitlerum," a play on "reductio ad absurdum." It's a guilt by
> association fallacy (but can include others as well).
>
> You are correct that a Hitler comparison 'could' be valid in some
> circumstances but the vast majority of the time (hence Godwin's Law)
> it's used as "you're just like Hitler" (ad hominem) or "that's what
> Hitler did" (guilt by association) or some such fallacy. E.g. Just
> because Hitler liked dogs doesn't make dog owners 'Nazis' even though
> they may be 'like Hitler' in that respect.
Dang.
Thanks for the best explanation of Godwin's that I've ever read anywhere.
Don Pearce
<nob...@but.us.chickens> wrote:
Hey, did you just call flipper a Nazi?
d
David Nebenzahl
Um, no. So what do you think of Hitler?
Don Pearce
<nob...@but.us.chickens> wrote:
>On 2/14/2010 12:12 AM Don Pearce spake thus:
>
>> On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 19:19:26 -0800, David Nebenzahl
>> <nob...@but.us.chickens> wrote:
>>
>>> Dang.
>>>
>>> Thanks for the best explanation of Godwin's that I've ever read anywhere.
>>
>> Hey, did you just call flipper a Nazi?
>
>Um, no. So what do you think of Hitler?
Rotten taste in moustaches, and far too fond of shorts. Can't trust
someone like that.
d
Arny Krueger
news:4b77bbf6....@news.eternal-september.org
Umm, and the continual dyspepsia and flatulence. One can only wonder what
would have happened had Adolph been able to avail himself of Omeprazole (AKA
Pepcid). ;-)
Patrick Turner
I can see you despise tradesmen that you'd never be able to afford.
I have used a nicely sharpened carpenter's chisel with a nice flat
blade to ease tracks off stupidly designed high end amplifier boards.
The hammer is needed on some to get through the board connections, or
to get well stuck tracks away.
But on many boards the tracks peel away all too easily. Its all done
*without* cracking a board and leaving huge gouges after trying to
grind tracks away. The clients all love the sound and ease of
servicing afterwards.
And maybe you wouldn't like to see what a surgeon does when he cuts a
piece of bone from a pelvis to fit somewhere else in the body. Twit!
Patrick Turner.
>
> Tim Brown
Patrick Turner
I don't see what Andy had to offer the world. I wouldn't care what you
did with all of his awful artworks.
But there's only one AW painting. If there were dozens or hundreds of
them all the same, then sure, maybe you'd improve the painting value
by 10c.
Clearly you have no idea about the utter fucking bullshit goings on in
the art world.
Big stoopid money, all fucking crap mainly, and you can't eat art.
So why don't you paint something and take to the gallery and see if
they'll hang it beside AWs crap?
All would become clear to you in the following 30 minutes.
>
> When one buys a product from a modern high end audio company, they
> are buying a certain vision of how things are supposed to be.
Except they miss the very target they are aiming for so damn often,
and after setting out to make the perfect dog, they end up with a
piebald camel.
> radically more cost effective to build from scratch than to modify
> most of these products, especially because the kind of mods you
> describe render the product unresaleable.
I don't care about resale values. The guy here who had me alter his CJ
bought it on E-bay for $150.
It is just old junk.
To buy something that does what the altered amp does but new, and from
CJ, maybe he pays $7,000.
But I cost him $500, cheap!
>
> Years ago I knew a guy who bought an expensive sports car at auction.
> It turned out that someone had replaced the original engine with an
> American V8, and in doing so had made major structural modifications
> that were economically irreversible. He sold it for peanuts to another
> guy who did likewise and finally, a serious collector of the marque
> bought the car, stripped off all the usable parts, and had the hulk
> hauled down to the crusher where he paid a fair bonus to the crusher
> operator to have him crunch it while he videotaped the procedure. He
> sent copies to several people including the shop that did the butch
> job and the owner who paid for it. Similar fates have befallen
> drastically modified audio equipment.
Who gives a fuck about such total brainless petrol head idiocy?
I modified a pair of Quad 40s recently.
All due respect to Andy Groves design abilities, but I saw fit to
remove 30 bits and replace them with 36 others. The Chinese makers had
fitted an awfull performing OPT and the mods were necessary.
Only a complete idiot would then have these amps crushed while making
a video.
Why do ya think Detroit has seccumbed to economic failure in the face
of opposition? Its because they just try to cling onto poor designs of
the past.
America should wake up and move on, and strat producing electric
trucks, busses and cars, and forget the past BS.
And BTW, I don't like the soup Andy tried to advertise.
>
> If you don't like a piece, if it has value it's smarter to sell it
> and build one from scratch your own way.- Hide quoted text -
But one could never make the box and internal metalwork and a PT for
$150.
The CJ I altered was dirt cheap, and worth the price even with with
the porr quality guts all stripped out.
Oh, and BTW, I replaced all the RCA connectors. The originals were of
poor design and in extremely poor condition.
The new CJ RCA terminals are quite good afaik, with steel spring
grippers around the centre gripper in the socket..
But you pay through the nose for them.
Patrick Turner.
>
> - Show quoted text -
Harry Lavo
"flipper" <fli...@fish.net> wrote in message
news:5heen5dmss99pu6cr...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 13:09:55 -0800, David Nebenzahl
> <nob...@but.us.chickens> wrote:
>
>>On 2/13/2010 11:52 AM Bret L spake thus:
>>
>>> On Feb 13, 10:25 am, Circuitsmith <circuitsm...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> >
>>>> On Feb 13, 11:16 am, "Phil Allison" <phi...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Fuck off and DIE you smug cunt.
>>>>
>>>> You forgot to compare me to Hitler, which would have officially
>>>> finished this USENET conversation.
>>>
>>> Where did that rule come from?
>>>
>>> Why does comparison to Hitler "officially finish" Usenet threads, but
>>> not, say, Stalin???
>>
>>Because the person who invented Godwin's Law (that would be Godwin, I
>>guess) said so.
>
> ""As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a
> comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."
>
> It makes no specific judgment as to appropriateness.
>
>>a rule, which is the common misunderstanding. Even as a
>>moderately-accurate observation of human behavior in discussion forums
>>such as this, it's often not correct at all.
>
> Hitlerum," a play on "reductio ad absurdum." It's a guilt by
> association fallacy (but can include others as well).
>
> You are correct that a Hitler comparison 'could' be valid in some
> circumstances but the vast majority of the time (hence Godwin's Law)
> it's used as "you're just like Hitler" (ad hominem) or "that's what
> Hitler did" (guilt by association) or some such fallacy. E.g. Just
> because Hitler liked dogs doesn't make dog owners 'Nazis' even though
> they may be 'like Hitler' in that respect.
>
> that the first one to engage in ad hominem 'loses' and is based on the
> theory that the reduction to vitriol shows you've obviously run out of
> legitimate arguments with which to rebut, thereby leaving the opposing
> (un rebutted) argument(s) the 'winner'. Plus, it's ceased to be a
> 'debate'.
>
> The 'rule' is also an inducement to civility that usually deteriorates
> rapidly once violated but, of course, it can also be simply a personal
> 'rule' to not engage with A-holes.
>
> As a side note, reductio ad Stalinum is the same thing, but invoking
> Stalin rather than Hitler, and you can substitute any other notorious
> figure, such as reductio ad bin-Ladenum.
or hated group, as in "Islamo-facist" or "liberal-facist".
Engineer
> On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 13:09:55 -0800, David Nebenzahl
>
>
>
> <nob...@but.us.chickens> wrote:
>
> >> On Feb 13, 10:25 am, Circuitsmith <circuitsm...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >>> On Feb 13, 11:16 am, "Phil Allison" <phi...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
>
> >>>> Fuck off and DIE you smug cunt.
>
> >>> You forgot to compare me to Hitler, which would have officially
> >>> finished this USENET conversation.
>
> >> Where did that rule come from?
>
> >> Why does comparison to Hitler "officially finish" Usenet threads, but
> >> not, say, Stalin???
>
> >Because the person who invented Godwin's Law (that would be Godwin, I
> >guess) said so.
>
> ""As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a
> comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."
>
> It makes no specific judgment as to appropriateness.
>
> >a rule, which is the common misunderstanding. Even as a
> >moderately-accurate observation of human behavior in discussion forums
> >such as this, it's often not correct at all.
>
> Hitlerum," a play on "reductio ad absurdum." It's a guilt by
> association fallacy (but can include others as well).
