3 feet in 50 years?!?

[Doug Landau]

Jennifer Wadsworth writes, in the local cheesy papers:

>Experts predict that the bay waters will ascend another 3 feet by 2050.

http://www.sanjoseinside.com/2016/12/08/how-rising-seas-government-squabbling-turned-climate-change-into-a-local-issue/

3 feet?!? Current rate is 3mm/0.14", which w/o acceleration == 7" in 50 yrs.

Who is saying 3 feet in 50 yrs? And what do -we- think?

[Joerg]

When I was a kid they predicted a man-made ice age in due course,
meaning a few decades. I really believed that nonsense and got scared.
Now that I've grown up it's easier to see through that. Much of it is
just propaganda.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

[DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH]

Ima marsh guy....


goo.gl/ynXC2k

a 3' predication would be endemic.

[Tim McNamara]

"We" probably don't think anything. You probably think one thing and I
probably think something else. I haven't bothered to look at the
article you reference- doesn't the author cite the source of the
information? Competent journalism about science provides reference to
the source material.

[DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH]

http://blogs.agu.org/wildwildscience/2016/12/13/arctic-warmth-talk-agu-meeting-san-francisco-can-see-many-talks-online/

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per Doug Landau:

>Who is saying 3 feet in 50 yrs? And what do -we- think?

Somewhere, I recall reading that the US Navy is building five feet into
it's base construction/maintenance plans - but I have no clue what the
time frame is and I cannot cite.

Maybe somebody else has read this?
--
Pete Cresswell

[cycl...@gmail.com]

This is the loony tunes environmentalism of today. In the last six days they delayed an incoming storm by three days and we're being told what is going to happen in 50 years. We are near the end of this present warm period and I expect it to start going back down to cooler weather pretty quick.

[cycl...@gmail.com]

Do you know what the word "endemic" means? Or does it just look good to you in print?

[cycl...@gmail.com]

Time - they always give themselves the leeway of saying "if things continue as they are". Well EVEN if they continued as they are more land is being made than is being lost.

[Andre Jute]

We think this is looney tunes. We think, as an economist who knows for a fact that two degrees increase in global temperature will be very good for trade and harvests and hungry people and trees and new species, that if these clowns could actually bring back global warming, they would be heroes. We think, as cyclists, that if it is possible to bring back global warming, it would be the greatest thing since fish and chips was served with vinegar and salt in newspaper.

I've been making fun of the apocalyptics since I was a precocious teenager with a column in a famous broadsheet, when I asked politely, once a month, to be shown the hole in the ozone layer caused by aerosols, which before CO2 was the Devil's Snot. After that came the imminent ice age, major floods (I had one pol I advised stand on the beach with his arms open for the TV cameras, and the next day he was a national figure), and then global warming. All along we've had the stupidity about excess population, to where now most of the industrial nations can't even replicate their own populations.

Andre Jute
James Hansen is a lying wanker

[DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH]

Ima famous humorous journalist. read apt your level.

[DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH]

no but there are reported problems in future planning analysis at KSC.

Not the helicopter on the embassy roof but when stop sand bagging n move on ...Trump may have the answer.

[DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syndemic


poss you would enjoy syndemic but I thought syndemic was weighty not of my ilk.

You could try being more well rounded as our group tends

looking west>>>>>

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gl=us&tbm=nws&authuser=0&q=northwest+seismic+the+big+one&oq=northwest+seismic+the+big+one&gs_l=news-cc.1.0.43j43i53.7978.26670.0.28795.29.11.0.18.18.0.266.1671.2j7j2.11.0...0.0...1ac.1.9ulQ1YrImrE#hl=en&gl=us&authuser=0&tbm=nws&q=the+big+one+california+oregon+washington+state+earthquake+prediction

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gl=us&tbm=nws&authuser=0&q=northwest+seismic+the+big+one&oq=northwest+seismic+the+big+one&gs_l=news-cc.1.0.43j43i53.7978.26670.0.28795.29.11.0.18.18.0.266.1671.2j7j2.11.0...0.0...1ac.1.9ulQ1YrImrE#hl=en&gl=us&authuser=0&tbm=nws&q=san+francisco+car+tipping

at 2 the Ilk are fed …chow

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per Andre Jute:

>We think this is looney tunes. We think, as an economist who knows for a fact that two degrees increase in global temperature will be very good for trade and harvests and hungry people and trees and new species, that if these clowns could actually bring back global warming, they would be heroes.

The governments of China and India might differ with that. AFIK, both
countries are heavily dependent on irrigation water coming from melting
snowpack in the Himalayas - which snowpack is diminishing as the globe
warms.

Likewise people in Persian Gulf states where an MIT study predicts major
cities will become uninhabitable due to heat by 2100.
--
Pete Cresswell

[Sir Ridesalot]

Many South AMerican countries and many other areas are already experiencing water shortage problems due to receding glaciers and/or snow pack.

There are many areas now under water that used to be above water of which Doggerland is but one example. Global warming is something that happens but what people these days can't agree on is the speed at which it seems to be happening and whether humans are responsible for it.

What's so ironic about global warming is that if it continues long enough and if enough ice/snow melts at the two poles that melt water which is fresh water will mosdt likely change the directions of many ocean currents including the Gulf Stream and that in turn can lead to rapid cooling and a new ice age in the northern areas no longer warmed by that Gulf Stream.

Cheers

[Doug Landau]

> What's so ironic about global warming is that if it continues long enough and if enough ice/snow melts at the two poles that melt water which is fresh water will mosdt likely change the directions of many ocean currents including the Gulf Stream and that in turn can lead to rapid cooling and a new ice age in the northern areas no longer warmed by that Gulf Stream.

At least this will generate electricity
http://archive.wired.com/wired/archive/13.06/craven.html?pg=1&topic=craven&topic_set

[cycl...@gmail.com]

Pete - where do you come from? China and India's farming and most of their water needs are supplied like most other places on this Earth - from RAIN building a water table and not from run-off from a snowpack.

[Andre Jute]

Pft! Montreal, where a notable RBTer lives and rides and brings up his family, is uninhabitable for more than half the year, and pretty miserable for the rest of the year. It's ***been made*** habitable by central heating and insulation. I don't believe these apocalyptic studies, in the first instance because they aren't studies, they're based on models which in turn are based on circular reasoning and bad politics. But even if they're right, the Persian Gulf cities will manage, and the air conditioning and desalination manufacturers will make killing. This sort of crap that comes out of the IPCC and now apparently MIT devalues and demeans human ingenuity.

Andre Jute
Human, smart, very high survival quotient, and not ashamed of it

[cycl...@gmail.com]

That was more that 10 years ago. OTEC (Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion) doesn't even sound good.

Here's the problem - they use the difference in temperature of deep ocean water and the warmer surface temperature. This difference in temperature not only is slight to begin with (and effective generation of power benefits from the widest possible differential temperatures - that is what makes the internal combustion engine practical.) but there are two major problems - in the first place you have to expend a great deal of power to pump cold sea water from the depths in sufficient quantity to cool a VERY large plant (because the temperature differential is so small it HAS to be large for a small power output) but it would also be an environmental disaster since the deep sea water would have to be gotten rid of in some manner - if it were on the surface you would be expelling cold de-oxygenated water into the wrong environment. If it were back to it's original place you would both have to pump it there again and it would then be WARMER than the ecology could handle.

There a millions of patents in the world and an extraordinary few are ever profitable no matter how bright the idea behind it.

Wind and solar power are capable of grossly more power output per land area and yet they are totally ineffective. California's Pacific Gas and Electric has an installed base capable of developing 19% of their peak needs and they have at the very best year (a drought year) developed 3% of their average needs. The normal is 2%.

Wishing for a new Thomas Edison or a new Nickolai Tesla isn't a very intelligent thing to do. (most people don't even pronounce it right - it's pronounced "Teshla". The voice recognician instruments can't even understand my name when it's spelled.)

