Ping Bil Slowman; The global warming hoax reveiled
Jan Panteltje
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
<Quote from that article>
This shows these are people willing to bend rules and
go after other people's reputations in very serious ways,' he said. Spencer
R. Weart, a physicist and historian who is charting the course of research
on global warming, said the hacked material would serve as 'great material
for historians.'
<end quote>
LOL.
Some science!
And that in a leftist newspaper!
dagmarg...@yahoo.com
> The global warming hoax revealed:
>
> <Quote from that article>
> This shows these are people willing to bend rules and
> go after other people's reputations in very serious ways,' he said. Spencer
> R. Weart, a physicist and historian who is charting the course of research
> on global warming, said the hacked material would serve as 'great material
> for historians.'
> <end quote>
>
> LOL.
> Some science!
>
> And that in a leftist newspaper!
Summary:
http://doctorbulldog.wordpress.com/2009/11/20/the-telegraph-picks-up-on-the-hadley-cru-story/
Bill Sloman
> On Nov 21, 6:54 am, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > The global warming hoax revealed:
> > http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html?partne...
>
> > <Quote from that article>
> > This shows these are people willing to bend rules and
> > go after other people's reputations in very serious ways,' he said. Spencer
> > R. Weart, a physicist and historian who is charting the course of research
> > on global warming, said the hacked material would serve as 'great material
> > for historians.'
> > <end quote>
>
> > LOL.
> > Some science!
>
> > And that in a leftist newspaper!
>
>
> Details:http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/19/breaking-news-story-hadley-cru-...
It all depends on your point of view. The leaked e-mails are obviously
open to negative interpretation, and doctorbulldog.wordpress,com is
delivering negative interpretations with enthusiasm.
Their reactions to the distress felt at Hadley about the downfall of
the journal "Climate Research" which has apparently fallen into the
hands of a denialist editor are typical.
Denialist editors have published some very poor papers in the past,
completely skipping peer review in their enthusiasm to get the paper
into the literature (and presumably to collect their bribe from Exxon-
Mobil or some other interested party). Academics intensely dislike
this kind of behaviour which devalues their published work, while
denialist journalists routinely claim that all academics behave like
this, and so docotrbulldogs commentators are predictably
misinterpreting Hadley's distress to imply that previous editor had
been pro-AWG in the same unscrupulous way.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Raveninghorde
wrote:
And a search engine for CRU emails
Jan Panteltje
<bill....@ieee.org> wrote in
<9641cb0f-e096-4fd7...@e23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>:
>>
>> > And that in a leftist newspaper!
>>
>-up-...
>>
>> Details:http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/19/breaking-news-story-hadley-=
>cru-...
>
>It all depends on your point of view. The leaked e-mails are obviously
>open to negative interpretation, and doctorbulldog.wordpress,com is
>delivering negative interpretations with enthusiasm.
>
>Their reactions to the distress felt at Hadley about the downfall of
>the journal "Climate Research" which has apparently fallen into the
>hands of a denialist editor are typical.
>
>Denialist editors have published some very poor papers in the past,
>completely skipping peer review in their enthusiasm to get the paper
>into the literature (and presumably to collect their bribe from Exxon-
>Mobil or some other interested party). Academics intensely dislike
>this kind of behaviour which devalues their published work, while
>denialist journalists routinely claim that all academics behave like
>this, and so docotrbulldogs commentators are predictably
>misinterpreting Hadley's distress to imply that previous editor had
>been pro-AWG in the same unscrupulous way.
That is certainly an aspect, and a normal reaction from those scientists.
but there is a lot more then that, especially showing how weak and manipulated their data really is.
Ice bears falling from the sky?
Public [opinion] manipulation at its worst.
One can wonder what the real truth is, about temperature, and then again about
what causes it, you know there were, and will be, ice ages, nobody
was having coal plants in the previous one to create CO2 (in the Netherlands they now want to store the CO2
in the ground under my house almost), so, all feeble science.
Sure the oil industry will *perhaps* pull some strings, maybe they even had that uni's server hacked,
but fact remains those cycles in climate have always been there, and we better
have the energy sources to keep us cool or warm, and do away with the for profit global warming hype.
Global warming is becoming almost a religion, where any objective look at it is considered 'evil'.
Al Gore should be locked up.
Bill Sloman
> On a sunny day (Sat, 21 Nov 2009 09:01:43 -0800 (PST)) it happened Bill Sloman
> <9641cb0f-e096-4fd7-acac-7c555184d...@e23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> > And that in a leftist newspaper!
>
> >> Summary:http://doctorbulldog.wordpress.com/2009/11/20/the-telegraph-picks=
> >-up-...
>
> >> Details:http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/19/breaking-news-story-hadley-=
> >cru-...
>
> >It all depends on your point of view. The leaked e-mails are obviously
> >open to negative interpretation, and doctorbulldog.wordpress,com is
> >delivering negative interpretations with enthusiasm.
>
> >Their reactions to the distress felt at Hadley about the downfall of
> >the journal "Climate Research" which has apparently fallen into the
> >hands of a denialist editor are typical.
>
> >Denialist editors have published some very poor papers in the past,
> >completely skipping peer review in their enthusiasm to get the paper
> >into the literature (and presumably to collect their bribe from Exxon-
> >Mobil or some other interested party). Academics intensely dislike
> >this kind of behaviour which devalues their published work, while
> >denialist journalists routinely claim that all academics behave like
> >this, and so docotrbulldogs commentators are predictably
> >misinterpreting Hadley's distress to imply that previous editor had
> >been pro-AWG in the same unscrupulous way.
>
> That is certainly an aspect, and a normal reaction from those scientists.
> but there is a lot more then that, especially showing how weak and manipulated their
> data really is.
What makes you think that their data is weak?
Most climate data is manipulated - it wouldn't be comprehensible if it
wasn't - and the scientists involved are constantly comparing their -
necessarily processed - data with other peoples to make sure that the
manipulations are working the way they should be.
The University of Alabama as Hunsville had the responsibility for
manipulating a bunch of satellite data, and they didn't do it very
well for a number of years, but eventually they got their act together
and the current manipulation program - version 5.2 - has brought their
data closer to everybody elses than version 5.1 could manage.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements
One of the scientists involved - Roy Spencer - has some rather strange
ideas which might have compromised the quality of his work.
> Ice bears falling from the sky?
What prompted you to dream that up? And the English translation is
polar bear, not ice-bear.
> Public [opinion] manipulation at its worst.
Have you ever looked at a denialist web-site with a similarly
sceptical eye?
> One can wonder what the real truth is, about temperature, and then again about
> what causes it, you know there were, and will be, ice ages, nobody
> was having coal plants in the previous one to create CO2 (in the Netherlands they now > want to store the CO2
> in the ground under my house almost), so, all feeble science.
People do have a pretty clear idea of how the climate worked during
the ice ages and the interglacials. It was precisely the ice core data
that the dimmer denialists use to justify their denial that persuaded
the scientifically educated that anthropogenic global warming was
plausible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements
My sympathy about the CO2 storage under your house. For someone who
knows as little about physics and chemistry as you do, the - entirely
false - analogy with Lake Victoria must be quite worrying. The correct
answer to your anxieties would be learn a bit more about the subject,
rather than trying to stop the experiment, but "not in my back yard"
is a very popular attitiude.
> Sure the oil industry will *perhaps* pull some strings, maybe they even had that uni's server hacked,
> but fact remains those cycles in climate have always been there, and we better
> have the energy sources to keep us cool or warm, and do away with the for profit global warming hype.
We have had a more or less cyclic pattern of ice ages and
interglacials for the past few million years, but this isn't the only
way the earth's climate can vary. The Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum
some 55.8 million years ago was an episode of run-away global warming
back when the earth was quite a bit warmer - perhaps some 4C waremr
than it is now - and suggest that if we let the earth warm up by
another couple of degrees were might destablise enough methane
clathrate we might be able to enjoy the same sort of 6C spike for some
20,000 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum
> Global warming is becoming almost a religion, where any objective look at it is considered 'evil'.
> Al Gore should be locked up.
Global warming only looks like a religion to people who aren't
equipped to understand the science involved. The denialists who claim
to be taking an "objective" look at the science make such obvious
mistakes that they can't be taken seriously.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Bill Sloman
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 05:53:00 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Nov 21, 6:54 am, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> The global warming hoax revealed:
> >> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html?partne...
>
> >> <Quote from that article>
> >> This shows these are people willing to bend rules and
> >> go after other people's reputations in very serious ways,' he said. Spencer
> >> R. Weart, a physicist and historian who is charting the course of research
> >> on global warming, said the hacked material would serve as 'great material
> >> for historians.'
> >> <end quote>
>
> >> LOL.
> >> Some science!
>
> >> And that in a leftist newspaper!
>
> >Summary:
>
> >Details:
> >http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/19/breaking-news-story-hadley-cru-...
>
> And a search engine for CRU emails
>
Ravinghorde is going to be even more of a nuisance than he is at the
moment.
His ignorance is such that he regularly quotes real scientific papers
to support arguments that they actively contradict.
Given a bunch of private e-mails that he can quote out of context, he
can be predicted to find "evidence" for life-time's worth of insane
conspiracy theories.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Raveninghorde
Joerg
Time to sell? Once this sort of "project" has moved along far enough you
might not be able to, for the price you'd want.
[...]
--
Regards, Joerg
http://www.analogconsultants.com/
"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.
Jon Kirwan
The points are addressed in realclimate.org. By Gavin, who is one of
those whose emails were disclosed and others who post there. The
_truer_ feelings that some climate scientists have for some of the
public naysayers are exposed. Oh, well. Too bad.
And absolutely. The hacked material would certainly serve as a great
source of material for historians. Same would be true for recovery of
the more than ten million emails of the last Bush administration that
were "lost."
No leftist considers the NYTimes even close to being in their camp.
It's just that NYTimes will publish opinion pieces from the left and
right, the net balance of which bothers those on the extreme right
(and extreme left, too.) Folks in the middle are less bothered.
Jon
Jan Panteltje
<inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote in <7mr3a8F...@mid.individual.net>:
>> One can wonder what the real truth is, about temperature, and then again about
>> what causes it, you know there were, and will be, ice ages, nobody
>> was having coal plants in the previous one to create CO2 (in the Netherlands they now want to store the CO2
>> in the ground under my house almost), so, all feeble science.
>
>
>Time to sell? Once this sort of "project" has moved along far enough you
>might not be able to, for the price you'd want.
Could be, I already looked up if CO2 was heavier then air (it is):
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090611040945AAPt3oV
else it would be very dangerous to live here.
But some geological processes could push it upwards, you would get suffocated in your sleep,
nowhere to run, even if you found out what was happening.
CO2 detector, oxygen equipment, fast car or helicopter, and you MAY have a chance :-)
It is an idiotic idea, the greenies create things that are more dangerous then what the want to fight.
Like more people die in coal mining in one year _an other 30 or so in China today_ then in all nuclear accidents that ever happened,
that is why the greenies are against nuke power??? And nuke power makes no CO2.
It is, as opposed to Bill's constant insulting of others by suggesting they have
no scientific understanding or education, the most *stupid* little greenies club that does this over and over
again, manipulated by energy haters like Gore.
If it was for the greenies we would all be living in grass shacks without heating and eating grass too.
Joerg
> On a sunny day (Sat, 21 Nov 2009 13:10:31 -0800) it happened Joerg
> <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote in <7mr3a8F...@mid.individual.net>:
>
>>> One can wonder what the real truth is, about temperature, and then again about
>>> what causes it, you know there were, and will be, ice ages, nobody
>>> was having coal plants in the previous one to create CO2 (in the Netherlands they now want to store the CO2
>>> in the ground under my house almost), so, all feeble science.
>>
>> Time to sell? Once this sort of "project" has moved along far enough you
>> might not be able to, for the price you'd want.
>
>
> Could be, I already looked up if CO2 was heavier then air (it is):
> http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090611040945AAPt3oV
> else it would be very dangerous to live here.
> But some geological processes could push it upwards, you would get suffocated in your sleep,
> nowhere to run, even if you found out what was happening.
> CO2 detector, oxygen equipment, fast car or helicopter, and you MAY have a chance :-)
If for some reason pressure shifts down there and a bubble gets pushed
up you may not have time to start the turbo-shaft engine in your
helicopter. Besides you sitting there slumped over the controls, it also
needs some oxygen to work.
> It is an idiotic idea, the greenies create things that are more dangerous then what the want to fight.
> Like more people die in coal mining in one year _an other 30 or so in China today_ then in all nuclear accidents that ever happened,
> that is why the greenies are against nuke power??? And nuke power makes no CO2.
The topper was a guy in a Hawkwer business jet, had to call a missed
approach at Beijing airport. The weather was fine but he could not see
the runway at decision height. Because of the smog ...
> It is, as opposed to Bill's constant insulting of others by suggesting they have
> no scientific understanding or education, the most *stupid* little greenies club that does this over and over
> again, manipulated by energy haters like Gore.
> If it was for the greenies we would all be living in grass shacks without heating and eating grass too.
>
But they'd keep on driving their Volvos :-)
John Larkin
<pNaonSt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125883405294859215.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
"In several of the emails, climate researchers discussed how to
arrange for favorable reviewers for papers they planned to publish in
scientific journals. At the same time, climate researchers at times
appeared to pressure scientific journals not to publish research by
other scientists whose findings they disagreed with."
Some good stuff here:
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/hadley_hacked/
" The other paper by MM is just garbage � as you knew. De Freitas
again. Pielke is also losing all credibility as well by replying to
the mad Finn as well � frequently as I see it. I can�t see either of
these papers being in the next IPCC report. K and I will keep them out
somehow � even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature
is ! "
John
John Fields
<bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
---
Interesting.
The sky is falling around the doom and gloom boys, and especially around
that insufferable fatass Al Gore leech, and you're still kissing their
asses because you don't want to admit that you were blinded by their
bullshit "science".
But it's not really your fault, poor baby, and because you don't know
enough about it to allow you to make objective decisions about the
conclusions come to by your suicidols, you then tie in with them since
they're a bunch of crooks who talk the same language you do.
JF
Bill Sloman
> Jan Panteltje wrote:
> > On a sunny day (Sat, 21 Nov 2009 13:10:31 -0800) it happened Joerg
>
> >>> One can wonder what the real truth is, about temperature, and then again about
> >>> what causes it, you know there were, and will be, ice ages, nobody
> >>> was having coal plants in the previous one to create CO2 (in the Netherlands they now want to store the CO2
> >>> in the ground under my house almost), so, all feeble science.