>
> You are correct that a Hitler comparison 'could' be valid in some
> circumstances but the vast majority of the time (hence Godwin's Law)
> it's used as "you're just like Hitler" (ad hominem) or "that's what
> Hitler did" (guilt by association) or some such fallacy. E.g. Just
> because Hitler liked dogs doesn't make dog owners 'Nazis' even though
> they may be 'like Hitler' in that respect.
>
> The supposed 'rule' part is an extension of the general debate adage
> that the first one to engage in ad hominem 'loses' and is based on the
> theory that the reduction to vitriol shows you've obviously run out of
> legitimate arguments with which to rebut, thereby leaving the opposing
> (un rebutted) argument(s) the 'winner'. Plus, it's ceased to be a
> 'debate'.
>
> The 'rule' is also an inducement to civility that usually deteriorates
> rapidly once violated but, of course, it can also be simply a personal
> 'rule' to not engage with A-holes.
>
> As a side note, reductio ad Stalinum is the same thing, but invoking
> Stalin rather than Hitler, and you can substitute any other notorious
> figure, such as reductio ad bin-Ladenum.
"Correlation is not causality". Just because I wear a cotton
nightshirt like bin laden and many of his followers, it doesn't make
me a terrorist. :-)
Must be a slow day... sorry!
Cheers,
Roger
Bret L
You're willfully intransigent.
If you put your time and energy into production and made your own
product under your own name and leveraged other people's work to make
a profit you'd make a lot of money. As it is you'll die just over
broke. Most of what you build or modify will be chucked as not having
any resale value in a few years.
I have a truck that is what is called a "Carolina Hauler". It's a
pickup that has been reworked to tow a race car trailer on highway
that should by rights have had a Class 8 road tractor pulling it. It
was built at a cost of over thirty thousand US dollars in 1980, when
that sum would nearly have bought a new Ferrari. It has basically the
driveline of a schoolbus and a reinforced frame and (before I took it
off) an alternator capable of running a fair sized house. I bought it
for fifteen hundred bucks in good running shape as no one wanted it.
It has no value. It's an oddly modified old Dodge. Mileage sucks, but
I never drive it very far, it's my bad weather beater.
If I keel over dead tomorrow, it'll go to the crusher once it quits
running for its new owner. Everything on it is non stock. I have "the
book" containing most of the part numbers needed to maintain it, but
most of the people who are buyers for old pickups around here are
illiterate, whether they are American hicks or mestizos who speak a
bad flavor of Spanish but are not so good at reading it even if the
book were in it. It's an interesting piece of circle track racing
history but not worth anything. So it lives for awhile as my beater
truck.
If you had simply refused to work on the new Quad amp and told the
owner you could sell him a new amp cheaper which was better you both
would have been ahead. As it is he has a lump worth nothing and no
dealer will take it on trade.
For what it is worth, the problem with American car makers is not
that they did not change, but that they did. Americans still want big
comfortable cars, but EPA and fuel mileage laws dictate that they can
not make them. So the wealthy buy big Benzes and BMWs and the less
fortunate get a shitbox like it or not. Under the bullshit ageis of
global warming, which is horseshit, and oil shortages, more and more
of these laws are going in effect.
If people could buy a brand new 1968 Buick Electra 225 today over
these econoshits they would. i certainly would. Fuck these
environmentalist socialist cocksuckers.
Ian Iveson
> Fuck these environmentalist socialist cocksuckers.
They're not socialists, they're socialism. No point in
denying it. And if we don't get a grip and take charge of
it, it'll take charge of us.
Ian
David Nebenzahl
[snip lunacy from P. Turner]
> You're willfully intransigent.
>
> If you put your time and energy into production and made your own
> product under your own name and leveraged other people's work to make
> a profit you'd make a lot of money. As it is you'll die just over
> broke. Most of what you build or modify will be chucked as not having
> any resale value in a few years.
[snip]
Two things:
1. Your railing against what you consider to be "bullshit" (i.e.,
anthropogenic global climate change) is quaint and amusing, given the
overwhelming evidence against you and other "deniers". But hey, whatever
turns your crank. I've got an extra membership to the Flat Earth Society
for you if you're if you're interested.
2. Having said that, I agree completely with your assessment of Turner's
idiotic approach to audiophool-gear butchering. "Willfully intransigent"
says it perfectly.
Ian Iveson
> Two things:
>
> 1. Your railing against what you consider to be "bullshit"
> (i.e., anthropogenic global climate change) is quaint and
> amusing, given the overwhelming evidence against you and
> other "deniers". But hey, whatever turns your crank. I've
> got an extra membership to the Flat Earth Society for you
> if you're if you're interested.
>
> 2. Having said that, I agree completely with your
> assessment of Turner's idiotic approach to audiophool-gear
> butchering. "Willfully intransigent" says it perfectly.
Says what, perfectly?
Ian
David Nebenzahl
Oh, I don't know: that Mr. Turner should have a restraining order placed
on him keeping him at least a thousand feet away from any high-quality
audio equipment?
David Nebenzahl
> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 10:48:15 -0800, David Nebenzahl
> <nob...@but.us.chickens> wrote:
>
>> On 2/15/2010 12:17 AM Bret L spake thus:
>>
>> [snip lunacy from P. Turner]
>>
>>> You're willfully intransigent.
>>>
>>> If you put your time and energy into production and made your own
>>> product under your own name and leveraged other people's work to make
>>> a profit you'd make a lot of money. As it is you'll die just over
>>> broke. Most of what you build or modify will be chucked as not having
>>> any resale value in a few years.
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> Two things:
>>
>> 1. Your railing against what you consider to be "bullshit" (i.e.,
>> anthropogenic global climate change) is quaint and amusing, given
>> the overwhelming evidence against you and other "deniers". But hey,
>> whatever turns your crank. I've got an extra membership to the Flat
>> Earth Society for you if you're if you're interested.
> One of these days AGW worshipers should share some of the so called
> "overwhelming evidence" because the religious zealot stuff isn't
> working.
I leave it to you to read "the literature" as its called. I'm not a
religious zealot of any stripe, anthropogenic climate change or any
other banner.
You just can't contradict good science. The scary thing is that the
empirical evidence is showing a much faster rate of change than even the
most confident of researchers were predicting.
Like I said, I've got memberships to the Flat Earth Society available to
any takers ...
Patrick Turner
In other words, a grumpy old curmudgeon.
>
> If you put your time and energy into production and made your own
> product under your own name and leveraged other people's work to make
> a profit you'd make a lot of money. As it is you'll die just over
> broke. Most of what you build or modify will be chucked as not having
> any resale value in a few years.
Well, I am not so sure all ppl will chuck my stuff when I am gone.
And if they do, so what? Not a huge drama afaiac.
If I had 10 bucks for each person who willingly replaced well regarded
tube gear with sordid state gear I would be STOINKINLY RICH.
When the 1960s rolled along, thousands of ppl were only too happy to
get rid of the hot heavy mono tube sytems and crummy single speakers
and invest in a cool running stereo system.
> I have a truck that is what is called a "Carolina Hauler". It's a
> pickup that has been reworked to tow a race car trailer on highway
> that should by rights have had a Class 8 road tractor pulling it. It
> was built at a cost of over thirty thousand US dollars in 1980, when
> that sum would nearly have bought a new Ferrari. It has basically the
> driveline of a schoolbus and a reinforced frame and (before I took it
> off) an alternator capable of running a fair sized house. I bought it
> for fifteen hundred bucks in good running shape as no one wanted it.
> It has no value. It's an oddly modified old Dodge. Mileage sucks, but
> I never drive it very far, it's my bad weather beater.
A Bitza.
> If I keel over dead tomorrow, it'll go to the crusher once it quits
> running for its new owner. Everything on it is non stock. I have "the
> book" containing most of the part numbers needed to maintain it, but
> most of the people who are buyers for old pickups around here are
> illiterate, whether they are American hicks or mestizos who speak a
> bad flavor of Spanish but are not so good at reading it even if the
> book were in it. It's an interesting piece of circle track racing
> history but not worth anything. So it lives for awhile as my beater
> truck.
Horses for courses.
>
> If you had simply refused to work on the new Quad amp and told the
> owner you could sell him a new amp cheaper which was better you both
> would have been ahead. As it is he has a lump worth nothing and no
> dealer will take it on trade.
My guess is that NOBODY will realise what improvements I have to the
Quad 40 amps.
The owner is about 70, and maybe in 10 years the amps will get re-
cycled by way of deceased estate auction, or the guys offspring won't
want the amps so they'll sell them on Ebay and without a picture of
the undersides.
So its most likely the going price for old Quad 40 will be paid. The
fuckwit buyer/collectors who insist that the bloody old junk they buy
must include all the original parts including the design faults are
luckily in the minority.