The way energy works is known. There are NO secrets. And the FIRST rule is to have a large temperature differential.

[DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH]

DUH

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/12/13/scientists-are-frantically-copying-u-s-climate-data-fearing-it-might-vanish-under-trump/?utm_term=.80f06a0370eb

[cycl...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, December 15, 2016 at 4:14:39 PM UTC-8, DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH wrote:
> DUH
>
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/12/13/scientists-are-frantically-copying-u-s-climate-data-fearing-it-might-vanish-under-trump/?utm_term=.80f06a0370eb

Funny that they weren't in the least bothered when it was all changed under Obama.

[AMuzi]

Variegated temperature seawater systems would be possible
if, like solar panels, enough taxpayer revenues are applied
as an energy source. If you were pumping that water yourself
with a bicycle trainer setup you would find it senseless.

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

[AMuzi]

On 12/15/2016 6:14 PM, DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH wrote:
> DUH
>
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/12/13/scientists-are-frantically-copying-u-s-climate-data-fearing-it-might-vanish-under-trump/?utm_term=.80f06a0370eb
>

"We have to hide the decline"
This is a crazy religion, not at all science.

[Frank Miles]

Pete is quite right. But it's not just Asia - large areas of the western US
are highly dependent on melting snow. Rain is important too - I'm not claiming
that snow supplies all water - but without the snow serious problems develop.

This affects water supplies directly - and also fish runs (wildlife) and
hydro-power and recreation.

Reservoirs are nowhere near big enough to replace the water storage in snow
packs. For example, there have been some recent slightly-warmer-than-normal
winters in my state (Washington), where there's been plenty of winter-time
precipitation, but there's insufficient storage from the flooding rivers.
By mid summer -- farmers, cities, electric power companies, fishers -- everyone
fights over the dwindling supply. Geography and ecosystems being what they
are, increasing reservoir volume can't replace the enormous storage
historically provided by snowpacks. And it doesn't help that the population
in drier areas has been growing.

This doesn't begin to touch on the increased evaporation rates from higher
temperatures. Nor political struggles fighting over shared water resources.

[cycl...@gmail.com]

Andrew - before saying something like that don't you think that you should know something about it?

The average ocean temperature at 5,000 ft is 62 degrees. The surface temperature around northern California is 55 degrees. That both a difference of only 7 degrees and an INVERSION of what the OTEC plans which were originally meant for use on Saipan. But even there the water temperatures are not very large.

Show us the calculation of the energy present in two one cubic meter volumes of water with a 7 degree differential temperature.

[DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH]

C shold be cast out for overbearing. Show us ... disingenuous statements of false logic .... annoying BS.

I produce primary field data on clean energy at the cutting edge of technology.

Entertaining but needs restraint.

Andy, it's raining at Yuma ! The home screen opened with rain dripping on the other side on 12/15 with The Plumber running at 10:50 est.

Too much.

[W. Wesley Groleau]

On 12-15-2016 19:30, Frank Miles wrote:
> Pete is quite right. But it's not just Asia - large areas of the western US
> are highly dependent on melting snow. Rain is important too - I'm not claiming
> that snow supplies all water - but without the snow serious problems develop.

Melting snow is just delayed rain. :-)

--
Wes Groleau

[cycl...@gmail.com]

Hell, you aren't going to do that. Well it's about the same value as a gallon and a half of gasoline. Thermal conversions of very low temperature differentials are notoriously inefficient and the actual recovery would be probably around 2%. Or about three hundreds of a gallon recovery in actual energy.

If you were going to drive your car 25 miles how much gas would it consume at 55 mph? Divide that by 0.03 and multiply that by 2 cubic meters.

[cycl...@gmail.com]

And the most common use for it is hydroelectric power and not drinking water.

[russell...@yahoo.com]

> Well EVEN if they continued as they are more land is being made than is being lost.

Where is this land being made? I know China is making some islands in the South China Sea to set up airports, docks to militarize the area. But I am not sure that counts.

[DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH]

A whoa high point of this trip was arriving at Yellowstone Norris Junction Camp finding the hot springs then blowing a huge white vapor column skyward to a level where the go people flew down in a helicopter for a long looks on WTH was going on in there.

In keeping with the Fed crit, that was the last day for camping at Norris

[John B.]

Actually a considerable amount of land has been reclaimed. The
Netherlands have reclaimed very large amounts either by filling or
building dikes. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_reclamation
for a better grasp on the subject.

--
cheers,

John B.

[AMuzi]

1.16Kwh change one tonne of water one degree C.[1]
subtract the energy needed to raise that water a few kilometers.

[1] I don't know how much of that energy can be retrived

[DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH]

water elevation from tides, no ?

//////////////////

here's a basic platform for street disagreement

lookit the snow...this is GlObal Warming...gnaw GS is BS

http://www.wpc.ncep.noaa.gov/pwpf/wwd_accum_probs.php?fpd=48&ptype=snow

///////////////////

this is warmer north pacific circulation focing jet stream down over US with cold air

AGAINST a rising warm moist Gulf Mexico flow from a Global Warming increase of the Bermuda High....that is causing drought in Alabama ( as well as offenses against the Deity)

see Daily Briefing map in Todays Ride

is 67 n mild at Fort Myers beach with a slight green tinit to sunrise from MX volcanic activity

???????????????????

the difference tween these two perceptions of reality is the first takes but one step of thought...the second requires several and background knowledge.

[AMuzi]

Just finished shoveling snow at 7F. If you're not using that
global warming you can mail it here. Thanks.

[cycl...@gmail.com]

Don't forget that a large part of the Netherlands have been below sea level since the Little Ice Age ended.

[Radey Shouman]

Much as I hesitate to agree with Mr. Jute, I have to point out that the
cities on the Persian Gulf were considered uninhabitable by most of the
population of the Earth until the advent of air conditioning. The
summertime weather there, with very high temperatures *and* high
humidity, has been brutal for a long time.

--

[jbeattie]

In the PNW, the snow pack is like our savings account. A bad snow pack means higher power rates, lower fish runs, less irrigation water and measurable revenue losses. It's not theoretical or speculative. We watch it every year. http://www.hoodrivernews.com/news/2016/apr/27/bpa-expects-normal-water-year-dam-operations/

Low snow pack means shorter ski season or no season for some resorts, and the resorts employ a lot of people and generate a lot of revenue. It's not Intel or Nike, but still significant. It's looking good for us this year, by the way. We're happy -- one of the best early season snow packs in the country. https://www.skihood.com/-/media/skihood/content/blog/1617celbrationonsnowhallman1200.jpg?h=800&w=1200&la=en


-- Jay Beattie.

[DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH]

http://agwx.soils.wisc.edu/uwex_agwx/weather/webcam

[Frank Krygowski]

On 12/16/2016 11:57 AM, jbeattie wrote:
> It's looking good for us this year, by the way. We're happy -- one of the best early season snow packs in the country. https://www.skihood.com/-/media/skihood/content/blog/1617celbrationonsnowhallman1200.jpg?h=800&w=1200&la=en

Well, there you go! That _proves_ that any possibility of human-caused
climate change is totally bogus, man! It's just like Senator Inhofe's
snowball. There can't be climate change if you can make a snowball!

Case closed. We should talk about something else now.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[jbeattie]

We'll see how it looks at the end of the season, which is what matters. Over the last fifteen years, there has been a large decrease in snow pack with the 2014-2015 year being a historic low. It was dirt skiing at the lower elevation resorts. http://www.oregonlive.com/outdoors/index.ssf/2015/11/low_snow_pack_mount_hood.html

I'm not claiming any cause, but the trend over the last 15 years is toward lower snow packs.

-- Jay Beattie.