>
> >> Time to sell? Once this sort of "project" has moved along far enough you
> >> might not be able to, for the price you'd want.
>
> > Could be, I already looked up if CO2 was heavier then air (it is):
> > http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090611040945AAPt3oV
> > else it would be very dangerous to live here.
> > But some geological processes could push it upwards, you would get suffocated in your sleep,
> > nowhere to run, even if you found out what was happening.
> > CO2 detector, oxygen equipment, fast car or helicopter, and you MAY have a chance :-)
>
> If for some reason pressure shifts down there and a bubble gets pushed
> up you may not have time to start the turbo-shaft engine in your
> helicopter. Besides you sitting there slumped over the controls, it also
> needs some oxygen to work.
Of course, if this were likely to happen, Barendrecht would have
vanished in a giant fireball sometime in the last few thousand years,
when the - now exhausted - natural gas field under the town had pushed
a bubble of natural gas up to the surface.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5i0gwwjN8hkEa1SyfHo_b7LhZ3z2A
<snipped the rest of the idiot anxieties>
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmgen
Bill Sloman
> On a sunny day (Sat, 21 Nov 2009 13:10:31 -0800) it happened Joerg
>
> >> One can wonder what the real truth is, about temperature, and then again about
> >> what causes it, you know there were, and will be, ice ages, nobody
> >> was having coal plants in the previous one to create CO2 (in the Netherlands they now want to store the CO2
> >> in the ground under my house almost), so, all feeble science.
>
> >Time to sell? Once this sort of "project" has moved along far enough you
> >might not be able to, for the price you'd want.
>
> Could be, I already looked up if CO2 was heavier then air (it is):
> http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090611040945AAPt3oV
> else it would be very dangerous to live here.
> But some geological processes could push it upwards, you would get suffocated in your > sleep, nowhere to run, even if you found out what was happening.
This is unlikely. The CO2 is being injected below an impervious layer
of clay that sealed the field well enough to trap natural gas there
for a couple of hundred million years.
Unlike natural gas, CO2 dissolves happily in water, and at a couple of
kilometres below the surface the local pressure is high enough to keep
the CO2 injected in solution.
> CO2 detector, oxygen equipment, fast car or helicopter, and you MAY have a chance :-)
He's a lot more likely to be drowned by rising sea levels breaking the
dykes, but that is a familiar risk, so he's happy to ignore it.
> It is an idiotic idea, the greenies create things that are more dangerous then what they want to fight.
The real risk is of rising CO2 levels producing temperatures high
enough to get the Greenland ice cap sliding off into the sea even
faster than it is a the moment - it recently hit 270 gigaton per year,
good for 0.75mm per year of sea level rise
http://www.physorg.com/news177258173.html
but that seems to have passed Jan by.
> Like more people die in coal mining in one year _an other 30 or so in China today_ then in all nuclear accidents that ever happened,
> that is why the greenies are against nuke power??? And nuke power makes no CO2.
But it does involve other - even more persistent - problems
> It is, as opposed to Bill's constant insulting of others by suggesting they have
> no scientific understanding or education, the most *stupid* little greenies club that does this over and over.
Jan doesn't like being reminded that he doesn't understand the science
involved. He's smart enough to correct his ignorance, but prefers to
spend his time complaining that he is being insulted because his
ignorant prejudices are being pilloried.
> again, manipulated by energy haters like Gore.
Al Gore and the rest of rational part of of the campaign to reign in
anthropogenic global warming aren't energy haters.
They are perfectly happy to see energy generated by any mechanism that
doesn't push up CO2 levels in the atmosphere - wind turbines could
supply all the enrgy we consume at the moment and solar power stations
could do a lot better. Burning fossil carbon looks cheaper, if you
ignore the long term damage done by rising CO2 levels in the
atmosphere, but submerging the Netherlands as sea levels rise is the
kind of long term damage we should be thinking about.
> If it was for the greenies we would all be living in grass shacks without heating and eating grass too.
Jan Panteltje complains about feeling insulted because I call him
ignorant, then proceeds to come up with this fatuity.
There are a couple of books around that spell out how society would
work with sustainable energy sources - George Monbiot's "Heat" is one
and thomas L. Friedman's "Hot, Flat and Crowded" is another. Unheated
grass shacks don't form any part of the picture.
No doubt there are lunatic greenies who do want to take us back to the
Stone Age, but only the denialist press claims to take them seriously.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
dagmarg...@yahoo.com
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 11:54:05 GMT, Jan Panteltje
>
>
>
> <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >The global warming hoax revealed:
>
> ><Quote from that article>
> >This shows these are people willing to bend rules and
> >go after other people's reputations in very serious ways,' he said. Spencer
> >R. Weart, a physicist and historian who is charting the course of research
> >on global warming, said the hacked material would serve as 'great material
> >for historians.'
> ><end quote>
>
> >LOL.
> >Some science!
>
> >And that in a leftist newspaper!
>
> The points are addressed in realclimate.org. By Gavin, who is one of
> those whose emails were disclosed and others who post there. The
> _truer_ feelings that some climate scientists have for some of the
> public naysayers are exposed. Oh, well. Too bad.
It's not surprising they don't like their critics. But as scientists
they shouldn't be
a) resisting sharing their data,
b) colluding to suppress competing publications,
c) or directing one another--or anyone else--to delete their e-mails
wrt AR4.
Scientists cooperate, sometimes compete, but never conspire.
--
Cheers,
James Arthur
dagmarg...@yahoo.com
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 11:54:05 GMT, Jan Panteltje
>
>
>
> <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >The global warming hoax revealed:
>
> ><Quote from that article>
> >This shows these are people willing to bend rules and
> >go after other people's reputations in very serious ways,' he said. Spencer
> >R. Weart, a physicist and historian who is charting the course of research
> >on global warming, said the hacked material would serve as 'great material
> >for historians.'
> ><end quote>
>
> >LOL.
> >Some science!
>
> >And that in a leftist newspaper!
>
>
> "In several of the emails, climate researchers discussed how to
> arrange for favorable reviewers for papers they planned to publish in
> scientific journals. At the same time, climate researchers at times
> appeared to pressure scientific journals not to publish research by
> other scientists whose findings they disagreed with."
>
> Some good stuff here:
>
>
> " The other paper by MM is just garbage – as you knew. De Freitas
> again. Pielke is also losing all credibility as well by replying to
> the mad Finn as well – frequently as I see it. I can’t see either of
> these papers being in the next IPCC report. K and I will keep them out
> somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature
> is ! "
>
> John
http://doctorbulldog.wordpress.com/2009/11/20/the-telegraph-picks-up-on-the-hadley-cru-story/
"The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the
moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in
the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more
warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is
inadequate."
"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how
smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong." --
Richard Feynman
--
Cheers,
James Arthur
Bill Sloman
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 11:54:05 GMT, Jan Panteltje
>
>
> ><Quote from that article>
> >This shows these are people willing to bend rules and
> >go after other people's reputations in very serious ways,' he said. Spencer
> >R. Weart, a physicist and historian who is charting the course of research
> >on global warming, said the hacked material would serve as 'great material
> >for historians.'
> ><end quote>
>
> >LOL.
> >Some science!
>
> >And that in a leftist newspaper!
>
>
> "In several of the emails, climate researchers discussed how to
> arrange for favorable reviewers for papers they planned to publish in
> scientific journals. At the same time, climate researchers at times
> appeared to pressure scientific journals not to publish research by
> other scientists whose findings they disagreed with."
Most scientists have a fair idea of who might be asked to review their
papers, and adjust the papers to encourage editors to go for the more
constructive and well-informed of the likely referees.
They also have opinions about the kind of work that other people do,
the reliability of the results that other scientists claim, and the
quality of the papers that they produce. Some people are bad enough
that they end up trying to publish in journals on the edges of their
field, where the editors won't know how untrustworthy they are.
Personal contacts often mean that they don't get away with it.
> Some good stuff here:
>
> http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/com...
>
> " The other paper by MM is just garbage – as you knew. De Freitas
> again. Pielke is also losing all credibility as well by replying to
> the mad Finn as well – frequently as I see it. I can’t see either of
> these papers being in the next IPCC report. K and I will keep them out
> somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature
> is ! "
Obviously not intended for publication, but why would you ever think
that because scientists are obliged to publish sober and rational
arguments, they aren't emotionally involved in their work?
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Bill Sloman
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 11:46:02 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
>
>
>
>
>
> <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
> >On Nov 21, 7:03 pm, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 05:53:00 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >On Nov 21, 6:54 am, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >> The global warming hoax revealed:
> >> >> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html?partne...
>
> >> >> <Quote from that article>
> >> >> This shows these are people willing to bend rules and
> >> >> go after other people's reputations in very serious ways,' he said. Spencer
> >> >> R. Weart, a physicist and historian who is charting the course of research
> >> >> on global warming, said the hacked material would serve as 'great material
> >> >> for historians.'
> >> >> <end quote>
>
> >> >> LOL.
> >> >> Some science!
>
> >> >> And that in a leftist newspaper!
>
> >> >Summary:
> >> >http://doctorbulldog.wordpress.com/2009/11/20/the-telegraph-picks-up-...
>
> >> >Details:
> >> >http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/19/breaking-news-story-hadley-cru-...
>
> >> And a search engine for CRU emails
>
>
> >Ravinghorde is going to be even more of a nuisance than he is at the
> >moment.
>
> >His ignorance is such that he regularly quotes real scientific papers
> >to support arguments that they actively contradict.
>
> >Given a bunch of private e-mails that he can quote out of context, he
> >can be predicted to find "evidence" for life-time's worth of insane
> >conspiracy theories.
>
By which Ravinghorde would like us to know that he thinks of himself
as an engineer rather than a scientist.
Since he is - in fact - a fruitcake who can't do joined-up logic, his
self-image isn't all that interesting.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Bill Sloman
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 11:46:02 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
>
> >On Nov 21, 7:03 pm, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 05:53:00 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >On Nov 21, 6:54 am, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >> The global warming hoax revealed:
> >> >> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html?partne...
>
> >> >> <Quote from that article>
> >> >> This shows these are people willing to bend rules and
> >> >> go after other people's reputations in very serious ways,' he said. Spencer
> >> >> R. Weart, a physicist and historian who is charting the course of research
> >> >> on global warming, said the hacked material would serve as 'great material
> >> >> for historians.'
> >> >> <end quote>
>
> >> >> LOL.
> >> >> Some science!
>
> >> >> And that in a leftist newspaper!
>
> >> >Summary:
> >> >http://doctorbulldog.wordpress.com/2009/11/20/the-telegraph-picks-up-...
>
> >> >Details:
> >> >http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/19/breaking-news-story-hadley-cru-...
>
> >> And a search engine for CRU emails
>
>
> >Ravinghorde is going to be even more of a nuisance than he is at the
> >moment.
>
> >His ignorance is such that he regularly quotes real scientific papers
> >to support arguments that they actively contradict.
>
> >Given a bunch of private e-mails that he can quote out of context, he
> >can be predicted to find "evidence" for life-time's worth of insane
> >conspiracy theories.
>
> ---
> Interesting.
>
> The sky is falling around the doom and gloom boys, and especially around
> that insufferable fatass Al Gore leech, and you're still kissing their
> asses because you don't want to admit that you were blinded by their
> bullshit "science".
If you had had the benefit of a scientific education you might be
aware that the science involved isn't bullshit. If you'd ever worked
with academics, you'd be aware that they waste a lot of time on office
politics. The e-mails are going to give Ravinghorde a lot of pleasure
- I won't say innocent because he is going to use them to indulge his
passion for idiotic conspiracy theories - but they aren't goig to make
a blind bit of difference to the science.
> But it's not really your fault, poor baby, and because you don't know
> enough about it to allow you to make objective decisions about the
> conclusions come to by your suicidols, you then tie in with them since
> they're a bunch of crooks who talk the same language you do.
You are welcome to review the literature and come to your own
conclusions. You haven't ever displayed any kind of physical insight,
so it is unlikely that your insight will be worth much, but this is a
democratic society, so Exxon-Mobil and similar firms are free to spend
millions of dollars concocting plausible lies good enough to persuade
the unsophisticated voter to let them keep on making money by digging
up and selling fossil carbon for use as fuel.
New Orleans didn't tell you anything, but it is outside the borders of
Texas. You will probably have to lose Galveston again before the penny
drops.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1900_Galveston_hurricane
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Bill Sloman
Scientists are human, and they conspire all the time. The great
majority of them have enough sense to avoid conspiring to keep
competent scientific work out of the literature, but everything else
is fair game.
And playing fair with scientific journals is a tolerably modern
virtue. In the nineteenth century there was an endless succession of
scientific journals in Germany. Every established journal eventually
fell under the influence of some god-professor or other, and stopped
publishing papers by anybody except his students and ex-students, so
the rest of the field would have to set up a new journal in order to
be able to publish their research.
The publishers eventually got wise to this, and made sure that they
could dump editors who were damaging the status (and thus the market
share) of the journals that they published, but it didn't happen
overnight.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
John Larkin
Because they respect the scientific method? Because they honor truth?
I thought they were obliged to publish their actual measured results,
not cherry-picked or outright fudged data.
Apparently not.
John
Raveninghorde
Interesting summary of issues here:
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/11/20/climate-cuttings-33.html
e.g
/quotes
Mann sends calibration residuals for MBH99 to Osborn. Says they are
pretty red, and that they shouldn't be passed on to others, this being
the kind of dirty laundry they don't want in the hands of those who
might distort it.(1059664704)
# Reaction to McIntyre's 2005 paper in GRL. Mann has challenged GRL
editor-in-chief over the publication. Mann is concerned about the
connections of the paper's editor James Saiers with U Virginia [does
he mean Pat Michaels?]. Tom Wigley says that if Saiers is a sceptic
they should go through official GRL channels to get him ousted.
(1106322460) [Note to readers - Saiers was subsequently ousted]
# Later on Mann refers to the leak at GRL being plugged.(1132094873)
/end quotes
Jan Panteltje
<inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote in <7mr8loF...@mid.individual.net>:
>> Could be, I already looked up if CO2 was heavier then air (it is):
>> http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090611040945AAPt3oV
>> else it would be very dangerous to live here.