>
> For what it is worth, the problem with American car makers is not
> that they did not change, but that they did. Americans still want big
> comfortable cars, but EPA and fuel mileage laws dictate that they can
> not make them. So the wealthy buy big Benzes and BMWs and the less
> fortunate get a shitbox like it or not. Under the bullshit ageis of
> global warming, which is horseshit, and oil shortages, more and more
> of these laws are going in effect.
Well of course the trend to SUV style vehicles is raging in Oz as many
but by no means all Australians want the biggest SOB peice of rolling
real estate they can afford.
Personal transport such as cars will be with us with global warming
and oil shortages. They'll all just get electric motors, or become
hybrid, petrol-electric.
>
> If people could buy a brand new 1968 Buick Electra 225 today over
> these econoshits they would. i certainly would. Fuck these
> environmentalist socialist cocksuckers.- Hide quoted text -
I know how maybe 40% of the world's motorists think greenhouse
emissions are not heating the planet. And how they say that somehow
there will always be an oil supply they can afford, and that "
environmentalist socialist cocksuckers"
should really spend their time fucking their mothers.
But maybe 20% don't have a clue about all that stuff. But 40% think
green, and don't like cars that emit too much and they don't want to
live lives and buy junk which might ruin a good planet.
I see that oil prices will inevitably rise and put such a heavy
squeeze upon users of low efficiency fossil engines that electric
motors will become the choice. Electric has a way to go before it
matures, but when it does ppl will wonder why we ever bothered with
petrol engines.
And I have not even mentioned hydrogen power.
Ppl in the northern hemisphere have become disbelievers in the
greenhouse effect where they see the record slow falls this winter.
Well the trouble with the greenhouse effect is that as we add CO2 to
the air, the total weather system becomes more unstable due to
interrelated and extremely complex positive and negative feedback
systems. So the whole total system tends to become unstable before
settling at a changed state, ie, hotter, where the changed conditions
give rise to an equilibrium at a higher temperature. Between now and
the hotter state we will likely see some very extreme winters and
summers as well as some very mild winters and summers but the trend
will continue to show a net warming of a few C over the next 50 years
at least.
OK, no big deal. The weather goes 5C hotter at the equator, and large
swathes of land become unusable, and drought in Oz causes our national
food production to halve so we stop exporting food. 20 million more
ppl try to live in Oz within 50 years, so we would have to import the
amount of food we export now.
But many ppl won't have food to export then.
The fact is that this world cannot support 12 billion middle class
people all living high on the hog like that 2 billion middle class ppl
do now.
In many ways I see numerous future points in history which will be
CRUNCH TIME where something has to give, or where certain countries
might give things a bit of a shove to make wanted changes to their
people's standard of living. So some little or big nuclear wars look
very probable.
The evironment will be completely fucked up in 50 years.
It won't bee my problem, and not a problem of my kids. I didn't have
any.
People will live like rats in a sewer if they damn well have to.
Patrick Turner
I'd find ways to get around the orders. People disgruntled with the
crap they have bought from yet another High End con man will still
flock to my door wanting determined modifications which render gear
usable and reliable and musical.
I raise my hat to High End Audio. They help keep me in business.
When they learn how to build stuff that's simple, cheap and good
sounding, then I will starve, but it ain't likely to happen because
they cannot slay the dragon of their own puffed up egos.
Patrick Turner.
>
> --
> You were wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it.
>
> - a Usenet "apology"- Hide quoted text -
Patrick Turner
This is the sad part.
The world has gone through a number of mass extinction events
according to the fossil record. Often the rates of change within these
periods has been much slower than now.
Given another 10,000 years of gung-ho business as usual and complete
utilisation of all nature to suit consumers, the world will become
vastly different and most likely a far more poisenous a place to live
than now.
The greenhouse effect is onle of many bothers which look set to make
millions dpressed about their existance.
There are just too many ppl wanting too much stuff on this planet.
But ppl won't mind living like frightened rats down toxic sewers if
they have to.
Patrick Turner.
>
> Like I said, I've got memberships to the Flat Earth Society available to
> any takers ...
>
> --
> You were wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it.
>
> - a Usenet "apology"- Hide quoted text -
>
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!
> But ppl won't mind living like frightened rats down toxic sewers if
> they have to.
And there will be ignorant people like Bret Ludwig who will blame some
racial cause as the reason.
Stupidity breeds like rats.
MiNe 109
flipper <fli...@fish.net> wrote:
> The former CRU high priest Jones just admitted on BBC that there has
> been no statistically significant warming since 1995 (FYI, that's not
> 'fast') and that the Medieval warm period just might have been warmer.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm
Context is important.
Stephen
MiNe 109
flipper <fli...@fish.net> wrote:
> Which is, no doubt, why you snipped my message to hell and back
> removing all traces of it.
I focussed on a testable claim. I don't dispute your opinions.
> I didn't say the man had become rational or suddenly started
> practicing good science. I said "no statistically significant warming"
> hardly constitutes the 'even faster than' hysteria previously posted.
To what point? Both things can be true: no statistically significant
warning in the last five years and overall warming faster than once
expected.
Jones goes on to reiterate the scientific consensus while your
description implies he's suddenly changed his mind.
Stephen
David Nebenzahl
Well, that's the thing: almost all of the material offered up by the GW
deniers as evidence of sudden apostasy on the part of climate
researchers turns out to be no such thing on closer examination. Talk
about reasoning by hysteria!
MiNe 109
flipper <fli...@fish.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 15:46:46 -0600, MiNe 109
> <smce...@POPaustin.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <1q9ln51okob57o4md...@4ax.com>,
> > flipper <fli...@fish.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 06:14:01 -0600, MiNe 109
> >> <smce...@POPaustin.rr.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <opqkn5ti96heskar1...@4ax.com>,
> >> > flipper <fli...@fish.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> The former CRU high priest Jones just admitted on BBC that there has
> >> >> been no statistically significant warming since 1995 (FYI, that's not
> >> >> 'fast') and that the Medieval warm period just might have been warmer.
> >> >
> >> >http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm
> >> >
> >> >Context is important.
> >>
> >> Which is, no doubt, why you snipped my message to hell and back
> >> removing all traces of it.
> >
> >I focussed on a testable claim. I don't dispute your opinions.
>
> Doesn't alter the fact that you took it out of context.
Taking it out of context didn't change the meaning.
> >> I didn't say the man had become rational or suddenly started
> >> practicing good science. I said "no statistically significant warming"
> >> hardly constitutes the 'even faster than' hysteria previously posted.
> >
> >To what point?
>
> To the point in the context you removed.
You think that's a winning point? Yes, I took it out of context, but
doing so doesn't damage your claim.
> > Both things can be true:
>
> No they can't.
Yes, they can. Temps could have zoomed up to 1995 levels faster than
expected.
> > no statistically significant
> >warning in the last five years
>
> 1995-2010 is not 5 years.
Oopsie. Doesn't change my meaning.
> > and overall warming faster than once
> >expected.
>
> So you're now arguing that AGW proponents never claimed warming would
> be "statistically significant."
>
> Piffle.
Jones addresses this in the article: warming over the last 35 years is
statistically significant, over the last fifteen is not, but "only
just," short of the 95% significance level.
> >Jones goes on to reiterate the scientific consensus
>
> He goes on to reiterate his opinion to questions asking his opinion.
>
> I don't operate on 'opinion'. I operate on science and he doesn't have
> it.
Hence the measured scientific language you use.
> > while your
> >description implies he's suddenly changed his mind.
>
> His statement on the Medieval Warm Period is in direct opposition to
> previous flat assertions it was 'local' and 'settled science'. And
> anyone who's followed their, so called, 'temperature reconstructions'
> is aware of the machinations they've gone through trying to make the
> MWP 'go away' (including on the 'local') in order to falsify support
> for the unsupported claim of 'unprecedented', which is a cherry
> picking to begin with because current temperatures are not even close
> to the geological median, much less 'unprecedented'.
What do you call it when you change the subject by answering a different
point than the one being discussed?
As for MWP "direct opposition," what I see is a calm discussion of the
subject and of the limits of the data available.
> Btw, his 'explanation' for the "nature trick" is a half truth. Yes,
> the "divergence problem" *is* 'well known'. What he doesn't tell you
> is they have no idea why the tree ring proxy doesn't work for spit
> after 1950 and that that means the proxy they based the reconstruction
> on is useless and, hence, the supposed 'reconstruction'.
It doesn't matter why the the divergence happened. Are you saying the
proxy is useless because they didn't use tree ring data known to be
divergent?