[cycl...@gmail.com]

On Friday, December 16, 2016 at 9:20:21 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:

http://climate.nasa.gov/news/2350/2015-antarctic-maximum-sea-ice-extent-breaks-streak-of-record-highs/

[cycl...@gmail.com]

https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png&imgrefurl=http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/&h=840&w=1050&tbnid=ie5m3RRYy0AxKM:&vet=1&tbnh=160&tbnw=199&docid=3WoOch5IwzoPaM&usg=__DFwQzn22aUYWKV43wf4ZtBTifp8=&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwik5ZbppPnQAhVisFQKHVcFC2wQ9QEIHjAA

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per cycl...@gmail.com:

> China and India's farming and most of their water needs are supplied like most other places on this Earth - from RAIN building a water table and not from run-off from a snowpack.

India is already building catch basins to even out the flow during
scarce months.
--
Pete Cresswell

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per Frank Krygowski:

> It's just like Senator Inhofe's
>snowball. There can't be climate change if you can make a snowball!

Inhoff, Bachmann... and so-on....

Makes me think that the problem isn't Trump... Instead it is us, the
voters.

viz: http://tinyurl.com/gtwu8x8
--
Pete Cresswell

[cycl...@gmail.com]

https://climateaudit.org/2005/11/18/archaeological-finds-in-retreating-swiss-glacier/

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/12/21/the-retreat-of-glaciers-in-1939-revealed-medieval-gold-mines/

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/melting-ice-yellowstone-revealing-ancient-artifacts-180956488/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/22/pre-viking-tunic-found-glacier-climate-change_n_2932431.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/world-war-one/10562017/Melting-glaciers-in-northern-Italy-reveal-corpses-of-WW1-soldiers.html

https://www.google.com/search?q=retreating+glaciers+reveal+farming+areas&sa=N&rlz=1C1KMZB_enUS532US532&espv=2&biw=1203&bih=655&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&ved=0ahUKEwiE2oePwfnQAhXBylQKHUA0B4o4ChCwBAgY

The fact IS that there IS NO MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING. But since NO amount of proof will convince someone without the training of an Irish Setter we'll just leave it at that.

The cost of Trump's wall got a whole lot cheaper as building materials became available. On November 8, 2016 , 55 million Democrats shit a brick.

Concerning Hillary's "popular win" - counting in Detroit showed 37% of the precincts turned in more ballots than there were registered voters. 97% of the votes went to Hillary. This could not have occurred without assistance and compliance of the government. This sort of excess in the major cities which voted extremely heavily Democrat MORE than made up for the so-called "popular" win of Hillary.

[Doug Landau]

On Thursday, December 15, 2016 at 2:50:30 PM UTC-8, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, December 15, 2016 at 11:15:11 AM UTC-8, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
> > Per Andre Jute:
> > >We think this is looney tunes. We think, as an economist who knows for a fact that two degrees increase in global temperature will be very good for trade and harvests and hungry people and trees and new species, that if these clowns could actually bring back global warming, they would be heroes.
> >
> > The governments of China and India might differ with that. AFIK, both
> > countries are heavily dependent on irrigation water coming from melting
> > snowpack in the Himalayas - which snowpack is diminishing as the globe
> > warms.
> >
> > Likewise people in Persian Gulf states where an MIT study predicts major
> > cities will become uninhabitable due to heat by 2100.
> > --
> > Pete Cresswell
>

> Pete - where do you come from? China and India's farming and most of their water needs are supplied like most other places on this Earth - from RAIN building a water table and not from run-off from a snowpack.

Tom there is plenty of runoff
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1_BvVBjatE

[Doug Landau]

On Friday, December 16, 2016 at 12:09:25 PM UTC-8, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, December 16, 2016 at 11:49:49 AM UTC-8, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
> > Per Frank Krygowski:
> > > It's just like Senator Inhofe's
> > >snowball. There can't be climate change if you can make a snowball!
> >
> > Inhoff, Bachmann... and so-on....
> >
> > Makes me think that the problem isn't Trump... Instead it is us, the
> > voters.
> >
> > viz: http://tinyurl.com/gtwu8x8
> > --
> > Pete Cresswell
>
> https://climateaudit.org/2005/11/18/archaeological-finds-in-retreating-swiss-glacier/

Ueli Steck doesn't think there's a problem:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfpYNr7es0Y&t=99s

[Frank Miles]

On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 12:09:22 -0800, cyclintom wrote:

[snip]

> The fact IS that there IS NO MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING. But since NO amount of proof will convince someone

...
[snip]

I agree that the probability of changing anyone's mind here is unlikely.
It seems incredibly obvious that the risk is high, since we have a
fluctuating critical resource (water) that in many years is very marginal
in much of the Western US. Seems like we should all be able to agree on that.

It's amazing to me how many people are willing to gamble on a long-shot.

Well, at least riding those bikes is a great way to minimize our own
contribution (at least in comparison with driving motor vehicles).

[W. Wesley Groleau]

On 12-16-2016 13:49, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
> Makes me think that the problem isn't Trump... Instead it is us, the
> voters.

Exactly. Republican voters arranged for Trump to be their nominee.

Democratic voters elected the superdelegates who determined that Clinton
would be nominee no matter what the voters said.

And one could argue that the hordes who didn't vote swung the election
away from who they may have wanted.

--
Wes Groleau

[cycl...@gmail.com]

http://thefederalist.com/2015/07/17/climate-change-alarmists-appear-immunized-against-reality/#disqus_thread

https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/tag/why-models-run-hot/

https://www.realskeptic.com/2015/06/02/moncktons-fundamentally-flawed-simple-climate-model/

What I find curious is that ANYONE that has worked in science knows that if you get 10 scientists in a room and ask a single question you will get 10 different answers. And in all likelihood ALL will be wrong. But if you take just ONE of these scientists and put him in front of a camera, ask the same question, get the same wrong answer, he is now a specialist and an expert. And people like you BELIEVE him. And anyone that contradicts him has something to gain from it.

This is why science is going to kill the goose that laid the golden egg. No one is going to believe one word they ever utter again when this warm period backs off. There has been NO warming in the last 19 years except in the imagination of the True Believers. All of the claimed warming is 5% of the possible errors.

All of the research grants are going to disappear. Let Elon Musk pay for his own space program so that civilians can colonize Mars. Let the International Space Corporation pretend that they are going to mine the moon for valuable minerals.

We NOW know of "dark galaxies" that have the same mass as the Milky Way but only 10% of the stars. They discovered one in 2015 and have now cataloged over 40 of them. These mean that all of the theories of interstellar physics are probably wrong.

CERN's latest discoveries have shown the standard model of quantum mechanics not to be incorrect but entirely wrong. In fact they may ONLY be seeing some sort of side effects from the tremendous energies used.

Calculations based on the size of the known universe and the supposed age can only occur if matter exceeded the speed of light by several orders.

Guess what - you people that worship science without knowing or understanding it are just screwed.

[Andrew Chaplin]

jbeattie <jbeat...@msn.com> wrote in
news:461c95b4-5245-48ae...@googlegroups.com:

It is the same here in the Great Lakes and Saint Lawrence watersheds, even
if it is less critical. Anyone who cares is concerned about the water
levels in the Great Lakes and how much snow falls each winter. My corner
of the world is still sufficiently soggy, but I would rather not see it go
thirsty.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

[Andrew Chaplin]

jbeattie <jbeat...@msn.com> wrote in
news:d586636b-e29e-4d30...@googlegroups.com:

Around here, the average seems stable, but the variation appears to be
greater.

[cycl...@gmail.com]

Andrew - what does snow have to do with the Great Lakes? Other than rain instantaneously increasing the water levels and snow and the ice layer on the lake taking time to melt there are no snow-packed mountains as were being discussed. The water levels in the Great Lakes have remained almost constant except for seasonal changes for over a hundred and fifty years.

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per Frank Miles:

>
>It's amazing to me how many people are willing to gamble on a long-shot.