>> But some geological processes could push it upwards, you would get suffocated in your sleep,
>> nowhere to run, even if you found out what was happening.
>> CO2 detector, oxygen equipment, fast car or helicopter, and you MAY have a chance :-)
>
>
>If for some reason pressure shifts down there and a bubble gets pushed
>up you may not have time to start the turbo-shaft engine in your
>helicopter. Besides you sitting there slumped over the controls, it also
>needs some oxygen to work.
Yes, after I wrote that, I realised the copter and the car would not start... no oxygen.
Then the only way would be a helium balloon in the attic, with big flaps that open in the roof,
so it can take of vertically, and then, when in fresh air, have the wind blow you elsewhere.
Hot air balloon will not work either, no oxygen for the burners, and hydrogen is dangerous,
but could perhaps be used.
Like that balloon that real scientist makes in the movie 'Waterworld' (recommended movie),
the one he saves everybody with.
>But they'd keep on driving their Volvos :-)
Yup.
Jan Panteltje
<bill....@ieee.org> wrote in
<c84b300f-508c-4a83...@l2g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>:
>On Nov 21, 11:41�pm, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> Jan Panteltje wrote:
>> > On a sunny day (Sat, 21 Nov 2009 13:10:31 -0800) it happened Joerg
>> > <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote in <7mr3a8F3jab6...@mid.individual.net>=
>:
>>
>> >>> One can wonder what the real truth is, about temperature, and then ag=
>ain about
>> >>> what causes it, you know there were, and will be, ice ages, nobody
>> >>> was having coal plants in the previous one to create CO2 (in the Neth=
>erlands they now want to store the CO2
>> >>> in the ground under my house almost), so, all feeble science.
>>
>> >> Time to sell? Once this sort of "project" has moved along far enough y=
>ou
>> >> might not be able to, for the price you'd want.
>>
>> > Could be, I already looked up if CO2 was heavier then air (it is):
>> > �http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090611040945AAPt3oV
>> > else it would be very dangerous to live here.
>> > But some geological processes could push it upwards, you would get suff=
>ocated in your sleep,
>> > nowhere to run, even if you found out what was happening.
>> > CO2 detector, oxygen equipment, fast car or helicopter, and you MAY hav=
>e a chance :-)
>>
>> If for some reason pressure shifts down there and a bubble gets pushed
>> up you may not have time to start the turbo-shaft engine in your
>> helicopter. Besides you sitting there slumped over the controls, it also
>> needs some oxygen to work.
>
>Of course, if this were likely to happen, Barendrecht would have
>vanished in a giant fireball sometime in the last few thousand years,
>when the - now exhausted - natural gas field under the town had pushed
>a bubble of natural gas up to the surface.
Well, think Groningen (a place in The Netherlands where natural gas is pumped up),
many an small earthquake has happened there because of the ground caving in,
I could feel some of those here.
Of course once you start filling up those cavities with _millions_of_tons_ of CO2,
more instability will happen.
You only need a cloud pushed up of 2 meters high for more then five minutes
to kill all lifeforms in the area.
I do not see you climb a tree when half conscious snapping for air.
So it is an idiotic idea, does not do any good for anybody,
and an other folly you seem to support, just like global warming.
I would state it this way:
If we asked all politicians that voted for it, to accept the death penalty if anything
went wrong, would they still vote for it?
I think there would be very few votes in favour.
Bill Sloman
> On a sunny day (Sat, 21 Nov 2009 17:44:10 -0800 (PST)) it happened Bill Sloman
> <c84b300f-508c-4a83-aaab-8964e64d3...@l2g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>:
The ground above the gas field can move up and down, but whatever
sealed the gas field for a few hundred million years has to have
survived a lot of similar perturbations.
> Of course once you start filling up those cavities with _millions_of_tons_ of CO2,
> more instability will happen.
Less, actually, since you are replacing the original natural gas and
restoring the status quo that had been in place for a feww hundred
million years.
> You only need a cloud pushed up of 2 meters high for more then five minutes
> to kill all lifeforms in the area.
Sure. But you have to have some realistic idea of how the CO2 would
percolate up through more than a mile of geology to form that 2 metre
thick layer. In Lake Victoria, the CO2 rich layer of water in the
depths of the lake turned itself into a kind of geyser to get up to
the surface. I presume that your unfettered imagination is postulating
a similar kind of never-before-seen pseudo-volcanic event under
Barendrecht. Learn a bit more about the subject and you will rapidly
feel less anxious.
> I do not see you climb a tree when half conscious snapping for air.
Since there weren't any volcanic outbursts of natural gas in the
hudreds of milion years that the natural gas field soent waitng under
Barendrecht, you have a very good chance of dying of old age long
before - several hundred millions years before - you might want to
climb a tree to get away from any CO2 that escaped. Your denial of
anthropogenic global warming - if widely shared - would see you
clambering up the same tree to get above the waters of the expanded
North Sea in a rather shorter time.
> So it is an idiotic idea, does not do any good for anybody,
> and an other folly you seem to support, just like global warming.
The idiotic ideas and the folly are all yours. You are getting excited
about a totally improbable potential disaster, and ignoring the real
problem.
> I would state it this way:
> If we asked all politicians that voted for it, to accept the death penalty if anything
> went wrong, would they still vote for it?
> I think there would be very few votes in favour.
But your proposition - that we ignore anthropogenic global warming
because you can't be bothered to get your head around the scientific
evidence - has a finite possibility of condemning the whole human race
to death in a global extinction, which hasn't stopped you voting for
it.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Bill Sloman
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 18:03:41 +0000, Raveninghorde
>
>
>
>
>
> <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
> >wrote:
>
> >>On Nov 21, 6:54 am, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>> The global warming hoax revealed:
> >>> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html?partne...
>
> >>> <Quote from that article>
> >>> This shows these are people willing to bend rules and
> >>> go after other people's reputations in very serious ways,' he said. Spencer
> >>> R. Weart, a physicist and historian who is charting the course of research
> >>> on global warming, said the hacked material would serve as 'great material
> >>> for historians.'
> >>> <end quote>
>
> >>> LOL.
> >>> Some science!
>
> >>> And that in a leftist newspaper!
>
> >>Summary:
>
> >>Details:
> >>http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/19/breaking-news-story-hadley-cru-...
>
> >And a search engine for CRU emails
>
> >www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/
>
> Interesting summary of issues here:
>
>
> e.g
>
> /quotes
>
> Mann sends calibration residuals for MBH99 to Osborn. Says they are
> pretty red, and that they shouldn't be passed on to others, this being
> the kind of dirty laundry they don't want in the hands of those who
> might distort it.(1059664704)
Seems reasonable, considering what you do with evidence that directly
contradicts your propositions.
> # Reaction to McIntyre's 2005 paper in GRL. Mann has challenged GRL
> editor-in-chief over the publication. Mann is concerned about the
> connections of the paper's editor James Saiers with U Virginia [does
> he mean Pat Michaels?]. Tom Wigley says that if Saiers is a sceptic
> they should go through official GRL channels to get him ousted.
> (1106322460) [Note to readers - Saiers was subsequently ousted]
>
> # Later on Mann refers to the leak at GRL being plugged.(1132094873)
>
> /end quotes- Hide quoted text -
Since being a climate sceptic requires that you don't understand the
evidence, it is usually a symptom of scientific incompetence, which is
a perfectly valid reason for getting rid of an editor.
In your capacity as a climate sceptic who doesn't understand the
scientific evidence you may not be susceptible to this argument, but
that doesn't invalidate it.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Bill Sloman
There's no contradiction between emotional involvement and respecting
the scientific method.
> I thought they were obliged to publish their actual measured results,
> not cherry-picked or outright fudged data.
They are. Adjusting papers to persuade editors to select constructive
referees is primarily a matter of choosing the right papers to cite in
the introduction of the paper and and in the discusion of the
conclusions.
For preferred referees you cite papers for which they are first
authors and you try to avoid citing non-preferred referees or a least
confine yourself to papers where they aren't first authors. Careful
choice of synonyms can also be useful in in directing an editor's
thoughts towards the righ referee.
> Apparently not.
Wrong. Cherry-picking and fudging data is a career-wrecking crime, and
since such data doesn't replicate when somebody else does the
experiment, you have to be an idiot as well as a psychopath to try it.
The denialists have been claiming that Mann fudged his data for years,
despite the fact that some dozen subsequent independent studies have
confirmed his results - the latest replication come from lake botton
samples from long-lived lakes in northern Canada, where they have been
slicing the cores into slivers half a millimetre thick and extracting
climate data. The Proceedings of the (US) National Academy of Science
got quite excited about it.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
dagmarg...@yahoo.com
What the e-mails reveal more than anything is that these aren't
scientists, but advocates.
They're not objective, open-minded, dispassionate seekers of the
truth. They're heavily invested in preconceived models, which they're
determined to mold Nature to fit.
Doesn't mean they're wrong, of course. But it does make them
unreliable as "authorities."
--
Cheers,
James Arthur
Jan Panteltje
<bill....@ieee.org> wrote in
<36aa404c-b398-49ea...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>:
>But your proposition - that we ignore anthropogenic global warming
>because you can't be bothered to get your head around the scientific
>evidence - has a finite possibility of condemning the whole human race
>to death in a global extinction, which hasn't stopped you voting for
>it.
*Evidence*??????, do you have a reading problem?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
http://doctorbulldog.wordpress.com/2009/11/20/the-telegraph-picks-up-on-the-hadley-cru-story/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/19/breaking-news-story-hadley-cru-has-apparently-been-hacked-hundreds-of-files-released/#more-12937
And all over the internet.
Manipulated data, scientific fraud, defamation of real scientists with different data and vision.
Is that your evidence?
Clearly for scientist 'to stand on the shoulders of giants' does not make them great.
Those are merely dwarfs standing on the shoulders of giants, and that looks a lot like you.
A *real* scientist is capable of analytical thinking and unbiased observation.
That is how the real giants came about.
I have to say that our education system mostly creates parrots, and does
not put a lot, if any, weight on making students think for themselves.
You seem to be the victim of such a system.
My condolences, the hardwiring of your brain at your age cannot be corrected,
that wiring is formed at a very young age, perhaps before or during the first 4 years.
People like Al Gore are deforming the younger generation's brains with their
'poor polar bear dies of global warming' crap.
A generation lost.
Now let's build some nuclear plants, have nice clean energy, and, just like France, pollute all of the Netherlands
with fresh plutonium...
See, I think *I* am the realists here.
But, with a bit of care we *can* have nice safe clean nuclear power.
And no more coal mine victims.
Jan Panteltje
<jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in
<ojrgg5dgttd1th8l7...@4ax.com>:
John Larkin
But climate is not subject to experiment. Historically, science has
tended to be erratic, faddish, and usually wrong until corrected by
experiment.
John
dagmarg...@yahoo.com
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 06:45:03 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
>
>
>
These guys want to replace confirmation by experiment with proof by
correlation. Which they're in a unique position to ensure.
They're the ones with infinite government funding, they're the
official interface to and gate-keepers of the raw data, and they're
not letting other people have it. Why? Because the data do not
support their model.
That's wrong.
--
Cheers,
James Arthur
John Larkin
wrote:
Or proof by simulation. Simulation of extremely nonlinear chaotic
systems whose dynamics and forcing inputs are largely unknown.
>
>They're the ones with infinite government funding, they're the
>official interface to and gate-keepers of the raw data, and they're
>not letting other people have it. Why? Because the data do not
>support their model.
>
>That's wrong.
Wrong morally and most likely wrong in fact.
John
Joerg
Joerg
Probably your only chance would be an oxygen pack for each family member
and a corresponding number of electric mopeds. I guess you guys couldn't
call the bromfietsen then :-)
Plus a LOUD CO2 alarm.
[...]
Joerg
> On Nov 22, 5:14 am, John Larkin
> <jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 18:14:04 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
>>> On Nov 22, 12:00 am, John Larkin
>>> <jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
[...]
>>>> http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/com...
>>>> " The other paper by MM is just garbage � as you knew. De Freitas
>>>> again. Pielke is also losing all credibility as well by replying to
>>>> the mad Finn as well � frequently as I see it. I can�t see either of
>>>> these papers being in the next IPCC report. K and I will keep them out
>>>> somehow � even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature
>>>> is ! "
>>> Obviously not intended for publication, but why would you ever think
>>> that because scientists are obliged to publish sober and rational
>>> arguments, they aren't emotionally involved in their work?
>> Because they respect the scientific method? Because they honor truth?
>
> There's no contradiction between emotional involvement and respecting
> the scientific method.
>
Did you really read John's quote? Quote of quote: "K and I will keep
them out somehow � even if we have to redefine what the peer-review
literature is ! "
If this was truly said then I have lost all respect for those guys. Any
and all. But they have already lost much of it a long time ago, at least
in this neighborhood (which is full of engineers).
Bill Sloman
> On a sunny day (Sun, 22 Nov 2009 06:20:23 -0800 (PST)) it happenedBill Sloman
> <36aa404c-b398-49ea-9967-67847862b...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>:
>
> >But your proposition - that we ignore anthropogenic global warming
> >because you can't be bothered to get your head around the scientific
> >evidence - has a finite possibility of condemning the whole human race
> >to death in a global extinction, which hasn't stopped you voting for
> >it.
>
> *Evidence*??????, do you have a reading problem?
>
inaccessible
> http://doctorbulldog.wordpress.com/2009/11/20/the-telegraph-picks-up-...
Denialist rubbish
> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/19/breaking-news-story-hadley-cru-...
Highlights stuff that denialists do seem to have gotten excited about,
mainly by imputing implausible evil significance to the tolerably
innocuous content.
The reading problem seems to be yours.
> And all over the internet.
> Manipulated data, scientific fraud, defamation of real scientists with different data > and vision.
There's no evidence of data being manipulated - just the usual
discussion of preliminary data that doesn't make sense - and equally
no evidence of scientific fraud.
Other scientists are certainly criticised - much more openly than
would be usual in a document intended to be published - but there's no
defamation that I can see, and while the people being criticised may
be "real" scientists in the sense of have written papers that have
been published in peer-reviewed journals and cited in other peer-
reviewed publications, I recognised a couple of the names being
criticised and understood exactly why they might not be popular with
more mainstream figures.
> Is that your evidence?
Private e-mails hacked from a web-site suddenly constitute scientific
evidence? Try the American Institute of Physics web page for a rather
more coherent story.