Stephen
MiNe 109
flipper <fli...@fish.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 07:19:44 -0600, MiNe 109
> <smce...@POPaustin.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <uplmn55efks4mt3m4...@4ax.com>,
> > flipper <fli...@fish.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 15:46:46 -0600, MiNe 109
> >> <smce...@POPaustin.rr.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <1q9ln51okob57o4md...@4ax.com>,
> >> > flipper <fli...@fish.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 06:14:01 -0600, MiNe 109
> >> >> <smce...@POPaustin.rr.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >In article <opqkn5ti96heskar1...@4ax.com>,
> >> >> > flipper <fli...@fish.net> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> The former CRU high priest Jones just admitted on BBC that there has
> >> >> >> been no statistically significant warming since 1995 (FYI, that's
> >> >> >> not
> >> >> >> 'fast') and that the Medieval warm period just might have been
> >> >> >> warmer.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Context is important.
> >> >>
> >> >> Which is, no doubt, why you snipped my message to hell and back
> >> >> removing all traces of it.
> >> >
> >> >I focussed on a testable claim. I don't dispute your opinions.
> >>
> >> Doesn't alter the fact that you took it out of context.
> >
> >Taking it out of context didn't change the meaning.
>
> Then you may now retract your claim that "Context is important."
>
> Can't have it both ways, pal. Either it is or it isn't.
It works both ways, pal. You changed his meaning with your description.
> The fact is, it is and what you quoted was in reply to a specific
> point the knowing of which makes my reply clear. I was addressing the
> claim of "faster than previously..." as further clarified by my
> parenthetical 'explanation' lest someone 'miss it'.
I'm not addressing that point. I'm addressing your misleading cite of
Jones.
> >> >> I didn't say the man had become rational or suddenly started
> >> >> practicing good science. I said "no statistically significant warming"
> >> >> hardly constitutes the 'even faster than' hysteria previously posted.
> >> >
> >> >To what point?
> >>
> >> To the point in the context you removed.
> >
> >You think that's a winning point? Yes, I took it out of context, but
> >doing so doesn't damage your claim.
>
> Already explained and you trying to piss all over your own 'witticism'
> is getting funnier and funnier.
Repetition is the soul of wit.
> >> > Both things can be true:
> >>
> >> No they can't.
> >
> >Yes, they can.
>
> No they can't/
I win.
> > Temps could have zoomed up to 1995 levels faster than
> >expected.
>
> The past has not changed over the last 15 years for it to now be
> 'faster than expected'.
To the 95% confidence level.
> >> > no statistically significant
> >> >warning in the last five years
> >>
> >> 1995-2010 is not 5 years.
> >
> >Oopsie. Doesn't change my meaning.
>
> The hell it doesn't.
That's right, it doesn't.
> The switch from concern over 'cooling' to 'warming' occurred around
> 1980 making the 15 year 1995-2010 of "not statistically significant"
> period dern near equal to the previous 15 year 'warming' period where
> your error of stating 5 years diminishes the ratio.
Science is like that. The "switch" is the result of new observations. My
incorrect 'five years' has no effect on it.
> >> > and overall warming faster than once
> >> >expected.
> >>
> >> So you're now arguing that AGW proponents never claimed warming would
> >> be "statistically significant."
> >>
> >> Piffle.
> >
> >Jones addresses this in the article: warming over the last 35 years is
> >statistically significant, over the last fifteen is not, but "only
> >just," short of the 95% significance level.
>
> That's a word game but the AGW conjecture doesn't allow for a 15 year
> 'stall' while CO2 marches onward, which is why the emails have them
> lamenting it as a "tragedy" AGW can't explain it.
Word games with pilfered emails doesn't erase the hypothesis.
> >> >Jones goes on to reiterate the scientific consensus
> >>
> >> He goes on to reiterate his opinion to questions asking his opinion.
> >>
> >> I don't operate on 'opinion'. I operate on science and he doesn't have
> >> it.
> >
> >Hence the measured scientific language you use.
>
> Yes, like falsifiable prediction. AGW should try some science for a
> change.
> >> > while your
> >> >description implies he's suddenly changed his mind.
> >>
> >> His statement on the Medieval Warm Period is in direct opposition to
> >> previous flat assertions it was 'local' and 'settled science'. And
> >> anyone who's followed their, so called, 'temperature reconstructions'
> >> is aware of the machinations they've gone through trying to make the
> >> MWP 'go away' (including on the 'local') in order to falsify support
> >> for the unsupported claim of 'unprecedented', which is a cherry
> >> picking to begin with because current temperatures are not even close
> >> to the geological median, much less 'unprecedented'.
> >
> >What do you call it when you change the subject by answering a different
> >point than the one being discussed?
>
> The point was you claming I "implie(s) he's suddenly changed his mind"
> and I gave you more of the same.
Yes, you did that the first time and you are doing it again this
additional time.
> >As for MWP "direct opposition," what I see is a calm discussion of the
> >subject and of the limits of the data available.
>
> Context is important, remember? While he tries to throw up a facade
> of, in your words, 'calm discussion' that 'calm discussion' is in
> direct opposition to previous assertions (that context thingie) it
> flat didn't exist. Not only that but Mann and Jones' CRU virtually
> erased the little ice age as well. And, of course, so does the IPCC,
> as in
>
> "Thus current evidence does not support globally synchronous periods
> of anomalous cold or warmth over this time frame, and the conventional
> terms of "Little Ice Age" and "Medieval Warm Period" appear to have
> limited utility in describing trends in hemispheric or global mean
> temperature changes in past centuries..."
>
> Hogwash.
Good, you're now quoting. I see no reason not to take him at his word.
> >> Btw, his 'explanation' for the "nature trick" is a half truth. Yes,
> >> the "divergence problem" *is* 'well known'. What he doesn't tell you
> >> is they have no idea why the tree ring proxy doesn't work for spit
> >> after 1950 and that that means the proxy they based the reconstruction
> >> on is useless and, hence, the supposed 'reconstruction'.
> >
> >It doesn't matter why the the divergence happened.
>
> The hell it doesn't.
Yes, it doesn't.
> > Are you saying the
> >proxy is useless because they didn't use tree ring data known to be
> >divergent?
>
> No, I'm saying that when the proxy doesn't 'work' --> here and you
> don't know why it doesn't 'work' --> here then you have no way of
> knowing whether it's working --> there or anywhere else.
>
> Or, to put it bluntly, if it's screwed from 1960-2010 then what the
> hell makes you think it's any damn good in 1250?
It's just the tree-ring thing that's screwed up.
> If you knew *why* it screwed up and could show those conditions do not
> exist elsewhere in the record, or if you could 'correct' for whatever
> conditions cause it, then you might have a chance but you can't
> legitimately just stick your head in the sand and, que sera sera, lop
> off the parts you don't like. That's 'junk science'.
>
> In 'real science' when your process doesn't work for no identifiable
> reason that's a big fraking 'red flag' your process, understanding of
> it, or both, is wrong.
In real science questions are answered by evidence. If tree-ring data
from 1960 on doesn't work, it isn't used.
Stephen
Jerry Peters
You're ignoring the point: if the tree ring data doesn't work from
1960 on and there is no known reason why it doesn't correspond to actual
temperatures after 1960 then how do we know it's correct, for say 1600?
Hand-waving about "evidence" doesn't cut it.
This is a quote from Richard Feynman, from a talk called "Cargo cult
science", you might want to read the whole speech, BTW:
"Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be
given, if you know them. You must do the best you can--if you know
anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong--to explain it. If you
make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then
you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well
as those that agree with it. There is also a more subtle problem.
When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate
theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that
those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea
for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else
come out right, in addition."
Now contrast that with climate "science", where evidence contrary to
the theory is ignored, where anyone questioning the current othodoxy
is called a "denier". Looks more like a religion to me, especially
when some of the more extreme True Believers call anyone that dares to
question the "science" are implied to be criminals. What's next,
heresy trials for those of us who are sceptical of the alleged
"science" of GW?
Jerry
MiNe 109
Jerry Peters <je...@example.invalid> wrote:
Me:
> > In real science questions are answered by evidence. If tree-ring data
> > from 1960 on doesn't work, it isn't used.
> You're ignoring the point: if the tree ring data doesn't work from
> 1960 on and there is no known reason why it doesn't correspond to actual
> temperatures after 1960 then how do we know it's correct, for say 1600?
> Hand-waving about "evidence" doesn't cut it.
One of those reasons could be anthropogenic CO2.