It further amazes me that so many of those people think of themselves as
being "conservative".

To me, the conservative position is not to try for long-shots and "If
you can't afford to lose, don't play the game.".
--
Pete Cresswell

[Frank Krygowski]

On 12/16/2016 6:54 PM, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:

> ANYONE that has worked in science knows that if you get 10 scientists in a room and ask a single question you will get 10 different answers.

That makes me wonder about the caliber of scientists you've known.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[jbeattie]

It also makes me wonder about whom Tom trusts. All the scientists are wrong -- who's left? Spiritualists? Fox news?

-- Jay Beattie.

[DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH]

Both true !

Many Rump voters are mentally committed to not analytic or illogical positions when asked to relate where they are to what the world is...

Like my spell checker

American conservatives adopt into a world views that never existed only as THE WEST (and they won it) or Manifest Destiny with further linkage to Divine Right.

DR then becomes The Good Life now personified by the Rumps.

A clinical psychologist examination will portray many into well defin ed categories eg 'denial' 'disassociation' ... of nuerosis

[Tim McNamara]

On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 18:31:05 -0800 (PST), jbeattie <jbeat...@msn.com>
wrote:

Like other conspiracy theorists, he trusts the people who confirm his
preconceptions. Wait, no, that's pretty much all of the human race...

[cycl...@gmail.com]

On Friday, December 16, 2016 at 6:13:50 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:

And that suggests to me that you've never worked in science for one minute.

[cycl...@gmail.com]

Tell you what Jay, I'll bet you $1,000 that within 10 years that entire subject of man-made global warming will have been swept under the table because of prolonged cooling. Want to take that bet?

[cycl...@gmail.com]

Firstly I'm no conspiracy theorist. I actually have studied the subject. You have not. I understand what is going on and can compare it to the last 6,000 years from one point of view and from the last 200,000 from another.

But YOU are more than willing to take the words of a power hungry group that has spent the last 8 years rifling the US treasury and you think that mentioning that is a conspiracy even though you can READ the US Treasury reports and see it with your own eyes.

Maybe you should stop picking your nose and eating it and become a real grown up.

[DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH]

I went into second place I the 8th Grade science fair with a demo on the evils of coal. The idea sprang from a Comptons dug out of the Morristown used book store for .50. There was an article suggesting carbolic acid in the air would be a warm n wet atmosphere suitable for dinosaurs. 1960...Comptons was 1923 ?

A classmate found a first edition Melville.

[Andre Jute]

On Saturday, December 17, 2016 at 10:09:47 PM UTC, cycl... wrote:
> On Friday, December 16, 2016 at 6:31:07 PM UTC-8, jbeattie wrote:
> > On Friday, December 16, 2016 at 6:13:50 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:

> > > On 12/16/2016 6:54 PM, cyclintom wrote:
> > >
> > > > ANYONE that has worked in science knows that if you get 10 scientists in a room and ask a single question you will get 10 different answers.
> > >
> > > That makes me wonder about the caliber of scientists you've known.
> >
> > It also makes me wonder about whom Tom trusts. All the scientists are wrong -- who's left? Spiritualists? Fox news?
> >
> > -- Jay Beattie.
>
> Tell you what Jay, I'll bet you $1,000 that within 10 years that entire subject of man-made global warming will have been swept under the table because of prolonged cooling. Want to take that bet?

Jay's a lawyer. He's smarter than to take such a dumb bet. He's probably noticed that the smarter apocalyptics have given up on "global warming" and are now, equally risibly, pretending to predict "sudden climate change, up or down."

Andre Jute
The religion of early 21st century second-raters is scientism, the belief that scientists cannot be wrong. The NAS specifically warns scientists themselves not believe such ego-inflating crap.

[cycl...@gmail.com]

In mid-2015 they discovered a "dark galaxy". This is a galaxy with approximately the mass of the Milky Way but with only 10% or less of the stars. It is not clear what composes the rest of the matter but it is likely to be a huge gas cloud that for reasons inexplicable have not coalesced into stars. Since that time they have already cataloged something like 47 of them.

The PRESENCE of these can have MANY far reaching consequences concerning what dark matter and dark energy theories presupposed.

In other words - if you get ten (competent) astro-physicists into a room and ask them about this they will ALL have their own hypothesis. Frank knows nothing about this but he denies that "scientists" could disagree on anything.

Calculations concerning the Big Bang Theory show that the expansion of the Universe at the time of creation would require the matter to move several times the speed of light. Physicists argue how this could happen. But in all likelihood the Big Bang Theory is completely incorrect.

According to the Big Bang Theory there would be the initial creation followed by an expansion that would gradually slow and eventually re-compress under the weight of it's own gravity. This would hypothetically cause a recycling of the universe.

Uh, except the universe is not slowing. In fact it is accelerating. We haven't the slightest idea of what could over-power the forces of a universe of mass and gravity. But Frank sees all in agreement.

CERN's latest power increase to find the Higgs boson was successful and a great cheer went up among those who work in quantum physics. But then the other shoe dropped. Two other totally unknown and unpredicted particles appeared. They don't fit into the standard model even with a shoe horn. This is probably why Stephen Hawkings is making all of these really weird statements like man destroying himself by the end of 2030 or alien intelligences getting in touch with us at any minute - his entire life's work is seriously threatened. And no one has any answers. Except for Frank - he knows scientists that all agree on the answers.

Someone here said that most paleontologists agreed that dinosaurs were warm blooded. This is hotly contested. Some, such as Archaeopteryx probably had to be since a high metabolic rate would be required to fly. But most dinosaurs had to be ectothermic rather than endothermic simply because of nutrition needs. An Elephant eats 20 hours a day to sustain it's endothormic metabolism. The major dinosaurs weighed more than that and had smaller heads and teeth like a cow. This meant that the available food plants didn't contain a whole lot of nutrition. Climate conditions during the age of the dinosaurs was much as it is today. On the matter of ecto and endo thermy you would get endless argument. But to Frank, any reasonably bright scientists would agree.

I could carry on literally for hours. But Frank did a pretty good job of shocking me when he implied he thinks that even on the most basic parts of science that there's anything more than an extremely generalized agreement.

[DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH]

HERE'S the extreme report synopsis

http://blogs.agu.org/wildwildscience/2016/12/15/warming-climate-impacted-extreme-weather-2015/

http://blogs.agu.org/blogs/

[jbeattie]

On Saturday, December 17, 2016 at 3:43:15 PM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:

> On Saturday, December 17, 2016 at 10:09:47 PM UTC, cycl... wrote:
> > On Friday, December 16, 2016 at 6:31:07 PM UTC-8, jbeattie wrote:
> > > On Friday, December 16, 2016 at 6:13:50 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > > > On 12/16/2016 6:54 PM, cyclintom wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > ANYONE that has worked in science knows that if you get 10 scientists in a room and ask a single question you will get 10 different answers.
> > > >
> > > > That makes me wonder about the caliber of scientists you've known.
> > >
> > > It also makes me wonder about whom Tom trusts. All the scientists are wrong -- who's left? Spiritualists? Fox news?
> > >
> > > -- Jay Beattie.
> >
> > Tell you what Jay, I'll bet you $1,000 that within 10 years that entire subject of man-made global warming will have been swept under the table because of prolonged cooling. Want to take that bet?
>
> Jay's a lawyer. He's smarter than to take such a dumb bet. He's probably noticed that the smarter apocalyptics have given up on "global warming" and are now, equally risibly, pretending to predict "sudden climate change, up or down."

Tom is throwing all the scientists overboard. So, is he using his own super-computer to crunch the raw data and then drawing conclusions based on his multiple advanced degrees in climate science? If not, what non-scientific sources does he find to be authoritative -- priests, astrologers, palm readers, homeopaths, Fox news? I understand skepticism, but rejecting science is a whole other thing.

-- Jay Beattie.