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/
> Clearly for scientist 'to stand on the shoulders of giants' does not make them great.
Since Newton's comment was in fact a rather unsubtle dig at Hooke, who
was very short, it represents historical evidence that even great
scieintists can be remarkably petty.
> Those are merely dwarfs standing on the shoulders of giants, and that looks a lot like you.
Your opinion on scientific matters isn't either well-informed or
interesting.
> A *real* scientist is capable of analytical thinking and unbiased observation.
> That is how the real giants came about.
"Real giants" had the good luck to be working in the right place at
the right time. They did have to be capable of analytical thinkig and
unbiased observation, but these skills are rather more wide-spread
than you seem to think, and well-represented in the IPCC.
> I have to say that our education system mostly creates parrots, and does
> not put a lot, if any, weight on making students think for themselves.
It clearly failed you. I can name a number of people who had better
luck.
> You seem to be the victim of such a system.
You may like to think so, but I didn't get a Ph.D. in physical
chemistry by regurgitating what I'd been fed by my lecturers, and
their lectures were even less relevant to my subsequent career as an
electronic engineer.
> My condolences, the hardwiring of your brain at your age cannot be corrected,
> that wiring is formed at a very young age, perhaps before or during the first 4 years.
This is a very out-dated idea. One's brain remains plastic as long as
you keep on learning new stuff - London taxi-drivers develop a
demonstrably larger hippocampus as they learn their way around the
city.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/677048.stm
> People like Al Gore are deforming the younger generation's brains with their
> 'poor polar bear dies of global warming' crap.
Not as much as the denialist nitwits who claim that adding CO2 to the
atmosphere doesn't add to the greenhouse effect.
> A generation lost.
Perhaps not. anything that gets them interested in science - as
opposed to beleidswettenschap (aka business studies) - has to be a
step in the right direction.
> Now let's build some nuclear plants, have nice clean energy, and, just like France,
> pollute all of the Netherlands with fresh plutonium...
The French haven't yet had their nuclear accident - the nuclear
pollution in the Netherlands is basically what we got from Chernobyl.
> See, I think *I* am the realist here.
A "realist" who is frightened of CO2 getting out of an exhausted
natural gas field that managed to retain natural gas for a couple of
hundred million years?
> But, with a bit of care we *can* have nice safe clean nuclear power.
Providing that "bit of care" is going to be more difficult than you
seem to think. Read the the reports of what went wrong at Three Mile
Island and Chernobyl, and think about how many safety systems the
operators managed to by-pass to create their particular disasters.
> And no more coal mine victims.
Apart from the ones who die due to freak weather conditions that have
become more common at the earth warms up. In that sense the British
policeman who just died when a bridge washed away under him in today's
floods is a "coal mine victimn".
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Raveninghorde
wrote:
>Bill Sloman wrote:
>> On Nov 22, 5:14 am, John Larkin
>> <jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 18:14:04 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
>>>> On Nov 22, 12:00 am, John Larkin
>>>> <jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>>>>> http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/com...
>>>>> " The other paper by MM is just garbage � as you knew. De Freitas
>>>>> again. Pielke is also losing all credibility as well by replying to
>>>>> the mad Finn as well � frequently as I see it. I can�t see either of
>>>>> these papers being in the next IPCC report. K and I will keep them out
>>>>> somehow � even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature
>>>>> is ! "
>>>> Obviously not intended for publication, but why would you ever think
>>>> that because scientists are obliged to publish sober and rational
>>>> arguments, they aren't emotionally involved in their work?
>>> Because they respect the scientific method? Because they honor truth?
>>
>> There's no contradiction between emotional involvement and respecting
>> the scientific method.
>>
>
>Did you really read John's quote? Quote of quote: "K and I will keep
>them out somehow � even if we have to redefine what the peer-review
>literature is ! "
>
>If this was truly said then I have lost all respect for those guys. Any
>and all. But they have already lost much of it a long time ago, at least
>in this neighborhood (which is full of engineers).
>
>[...]
I like this one:
/quote
The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the
moment and it is a travesty that we can't.
/end quote
But the science is settled:(
Awaits a follow up from a George Soros shill.
Bill Sloman
> Bill Slomanwrote:
> > On Nov 21, 11:41 pm, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >> Jan Panteltje wrote:
> >>> On a sunny day (Sat, 21 Nov 2009 13:10:31 -0800) it happened Joerg
> >>> <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote in <7mr3a8F3jab6...@mid.individual.net>:
> >>>>> One can wonder what the real truth is, about temperature, and then again about
> >>>>> what causes it, you know there were, and will be, ice ages, nobody
> >>>>> was having coal plants in the previous one to create CO2 (in the Netherlands they now want to store the CO2
> >>>>> in the ground under my house almost), so, all feeble science.
> >>>> Time to sell? Once this sort of "project" has moved along far enough you
> >>>> might not be able to, for the price you'd want.
> >>> Could be, I already looked up if CO2 was heavier then air (it is):
> >>> http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090611040945AAPt3oV
> >>> else it would be very dangerous to live here.
> >>> But some geological processes could push it upwards, you would get suffocated in your sleep,
> >>> nowhere to run, even if you found out what was happening.
> >>> CO2 detector, oxygen equipment, fast car or helicopter, and you MAY have a chance :-)
> >> If for some reason pressure shifts down there and a bubble gets pushed
> >> up you may not have time to start the turbo-shaft engine in your
> >> helicopter. Besides you sitting there slumped over the controls, it also
> >> needs some oxygen to work.
>
> > Of course, if this were likely to happen, Barendrecht would have
> > vanished in a giant fireball sometime in the last few thousand years,
> > when the - now exhausted - natural gas field under the town had pushed
> > a bubble of natural gas up to the surface.
>
Lake Nyos is a deep lake and the water was saturated with CO2 from the
bottom up. The pressure at the bottom of the lake is a lot higher than
at the surface, so the CO2 concentration at the bottom of the lake was
a lot higher than that at the top.
This is an unstable situation, and once a part of the deeper water
started moving towards the surface, the CO2 started coming out of
solution, making that volume of water and CO2 less dense, so that it
rose more rapidly.
As your web-site says a "300-foot (91 m) fountain of water and foam
formed at the surface of the lake".
The CO2 to be stored a couple of kilometres under Barendrecht, in an
exhausted natural gas field, would have a rather tougher time getting
out. The natural gas field held the the natural gas under Barendrecht
without letting it out since Barendrecht started keeping written
records, and most likely for a few hundred million years before that,
so the two situations don't seem to be entirely comparable.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Bill Sloman
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 06:45:03 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
>
>
>
>
>
> <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
> >On Nov 22, 5:14 am, John Larkin
> ><jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
Darwin's Theory of Evolution wasn't based on experiment. Neither is
modern astronomy.
Would you like to detail the errati, faddish and incorrect parts of
these areas of science?
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Bill Sloman
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 11:07:53 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com
> wrote:
>
> >On Nov 22, 1:48 pm, John Larkin
> ><jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>
> >> <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
> >> >On Nov 22, 5:14 am, John Larkin
> >> ><jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
Weather is chaotic, Climate is pretty predictable - as farmers have
been proving for the past few millenia.
Simulating climate is a whole lot easier than simulating weather,
which doesn't make it easy. A recent copy of the IEEE Spectrum had an
article on a proposed "cloud computer" which is to be a processor
powerful enough to run climate simulations that are fine-grained
enough - cells around a a kilometre across - to include cloud
formation directly.
> >They're the ones with infinite government funding,
If they had "infinite funding" they'd have their "cloud computer" now.
> They're the
> >official interface to and gate-keepers of the raw data, and they're
> >not letting other people have it. Why? Because the data do not
> >support their model.
>
> >That's wrong.
>
> Wrong morally and most likely wrong in fact.
The claim is wrong - the data does support their models - and it is
immoral in that James Arthur is slandering scientists by making claims
that he can't support, beyond a poorly remembered dinner-table
conversation that he does seem to lack the scieintific training to
have understood correctly.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Bill Sloman
> Bill Slomanwrote:
> > <jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>
> >> <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
> >>> On Nov 22, 12:00 am, John Larkin
> >>> <jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >>>>http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/com...
> >>>> again. Pielke is also losing all credibility as well by replying to
> >>>> these papers being in the next IPCC report. K and I will keep them out
> >>>> is ! "
> >>> Obviously not intended for publication, but why would you ever think
> >>> that because scientists are obliged to publish sober and rational
> >>> arguments, they aren't emotionally involved in their work?
> >> Because they respect the scientific method? Because they honor truth?
>
> > There's no contradiction between emotional involvement and respecting
> > the scientific method.
>
> Did you really read John's quote? Quote of quote: "K and I will keep
> literature is ! "
>
> If this was truly said then I have lost all respect for those guys. Any
> and all. But they have already lost much of it a long time ago, at least
> in this neighborhood (which is full of engineers).
There are "peer-reviewed" journals around whose editors have been
known to publish denialist propaganda of zero academic merit without
sending it out for review.
As long as there wasn't money to be made out of publishing pseudo-
academic articles, the scientific community could afford to be pretty
relaxed about what constituted a peer-reviewed journal. Exxon-Mobil
and similar organisations with a large financial interest in denying
anthrpogenic global warming have created a situation where tighter
definitions are desirable.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Bill Sloman
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 14:04:45 -0800, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >Bill Slomanwrote:
> >> On Nov 22, 5:14 am, John Larkin
> >> <jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
The science is clear enough, but the data that is required to verify
the likeliest explanation - changes in heat distribution due to the
North Atlantic and Pacific Multidecadal Oscillations - depends on a
bunch of data-collecting robots that haven't been out there for long
enough yet.
http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/global_change_analysis.html#circ
There's your travesty. I've told you about this before - it is a pity
you are too ill-informed to be able to process and absorb the
information.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Bill Sloman
> On Nov 21, 11:14 pm, John Larkin
>
>
>
>
>
> <jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
Successful scieintists have to be good advocates for their own ideas.
> They're not objective, open-minded, dispassionate seekers of the
> truth.
No they are objective, open-minded, passionate seekers of the truth,
and particularly of those aspects of the truth that can be written up
in attention-getting papers.
> They're heavily invested in preconceived models, which they're
> determined to mold Nature to fit.
Most scientists have a heavy investment in the model that is currently
popular in their field, but they all know that if they can come up
with a better model they can wipe the floor with the competition.
Very few are silly enough to try to mould Nature to produce the kind
of publication they need - it does happen, and it makes the front
pages when they get caught.
And they do get caught, because science is all about consilience.
Everybody's results have to make sense when they are compared with
everybody else's results and those that don't get a lot of attention.
> Doesn't mean they're wrong, of course. But it does make them
> unreliable as "authorities."
Says James Arthur, in a remarkable implausible claim of authority.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Bill Sloman
> On Nov 22, 1:48 pm, John Larkin
>
>
>
>
>
> <jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>
> > <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
> > >On Nov 22, 5:14 am, John Larkin
> > ><jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
Astronomy has had to struggle with exactly the same problem. I presume
you also are going to rip down all the observatories and insist that
the sun really does go around the earth.
> They're the ones with infinite government funding,
"Infinite"?
>They're the
> official interface to and gate-keepers of the raw data, and they're
> not letting other people have it.
You must be thinking of Roy Spencer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_(scientist)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements
"One widely reported satellite temperature record, developed by Roy
Spencer and John Christy at the University of Alabama in Huntsville
(UAH), is currently version 5.2 which corrects previous errors in
their analysis for orbital drift and other factors. The record comes
from a succession of different satellites and problems with inter-
calibration between the satellites are important, especially NOAA-9,
which accounts for most of the difference between the RSS and UAH
analyses [15]. NOAA-11 played a significant role in a 2005 study by
Mears et al. identifying an error in the diurnal correction that leads
to the 40% jump in Spencer and Christy's trend from version 5.1 to 5.2.
[16]"
> Why? Because the data do not support their model.
It comes a lot closer now that Roy Spencer finally got around to
correcting the data for which he was responsible.
> That's wrong.
It would be wrong, if it were true. In fact the evidence for
anthropogenic global warming has been convincing since the ice core
data became available in the 1990's and is irrefutable now. The
denialists don't seem to have noticed, but Exxon-Mobil and similar
interested parties might be less generous with their support if the
denialist propaganda machine confined itself to verifiable facts.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
ChrisQ
>
> Because they respect the scientific method? Because they honor truth?
>
At last, a clear voice amongst all the noise :-).
>
> I thought they were obliged to publish their actual measured results,
> not cherry-picked or outright fudged data.
>
> Apparently not.
>
> John
>
If the work is publicly funded, then it should be available to any
interested party. Apparently not though, which begs the question, why ?.
What are they trying to hide ?.
Otoh, just suppose that some western governments wanted to reduce
dependence on fossil fuel for strategic / national security reasons.
What scam could they come up with to justify the tremendous sacrifices
required from the voters ?. It's a win win situation as well. When the
earth doesn't turn to toast, they can say they were right, the
sacrifices were worth it and everyone will be thankfull and praise
various graven images :-)......
Regards,
Chris
Bill Sloman
> John Larkin wrote:
>
> > Because they respect the scientific method? Because they honor truth?
>
> At last, a clear voice amongst all the noise :-).
>
>
>
> > I thought they were obliged to publish their actual measured results,
> > not cherry-picked or outright fudged data.
>
> > Apparently not.
>
> > John
>
> If the work is publicly funded, then it should be available to any
> interested party. Apparently not though, which begs the question, why ?.
> What are they trying to hide ?.
I've answered this question before. Researchers publish their data in
the peer-reviewed scientific literature. They do a lot of work on the
raw data to make it accessible and understandable. If a third party
wants access to the raw data, the researchers have to a do a lot more
work to provide a user-friendly interface that lets these third
parties make sense of the raw data, and in the process they make it
easier for other scientists to take advantage of the pick and shovel
work that they have done to build up their position in their area.
All of this means that researchers aren't trying to hide their raw
data - they are just trying to avoid having to put in a lot of work
that won't advance them in their field, and will allow others to
advance themselves at their expense.
> Otoh, just suppose that some western governments wanted to reduce
> dependence on fossil fuel for strategic / national security reasons.
> What scam could they come up with to justify the tremendous sacrifices
> required from the voters?
They'd have had to have started early. Anthropogenic global warming
was first hypothesised around a century ago.