The abstract here looks like a typical investigation of the problem:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1692171/
> This is a quote from Richard Feynman, from a talk called "Cargo cult
> science", you might want to read the whole speech, BTW:
>
> "Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be
> given, if you know them. You must do the best you can--if you know
> anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong--to explain it. If you
> make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then
> you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well
> as those that agree with it. There is also a more subtle problem.
> When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate
> theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that
> those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea
> for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else
> come out right, in addition."
>
> Now contrast that with climate "science", where evidence contrary to
> the theory is ignored, where anyone questioning the current othodoxy
> is called a "denier". Looks more like a religion to me, especially
> when some of the more extreme True Believers call anyone that dares to
> question the "science" are implied to be criminals. What's next,
> heresy trials for those of us who are sceptical of the alleged
> "science" of GW?
Yes, I'll bet that's what Feynman meant.
Stephen
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!
> On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 15:46:46 -0600, MiNe 109
> > Both things can be true:
>
> No they can't.
>
> > no statistically significant
> >warning in the last five years
>
> 1995-2010 is not 5 years.
You're picking nits I see.
> > and overall warming faster than once
> >expected.
>
> So you're now arguing that AGW proponents never claimed warming would
> be "statistically significant."
>
> Piffle.
In response to the question, "do you agree that from 1995 to the
present there has been no statistically significant global warming?",
Jones said yes, adding that the average increase of 0.12C per year
over that time period "is quite close to the significance level.
Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more
likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods."
http://caps.fool.com/Blogs/ViewPost.aspx?bpid=342118&t=01001715702649948160
Now apologize to Stephen.
> >Jones goes on to reiterate the scientific consensus
>
> He goes on to reiterate his opinion to questions asking his opinion.
>
> I don't operate on 'opinion'. I operate on science and he doesn't have
> it.
In your opinion.
Scientifically speaking, you're a dipshit.
MiNe 109
flipper <fli...@fish.net> wrote:
> In the first place, it was you, not I, who hacked the message to hell
> removing context in the very same message you pounded sand about
> "context matters."
Amusing, yes? Apparently this is such a winner for you you'll never tire
of repeating it.
> > You changed his meaning with your description.
>
> I used his information to address a point made and while that point
> was different than the question asked it is not 'changing the
> meaning'.
I suppose you didn't change his meaning, you merely misrepresented it.
Stephen
MiNe 109
> >I'm not addressing that point.
>
> How typical of AGW worshippers to 'not address the point'.
How typical of deniers to play meaningless word games.
Stephen
MiNe 109
> in your hacking of my message you also
> removed where I explicitly said "Of course, none of that is 'proof'."
Why mention it at all?
Stephen
MiNe 109
> 5 is not 15.
Another winning point repeated.
Stephen
MiNe 109
> I may or may not do another round with you because it's becoming clear
> you're completely uninterested in data or science, just 'word games'.
Calling you on your word games doesn't mean I'm only interested in word
games.
Stephen
MiNe 109
> With your logic drug company testing would be to throw away all the
> failed results, dead bodies, and placebo effects and declare the drug
> 'safe': we throw away data that doesn't work.
I explained the tree-ring thing in a reply to your wing man: it's
possible the tree-ring data has diverged due to anthropogenic CO2. The
tree-rings have been shown to be accurate for the last millenium or so
before that.
Stephen
MiNe 109
flipper <fli...@fish.net> wrote:
> Which is why 1995-2010 being almost the same length as 1980-1995 has
> meaning and that incorrectly claiming 1995-2010 was '5 years' is not a
> 'nit' of an error.
A winning point! AWG is vanquished!
Stephen
MiNe 109
> And that's without even getting into their other 'tricks', like their
> cute little 'secret software' that automagically creates hockey stick
> trends from trendless data sets.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/what-if-the-hockey-
stick-were-wrong/
So let's try some more exciting "what ifs". In mid-20th Century,
medieval temperatures are exceeded in all the reconstructions, hence
recent (last 10-15 years, say) temperatures appear to be unprecedented
for at least a millennium (that even holds for the alternative histories
presented by the "hockey stick" critics). Now what if that were wrong -
if all proxy reconstructions as well as model simulations of the past
millennium were fundamentally in error?
Let us assume that medieval temperatures after all had been warmer than
the present. Even that would tell us nothing about anthropogenic climate
change. The famous conclusion of the IPCC, "The balance of evidence
suggests that there is a discernible human influence on global climate",
does not depend on any reconstruction for the past millennium. It
depends on a detailed analysis of 20th Century data. In fact, this
conclusion is from the 1995 IPCC report, and thus predates the existence
of quantitative proxy reconstructions like the "hockey stick".
Climate changes can have several different reasons, and the cause of any
particular climate change needs to be investigated on a case by case
basis. It cannot be found by looking at one temperature curve. Had
medieval climate been warmer than the present, this would probably have
been due to some natural cause - perhaps a peak in solar output. That
would only tell us that in principle, natural causes can cause warming
larger than what we've seen in the past decades. But we know that
already - one need only go back far enough in time (e.g., fifty million
years) to find examples of unquestionably warmer climates than today.
However, it would be naive to conclude that the observed strong 20th
Century warming therefore also must have a natural cause.
--
Jerry Peters
> Jerry Peters <je...@example.invalid> wrote:
>
> Me:
>> > In real science questions are answered by evidence. If tree-ring data
>> > from 1960 on doesn't work, it isn't used.
>
>> You're ignoring the point: if the tree ring data doesn't work from
>> 1960 on and there is no known reason why it doesn't correspond to actual
>> temperatures after 1960 then how do we know it's correct, for say 1600?
>> Hand-waving about "evidence" doesn't cut it.
>
> One of those reasons could be anthropogenic CO2.
>
> The abstract here looks like a typical investigation of the problem:
>
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1692171/
>
tree growth have important implications for modelling future
atmospheric CO2 concentrations."
"Possibly" in other words we have a hypothesis. Another one that says
AGW is the cause. Wow, I'm really impressed by your faith in climate
"science".
>> This is a quote from Richard Feynman, from a talk called "Cargo cult
>> science", you might want to read the whole speech, BTW:
>>
>> "Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be
>> given, if you know them. You must do the best you can--if you know
>> anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong--to explain it. If you
>> make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then
>> you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well
>> as those that agree with it. There is also a more subtle problem.
>> When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate
>> theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that
>> those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea
>> for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else
>> come out right, in addition."
>>
>> Now contrast that with climate "science", where evidence contrary to
>> the theory is ignored, where anyone questioning the current othodoxy
>> is called a "denier". Looks more like a religion to me, especially
>> when some of the more extreme True Believers call anyone that dares to
>> question the "science" are implied to be criminals. What's next,
>> heresy trials for those of us who are sceptical of the alleged
>> "science" of GW?
>
> Yes, I'll bet that's what Feynman meant.
>
> Stephen
Yes, he almost exactly describes "climate science" and "enviro-science".
They use the form of science without following its principles. They're
a form of religion for the cognescenti.
I put climate science in the same class with economics, they both
attempt to explain highly complicated systems with statistical
techniques and modelling. They both have limited success in doing so.
Jerry
Jerry Peters
Note the words "it's possible", not a very definitive point, is it?
Probably explains "hide the decline", he didn't want most of us to
notice that tree-ring data might not be all that accurate.
So once again: if there's an unexplained divergence after 1960, how do
we know there's not one or more divergences in the prior 1000 years?
Jerry
MiNe 109
Jerry Peters <je...@example.invalid> wrote:
> In rec.audio.tech MiNe 109 <smce...@popaustin.rr.com> wrote:
> > In article <hlhmlu$hcb$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > Jerry Peters <je...@example.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > Me:
> >> > In real science questions are answered by evidence. If tree-ring data
> >> > from 1960 on doesn't work, it isn't used.
> >
> >> You're ignoring the point: if the tree ring data doesn't work from
> >> 1960 on and there is no known reason why it doesn't correspond to actual
> >> temperatures after 1960 then how do we know it's correct, for say 1600?
> >> Hand-waving about "evidence" doesn't cut it.
> >
> > One of those reasons could be anthropogenic CO2.
> >
> > The abstract here looks like a typical investigation of the problem:
> >
> > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1692171/
> >
> "These possibly anthropogenically related changes in the ecology of
> tree growth have important implications for modelling future
> atmospheric CO2 concentrations."
>
> "Possibly" in other words we have a hypothesis. Another one that says
> AGW is the cause. Wow, I'm really impressed by your faith in climate
> "science".
Thank you! Hypothesis is a step in the scientific method.
No, he describes good science. The description of climate science is
your opinion.