[Andre Jute]

Frank Krygowski is an expert on everything and knowledgable about nothing. It's a common curse of third-rate "professors" forced into retirement.

Andre Jute

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 15:54:18 -0800 (PST), cycl...@gmail.com wrote:

>What I find curious is that ANYONE that has worked in science knows
>that if you get 10 scientists in a room and ask a single question
>you will get 10 different answers.

You'll probably get 20 more answers. Each scientist will offer 2 or
more answers to any questions, leaving the person asking the question
with the responsibility of selecting the correct answer. Lawyers do
the same thing when asked for legal guidance.

Scientists also have the bad habit of answering questions with another
question. Infinite clarification is a good way to give them time to
think, or wiggle room if they don't have a clue as to the correct
answer. For example, you can ask your 10 scientists "does the sun set
in the east or west" and you'll get questions like "on what planet" or
"what about very high and low latitudes"? This again leaves the
person asking the question with the responsibility of digging through
the intentional muddle to produce a usable answer.

Of course, the best answer to any question is to admit ignorance and
proclaim "more research is necessary" which tends to attract more
research grants that eventually produce more confusion.

Where do these 10 scientists get their research funding? Most likely,
it's from 10 different sources, all with wildly different and highly
polarized points of view on almost any topic imaginable. This is the
real reason why you'll get 10 different answers. Any scientist
capable of independent thought cannot be trusted and will soon
disappear soon after his funding and sponsors evaporate. Rather than
contradict the position of their sponsors, many scientists swallow
their pride, pocket the money, and publicly proclaim one position,
while privately offering a very different position.

Might as well throw in preconceived opinions, prejudice, and bias.
Despite claims that the scientific method helps reduce these to
insignificance, they're still around. If you analyzer why a
particular scientist offered some specific opinion, the motivation
might be something quite unscientific. For example, he might want to
leave the meeting early and selected the fastest possible answer. He
may have applied for funding from some organization and would be
expected to support their position. He may be writing a book and
wants to generate press coverage. He may be having a war with a
colleague and would never consider agreeing with them. He may be
trying to steal someone else's research or hint that he discovered it
first. Lots of reasons, none of which are scientific.

>And in all likelihood ALL will be wrong.

Yep. The current fashion in AGW research is to average all the
research to produce the "right" numbers on the assumption that all the
errors will cancel by averaging. That's like taking all the wrong
answers together, mixing well, and producing the "right" answer.
Amazingly, that does work for some things, but also tends to produce
some wildly erroneous garbage for other things.

Drivel: It's quite easy to force projections to go in any desired
direction and at any rate. In 2007, I graphed local historical
rainfall data to determine if there was a trend in rainfall. We were
experiencing a drought:
<http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/slv-wx/SLV-rainfall-06.jpg>
Using a high order polynomial projections, I can make the trend curve
increase if odd, or decrease if even (without changing any of the data
points). Want a Mann style dog leg? No problem. However, if that's
too radical or obvious, here's lower order projections, which are
easier to swallow and miss:
<http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/slv-wx/SLV-rainfall-forecast.jpg>
If you want to play with the original spreadsheets, they're in:
<http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/slv-wx/>

Incidentally, you can see the Dust Bowl years in California on this
graph of the same data:
<http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/slv-wx/SLV-rainfall.jpg>
Notice the drop in rainfall during the 1930's (orange line = 11 year
running average).



--
Jeff Liebermann je...@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

[Andre Jute]

Tom isn't rejecting science, pal, he's rejecting obiter dicta from uncivil servants served up to people like you by television as "science". If you were to make the effort of actually the scientific papers in the IPCC reports behind the Summary for Policymakers, as I have, you will be staggered at the lies that lazy reporters have been feeding your for years.

Take an example: I said the other day that 2% global warming would be good for everyone on earth, except those who earn their living making doomsday predictions. I didn't make that up. It's in the IPCC's official report, though you will look for it in vain in the SPM, where ***precisely the opposite*** is reported, i.e. that the "scientists agreed" that 2% warming would be harmful. I posted about it on this forum eight years ago in 2009, but the global warmies pay not the slightest attention to the facts. So the facts that the scientists agree about are very different, in fact diametrically opposed, to what the media reports, which then becomes the conventional wisdom of "what the scientists agree". It's like having a criminal replace the judge on the bench, and the court stenographer being dyslexic, and the lawyers all deaf. I can multiply the examples to hundreds, but why bother: this one already demonstrates a deliberately broken, crooked system, with the pols, not the scientists, in charge.

Here's an extract from my post:

****
What the scientists wrote:
"in many developed countries, net economic gains are projected for
global mean temperature increases up to roughly 2 [degrees] Celsius"

What the lying IPCC bureaucrats published:
"an increase in global mean temperature of up to a few degrees C would
produce a mixture of economic gains and losses in developed countries"

IPCC 2001b:SPM:4
****
Direct link to the 2009 post where you'll find it:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.bicycles.tech/yiUumTTj2B0/WWrJQzXqvMYJ
It's from this thread https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/rec.bicycles.tech/warmies|sort:relevance/rec.bicycles.tech/GWkGPSZ_Q6g/DY673jMuDFwJ
Elsewhere on RBT I wrote an analysis of the steps by which this gross distortion was foisted on a credulous public, but I'm off for my midnight snack now (smoked trout, soda bread, champagne, fruit, hot chocolate) so I'll have to Google it tomorrow if you haven't found it yet.

Or take that crap about "97% of scientists agree that global warming is manmade and dangerous". That was made accepted wisdom on the basis of a shockingly bad study of 75 (count 'em -- I have, and published a report here about it,
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/rec.bicycles.tech/N7vzv1Hdk-w/Ih2udyYpBgAJ;context-place=forum/rec.bicycles.tech
resulting in zero attention to the facts by among others you) mainly Californian "scientists" carefully weeded to hold the "right" opinions, and then nudged by loaded questions.

Tom has got his feet firmly planted on solid ground. You're the one arguing from your faith in street corner fantasy born of television misinformation.

Andre Jute

[Andre Jute]

On Sunday, December 18, 2016 at 3:04:03 AM UTC, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>
> Drivel: It's quite easy to force projections to go in any desired
> direction and at any rate. In 2007, I graphed local historical
> rainfall data to determine if there was a trend in rainfall. We were
> experiencing a drought:
> <http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/slv-wx/SLV-rainfall-06.jpg>
> Using a high order polynomial projections, I can make the trend curve
> increase if odd, or decrease if even (without changing any of the data
> points). Want a Mann style dog leg? No problem. However, if that's
> too radical or obvious, here's lower order projections, which are
> easier to swallow and miss:
> <http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/slv-wx/SLV-rainfall-forecast.jpg>
> If you want to play with the original spreadsheets, they're in:
> <http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/slv-wx/>

Yes, yes, that's all very clever for, say, a statistics sophomore, but can you make red noise (the ne plus ultra of randomness) unfailingly produce a hockey stick?

THAT is Mann's genius, and is why the American taxpayer subsidized him to the tune of millions and why, even after his hockey stick was proven to be a fraud, it still underlies every discussion of the climate, including this one. Ask the contributors to this thread if they agree that the Medieval and other historical Warm Periods, called Optima in the literature, and the Little Ice Age, together logically exclude the possibility of manmade global warming... I think you'll be surprised at intelligent people who fail to grasp that the delegitimization of Mann also made global warming impossible.

Incidentally, you can see the Dust Bowl years in California on this
> graph of the same data:
> <http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/slv-wx/SLV-rainfall.jpg>
> Notice the drop in rainfall during the 1930's (orange line = 11 year
> running average).

Eleven years, in case anyone doesn't know it yet, is usually accepted as the median term in the sunspot cycle. This is important information for those interested in the truth about climate change, but to global warmies it is heresy, more dangerous that garlic-rubbed cross.