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/
>It's a win win situation as well. When the
> earth doesn't turn to toast, they can say they were right, the
> sacrifices were worth it and everyone will be thankfull and praise
> various graven images :-)......
Unfortunately the eath is already turning to - rather soggy - toast.
Where do you think the remarkably heavy rain that has been falling in
the Lake District came from? How come it can suddenly knock over five
bridges that had survived a couple of hundred years of British
weather?
We've only had 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F) of warming so far,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
but there's no way we can avoid this getting up to 2°C over the next
century, beyond which we have to start worrying about methane
clathrates coming apart, which could offer us a chance to enjoy an re-
run of the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum
Some human beings might survive such an excursion, but our current
civilisation would be toast, and there'd be a pretty spectacular
population crash.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Jan Panteltje
<bill....@ieee.org> wrote in
<66cb3666-675c-447c...@h10g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>:
Climate warming ice age:
http://www.world-mysteries.com/alignments/mpl_al3b.htm
http://www.sci.ccny.cuny.edu/~stan/d_clim.pdf
As Joerg pointed out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Nyos
Idiot.
Don Klipstein
Bill Sloman wrote in large part:
>On Nov 23, 12:06�pm, ChrisQ <m...@devnull.com> wrote:
>> If the work is publicly funded, then it should be available to any
>> interested party. Apparently not though, which begs the question, why ?.
>> What are they trying to hide ?.
>
>I've answered this question before. Researchers publish their data in
>the peer-reviewed scientific literature. They do a lot of work on the
>raw data to make it accessible and understandable. If a third party
>wants access to the raw data, the researchers have to a do a lot more
>work to provide a user-friendly interface that lets these third
>parties make sense of the raw data, and in the process they make it
>easier for other scientists to take advantage of the pick and shovel
>work that they have done to build up their position in their area.
>
>All of this means that researchers aren't trying to hide their raw
>data - they are just trying to avoid having to put in a lot of work
>that won't advance them in their field, and will allow others to
>advance themselves at their expense.
I thought someone mentioned in a previous thread an answer to this,
often already done:
Publish the raw data with some time delay, such as a year, after what it
was used for was published.
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
John Larkin
So now you are using local weather events as proof of climate change.
So what do you make of the recent record-setting cold snaps across the
USA?
Geez, I'm sure glad you don't design electronics. Stick to obsessing
about climate; that will keep you from doing much real harm.
John
Jim Thompson
Heaven forbid you "scientists" actually contributed to society, rather
than selfishly floating only your own boat?
Yet taking research "dole" from the government.
Scumbags!
>>
>>> Otoh, just suppose that some western governments wanted to reduce
>>> dependence on fossil fuel for strategic / national security reasons.
>>> What scam could they come up with to justify the tremendous sacrifices
>>> required from the voters?
>>
>>They'd have had to have started early. Anthropogenic global warming
>>was first hypothesised around a century ago.
>>
>>http://www.aip.org/history/climate/
>>
>>>It's a win win situation as well. When the
>>> earth doesn't turn to toast, they can say they were right, the
>>> sacrifices were worth it and everyone will be thankfull and praise
>>> various graven images :-)......
>>
>>Unfortunately the eath is already turning to - rather soggy - toast.
>>Where do you think the remarkably heavy rain that has been falling in
>>the Lake District came from?
The sky ?:-)
>>How come it can suddenly knock over five
>>bridges that had survived a couple of hundred years of British
>>weather?
Same as ours in the US... even without rain... poor or no maintenance.
Over there in Brit-stony-land I'd guess they'd never ever been
re-grouted.
>
>So now you are using local weather events as proof of climate change.
>So what do you make of the recent record-setting cold snaps across the
>USA?
>
>Geez, I'm sure glad you don't design electronics. Stick to obsessing
>about climate; that will keep you from doing much real harm.
>
>John
Sno-o-o-o-ort ;-)
...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
How severe can senility be? Just check out Slowman.
Joerg
And then homo sapiens began poking holes into it using drilling rigs.
Very closely guarded, of course. This sort of guarding is unlikely to
continue once the financial interest is gone. IOW after the revenue from
gas is exhausted.
Another classic example is a small city in southern Germany. Forgot the
name but it even made the press over here. They had this wonderful idea
to install geothermal heat in the city hall. A few months later lots of
houses showed structural cracks. They found that they had drilled
through a gypsum layer and now water was ozzing up, letting that gypsum
layer swell. Looks like that city may be toast soon, pretty much all of
it. Whoops ...
dagmarg...@yahoo.com
> On Nov 22, 8:07 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Nov 22, 1:48 pm, John Larkin wrote:
>
> > > But climate is not subject to experiment. Historically, science has
> > > tended to be erratic, faddish, and usually wrong until corrected by
> > > experiment.
>
> > These guys want to replace confirmation by experiment with proof by
> > correlation. Which they're in a unique position to ensure.
>
> Astronomy has had to struggle with exactly the same problem. I presume
> you also are going to rip down all the observatories and insist that
> the sun really does go around the earth.
Astronomy is easily confirmed, repeatably, to high accuracy, by
multiple observers around the world.
Climatrology can't predict a decade-long cooling trend even once it's
begun, nor can it explain it.
If your model contradicts Nature, your model is wrong.
--
Cheers,
James Arthur
krw
wrote:
>On Nov 22, 8:44�pm, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
>> On Nov 22, 8:07�pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>> > On Nov 22, 1:48�pm, John Larkin wrote:
>>
>
>> > > But climate is not subject to experiment. Historically, science has
>> > > tended to be erratic, faddish, and usually wrong until corrected by
>> > > experiment.
>>
>> > These guys want to replace confirmation by experiment with proof by
>> > correlation. �Which they're in a unique position to ensure.
>>
>> Astronomy has had to struggle with exactly the same problem. I presume
>> you also are going to rip down all the observatories and insist that
>> the sun really does go around the earth.
>
>Astronomy is easily confirmed, repeatably, to high accuracy, by
>multiple observers around the world.
>
>Climatrology can't predict a decade-long cooling trend even once it's
>begun, nor can it explain it.
Climatology can't "predict" history, yet some idiots want to use it to
control everyone. Politicians (are) like that.
>If your model contradicts Nature, your model is wrong.
Wrong is often useful (see above).
dagmarg...@yahoo.com
> On Nov 22, 8:07 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > These guys want to replace confirmation by experiment with proof by
> > correlation. Which they're in a unique position to ensure.
>
> Astronomy has had to struggle with exactly the same problem. I presume
> you also are going to rip down all the observatories and insist that
> the sun really does go around the earth.
>
> > They're the ones with infinite government funding,
>
> "Infinite"?
>
> >They're the
> > official interface to and gate-keepers of the raw data, and they're
> > not letting other people have it.
>
> You must be thinking of Roy Spencer
No, I was thinking of NASA-Goddard, the Hadley wing of the UK's
meteorological service, and the e-mails we've just seen wherein they
discuss how they've withheld embarrassing raw data.
--
Cheers,
James Arthur
Bill Sloman
> On a sunny day (Sun, 22 Nov 2009 15:36:28 -0800 (PST)) it happenedBill Sloman
> <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote in
> <66cb3666-675c-447c-949d-eb6e666ff...@h10g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>:
>
> Climate warming ice age:
> http://www.world-mysteries.com/alignments/mpl_al3b.htm
> http://www.sci.ccny.cuny.edu/~stan/d_clim.pdf
Good. You should now understand what was going on during the Ice Ages
> As Joerg pointed out:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Nyos
And as I pointed out, a deep lake full of water saturated with CO2 is
unstable, and there is a obvious mechanism by which it can escape.
The CO2 that is going to be injected into the exhausted natural-gas
field several kilometres below Barendrecht doesn't have the same same
options, and should remain locked up as securely as the natural gas
that ti is intended to replace, which stayed put for a couple of
hundred millions years.
> Idiot.
It is pretty idiotic to equate Lake Nyos with the situation
Barendrecht will be in after Sheel has been pumping CO2 into the gas
field for a few years.
Why not concentrate your attention on a disaster which is merely
highly unlikely to happen - a tsunami in the North Sea, or the kind of
extraordinary rainfall that has flooded the UK's Lake District?
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Bill Sloman
> On Nov 22, 8:44 pm,Bill Sloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 22, 8:07 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > On Nov 22, 1:48 pm, John Larkin wrote:
>
> > > > But climate is not subject to experiment. Historically, science has
> > > > tended to be erratic, faddish, and usually wrong until corrected by
> > > > experiment.
>
> > > These guys want to replace confirmation by experiment with proof by
> > > correlation. Which they're in a unique position to ensure.
>
> > Astronomy has had to struggle with exactly the same problem. I presume
> > you also are going to rip down all the observatories and insist that
> > the sun really does go around the earth.
>
> Astronomy is easily confirmed, repeatably, to high accuracy, by
> multiple observers around the world.
Some aspects of it are.
> Climatrology can't predict a decade-long cooling trend even once it's
> begun, nor can it explain it.
In the context of global warming, the climatologists don't have to
predict or explain it - it's just low-level short-term noise.
And in fact there is a plausible explanation - the North Atlantic and
Pacific Multidecadal Oscillations. Unfortunately, the Argo project -
which will eventually collect the data to validate or falsify this
particular hypothesis - has only been running for a few years, which
isn't long enough to yield immediate answers when you are looking at a
multidecadal oscillation.
> If your model contradicts Nature, your model is wrong.
The climatologists models don't contradict nature, they just don't
model it with perfect fidelity. The whole point about modelling is to
look at simple approximations to a more complicated reality -
something that is simple enough that you can run the simulations
faster than they world they are modelling evolves in real time.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Bill Sloman
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 09:53:23 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Nov 22, 8:44 pm,Bill Sloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
> >> On Nov 22, 8:07 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >> > On Nov 22, 1:48 pm, John Larkin wrote:
>
> >> > > But climate is not subject to experiment. Historically, science has
> >> > > tended to be erratic, faddish, and usually wrong until corrected by
> >> > > experiment.
>
> >> > These guys want to replace confirmation by experiment with proof by
> >> > correlation. Which they're in a unique position to ensure.
>
> >> Astronomy has had to struggle with exactly the same problem. I presume
> >> you also are going to rip down all the observatories and insist that
> >> the sun really does go around the earth.
>
> >Astronomy is easily confirmed, repeatably, to high accuracy, by
> >multiple observers around the world.
>
> >Climatrology can't predict a decade-long cooling trend even once it's
> >begun, nor can it explain it.
>
> Climatology can't "predict" history, yet some idiots want to use it to
> control everyone. Politicians (are) like that.
Nobody wants to "control everybody". As long as you can power your air-
conditioner from a sustainable power source, nobody is going to give a
damn which power source you choose.
Burning more fossil carbon - so that your air-conditioner, as well as
everybody elses, is going to have to work harder - isn't going to be a
socially acceptable choice.
> >If your model contradicts Nature, your model is wrong.
>
> Wrong is often useful (see above).
Unfortunately for you, and Exxon-Mobil, the model isn't wrong, just
not optimised for short term weather prediction.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Bill Sloman
I don't think that you can validate that claim. Raw data is - in any
event - uninterpretable without a lot of processing, so your claim is
a non sequiteur.
Not just libel, but fatuous libel.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Bill Sloman
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 04:12:23 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
>
One of the regular predictions of the effects of global warming is a
higher frequency of extreme weather. The logic is that global warming
means more water vapour in the atmosphere, and the engine that drives
weather is the energy released when water vapour condenses.
Extreme weather can be hot or cold, wet or dry, which does put
proponents of anthropogenic global warming in the catbird seat when
some extreme weather shows up.
> Geez, I'm sure glad you don't design electronics. Stick to obsessing
> about climate; that will keep you from doing much real harm.
And if you concentrated on electronics, which you do know something
about, rather than potificating about climate change, where you
ignorance makes you a total sucker for the most fatuaous denialist
rubbish, you'd be less of a menance.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Bill Sloman
Web-Site.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 08:43:35 -0800, John Larkin
>
Jim seems to think that the semiconductor industry that pays for his
journeyman design skills was entirely set up by free market
capitalists who never took a cent from the government.
> Yet taking research "dole" from the government.
Actually, they mostly work at universities, and the best of them get
research grants to do scientific research on the side, some of which
gets turned into the technology which - amongst other things - created
the industry that allowed Jim to get fat and block up arteries to have
them cleaned out by technology developed on the back of other
scientific advances.
If more of them had got a little more "dole" they might have worked
out how to stop Jim getting overweight in the first place.
> Scumbags!
>
> >>> Otoh, just suppose that some western governments wanted to reduce
> >>> dependence on fossil fuel for strategic / national security reasons.
> >>> What scam could they come up with to justify the tremendous sacrifices
> >>> required from the voters?
>
> >>They'd have had to have started early. Anthropogenic global warming
> >>was first hypothesised around a century ago.
>
> >>http://www.aip.org/history/climate/
>
> >>>It's a win win situation as well. When the
> >>> earth doesn't turn to toast, they can say they were right, the
> >>> sacrifices were worth it and everyone will be thankfull and praise
> >>> various graven images :-)......
>
> >>Unfortunately the eath is already turning to - rather soggy - toast.
> >>Where do you think the remarkably heavy rain that has been falling in
> >>the Lake District came from?
>
> The sky ?:-)
Jim gets the first step right. He now needs to ask how it got into the
sky above the Lake District.
> >>How come it can suddenly knock over five
> >>bridges that had survived a couple of hundred years of British
> >>weather?
>
> Same as ours in the US... even without rain... poor or no maintenance.
> Over there in Brit-stony-land I'd guess they'd never ever been
> re-grouted.
Quite a few of the bridge that went down were stone bridges that have
lasted several hundred years. I don't think the British have forgotten
how to do grouting in the last few decades. In fact it looks as the
river-bed got scoured out from under the bridges by improbably heavy
rain.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8374616.stm
The bridges were designed to withstand a once on 200 years flood (plus
a safety margin) and the floods were a lot worse than that.
<snip>
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Bill Sloman
And the natural gas field that used to be there didn't survive an
earthquake or two over the couple of hundred years it was hanging
around waiting for ome Dutchman to drill that hole?
Even granting a slow leak through the pipe that they are now going to
use to put CO2 into the gas-field, there is a couple of kilometres of
water saturated geology between the gas-filed and the surface. You
aren't going to get a Lake Nyos-style 300 foot geyser of CO2, just a
bit more calcium and magnesium bicrabonate in the ground-water.