> I put climate science in the same class with economics, they both
> attempt to explain highly complicated systems with statistical
> techniques and modelling. They both have limited success in doing so.
I can think of differences between them.
Stephen
MiNe 109
Jerry Peters <je...@example.invalid> wrote:
> In rec.audio.tech MiNe 109 <smce...@popaustin.rr.com> wrote:
> > In article <77opn5l2a5scl4tem...@4ax.com>,
> > flipper <fli...@fish.net> wrote:
> >
> >> With your logic drug company testing would be to throw away all the
> >> failed results, dead bodies, and placebo effects and declare the drug
> >> 'safe': we throw away data that doesn't work.
> >
> > I explained the tree-ring thing in a reply to your wing man: it's
> > possible the tree-ring data has diverged due to anthropogenic CO2. The
> > tree-rings have been shown to be accurate for the last millenium or so
> > before that.
> >
> > Stephen
>
> Note the words "it's possible", not a very definitive point, is it?
Calls for more investigation. Science can be like that.
> Probably explains "hide the decline", he didn't want most of us to
> notice that tree-ring data might not be all that accurate.
Since 1960, it isn't.
> So once again: if there's an unexplained divergence after 1960, how do
> we know there's not one or more divergences in the prior 1000 years?
Check it against other measurements.
Stephen
MiNe 109
flipper <fli...@fish.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 16:26:22 -0600, MiNe 109
> <smce...@POPaustin.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <hlkdar$uig$2...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > Jerry Peters <je...@example.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> In rec.audio.tech MiNe 109 <smce...@popaustin.rr.com> wrote:
> >> > In article <77opn5l2a5scl4tem...@4ax.com>,
> >> > flipper <fli...@fish.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> With your logic drug company testing would be to throw away all the
> >> >> failed results, dead bodies, and placebo effects and declare the drug
> >> >> 'safe': we throw away data that doesn't work.
> >> >
> >> > I explained the tree-ring thing in a reply to your wing man: it's
> >> > possible the tree-ring data has diverged due to anthropogenic CO2. The
> >> > tree-rings have been shown to be accurate for the last millenium or so
> >> > before that.
> >> >
> >> > Stephen
> >>
> >> Note the words "it's possible", not a very definitive point, is it?
> >
> >Calls for more investigation. Science can be like that.
>
> Quite right. Which means (even setting aside the known frauds in the
> 'hockey stick' graph, like creating trends from trendless data sets)
> one cannot draw the conclusions AGW proponents make about the 'hockey
> stick' because we know for a fact the proxy data is unreliable from
> 1960 on and there's nothing to 'validate' the data against prior to
> ~1850. You have no way of knowing whether a similar, or even
> different, 'divergence' didn't occur elsewhere.
More data is needed for greater confidence, yes.
> Why would we worry about that? Because we know for a fact the data
> diverges from 1960 on and we can't explain why.
>
> Actually, there are even more problems and the article you, yourself,
> provided suggests the proxy overstates 20'th century warming or, if
> one calibrates to 20'th century instrument records (CRU methodology),
> understates pre 20th century temperatures.
>
> So now you have one strong possibility (your article) and one
> speculative possibility (a known divergence during a 'warm' period
> [1960-2010] which we could speculate might happen in 'other' warm
> periods) that the MWP was warmer than indicated on the 'hockey stick'.
With the caveat that there may be greater variability among global
regions than previously assumed. Hypothetically, Europe's MWP could be
balanced out by colder colder climate elsewhere.
> Now, I am not saying that *is* the case but that you CAN NOT KNOW what
> AGW worshippers unjustifiably claim are certitudes
Depends. Temperatures and CO2 are both up. The hockey stick is just a
crude representation of general trends.
> >> Probably explains "hide the decline", he didn't want most of us to
> >> notice that tree-ring data might not be all that accurate.
> >
> >Since 1960, it isn't.
>
> Which is why they wanted to 'hide' it. That's not science it's
> propaganda.
No, it was a valid statistical method to normalize the findings.
> >> So once again: if there's an unexplained divergence after 1960, how do
> >> we know there's not one or more divergences in the prior 1000 years?
> >
> >Check it against other measurements.
>
> What would you propose to check it against?
Different trees!
Stephen
MiNe 109
flipper <fli...@fish.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 07:05:01 -0600, MiNe 109
> <smce...@POPaustin.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <77opn5l2a5scl4tem...@4ax.com>,
> > flipper <fli...@fish.net> wrote:
> >
> >> In the first place, it was you, not I, who hacked the message to hell
> >> removing context in the very same message you pounded sand about
> >> "context matters."
> >
> >Amusing, yes? Apparently this is such a winner for you you'll never tire
> >of repeating it.
>
> It get's repeated because you keep trying to defend taking things out
> of context and, as for funny, it's knee slapping hilarious for you to
> whine about it when you just did it again.
Glad you think so, except I didn't whine about it. Of course, you might
have taken it badly.
> >> > You changed his meaning with your description.
> >>
> >> I used his information to address a point made and while that point
> >> was different than the question asked it is not 'changing the
> >> meaning'.
> >
> >I suppose you didn't change his meaning, you merely misrepresented it.
>
> I didn't do either and, I repeat, since you ripped it all out of
> context again, even a grade schooler can figure out that a slope of
> .12 is lower that a .166 slope and not 'faster'.
That's not my point. You implied someone changed his mind when he hadn't
and all anyone had to do to see it is look for the reference.
Stephen
MiNe 109
flipper <fli...@fish.net> wrote:
> 'Addressing the point' is not a word game but what you just tried to
> do is.
Yes, it was a simple substitution. However, there are terms for holding
someone responsible for arguments not made.
Stephen
MiNe 109
flipper <fli...@fish.net> wrote:
> Because it is 'evidence'.
>
> I hate to burst your bubble but 'evidence' is not automatically a
> 'proof'.
Are you arguing with yourself?
Stephen
MiNe 109
flipper <fli...@fish.net> wrote:
> I wouldn't need to if you would ever 'get it'.
By 'oopsie' I meant 'I misstated the number of years covered by the
reference'. This misstatement doesn't change the validity of the
reference nor was I making an independent argument.
Get it?
Stephen
MiNe 109
flipper <fli...@fish.net> wrote:
> Mimicking me isn't an argument.
I'm incapable of mimicking you successfully.
Stephen
MiNe 109
flipper <fli...@fish.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 07:15:16 -0600, MiNe 109
> <smce...@POPaustin.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <77opn5l2a5scl4tem...@4ax.com>,
> > flipper <fli...@fish.net> wrote:
> >
> >> With your logic drug company testing would be to throw away all the
> >> failed results, dead bodies, and placebo effects and declare the drug
> >> 'safe': we throw away data that doesn't work.
> >
> >I explained the tree-ring thing in a reply to your wing man: it's
> >possible the tree-ring data has diverged due to anthropogenic CO2.
>
> A "possibility" is not an "explanation" and the 'odds' are not
> affected by you wishing it were so.
There's also higher UV-B. I'm not 'wishing' BTW.
> > The
> >tree-rings have been shown to be accurate for the last millenium or so
> >before that.
>
> Now you're making things up for no other reason than you wish it were
> so.
There's a whole page of references at the end of "Trees tell of past
climates: but are they speaking less clearly today?"
Take it up with Briffa, Schweingruber, et al. Be careful not to read the
discussion by accident.
Stephen
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!
> flipper <flip...@fish.net> wrote:
> > Mimicking me isn't an argument.
>
> I'm incapable of mimicking you successfully.
LOL!
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!
> On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 20:01:41 -0600, MiNe 109
> >> >Calls for more investigation. Science can be like that.
>
> >> Quite right. Which means (even setting aside the known frauds in the
> >> 'hockey stick' graph, like creating trends from trendless data sets)
> >> one cannot draw the conclusions AGW proponents make about the 'hockey
> >> stick' because we know for a fact the proxy data is unreliable from
> >> 1960 on and there's nothing to 'validate' the data against prior to
> >> ~1850. You have no way of knowing whether a similar, or even
> >> different, 'divergence' didn't occur elsewhere.
>
> >More data is needed for greater confidence, yes.
>
> Almost any degree of 'confidence' would be 'greater' than a process we
> know for a fact doesn't work from 1960 to 2010.
>
> But even your meek admission (expecting what you already 'think' is
> true will be 'proven' by "more data") means the AGW worshipers
> absolutist claims are unsupported.
Unlike the absolutist claims by opponents who claim it's all bunk.
If AGW people are a "religion", people who follow McIntyre are a
"cult".