> --
> Jeff Liebermann je...@cruzio.com
> 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
> Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
> Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Andre Jute
Hello, is that ExxonMobil? Where's my cheque?

[Frank Krygowski]

OK, so Tom knows more than most or all of the cosmologists? And the
particle physicists? And the paleontologists? If true, that certainly
is impressive! It makes one wonder why he complains about the economy
and conditions in his corner of California. You'd think a guy like that
could get any salary he demanded, buy his own private tropical island
and spend his time making profitable predictions while sipping rum!

Tom said: " ANYONE that has worked in science knows that if you get 10

scientists in a room and ask a single question you will get 10 different

answers." Note that he set no limitation on what the subject matter
would be, or how the question would be phrased.

So does that mean that asking 10 scientists "Did the existing species
arise by evolution or creation," they would give 10 different answers?
Somehow, that seems doubtful when the choices are "yes" or "no."

Anyone with halfway acceptable scientific literacy knows that our
understanding of the universe has gaps. That most certainly does NOT
mean that cosmology, particle physics, paleontology and climate science
should be thrown out the window. In fact, I suspect that those doing
research in those fields would find Tom's remarks fairly ludicrous.
--
- Frank Krygowski

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sat, 17 Dec 2016 20:33:40 -0800 (PST), Andre Jute
<fiul...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, December 18, 2016 at 3:04:03 AM UTC, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>
>> Drivel: It's quite easy to force projections to go in any desired
>> direction and at any rate. In 2007, I graphed local historical
>> rainfall data to determine if there was a trend in rainfall. We were
>> experiencing a drought:
>> <http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/slv-wx/SLV-rainfall-06.jpg>
>> Using a high order polynomial projections, I can make the trend curve
>> increase if odd, or decrease if even (without changing any of the data
>> points). Want a Mann style dog leg? No problem. However, if that's
>> too radical or obvious, here's lower order projections, which are
>> easier to swallow and miss:
>> <http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/slv-wx/SLV-rainfall-forecast.jpg>
>> If you want to play with the original spreadsheets, they're in:
>> <http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/slv-wx/>

>Yes, yes, that's all very clever for, say, a statistics sophomore,
>but can you make red noise (the ne plus ultra of randomness)
>unfailingly produce a hockey stick?

Yes, I think I can but will need to try it to be sure. If the data
was truly random, the average would be 1/2 the way between the
boundary limits. A low order polynomial projection will not produce a
radical turnabout should the random data end in declining or ascending
data going in the opposite of the desired direction. However, if the
average line is reasonable flat, I can make it turn either up or down.

"A prime piece of evidence linking human activity to climate change
turns out to be an artifact of poor mathematics. (2004)"
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/403256/global-warming-bombshell/
When McIntyre and McKitrick fed these random data into the
Mann procedure, out popped a hockey stick shape!

The problem is that subsequent reconstructions and analysis of the
data have demonstrated that the hockey stick could be real. The
chronology is in the Wikipedia article:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_graph>
From my lofty viewpoint, both McIntyre and McKitrick, as well as Mann,
were guilty of manipulating and cherry picking the original data to
support their pre-selected conclusions. McIntyre and McKitrick came
back in 2005 with the "red noise" example, which quite effectively
demonstrated that a hockey stick could be produced from random data.
Recent analyses, by Ljungqvist in 2012, and Marcott in 2013, using
totally different data sets, have demonstrated a recent temperature
rise, but not the existence of the original radical hockey stick.

>THAT is Mann's genius, and is why the American taxpayer subsidized
>him to the tune of millions and why, even after his hockey stick
>was proven to be a fraud, it still underlies every discussion of
>the climate, including this one. Ask the contributors to this
>thread if they agree that the Medieval and other historical Warm
>Periods, called Optima in the literature, and the Little Ice Age,

>together logically exclude the possibility of man made global

>warming... I think you'll be surprised at intelligent people who
>fail to grasp that the delegitimization of Mann also made global
>warming impossible.

>Incidentally, you can see the Dust Bowl years in California on this
>> graph of the same data:
>> <http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/slv-wx/SLV-rainfall.jpg>
>> Notice the drop in rainfall during the 1930's (orange line = 11 year
>> running average).

>Eleven years, in case anyone doesn't know it yet, is usually accepted
>as the median term in the sunspot cycle. This is important information
>for those interested in the truth about climate change, but to global
>warmies it is heresy, more dangerous that garlic-rubbed cross.

Good observation. My projection used an 11 year span because it would
emphasize any effects produced by the sunspot cycle. Unfortunately,
the dust bowl does not follow or correlate with the sunspot cycle.

It's 2AM and I'm falling asleep at the keyboard. Another day please.

[DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH]

The historic Dust Bowel is directly related to increase in railroad ties.

[AMuzi]

+1
As a long time subscriber to Science News I very much agree.
Add in today's scary-high frequency of withdrawn papers for
unprofessional sloppiness and/or outright fraud and the best
one can say is, "we'll see". Good results are replicable,
or ought to be anyway, and disagreements[1] are a positive
aspect of any inquiry.

[1] "My results did not match yours" is a disagreement. "You
are a poopoo head. And a racist" is pejorative.

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

[AMuzi]

You missed Tom's point.

[Frank Krygowski]

Tom's points seem to be 1) that I claimed scientists ALWAYS agree (which
of course, I never said); and 2) that there are phenomena that are not
yet understood, so scientists cannot be trusted.

His peripheral points are that the Big Bang is a cosmological hoax, that
particle physics is also completely wrong, and that he knows dinosaur
metabolism better than (all?) the paleontologists.

So what did I miss?

--
- Frank Krygowski

[cycl...@gmail.com]

Jeff, at the moment NASA takes the cake though. They actually have good data showing that nothing has been happening with the climate. They even have data that the artic ice cap has remained more or less static while the southern ice cap has been expanding for two decades. But THEN they turn around and issue reports that we will have no ice caps by the year 2030.

It doesn't take much of a scientist to investigate the heat retaining properties of the various atmospheric gases and to see that Oxygen has a higher latent heat content and is some 500 times more common in the atmosphere. And the the value of CO2 that is supposedly the wicked witch is 1/2000th of the important gases.

Instead they show charts that are mis-proportioned in favor of CO2. And they expect real scientists not to know that the absorption spectrum of CO2 is not in the emission spectrum of the Sun or the emission spectrum of the Earth.

Not to mention that geologically we KNOW that these warm periods are cyclic, that this one is on schedule and that it started at a time before man generated any CO2 of significant levels.

So with all of this data available why do you suppose that science remains so quiet?

Could it be that there are now so many PhD's issued that research grants are scarce and hard to get? So that fear and loathing are the only way to get attention and grants? If so it would appear to me that the qualifications for PhD must be dramatically raised.

[cycl...@gmail.com]

Perhaps the very reason you published "OK, so Tom knows more than most or all of the cosmologists? And the particle physicists? And the paleontologists?"

You quite purposely misrepresented what I both said and meant. Why did you do that? For NO other reason than to disagree with me?

When cosmologists, physicists and paleontologists are confronted with the facts that NONE of their standard models work in the real world they are stumped AS ANY INTELLIGENT BEING would be. But you wish to tell us that despite the fact that these standard models are proven faulty they are still good.

What you end up looking like is a 12 year old throwing rocks at the other kids that won't play with him. And considering your education and intelligence that makes me wonder what is going on with you.

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per cycl...@gmail.com:
>What I find curious is that ANYONE that has worked in science knows that if you get 10 scientists in a room and ask a single question you will get 10 different answers.

- "Is the earth flat?"

- "Does the earth rotate around the sun?"

- "Does the moon rotate around the earth?"

- "Is the such a thing as evolution?"