> Another classic example is a small city in southern Germany. Forgot the
> name but it even made the press over here. They had this wonderful idea
> to install geothermal heat in the city hall. A few months later lots of
> houses showed structural cracks. They found that they had drilled
> through a gypsum layer and now water was ozzing up, letting that gypsum
> layer swell. Looks like that city may be toast soon, pretty much all of
> it. Whoops ...
Sad, but not exactly a volcanic eruption. Since you have identified
the city or found a URL to back up this story, I could wonder whether
it was the sort of urban legend that the Prussians invent whenever
they talk to people about the Bavarians.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
John Larkin
Like, for instance, when it rains for 40 days and 40 nights?
>
>> Geez, I'm sure glad you don't design electronics. Stick to obsessing
>> about climate; that will keep you from doing much real harm.
>
>And if you concentrated on electronics, which you do know something
>about, rather than potificating about climate change, where you
>ignorance makes you a total sucker for the most fatuaous denialist
>rubbish, you'd be less of a menance.
I do concentrate on electronics... a lot. I have about 11 or so
interesting projects at various stages of development, and a bunch
more we're thinking about.
But why does being skeptical of some nonlinear/chaotic computer models
constitute "menace"? The science must be very, very fragile if it
can't bear my humble skepticism in an obscure newsgroup. I suppose
that's another reason they hide their raw data and cook the peer
reviews.
Well, the AGW fad has peaked. What anti-civilization paranoia will be
next, do you think?
John
Joerg
Not an earthquake that was able to rupture things down there. A drilled
hole, very different thing. And yes, I did work in an oil field and went
through the scare when the gas bubble siren wailed. Pretty much
smack-dab in the middle of the North Sea, on an anchored
semi-submersible. Definitely not a great place to be when a bubble wafts
upwards. Luckily it hissed off and I am still here :-)
> Even granting a slow leak through the pipe that they are now going to
> use to put CO2 into the gas-field, there is a couple of kilometres of
> water saturated geology between the gas-filed and the surface. You
> aren't going to get a Lake Nyos-style 300 foot geyser of CO2, just a
> bit more calcium and magnesium bicrabonate in the ground-water.
>
Trust us, we are the government, nothing bad will happen. Yeah :-)
>> Another classic example is a small city in southern Germany. Forgot the
>> name but it even made the press over here. They had this wonderful idea
>> to install geothermal heat in the city hall. A few months later lots of
>> houses showed structural cracks. They found that they had drilled
>> through a gypsum layer and now water was ozzing up, letting that gypsum
>> layer swell. Looks like that city may be toast soon, pretty much all of
>> it. Whoops ...
>
> Sad, but not exactly a volcanic eruption. Since you have identified
> the city or found a URL to back up this story, I could wonder whether
> it was the sort of urban legend that the Prussians invent whenever
> they talk to people about the Bavarians.
>
Nope, it is very sad reality. Had to finish a client project and now
that it is finished I looked but the more informative links are all in
German:
http://www.neueenergie.net/index.php?id=1848
Scroll down to "Der Fall Staufen"
A very brief summary in English (except that a lot more buildings are
damaged by now):
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1583323/Geothermal-probe-sinks-German-city.html
Joerg
> On Nov 22, 11:04 pm, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> Bill Slomanwrote:
>>> On Nov 22, 5:14 am, John Larkin
>>> <jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 18:14:04 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
>>>> <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
>>>>> On Nov 22, 12:00 am, John Larkin
>>>>> <jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>> [...]
>>
>>>>>> http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/com...
>>>>>> again. Pielke is also losing all credibility as well by replying to
>>>>>> these papers being in the next IPCC report. K and I will keep them out
>>>>>> is ! "
>>>>> Obviously not intended for publication, but why would you ever think
>>>>> that because scientists are obliged to publish sober and rational
>>>>> arguments, they aren't emotionally involved in their work?
>>>> Because they respect the scientific method? Because they honor truth?
>>> There's no contradiction between emotional involvement and respecting
>>> the scientific method.
>> Did you really read John's quote? Quote of quote: "K and I will keep
>> literature is ! "
>>
>> If this was truly said then I have lost all respect for those guys. Any
>> and all. But they have already lost much of it a long time ago, at least
>> in this neighborhood (which is full of engineers).
>
> There are "peer-reviewed" journals around whose editors have been
> known to publish denialist propaganda of zero academic merit without
> sending it out for review.
>
Ahm, didn't he write "even if _we_ have to redefine what the peer-review
literature is" ? Note the word "we" in there.
> As long as there wasn't money to be made out of publishing pseudo-
> academic articles, the scientific community could afford to be pretty
> relaxed about what constituted a peer-reviewed journal. Exxon-Mobil
> and similar organisations with a large financial interest in denying
> anthrpogenic global warming have created a situation where tighter
> definitions are desirable.
>
Yeah, the usual conspiracy theory. I think the notion of the whole AGW
scheme being a gravy train has more credibility than that. At least
that's what people around my neighborhood are thinking.
dagmarg...@yahoo.com
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 09:53:23 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Nov 22, 8:44 pm, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
> >> On Nov 22, 8:07 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >> > On Nov 22, 1:48 pm, John Larkin wrote:
>
> >> > > But climate is not subject to experiment. Historically, science has
> >> > > tended to be erratic, faddish, and usually wrong until corrected by
> >> > > experiment.
>
> >> > These guys want to replace confirmation by experiment with proof by
> >> > correlation. Which they're in a unique position to ensure.
>
> >> Astronomy has had to struggle with exactly the same problem. I presume
> >> you also are going to rip down all the observatories and insist that
> >> the sun really does go around the earth.
>
> >Astronomy is easily confirmed, repeatably, to high accuracy, by
> >multiple observers around the world.
>
> >Climatrology can't predict a decade-long cooling trend even once it's
> >begun, nor can it explain it.
>
> Climatology can't "predict" history, yet some idiots want to use it to
> control everyone. Politicians (are) like that.
Climatology predicts history fine with a little bit of curve-fitting.
Climatrology, like astrology (or maybe let's call it climatrollogy),
looks into the future.
> >If your model contradicts Nature, your model is wrong.
>
> Wrong is often useful (see above).
That's Mencken's game--
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an
endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." --H.L. Mencken
Martin likes that quote too--wonder where he went.
--
Cheers,
James Arthur
dagmarg...@yahoo.com
Don't you ever check anything? Here are a couple random e-mails off
the top:
==== Exhibit #1 ====
"From: Phil Jones
To: mann@xxx
Subject: Fwd: CCNet: PRESSURE GROWING ON CONTROVERSIAL RESEARCHER TO
DISCLOSE SECRET DATA
Date: Mon Feb 21 16:28:32 2005
Cc: “raymond s. bradley” , “Malcolm Hughes”
Mike, Ray and Malcolm,
The skeptics seem to be building up a head of steam here ! Maybe we
can use
this to our advantage to get the series updated !
Odd idea to update the proxies with satellite estimates of the lower
troposphere
rather than surface data !. Odder still that they don’t realise that
Moberg et al used the
Jones and Moberg updated series !
Francis Zwiers is till onside. He said that PC1s produce hockey
sticks. He stressed
that the late 20th century is the warmest of the millennium, but
Regaldo didn’t bother
with that. Also ignored Francis’ comment about all the other series
looking similar
to MBH.
The IPCC comes in for a lot of stick.
Leave it to you to delete as appropriate !
Cheers
Phil
PS I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU
station temperature data.
Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of
Information Act !"
==== Exhibit #2 ====
‘”Options appear to be:
1. Send them the data
2. Send them a subset removing station data from some of the countries
who made us pay in the normals papers of Hulme et al. (1990s) and also
any number that David can remember. This should also omit some other
countries like (Australia, NZ, Canada, Antarctica). Also could extract
some of the sources that Anders added in (31-38 source codes in J&M
2003). Also should remove many of the early stations that we coded up
in the 1980s.
3. Send them the raw data as is, by reconstructing it from GHCN. How
could this be done? Replace all stations where the WMO ID agrees with
what is in GHCN. This would be the raw data, but it would annoy
them.”‘
===============
Misdirection, shell games with multiple data sets, substituting data
sets, suppressing / not disclosing embarrassing data.
Lovely, eh?
And now, a gift: having been penetrated, it'll be a lovely excuse for
them to purge all those inconvenient truths, won't it?
--
Cheers,
James Arthur
Bill Sloman
> On Nov 23, 1:10 pm, krw <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 09:53:23 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com
> > wrote:
>
Weapons of mass desctruction - which have never been found - fit
Menken's picture rather better than anthropogenic global warming, for
which there is a raft of evidence (though it does take a smidgin of
scientific education to make it comprehensible).
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Bill Sloman
> Bill Slomanwrote:
> > On Nov 22, 11:04 pm, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >> Bill Slomanwrote:
> >>> On Nov 22, 5:14 am, John Larkin
> >>> <jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 18:14:04 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
> >>>> <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
> >>>>> On Nov 22, 12:00 am, John Larkin
> >>>>> <jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
> >> [...]
>
> >>>>>>http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/com...
> >>>>>> again. Pielke is also losing all credibility as well by replying to
> >>>>>> these papers being in the next IPCC report. K and I will keep them out
> >>>>>> is ! "
> >>>>> Obviously not intended for publication, but why would you ever think
> >>>>> that because scientists are obliged to publish sober and rational
> >>>>> arguments, they aren't emotionally involved in their work?
> >>>> Because they respect the scientific method? Because they honor truth?
> >>> There's no contradiction between emotional involvement and respecting
> >>> the scientific method.
> >> Did you really read John's quote? Quote of quote: "K and I will keep
> >> literature is ! "
>
> >> If this was truly said then I have lost all respect for those guys. Any
> >> and all. But they have already lost much of it a long time ago, at least
> >> in this neighborhood (which is full of engineers).
>
> > There are "peer-reviewed" journals around whose editors have been
> > known to publish denialist propaganda of zero academic merit without
> > sending it out for review.
>
> Ahm, didn't he write "even if _we_ have to redefine what the peer-review
> literature is" ? Note the word "we" in there.
>
> > As long as there wasn't money to be made out of publishing pseudo-
> > academic articles, the scientific community could afford to be pretty
> > relaxed about what constituted a peer-reviewed journal. Exxon-Mobil
> > and similar organisations with a large financial interest in denying
> > anthrpogenic global warming have created a situation where tighter
> > definitions are desirable.
>
> Yeah, the usual conspiracy theory. I think the notion of the whole AGW
> scheme being a gravy train has more credibility than that. At least
> that's what people around my neighborhood are thinking.
With a lot of help from denialist propaganda. It is a bit odd that the
denialist propaganda machine hasn't got reports of IPCC members
driving around in Lamborginis while living in the lap of luxury. If
they had traded their academic integrity for a mess of pottage you'd
expect other academics in related fields to have noticed some change
in their life-style.
Presumably this kind of evidence is a little too hard to fake.
Sourcewatch gets its data from Exxon-Mobil's published accounts, which
provide rather better evidence than the kinds of conspiracy theories
with which Ravinghorde regales us.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Bill Sloman
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 16:31:49 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
>
> <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
> >On Nov 23, 5:43 pm, John Larkin
> ><jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 04:12:23 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
>
> >> <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
> >> >On Nov 23, 12:06 pm, ChrisQ <m...@devnull.com> wrote:
> >> >> John Larkin wrote:
<snip>
> >> So now you are using local weather events as proof of climate change.
> >> So what do you make of the recent record-setting cold snaps across the
> >> USA?
>
> >One of the regular predictions of the effects of global warming is a
> >higher frequency of extreme weather. The logic is that global warming
> >means more water vapour in the atmosphere, and the engine that drives
> >weather is the energy released when water vapour condenses.
>
> >Extreme weather can be hot or cold, wet or dry, which does put
> >proponents of anthropogenic global warming in the catbird seat when
> >some extreme weather shows up.
>
> Like, for instance, when it rains for 40 days and 40 nights?
That doesn't seem to have happened recently.
> >> Geez, I'm sure glad you don't design electronics. Stick to obsessing
> >> about climate; that will keep you from doing much real harm.
>
> >And if you concentrated on electronics, which you do know something
> >about, rather than potificating about climate change, where you
> >ignorance makes you a total sucker for the most fatuaous denialist
> >rubbish, you'd be less of a menance.
>
> I do concentrate on electronics... a lot. I have about 11 or so
> interesting projects at various stages of development, and a bunch
> more we're thinking about.
>
> But why does being skeptical of some nonlinear/chaotic computer models
> constitute "menace"? The science must be very, very fragile if it
> can't bear my humble skepticism in an obscure newsgroup.
Your scepticism is nether humble nor yours. You pick up neatly
packaged chunks of scepticism from your frieindly neighbourhood
denialist propaganda machine and regurgitate them here.
> I suppose that's another reason they hide their raw data and cook the peer
> reviews.
Since they "hide" their raw data because it is incomprehensible and
"cook" their peer reviews - to the limited extent that they can
influence editors - by preferentially citing the work of people known
to produce constructive reviews, this is just another piece of
evidence that you know very little about the way science works. You
may sell remarkable scientific measuring instruments to scientific
research laboratories, but you clearly don't often get to drink coffee
with the people who use your gear.
> Well, the AGW fad has peaked. What anti-civilization paranoia will be
> next, do you think?
The enthusiasm of Exxon-Mobil and similar fossil-carbon extraction
companies for filling the media with anti-scientific propaganda aimed
at blocking the changes to our civilisation that will be needed to
prevent it's collapse (and the consequent population implosion) does
imply that there are a lot of rich people around exhibiting a rather
dangerous form pf psychopathic short-term self-interest.
One might hope that they might grow out of it, but Jahred Diamond's
book "Collapse" makes it pretty clear that the leaders of a failing
society will have their attention firmly fixed on maintaining their
status within that society - in your case, your status as a successful
businessman - right up to the point where it starts collapsing around
their ears.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Raveninghorde
wrote:
SNIP
>
>
>What the e-mails reveal more than anything is that these aren't
>scientists, but advocates.
>
>They're not objective, open-minded, dispassionate seekers of the
>truth. They're heavily invested in preconceived models, which they're
>determined to mold Nature to fit.
>
>Doesn't mean they're wrong, of course. But it does make them
>unreliable as "authorities."
It's not just the emails.