> Certainly isn't "settled science" when you need "more data," now is
> it?
The facts are these: there is global warming and humans play a part in
it. "More data" can refine "settled science".
Let's "look" at a "settled science": the "intenal combustion engine".
Recent "leaps of technology" and "improved data" have "improved their
performance" even though that "science" was "settled" over "almost a
decade ago".
You are a "fucking moron", aren't "you"?
However, refute this:
The finding that the climate has warmed in recent decades and that
human activities are already contributing adversely to global climate
change has been endorsed by every national science academy that has
issued a statement on climate change, including the science academies
of all of the major industrialized countries.[25] With the release of
the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum
Geologists in 2007[26], no remaining scientific society is known to
reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change.
[27]
[i.e. Note the word "basic". Feel free to pick at nits to your
"heart's content". Feel free to play the "arrant fool".]
On April 29, 2008, environmental journalist Richard Littlemore
revealed that a list of "500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-
Made Global Warming Scares"[31] distributed by the Heartland Institute
included at least 45 scientists who neither knew of their inclusion as
"coauthors" of the article, nor agreed with its contents.[32] Many of
the scientists asked the Heartland Institute to remove their names
from the list.
[i.e. Uh-oh! The opponents will resort to dirty trick and some arrant
fools will fall in line!]
In 1997, the "World Scientists Call For Action" petition was presented
to world leaders meeting to negotiate the Kyoto Protocol. The
declaration asserted, "A broad consensus among the world's
climatologists is that there is now ‘a discernible human influence on
global climate.’" It urged governments to make "legally binding
commitments to reduce industrial nations' emissions of heat-trapping
gases", and called global warming "one of the most serious threats to
the planet and to future generations."[33] The petition was conceived
by the Union of Concerned Scientists as a follow up to their 1992
World Scientists' Warning to Humanity, and was signed by "more than
1,500 of the world's most distinguished senior scientists, including
the majority of Nobel laureates in science."[34][35]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy
Those poor Nobel laureates. What buffoons! Why, they must be "arrant
fools" just like you are!
But refute it and argue with the huge, vast majority of scientists and
scientific organizations worldwide who have viewed the evidence and
disagree with your conclusions. You're boring.
MiNe 109
flipper <fli...@fish.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 09:40:47 -0600, MiNe 109
> <smce...@POPaustin.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <77opn5l2a5scl4tem...@4ax.com>,
> > flipper <fli...@fish.net> wrote:
> >
> >> And that's without even getting into their other 'tricks', like their
> >> cute little 'secret software' that automagically creates hockey stick
> >> trends from trendless data sets.
> >
> >http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/what-if-the-hockey-
> >stick-were-wrong/
>
> In the first place, you are quoting from a site specifically created
> by the same cabal creating the hockey stick graphs and designed for
> the purpose of AGW propaganda. I would be much more impressed if you
> were familiar with all sides.
Yes, that's Michael Mann.
> Btw, if you hadn't noticed, everything in my original post came from
> Jones' own mouth (and his data), not a 'skeptic'.
You contributed a substantial and misleading gloss while not providing a
cite to the original source.
> >So let's try some more exciting "what ifs". In mid-20th Century,
> >medieval temperatures are exceeded in all the reconstructions,
>
> That is a flim flam as 'all the reconstructions' come from the same
> cabal members who share the same data sets, use the same 'techniques'
> (like Mike's 'nature trick' and 'hide the decline'), and compare,
> coordinate, and 'correct' their results to conform each other.
> They then, laughably, call them 'independent studies'.
There's a term for people who believe others are secretly allied.
> > hence
> >recent (last 10-15 years, say) temperatures appear to be unprecedented
> >for at least a millennium (that even holds for the alternative histories
> >presented by the "hockey stick" critics).
>
> The claim about 'critics' is simply a flat out falsehood.
The MWP is more than a millenium past.
> > Now what if that were wrong -
> >if all proxy reconstructions as well as model simulations of the past
> >millennium were fundamentally in error?
>
> Deceptive 'let's pretend to be generous' word game to suggest it's
> 'highly unlikely' the models (and reconstructions) could possibly be
> in error. The fact of the matter is the models have to be constantly
> pushed, nudged, and 'corrected' all along the way to get anything
> resembling the record which, as we've seen, if iffy to begin with. You
> can just as easily, by the same methods and degree of 'confidence',
> nudge them to a completely contradictory result.
>
> Btw, if the reconstructions are in error then what does that tell you
> about a model that supposedly 'matches' it?
>
> And btbtw, the reason the models appear to be 'in agreement' with each
> other is because they are all 'nudged' to the same expectation.
That seems a circular argument.
> >Let us assume that medieval temperatures after all had been warmer than
> >the present. Even that would tell us nothing about anthropogenic climate
> >change.
>
> Strawman argument.
>
> No one claims it does. The 'dispute is about AGW proponents
> perpetually using it to make unsubstantiated claims about
> 'unprecedented'.
>
> > The famous conclusion of the IPCC, "The balance of evidence
> >suggests that there is a discernible human influence on global climate",
> >does not depend on any reconstruction for the past millennium.
>
> Appeal to authority fallacy. Not only that but an appeal to a supposed
> 'authority' dominated by the same cabal and another case (like the
> faux 'independent studies) of the cabal essentially quoting itself to
> supposedly 'support' itself.
Ad hominem.
> > It
> >depends on a detailed analysis of 20th Century data.
>
> I've seen the 'analysis' and it's a pile of selective data culling
> where they, without any justification, summarily toss out anything
> (such as 100 years worth of meticulous CO2 measurements) that does not
> 'fit' the pre arrived at assumptions and conclusion (I.E. most the 100
> years CO2 measurements were summarily discarded because they
> contradicted the IPCC's original whole cloth assumption that CO2 was
> 'stable' and 'low'.)
>
> > In fact, this
> >conclusion is from the 1995 IPCC report, and thus predates the existence
> >of quantitative proxy reconstructions like the "hockey stick".
>
> Back to the strawman. The issue is the unsubstantiated claim of
> current temperatures being 'unprecedented' (warmer than the MWP, which
> begs the even warmer Roman Warm period) and not whether 20'th century
> temperatures rose after the Little Ice age.
> >Climate changes can have several different reasons, and the cause of any
> >particular climate change needs to be investigated on a case by case
> >basis. It cannot be found by looking at one temperature curve.
>
> Fair enough, at least on the surface, and no one ever claimed
> otherwise.
>
> It's a slight of hand, though, because the whole *point* of the hockey
> stick was specifically to 'show' current temperatures 'highest of the
> last 2,000 years' (banner headline, story at 10) and to 'erase' the
> MWP. Looking at 'one temperature record' is precisely what AGW
> propagandists were trying to accomplish.
>
>
> > Had
> >medieval climate been warmer than the present, this would probably have
> >been due to some natural cause - perhaps a peak in solar output.
>
> Maybe. But it would mean the unsubstantiated claim of 'unprecedented'
> was false.
>
> > That
> >would only tell us that in principle, natural causes can cause warming
> >larger than what we've seen in the past decades. But we know that
> >already - one need only go back far enough in time (e.g., fifty million
> >years) to find examples of unquestionably warmer climates than today.
>
> Quite right. Which makes the claim of 'unprecedented' a 'propaganda
> tool.
>
> >However, it would be naive to conclude that the observed strong 20th
> >Century warming therefore also must have a natural cause.
>
> False choice argument. No one claims it "must have a natural cause"
> but since it's happened before it's certainly a 'possibility' that AGW
> worshippers will simply not even investigate.
>
> It is the AGW worship camp that declares 'must be' based on a CO2
> conjecture that has no better correlation than sun spots. Which, btw,
> some claim also has a 'divergence problem' in recent years but since
> throwing away 'divergence problems' is an honored AGW practice I
> suppose the 'natural causes' folks can do the same and declare the
> 'science is settled'.
Take away the hockey stick and the word unprecedented and you're left
with substantial warming and increased CO2 levels over the last century.
Some of the statistical methods you question are likely valid: I don't
have the time enough to learn enough about it to second guess
peer-reviewed studies. (Mann's hockey stick has had its share of peer
correction.)
Those looking for conspiracies would do better to look at the funding
behind certain of the AWG detractors.
Stephen
MiNe 109
flipper <fli...@fish.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 07:16:57 -0600, MiNe 109
> <smce...@POPaustin.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <3i0qn51fveufgje2r...@4ax.com>,
> > flipper <fli...@fish.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Which is why 1995-2010 being almost the same length as 1980-1995 has
> >> meaning and that incorrectly claiming 1995-2010 was '5 years' is not a
> >> 'nit' of an error.