I am sure that the Koch Brothers' high-priced PR firms could find
"Scientists" that would answer "No", and I suspect those same PR firms
would be able to draw those "No" answers into false equivalency news
releases about "The flat-earth controversy", or "The evolution debate".
--
Pete Cresswell

[Frank Krygowski]

I'd like to ask: Are cosmology, particle physics, paleontology and
climate science the only scientific fields for which you're certain that
the currently accepted models are completely wrong? Or are there others
we should know about?

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sun, 18 Dec 2016 11:56:40 -0500, "(PeteCresswell)" <x...@y.Invalid>
wrote:

>- "Is the earth flat?"

Yes, but only near the poles. The earth is really an oblate
(flattened) spheroid, which is more flat around the poles than round.
The only question is how much deviation from a perfect sphere is
required to be considered flat:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spheroid>

>- "Does the earth rotate around the sun?"

No. The earth rotates around its axis. The earth revolves around the
sun. Semantic hair splitting is always fun.

>- "Does the moon rotate around the earth?"

The moon does not rotate about its axis and has no "spin". It
revolves around the earth at the rate of one rotation per revolution.
If the moon did rotate, we would be able to see the back side of the
moon.

>- "Is the such a thing as evolution?"

The real question is whether there is such a thing as devolution. At
the rate we are polluting the gene pool by supporting and even
promoting recessive and undesirable traits, we might easily reverse
evolution and slowly slide back into the primordial slime from which
we originally emerged. (If one can't answer a question, one can
always invent a question and supply that answer).

>I am sure that the Koch Brothers' high-priced PR firms could find
>"Scientists" that would answer "No", and I suspect those same PR firms
>would be able to draw those "No" answers into false equivalency news
>releases about "The flat-earth controversy", or "The evolution debate".

Most people underestimate the power of public relations (commercial
propaganda). I suggest some reading on it's history, especially
Edward Bernays (Sigmund Freud's nephew).
<https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=edward+bernays>

Which is true?
- Bicycling is healthy exercise.
- Only healthy people ride bicycles.

[DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH]

https://books.google.com/books?id=LYgqBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA182&dq=Analysis+of+propaganda+techniques&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwis2oysv_7QAhUG3SYKHXFSAxQQ6AEIPTAG


TRY A SIMPLE COLLEGE TEXT

[DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH]

Yep...

http://www.nbc-2.com/story/34080703/weather-blog-record-weekend-underway

'Like' is hot ...one questions where we are ...

[cycl...@gmail.com]

It's always pleasing to see that you have to fall back on misrepresentation in order to avoid providing any specific references.

[cycl...@gmail.com]

Apparently from a position of total ignorance you are claiming me wrong. Well, you're always good for a laugh.

Do you have any idea what evolution is?

[cycl...@gmail.com]

And that is supposed to mean what exactly? You are all over the map aren't you?

http://www.intellicast.com/Local/History.aspx?location=USNY0418

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per Jeff Liebermann:

>Most people underestimate the power of public relations (commercial
>propaganda).

Personally, I think it is *huge*... and vastly under-reported.

"Dark Money" by Jane Mayer (Doubleday) sounds like an interesting read.

And a guy published a book in the same vein sometime this year or last
year.
--
Pete Cresswell

[Andre Jute]

On Sunday, December 18, 2016 at 6:55:46 PM UTC, Frank Krygowski wrote:

> On 12/18/2016 11:50 AM, Tom wrote:
> > On Sunday, December 18, 2016 at 7:28:57 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >> On 12/18/2016 9:44 AM, AMuzi wrote:
> >>> On 12/17/2016 10:56 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

You keep missing the point, Franki-boy, so often, indeed, that some of us conclude you're trolling. But let us give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you're earnestly ignorant. Then the question arises:

Where were you educated, Franki-boy, that you fail to understand that no science, zero, nil, zilch, nechevo, nil, nix, is ever either perfected or indeed perfectible? The very process and method of the establishment of scientific (temporary) orthodoxy prevents that ever happening. If you were properly educated, or at all, you would have been instructed that nothing is science unless the experiment can be repeated, in which case all it proves, temporarily, is the hypothesis that it inspired, and only until a new, stronger hypothesis arrives and is in turn proven by a repeatable test.

This is such an important point, underlying our understanding of our world, that Paul Johnston starts his history (Modern Times is the current title, I think) with Eddington's first proof of Einstein's signal Theory of Relativity, until then merely widely accepted math, in 1919. Einstein himself said that until the proof was in, his theory was not science, and if any of the elements were not as he forecast, the entire theory would fall. This was decades before Karl Popper formalized these essences of science, so the principles have been well understood for more than a century. So HTF can you not know them?

Andre Jute
Zero tolerance for fools (and trolls)

[Andre Jute]

You earned your rest. Good night. -- AJ

PS No need to prove you can twist red noise into a hockey stick; your track record is all the proof I require.

On Sunday, December 18, 2016 at 9:52:41 AM UTC, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Dec 2016 20:33:40 -0800 (PST), Andre Jute

[Andre Jute]

On Sunday, December 18, 2016 at 7:18:39 PM UTC, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

>
> Most people underestimate the power of public relations (commercial
> propaganda).

I don't. The most powerful force on earth (or at worst next to water) is motivational psychology. Compare the harm that public hysteria does in the long term (religions like Christianity and Islam), media term (even dumber surrogate religions like apocalypsism such as global freezing or warming) and short term (infatuations crossing over into false prophetry like Clinton).

Andre Jute
It's a matter of viewpoint and length of perspective

[Duane]

Just to point out that the term science is pretty broad. Hard scientific
fact can be proven. Theoretical Physics on the other hand is well,
theoretical. You can't argue that the science proving that the earth
revolves around the sun is not true because the presence of dark matter
conflicts with preconceived ideas of the origin of the universe. The fact
that the latest concepts of string theory may be modified doesn't mean
evolution doesn't exist and the world is 5000 years old. Tom seems to
discredit science in general. Maybe that's not what he meant...



--
duane

[John B.]

Sounds much like RBT. Maybe WE are scientists?
--
cheers,

John B.

[Andre Jute]

On Sunday, December 18, 2016 at 11:20:39 PM UTC, Duane wrote:

I have no problem following Tom, and taking your point about science being a catholic cathedral at the same time; the two are very far from being mutually exclusive. Tom isn't rejecting science, he's rejecting scientism, the ignorant belief (amazingly prevalent even among the technically educated like engineers and even some IT professionals) that scientists are inerrant, that because someone has a degree in science his statements must inevitably be correct, that the more scientists you have agreeing to some "science" the more "scientific" it must be, which is essentially what Krygowski is telling us, though he'll now deny it, his usual knee-jerk rejection of everything I say. It's exactly the same crude scientism the dumber global warmies have been spouting for a couple of decades: "Don't think for yourself, just ask if it has been peer reviewed. Peer reviewed, that's your guarantee," as that moronic actor burbled on Letterman. Krygowski appears either maliciously or moronically incapable of grasping that the important question is, "Who is in charge of the peer review?" As we saw in Climategate, the global warming cabal controlled peer review by "peer reviewing" each other's papers, which accounts for why nobody, not even the peer reviewers, saw the Mann data and algorithms on which the fraudulent hockey stick (on which all of the global warming scare teeters like an upside down pyramid) was based until several years later when McIntyre and McKitrick persuaded the United States Senate to order Mann to release the data that he should have offered freely to the peer reviewers...

Andre Jute
Where's the Enlightenment now?

[Frank Krygowski]

Wait - is Tom now arguing with himself?

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

I used to assume that heavy use of pejoratives meant a person was
running low on logic.

Actually, I still think that. But it's now been shown that it doesn't
necessarily matter to many millions of people.



--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On 12/18/2016 6:19 PM, Duane wrote:
>
> Just to point out that the term science is pretty broad. Hard scientific
> fact can be proven. Theoretical Physics on the other hand is well,
> theoretical.