This comment is in a few of the source files:
;****** APPLIES A VERY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION FOR DECLINE*********
http://coast.gkss.de/staff/storch/
/quote
I would assume that more interesting issues will be found in the
files, and that a useful debate about the degree of politicization of
climate science will emerge. A conclusion could be that the principle,
according to which data must be made public, so that also adversaries
may check the analysis, must be really enforced. Another conclusion
could be that scientists like Mike Mann, Phil Jones and others should
no longer participate in the peer-review process or in assessment
activities like IPCC.
/end quote
And some rats are trying to sacrifice Phil Jones to save AGW
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/11/23/the-knights-carbonic/
/quote
Worse still, some of the emails suggest efforts to prevent the
publication of work by climate sceptics(5,6), or to keep it out of a
report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(7). I believe
that the head of the unit, Phil Jones, should now resign. Some of the
data discussed in the emails should be re-analysed.
/end quote
Jan Panteltje
<bill....@ieee.org> wrote in
<196b7d9d-d84f-4aff...@p36g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>:
>On Nov 23, 1:49锟絧m, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On a sunny day (Sun, 22 Nov 2009 15:36:28 -0800 (PST)) it happenedBill Sl=
>oman
>> <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote in
>> <66cb3666-675c-447c-949d-eb6e666ff...@h10g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>:
>>
>> Climate warming ice age:
>> 锟絟ttp://www.world-mysteries.com/alignments/mpl_al3b.htm
>> 锟絟ttp://www.sci.ccny.cuny.edu/~stan/d_clim.pdf
>
>Good. You should now understand what was going on during the Ice Ages
Climate cycles will happen, I have always stated that we should have the energy sources to cope with that.
If *if* you did read the other link's material,
then you would understand that Europe (and the world for that matter) will look very different
thousands of years from now, as it did thousands of years in the past.
Mass migration will happen, property will change value,
and _no_silly_CO2_storage_plan_ will change that in any significant way, except to more endanger people NOW,
and make money for the climate nut cases, so they can add some more climate taxes, like taxes on energy and what not,
taxes on kilometres driven, anything, using this fairy tale that we have control over the climate to tax us even more.
Driving the prices up, basically a greenies plot to kill humanity and give the land to the birds.
>> As Joerg pointed out:
>> 锟絟ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Nyos
>
>And as I pointed out, a deep lake full of water saturated with CO2 is
>unstable, and there is a obvious mechanism by which it can escape.
>
>The CO2 that is going to be injected into the exhausted natural-gas
>field several kilometres below Barendrecht doesn't have the same same
>options, and should remain locked up as securely as the natural gas
>that ti is intended to replace, which stayed put for a couple of
>hundred millions years.
*SHOULD* is the word, and of course it will not, it will leak into the ground water too,
changing its pH, causing all sorts of disasters, maybe even kill that little microbe
the greenies so much want to protect, the animal lobby should go after them.
>> Idiot.
>
>It is pretty idiotic to equate Lake Nyos with the situation
>Barendrecht will be in after Sheel has been pumping CO2 into the gas
>field for a few years.
I mentioned earth quakes in Groningen, if you had read the news,
you would know that Groningen, Friesland, and Drenthe have been selected as 'good places to store CO2 underground'.
I do not live in Barendrecht, and if they want to commit suicide there by pumping CO2 under it,
well so be it.
But I do not want it under my house.
>Why not concentrate your attention on a disaster which is merely
>highly unlikely to happen - a tsunami in the North Sea, or the kind of
>extraordinary rainfall that has flooded the UK's Lake District?
Or you posting more global warming crap?
I was putting my attention to that, very likely, event.
hehe
Jan Panteltje
<bill....@ieee.org> wrote in
<53439409-1c59-4180...@j9g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>:
>Sad, but not exactly a volcanic eruption. Since you have identified
>the city or found a URL to back up this story, I could wonder whether
>it was the sort of urban legend that the Prussians invent whenever
>they talk to people about the Bavarians.
Well, you could have googled:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Staufen_im_Breisgau
And, that is not the only case that exists.
There was a more recent one IIRC.
The only urban legend here is that you think you can change climate cycles by posting less about global warming.
Or was it more?
I think less, because that saves energy, CO2, so get on with it!
Jan Panteltje
<bill....@ieee.org> wrote in
<be3e96e1-68fd-4366...@t18g2000vbj.googlegroups.com>:
>The enthusiasm of Exxon-Mobil and similar fossil-carbon extraction
>companies for filling the media with anti-scientific propaganda aimed
>at blocking the changes to our civilisation that will be needed to
>prevent it's collapse (and the consequent population implosion) does
>imply that there are a lot of rich people around exhibiting a rather
>dangerous form pf psychopathic short-term self-interest.
Hey, if it was not for Exxon-Mobil and the other energy companies,
there would be no media, no energy, and no way to spread the ideas originating from your overheated globe.
;-)
John Fields
<bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>On Nov 22, 2:36锟絘m, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 11:46:02 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
>>
>> <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
>> >On Nov 21, 7:03锟絧m, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 05:53:00 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >On Nov 21, 6:54锟絘m, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> >> The global warming hoax revealed:
>> >> >> 锟絟ttp://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html?partne...
>>
>> >> >> <Quote from that article>
>> >> >> This shows these are people willing to bend rules and
>> >> >> go after other people's reputations in very serious ways,' he said. Spencer
>> >> >> R. Weart, a physicist and historian who is charting the course of research
>> >> >> on global warming, said the hacked material would serve as 'great material
>> >> >> for historians.'
>> >> >> <end quote>
>>
>> >> >> LOL.
>> >> >> Some science!
>>
>> >> >> And that in a leftist newspaper!
>>
>> >> >Summary:
>> >> >http://doctorbulldog.wordpress.com/2009/11/20/the-telegraph-picks-up-...
>>
>> >> >Details:
>> >> >http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/19/breaking-news-story-hadley-cru-...
>>
>> >> And a search engine for CRU emails
>>
>> >>www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/-Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >Ravinghorde is going to be even more of a nuisance than he is at the
>> >moment.
>>
>> >His ignorance is such that he regularly quotes real scientific papers
>> >to support arguments that they actively contradict.
>>
>> >Given a bunch of private e-mails that he can quote out of context, he
>> >can be predicted to find "evidence" for life-time's worth of insane
>> >conspiracy theories.
>>
>> ---
>> Interesting.
>>
>> The sky is falling around the doom and gloom boys, and especially around
>> that insufferable fatass Al Gore leech, and you're still kissing their
>> asses because you don't want to admit that you were blinded by their
>> bullshit "science".
>
>If you had had the benefit of a scientific education you might be
>aware that the science involved isn't bullshit.
---
If you had had the benefit of English being your first language, you
probably would have been aware that I was criticizing the practitioners,
not the practice.
---
>If you'd ever worked
>with academics, you'd be aware that they waste a lot of time on office
>politics.
---
I consider you to be an academic, and your demeanor here certainly lends
credence to your comment.
---
>The e-mails are going to give Ravinghorde a lot of pleasure
>- I won't say innocent because he is going to use them to indulge his
>passion for idiotic conspiracy theories - but they aren't goig to make
>a blind bit of difference to the science.
---
To the science, of course not.
To the practitioners and their slimy tricks, it should make a great deal
of difference in the future to those who believe that: "Once burned,
your fault; twice burned, my fault.
---
>> But it's not really your fault, poor baby, and because you don't know
>> enough about it to allow you to make objective decisions about the
>> conclusions come to by your suicidols, you then tie in with them since
>> they're a bunch of crooks who talk the same language you do.
>You are welcome to review the literature and come to your own
>conclusions.
---
Of course, but with the data being cooked and my discipline being other
than climatology, I'd be hard pressed to detect the chicanery
---
>You haven't ever displayed any kind of physical insight,
---
How would _you_ know?
You float on the surface and display a convex negative meniscus about
99% of the time, and when someone _does_ throw you a little pearl of
surfactant you dog-paddle as hard as you can to keep from going under.
---
>so it is unlikely that your insight will be worth much, but this is a
>democratic society, so Exxon-Mobil and similar firms are free to spend
>millions of dollars concocting plausible lies good enough to persuade
>the unsophisticated voter to let them keep on making money by digging
>up and selling fossil carbon for use as fuel.
---
Seems that the doom and gloom boys have been caught with their hands in
the cookie jar as far as plausible lies goes, and your criticism of what
you call Raveninghhorde's: "passion for idiotic conspiracy theories"
seems hypocritical when laid next to your: "Exxon-Mobil and similar
firms are free to spend millions of dollars concocting plausible lies
good enough to persuade the unsophisticated voter to let them keep on
making money by digging up and selling fossil carbon for use as fuel."
---
>New Orleans didn't tell you anything, but it is outside the borders of
>Texas.
---
What New Orleans told me was that we have a lot to learn about
controlling the aftermath of a disaster, and your crack about it being
outside the borders of Texas is just an intimation that we're provincial
hicks who can't see past the ends of our noses; a typical trick a lying
cheat like you would try to pull when you have no evidence that AGW
caused Katrina but you want it to seem like you do.
---
>You will probably have to lose Galveston again before the penny
>drops.
---
You have no _facts_, of course, and if you believe AGW had anything to
do with that hurricane, I suggest this makes sense to you:
http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/
JF
dagmarg...@yahoo.com
Last line, above, corrected.
--
Cheers,
James Arthur
dagmarg...@yahoo.com
> On Nov 23, 1:10 pm, krw <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>
> > dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > >On Nov 22, 8:44 pm, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
> > >> On Nov 22, 8:07 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > >> > These guys want to replace confirmation by experiment with proof by
> > >> > correlation. Which they're in a unique position to ensure.
>
> > >> Astronomy has had to struggle with exactly the same problem. I presume
> > >> you also are going to rip down all the observatories and insist that
> > >> the sun really does go around the earth.
>
> > >Astronomy is easily confirmed, repeatably, to high accuracy, by
> > >multiple observers around the world.
>
> > >Climatrology can't predict a decade-long cooling trend even once it's
> > >begun, nor can it explain it.
>
> > Climatology can't "predict" history, yet some idiots want to use it to
> > control everyone. Politicians (are) like that.
>
> Climatology predicts history fine with a little bit of curve-fitting.
> Climatrology, like astrology (or maybe let's call it climatrollogy),
> looks into the future.
Oooo, "climastrology"--even better.
--
Cheers,
James Arthur
John Larkin
wrote:
>On Nov 23, 9:43嚙緘m, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> On Nov 23, 1:10嚙緘m, krw <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>>
>> > dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>> > >On Nov 22, 8:44嚙緘m, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
>> > >> On Nov 22, 8:07嚙緘m, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>> > >> > These guys want to replace confirmation by experiment with proof by
>> > >> > correlation. 嚙磕hich they're in a unique position to ensure.
>>
>> > >> Astronomy has had to struggle with exactly the same problem. I presume
>> > >> you also are going to rip down all the observatories and insist that
>> > >> the sun really does go around the earth.
>>
>> > >Astronomy is easily confirmed, repeatably, to high accuracy, by
>> > >multiple observers around the world.
>>
>> > >Climatrology can't predict a decade-long cooling trend even once it's
>> > >begun, nor can it explain it.
>>
>> > Climatology can't "predict" history, yet some idiots want to use it to
>> > control everyone. 嚙瞑oliticians (are) like that.
>>
>> Climatology predicts history fine with a little bit of curve-fitting.
>> Climatrology, like astrology (or maybe let's call it climatrollogy),
>> looks into the future.
>
>Oooo, "climastrology"--even better.
That's a keeper.
John
John Larkin
Exactly. Bad weather has been happening for thousands of years.
The records are funny. When they say "coldest November in 80 years" I
think "then it was even colder 80 years ago."
I am not a businessman; I'm a circuit designer.
Are you into the 2012 cult?
John
John Larkin
I think the big energy companies do a superb job. They do real,
difficult work that makes the world better, unlike some whiners I
could name.
George is, as usual, dead on target here:
http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/will112209.php3
He's the best public thinker I know of.
John
dagmarg...@yahoo.com
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 07:08:17 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com
> wrote:
>
> SNIP
> >What the e-mails reveal more than anything is that these aren't
> >scientists, but advocates.
>
> >They're not objective, open-minded, dispassionate seekers of the
> >truth. They're heavily invested in preconceived models, which they're
> >determined to mold Nature to fit.
>
> >Doesn't mean they're wrong, of course. But it does make them
> >unreliable as "authorities."
>
> It's not just the emails.
>
> This comment is in a few of the source files:
>
> ;****** APPLIES A VERY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION FOR DECLINE*********
>
> http://coast.gkss.de/staff/storch/
>
> /quote
>
> I would assume that more interesting issues will be found in the
> files, and that a useful debate about the degree of politicization of
> climate science will emerge. A conclusion could be that the principle,
> according to which data must be made public, so that also adversaries
> may check the analysis, must be really enforced. Another conclusion
> could be that scientists like Mike Mann, Phil Jones and others should
> no longer participate in the peer-review process or in assessment
> activities like IPCC.
>
> /end quote
Even better, from Hans Von Storch:
"Also mails from/to Eduardo Zorita and myself are
included; also we have been subject of frequent
mentioning, usually not in a flattering manner.
Interesting exchanges, and evidences, are contained
about efforts to destroy "Climate Research"; that we
in the heydays of the hockeystick debate shared our
ECHO-G data with our adversaries; and that Mike
Mann was successful to exclude me from a
review-type meeting on historical reconstructions
in Wengen (demonstrating again his problematic
but powerful role of acting as a gatekeeper.)" --ibid
All you have to do is examine the models themselves to see they're
loaded with Finnegan's Finagling Factors.[1]
http://www-pcmdi.llnl.gov/ipcc/model_documentation/ipcc_model_documentation.php
A number of obvious negative feedbacks are omitted[2], they're laced
with assumptions of convenience that are wrong on their face--e.g.
assuming vegetation and ice sheets that never change--arbitrary
constants, and cloud models that don't reproduce reality.
[1] Finnegan's Finagling Factor: that number which, added to,
subtracted from, multiplied by, or divided into the number you
actually got, gives you the result you really wanted.
[2] Often not from neglect, but because no one knows how to quantify
or model them.
As a second measure of global climate models (GCM), we know from
actual life how poorly the models predict El Nino, or hurricanes, or
other near-term phenomena that depend on accurate understanding of
real temperature, deep ocean currents, or other quantities critical to
long-term projections (if those are even possible), but which are not
known well enough to make even short-term predictions.