> >
> >A winning point! AWG is vanquished!
>
> It's certainly a winning point but I didn't claim AGW was
> 'vanquished'.
>
> Your non sequitur, however, illustrates the AGW worshiper's mindset in
> defending to the death any error, no matter how trivial or absurd,
> because "uh oh, you made a boo-boo so I win" is precisely the kind of
> irrational, nonsensical, game they play along with, of course, the
> ever popular hail of ad hominems.
No, it doesn't.
Stpehen
MiNe 109
flipper <fli...@fish.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 20:01:41 -0600, MiNe 109
> Almost any degree of 'confidence' would be 'greater' than a process we
> know for a fact doesn't work from 1960 to 2010.
>
> But even your meek admission (expecting what you already 'think' is
> true will be 'proven' by "more data") means the AGW worshipers
> absolutist claims are unsupported.
AWG doesn't depend on what I "think" is true.
> Certainly isn't "settled science" when you need "more data," now is
> it?
I'm pretty sure that's a bs argument. More data=more confidence seems an
unassailable truism.
> >> Why would we worry about that? Because we know for a fact the data
> >> diverges from 1960 on and we can't explain why.
> >>
> >> Actually, there are even more problems and the article you, yourself,
> >> provided suggests the proxy overstates 20'th century warming or, if
> >> one calibrates to 20'th century instrument records (CRU methodology),
> >> understates pre 20th century temperatures.
> >>
> >> So now you have one strong possibility (your article) and one
> >> speculative possibility (a known divergence during a 'warm' period
> >> [1960-2010] which we could speculate might happen in 'other' warm
> >> periods) that the MWP was warmer than indicated on the 'hockey stick'.
> >
> >With the caveat that there may be greater variability among global
> >regions than previously assumed. Hypothetically, Europe's MWP could be
> >balanced out by colder colder climate elsewhere.
>
> One can speculate anything but speculation is not evidence nor is it
> an explanation.
It can show the limits of your counter-model.
> >> Now, I am not saying that *is* the case but that you CAN NOT KNOW what
> >> AGW worshippers unjustifiably claim are certitudes
> >
> >Depends.
>
> No, it doesn't "depends." Certitudes do not allow for "depends."
Depends on what you're talking about,
> > Temperatures and CO2 are both up.
>
> Compared to what, determined how, and what significance is it?
>
> We exited the Little Ice Age. Of course 'temperatures are up' compared
> to that. That's why it's not an 'ice age' anymore.
>
> As for CO2 being up, that's debatable. It's 'up' if, like the IPCC,
> you throw away 100 years of measurements indicating it was higher than
> their whole cloth assumption.
>
> But even if we do, correlation doe not prove causation.
>
> And even if we get that far there's the matter of degree of effect.
>
> > The hockey stick is just a
> >crude representation of general trends.
>
> Then people should not be making such broad, absolutist claims based
> on it but it less than 'crude'. It's a reconstruction based on a proxy
> that is known to not work in, at least, the 1960-2010 time frame.
>
>
> >> >> Probably explains "hide the decline", he didn't want most of us to
> >> >> notice that tree-ring data might not be all that accurate.
> >> >
> >> >Since 1960, it isn't.
> >>
> >> Which is why they wanted to 'hide' it. That's not science it's
> >> propaganda.
> >
> >No, it was a valid statistical method to normalize the findings.
>
> You are again just making up things in order to have 'something to
> say'. No, it is NOT valid.
> >> >> So once again: if there's an unexplained divergence after 1960, how do
> >> >> we know there's not one or more divergences in the prior 1000 years?
> >> >
> >> >Check it against other measurements.
> >>
> >> What would you propose to check it against?
> >
> >Different trees!
>
> And what makes you think the 'different trees' would be any good?
You'd have to look and see.
> I'll tell you a 'secret', though. They did try 'different trees', to
> some degree, and what they do is discard the ones that don't produce
> the desired results. In some cases, that left them with 'one tree' to
> make a supposed 'statistical' analysis. In other cases, as I've
> previously mentioned, they run a 'special program' that 'reconstructs'
> hockey stick trends from trendless data sets.
>
> Now, here's a really good one. In other cases they put some of the
> tree ring data in 'upside down' and then argue, when it was discovered
> by external investigators, that the 'upside down' data "doesn't
> matter."
>
> Think about that for a minute. It does not *matter* if the data is
> upside down? What does that say about the data?
There's so much of it one mishandled tree doesn't affect the outcome.
Stephen
MiNe 109
flipper <fli...@fish.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 20:03:36 -0600, MiNe 109
> <smce...@POPaustin.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <31prn55m2ag2v8pif...@4ax.com>,
> > flipper <fli...@fish.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 07:05:01 -0600, MiNe 109
> >> <smce...@POPaustin.rr.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <77opn5l2a5scl4tem...@4ax.com>,
> >> > flipper <fli...@fish.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> In the first place, it was you, not I, who hacked the message to hell
> >> >> removing context in the very same message you pounded sand about
> >> >> "context matters."
> >> >
> >> >Amusing, yes? Apparently this is such a winner for you you'll never tire
> >> >of repeating it.
> >>
> >> It get's repeated because you keep trying to defend taking things out
> >> of context and, as for funny, it's knee slapping hilarious for you to
> >> whine about it when you just did it again.
> >
> >Glad you think so, except I didn't whine about it. Of course, you might
> >have taken it badly.
>
> Ok, call it whatever you like, 'complained' about it. Tried to 'make a
> big deal' of it. Suit yourself but it's still absurd when you keep
> doing it.
You haven't shown changing the context has hurt your argument or
misrepresented it. The same can not be said for your description of
Jones.
> >> >> > You changed his meaning with your description.
> >> >>
> >> >> I used his information to address a point made and while that point
> >> >> was different than the question asked it is not 'changing the
> >> >> meaning'.
> >> >
> >> >I suppose you didn't change his meaning, you merely misrepresented it.
> >>
> >> I didn't do either and, I repeat, since you ripped it all out of
> >> context again, even a grade schooler can figure out that a slope of
> >> .12 is lower that a .166 slope and not 'faster'.
> >
> >That's not my point.
>
> You don't get to decide what *my* point was.
In this case, you're pretending my mistake was actually a statistical
analysis of temperature change. It isn't.
> > You implied someone changed his mind when he hadn't
> >and all anyone had to do to see it is look for the reference.
>
> As you yourself said, "context matters," and I've given you the
> context.
No, you didn't. I had to go hunt down the original interview.
> I did not say he 'changed his mind' during the course of the
> interview. I said his statements in the interview contradict prior
> positions and, as I explained in depth, they do.
He said the rise in temperature is short of the statistical 95%
confidence level, not that there's no such thing as warming.
Stephen
MiNe 109
flipper <fli...@fish.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 20:05:29 -0600, MiNe 109
> <smce...@POPaustin.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <0dprn5992a0lr02e8...@4ax.com>,
> > flipper <fli...@fish.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 07:06:18 -0600, MiNe 109
> >> <smce...@POPaustin.rr.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <77opn5l2a5scl4tem...@4ax.com>,
> >> > flipper <fli...@fish.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> >I'm not addressing that point.
> >> >>
> >> >> How typical of AGW worshippers to 'not address the point'.
> >> >
> >> >How typical of deniers to play meaningless word games.
> >>
> >> 'Addressing the point' is not a word game but what you just tried to
> >> do is.
> >
> >Yes, it was a simple substitution. However, there are terms for holding
> >someone responsible for arguments not made.
>
> As I said earlier, you do not get to decide what *my* points are.
Why not? You've shown a willingness to make my points for me.
Stephen
MiNe 109
flipper <fli...@fish.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 20:07:01 -0600, MiNe 109
> <smce...@POPaustin.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <2gprn55es7i5j1jd2...@4ax.com>,
> > flipper <fli...@fish.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 07:06:45 -0600, MiNe 109
> >> <smce...@POPaustin.rr.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <77opn5l2a5scl4tem...@4ax.com>,
> >> > flipper <fli...@fish.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> in your hacking of my message you also
> >> >> removed where I explicitly said "Of course, none of that is 'proof'."
> >> >
> >> >Why mention it at all?
> >>
> >> Because it is 'evidence'.
> >>
> >> I hate to burst your bubble but 'evidence' is not automatically a
> >> 'proof'.
> >
> >Are you arguing with yourself?
>
> You asked so I answered.
>
> What part of "'evidence' is not automatically a 'proof'" did you not
> understand?
The part where it has anything to do with what I was saying.
Stephen