Actually, theoretical physics has been proven time and again. One of
the best examples: Based on his entirely theoretical work on relativity,
Einstein contended that light would be affected by gravity. This was
important, because the previous concept of gravity required interaction
between masses; and it predicted that light, having no mass, should not
be affected in that way. Einstein claimed gravity was a distortion of
space-time, and thus would affect (or deflect) light.

Einstein's theory was confirmed by direct observation, when a solar
eclipse allowed observation of the apparent position of a star almost
behind the sun. It was obvious that the beam of light from the star had
been deflected by gravity.

> You can't argue that the science proving that the earth
> revolves around the sun is not true because the presence of dark matter
> conflicts with preconceived ideas of the origin of the universe. The fact
> that the latest concepts of string theory may be modified doesn't mean
> evolution doesn't exist and the world is 5000 years old. Tom seems to
> discredit science in general. Maybe that's not what he meant...

I imagine that if Tom does reply to this, he'll now say that not _all_
science is wrong; just all the parts he disagrees with.

But the fact is, there are imperfections in science all the time, just
as there are errors in manufacturing all the time. As the work
progresses over the decades, the errors get smaller and smaller.

Related bike content: I can remember bike magazines reporting on
whether or not the bikes' frames in road tests were well aligned. I
certainly remember doing measurements and cold setting on a couple of my
bikes, to improve the frame alignment. These days, that's rarely an
issue. Newer processes have allowed accuracy of frame construction to
improve. And newer scientific processes have allowed the accuracy of
science to improve.

Tom's position seems like a claim that a crooked frame means there's no
such thing as a bicycle.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sun, 18 Dec 2016 08:39:56 -0600, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>+1

I'll add another notch on my keyboard.

>As a long time subscriber to Science News I very much agree.

I subscribe to New Scientist:
<https://www.newscientist.com>
It's much the same as Science News, except that they have a printed
edition and it costs about $25/year. That, and Home Power Magazine:
<http://www.homepower.com>
are the only magazines and sites that I pay to view.

>Add in today's scary-high frequency of withdrawn papers for
>unprofessional sloppiness and/or outright fraud and the best
>one can say is, "we'll see". Good results are replicable,
>or ought to be anyway, and disagreements[1] are a positive
>aspect of any inquiry.

<http://retractionwatch.com>
<http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.list/tagNo/197/tags/retraction/>

It's far worse than that. The entire peer review process is breaking
down due to collusion between the author and their reviewers.
<http://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/dozens-scientific-papers-withdrawn-probably-more-come/>
Anyone sufficiently well versed in a technical field can easily
recognize the style and thinking of their contemporaries. After
making unofficial contact, some manner of mutually beneficial deal is
made. "I'll allow your bogus citations if you ignore my fabricated
data", or something similar.

The basic problem is that academia is not the place to make money.
Nobody gets rich publishing technical papers. I suspect that
academics are not motivated by money, but rather by power. That
produces some interesting interaction with colleagues and potential
competitors for awards, honors, grants, and credits. I don't want to
go any deeper into that mess.

>[1] "My results did not match yours" is a disagreement.

The Journal of Irreproducible Results:
<http://www.jir.com>
I used to read it for both inspiration and comic relief. I would get
a 2nd hand copy from a subscriber for many years, but never considered
it important enough to subscribe.

>"You are a poopoo head. And a racist" is pejorative.

That's also a problem we have in RBT. The discussions often drift
from criticizing the opinions and ideas of some individual, to an
attack up their character. Name calling is just one part of the
attack. If someone's ideas cannot be effectively attacked, then they
switch to attacking the author. I won't do that, at least in RBT.
However, in politics, that's all that's left. Never mind the issues.
The only things worth debating are someone's morals, ethics, sex life,
business practices, race, religion and most things the constitution
and bill of rights allegedly protect.

Drivel: If you're looking for interesting reading material, I've
discovered papers offering a survey of the state of the art in various
fields. Mostly, these are survey papers, done by graduate students,
to complete some manner of course or graduation requirement. What
they often do it take the original raw data used by various papers,
and recalculate the results using completely different techniques. The
results are often very different from the original papers, much to the
irritation of the original author. However, since nobody reads these
student papers, no damage is done.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sun, 18 Dec 2016 15:03:40 -0800 (PST), Andre Jute
<fiul...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, December 18, 2016 at 7:18:39 PM UTC, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>
>>
>> Most people underestimate the power of public relations (commercial
>> propaganda).

>I don't. The most powerful force on earth (or at worst next to water)
>is motivational psychology.

Yep and welcome to my former playground. Recommended reading is
anything by Wilson Bryan Key, especially "Subliminal Seduction":
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilson_Bryan_Key>
<http://www.alibris.com/booksearch?keyword=wilson+bryan+key>

Let's play motivational research with bicycling and marketing and some
rhetorical questions:

[Q] Why do pre-teens get bicycles, ride them everywhere, and abandon
them as soon as they are able to drive a motor vehicle?
[A] Because the motor vehicle represents a rolling bedroom, the next
step on their road to becoming an adult. If the bicycle designers
could somehow make the bicycle more like a rolling bedroom, sales will
dramatically increase.

[Q] What's the difference between bicycles for men and for women?
[A] Functionally, there's very little difference except possibly the
shape of the saddle. However, in terms of what sells, men prefer
frames and components with sharp angles and straight lines, while
women prefer rounded shapes, rounded corners, and curved lines.
However, it not quite that simple. Men prefer to play with feminine
shaped objects. The Apple iPod, iPhone, and iPad all have rounded
corners for men to fondle. Meanwhile, Nokia suspected that this was
less attractive to men than angular shapes and straight lines, and
produced the first Nokia Lumia Windoze phones with sharp corners. They
were wrong and it flopped. A bicycle build along similar lines, with
rounded things for men to fondle while riding, would probably sell
well.

[Q] Why do bicycles with sprung suspensions sell?
[A] To the kids, the complicated kinematics looks cool. However, to
adults, some of these frames appear to be designed to resemble an
exercise machine. This gets the attention of out of shape adults, who
are sentenced to get some exercise by their doctors, purchase what
they perceive as an exercise bike, but eventually let it rust in the
garage anyway. Oh well.

[Q] Why are seriously overpriced bicycle headlights such a big
attraction?
[A] Because the resemble a weapon. The common flashlight now looks
like a Light Saber or personal missile launcher. Attached to a
bicycle, it converts the bicycle from a transportation device, to an
assault vehicle. One has to be fairly aggressive to survive on a
bicycle in the streets. The perception of a weaponized headlight
helps. Mega-lumen photon torpedo perhaps?

Enough for now. Suffice to say that if one understands what motivates
bicycle riders and buyers, one can optimize the riding and buying
experience for both the rider and the merchants.

>Compare the harm that public hysteria
>does in the long term (religions like Christianity and Islam), media
>term (even dumber surrogate religions like apocalypsism such as global
>freezing or warming) and short term (infatuations crossing over into
>false prophetry like Clinton).
>Andre Jute

You're only looking at the bad aspects of religion. Religion provides
guidance and direction for those that don't have a clue how to
properly behave. It provided some protection for the arts and
writings at a time when the first thing a local ruler would do was
exterminate the intellectuals and leaders. Religion provided a base
line upon which research could be built. The baseline may have been
wrong, but without it, much contemplation into the origin of the
universe and the nature of our planet would have had to start from
scratch.

[DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH]

Super eyayahaha...now supply an extra 8 hours.

The internet, as planned, supplies an outlet for fringe research leakages off the halls of paper.

Fringous as bearing on front line reality or suggesting new ideas n paths but not rooting from bedrock techniques supporting REAL SCIENCE.

I do this. Time for rigor would eliminate time for research. From out here in the field ( of slings n arrows ), peerage is alien

Consider the papertrails of basic n high impact material vs bricks n mortar research then sink ( or float) into the fringe.opportunity the sPell checker adds opportunity.

I am watched