As a 3rd measure of GCM, before you graced s.e.d. with your inquiries,
I related that I got that same info (above) from one of the persons
*responsible* for one of the main climate models. That person said
GCM are important and useful tools in understanding climate, and for
making predictions as far as several weeks into the future. Beyond
that, says (s)he, the models quickly diverge uselessly from reality.
None of this proves or disproves the basic contention--that CO2 is
warming the earth. But we're constantly sold AGW as fact based on
arguments of authority from people who do not know--no one understands
the global climate well enough to predict it--and on the authority of
these global climate models that were never meant to be so abused.
IOW, pseudo-science, politics, and pro-/e- motion.
Bahh.
--
Cheers,
James Arthur
Joerg
> On Nov 24, 3:28 am, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> Bill Slomanwrote:
>>> On Nov 22, 11:04 pm, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>> Bill Slomanwrote:
>>>>> On Nov 22, 5:14 am, John Larkin
>>>>> <jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 18:14:04 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
>>>>>> <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Nov 22, 12:00 am, John Larkin
>>>>>>> <jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>> http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/com...
>>>>>>>> again. Pielke is also losing all credibility as well by replying to
>>>>>>>> these papers being in the next IPCC report. K and I will keep them out
>>>>>>>> is ! "
>>>>>>> Obviously not intended for publication, but why would you ever think
>>>>>>> that because scientists are obliged to publish sober and rational
>>>>>>> arguments, they aren't emotionally involved in their work?
>>>>>> Because they respect the scientific method? Because they honor truth?
>>>>> There's no contradiction between emotional involvement and respecting
>>>>> the scientific method.
>>>> Did you really read John's quote? Quote of quote: "K and I will keep
All one has to do is look at Al Gore, his mansions and all. Living
green. Yeah, right.
> Sourcewatch gets its data from Exxon-Mobil's published accounts, which
> provide rather better evidence than the kinds of conspiracy theories
> with which Ravinghorde regales us.
>
Got a link the _proves_ that Exxon tries to fudge science here? Similar
to those embarrassing email?
dagmarg...@yahoo.com
> On a sunny day (Tue, 24 Nov 2009 00:43:51 -0800 (PST)) it happened Bill Sloman
> <be3e96e1-68fd-4366-b23d-5c7f15549...@t18g2000vbj.googlegroups.com>:
>
> >The enthusiasm of Exxon-Mobil and similar fossil-carbon extraction
> >companies for filling the media with anti-scientific propaganda aimed
> >at blocking the changes to our civilisation that will be needed to
> >prevent it's collapse (and the consequent population implosion) does
> >imply that there are a lot of rich people around exhibiting a rather
> >dangerous form pf psychopathic short-term self-interest.
>
> Hey, if it was not for Exxon-Mobil and the other energy companies,
> there would be no media, no energy, and no way to spread the ideas originating from your overheated globe.
>
> ;-)
"These posts (and western civilization) made possible by Exxon-Mobil."
--
Cheers,
James Arthur
Robert Latest
>
> George is, as usual, dead on target here:
>
> http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/will112209.php3
>
> He's the best public thinker I know of.
He's a rotten thinker. He drools on and on about how new fossil fuel
reserves are discovered, yet he never realizes that they are limited
ressources which the industrialized nations are exploiting at the
expense of the less developed world and generations to come.
Then, of course, this seems to be a religious website. Probably a good
place to publish stories about Unlimited Fossil Fuel.
robert
dagmarg...@yahoo.com
All the third-world countries I've visited were held back by their
politics, not us driving cars.
Civil war, Marxism, cronyism--when the civil society is provoked,
unsettled, uncertain, gasping for breath, it cannot prosper.
--
Cheers,
James Arthur
Joel Koltner
news:7n2nmtF...@mid.uni-berlin.de...
> He's a rotten thinker. He drools on and on about how new fossil fuel
> reserves are discovered, yet he never realizes that they are limited
> ressources which the industrialized nations are exploiting at the
> expense of the less developed world and generations to come.
It's not quite that clear cut: At any limited resource becomes more scarce
there will naturally be research into alternatives. If we come up with a
really good, safe, and clean alternative to fossil fuels in the next 50 years
rather than, say, 250 years from now, those 200 intervening years of a cleaner
environment are surely worth something, yes?
Of course, I'm assuming that our clever monkey brains will be able to discover
those alternatives (and that they exist in the first place). Not everyone
agrees with that...
Jim Thompson
wrote:
Ah, yes, Robert Latest. I had forgotten he even existed, then Joel
Koltner had to go and feed him :-(
...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
dagmarg...@yahoo.com
wrote:
> "Robert Latest" <boblat...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Conserve. That means using more efficient devices (e.g. replacing T12
fluorescents with T8s), and using them more wisely (e.g. turning off
Al Gore's lights when he's not home). That's possible, with zero
technical risk, and perhaps 40-50% payback.
--
Cheers,
James Arthur
Raveninghorde
wrote:
I just love this:
from:
http://borepatch.blogspot.com/search/label/junk%20science
17. Inserted debug statements into anomdtb.f90, discovered that
a sum-of-squared variable is becoming very, very negative!
...
For those unfamiliar with this problem, computers use a single
�bit� to indicate sign. If that is set to a �1? you get one sign
(often negative, but machine and language dependent to some extent)
and if it is �0? you get another (typically positive).
OK, take a zero, and start adding ones onto it. We will use a very
short number (only 4 digits long, each can be a zero or a one. The
first digit is the �sign bit�). I�ll translate each binary number into
the decimal equivalent next to it.
0000 zero
0001 one
0010 two
0011 three
0100 four
0101 five
0110 six
0111 seven
1000 negative (may be defined as = zero, but oftentimes
defined as being as large a negative number as you can
have via something called a 'complement'). So in this
case NEGATIVE seven
1001 NEGATIVE six
1010 NEGATIVE five (notice the 'bit pattern' is exactly the
opposite of the "five" pattern... it is 'the complement').
1011 NEGATIVE four
1100 NEGATIVE three
1101 NEGATIVE two
1110 NEGATIVE one
1111 NEGATIVE zero (useful to let you have zero without
needing to have a 'sign change' operation done)
0000 zero
Sometimes the 1111 pattern will be �special� in some way. And
there are other ways of doing the math down at the hardware level, but
this is a useful example.
You can see how adding a digit repeatedly grows to a large value
(the limit) then �overflows� into a negative value. This is a common
error in computer math and something I was taught in the first couple
of weeks of my very first programming class ever. Yes, in FORTRAN.
This is, quite frankly, a complete n00b error. Anybody working in
industry who made this mistake would find himself in the "bottom 5%"
group come annual review time, and would very likely get a suggestion
to look for work elsewhere.
OK, so the University of East Anglia has some bad programmers. So
what? Well, this means that large parts of the climate models have
never had a design review or code review. This means that the model is
essentially unaudited for correctness. This means that there's no
assurance that it produces output that's sane - even discounting for
Dr. Jone's code to "fix" divergence.
Raveninghorde
<raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
and this:
Jan Panteltje
<zapwireD...@yahoo.com> wrote in
<WSWOm.236734$8m4.1...@en-nntp-07.dc1.easynews.com>:
For example:
http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/24/osmotic-power-debuts-in-norway/
2kW so far, but can be bigger.
Joel Koltner
news:ccd55e6a-2676-4460...@u20g2000vbq.googlegroups.com...
"Conserve. That means using more efficient devices (e.g. replacing T12
fluorescents with T8s), and using them more wisely (e.g. turning off
Al Gore's lights when he's not home). That's possible, with zero
technical risk, and perhaps 40-50% payback."
Agreed, people certainly should make an effort to not just waste resources
when not doing so has zero or a very small cost. I'm all for legally required
standards for fuel economy, appliance efficiency, etc. -- but of course
there's always debate on just where the line should be drawn. (E.g., most
recently here the debate on plasma TVs...)
Rich Grise
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 06:45:03 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
>>
>>Wrong. Cherry-picking and fudging data is a career-wrecking crime,
Unless you're a warmingist. Then there's BIG bucks in it.
>>and
>>since such data doesn't replicate when somebody else does the experiment,
>>you have to be an idiot as well as a psychopath to try it.
>
So, you admit that the warmingists are idiots and psychopaths.
Kind of a surprise that you'll admit this, but not that they're idiots
and psychopaths.
And what experiment? The one that's going to bankrupt the whole world?
Thanks,
Rich
dagmarg...@yahoo.com
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 20:30:00 +0000, Raveninghorde
>
> <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
>
> and this:
>
OMG, that's rich. Try searching the HARRY_READ_ME.TXT file
http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/HARRY_READ_ME.txt
for "cloud." (Clouds' influence on insolation is ~10^2 greater than
the AGW hypothesized from CO2.)
A few years ago I downloaded and read some of the FORTRAN code for one
of the models.
What trash.
James Arthur
Bill Sloman
> On a sunny day (Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:02:34 -0800 (PST)) it happenedBill Sloman
> <53439409-1c59-4180-846c-a5019132d...@j9g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>:
>
> >Sad, but not exactly a volcanic eruption. Since you have not
> >identified the city or found a URL to back up this story, I could
> >wonder whether it was the sort of urban legend that the Prussians
> >invent whenever they talk to people about the Bavarians.
>
> Well, you could have googled:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Staufen_im_Breisgau
Gypsum, geothermal heating and damage does pick it up twice on the
first page, so Joerg should have been able to find it. It was his
fact, not mine, and his responsibility to validate it.
> And, that is not the only case that exists.
> There was a more recent one IIRC.
>
> The only urban legend here is that you think you can change climate cycles by posting > less about global warming.
> Or was it more?
> I think less, because that saves energy, CO2, so get on with it!
I'm not per se interested in changing the climate cycles, I'm
interested in getting people to think, which - if it worked - might
get them to think sensibly about anthropogenic global warming, amongst
other topics.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Joerg
> On Nov 24, 1:18 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On a sunny day (Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:02:34 -0800 (PST)) it happenedBill Sloman
>> <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote in
>> <53439409-1c59-4180-846c-a5019132d...@j9g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>:
>>
>>> Sad, but not exactly a volcanic eruption. Since you have not
>>> identified the city or found a URL to back up this story, I could
>>> wonder whether it was the sort of urban legend that the Prussians
>>> invent whenever they talk to people about the Bavarians.
>> Well, you could have googled:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Staufen_im_Breisgau
>
> Gypsum, geothermal heating and damage does pick it up twice on the
> first page, so Joerg should have been able to find it. It was his
> fact, not mine, and his responsibility to validate it.
>
Well, I did. But anyhow, all I wanted to show was how easy it is for
homo sapiens to do something really, really stupid in order to "solve"
some environmental concern quickly. So I fully understand Jan when he
says he doesn't want to live on top of a gigantic CO2 bubble. I most
certainly would not want to either.
[...]
Bill Sloman
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 18:20:53 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
>
>
>
>
>
> <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
> >On Nov 22, 2:36 am, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 11:46:02 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
>
> >> <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
> >> >> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 05:53:00 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com
> >> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> The global warming hoax revealed:
>
> >> >> >> <Quote from that article>
> >> >> >> This shows these are people willing to bend rules and
> >> >> >> go after other people's reputations in very serious ways,' he said. Spencer
> >> >> >> R. Weart, a physicist and historian who is charting the course of research
> >> >> >> on global warming, said the hacked material would serve as 'great material
> >> >> >> for historians.'
> >> >> >> <end quote>
>
> >> >> >> LOL.
> >> >> >> Some science!
>
> >> >> >> And that in a leftist newspaper!
>
> >> >> >Summary:
> >> >> >http://doctorbulldog.wordpress.com/2009/11/20/the-telegraph-picks-up-...
>
> >> >> >Details:
> >> >> >http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/19/breaking-news-story-hadley-cru-...
>
> >> >> And a search engine for CRU emails
>
>
> >> >Ravinghorde is going to be even more of a nuisance than he is at the
> >> >moment.
>
> >> >His ignorance is such that he regularly quotes real scientific papers
> >> >to support arguments that they actively contradict.
>
> >> >Given a bunch of private e-mails that he can quote out of context, he
> >> >can be predicted to find "evidence" for life-time's worth of insane
> >> >conspiracy theories.
>
> >> ---
> >> Interesting.
>
> >> The sky is falling around the doom and gloom boys, and especially around
> >> that insufferable fatass Al Gore leech, and you're still kissing their
> >> asses because you don't want to admit that you were blinded by their
> >> bullshit "science".
>
> >If you had had the benefit of a scientific education you might be
> >aware that the science involved isn't bullshit.
>
> ---
> If you had had the benefit of English being your first language, you
> probably would have been aware that I was criticizing the practitioners,
> not the practice.
> ---
You can criticise the practitioners to your heart's content. I'm
interested in the science, and it doesn't happen to be bullshit.
> >If you'd ever worked
> >with academics, you'd be aware that they waste a lot of time on office
> >politics.
>
> ---
> I consider you to be an academic, and your demeanor here certainly lends
> credence to your comment.
> ---
That you can't tell the difference between me and a full-time academic
gives a pretty accurate measure of your - nonexistent - perspicacity
in the area.
> >The e-mails are going to give Ravinghorde a lot of pleasure
> >- I won't say innocent because he is going to use them to indulge his
> >passion for idiotic conspiracy theories - but they aren't going to make
> >a blind bit of difference to the science.
>
> ---
> To the science, of course not.
>
> To the practitioners and their slimy tricks, it should make a great deal
> of difference in the future to those who believe that: "Once burned,
> your fault; twice burned, my fault.
> ---
Dream on.
> >> But it's not really your fault, poor baby, and because you don't know
> >> enough about it to allow you to make objective decisions about the
> >> conclusions come to by your suicidols, you then tie in with them since
> >> they're a bunch of crooks who talk the same language you do.
> >You are welcome to review the literature and come to your own
> >conclusions.
>
> ---
> Of course, but with the data being cooked and my discipline being other
> than climatology, I'd be hard pressed to detect the chicanery
> ---
Your discipline? You clearly specialise in rural ignorance, but this
isn't usually elevanted to the dignity of a discipline.
And your conviction that the data has been cooked is based on a
credulous belief that Ravinghorde and favourite nitwit conspiracy
theorists have got it right. If Exxon-Mobile were suddenly to see some
profit in beleiving in anthropogenic global warming you'd presumably
be just as ready to believe the output of their propaganda mill
telling you that the data hadn't been cooked after all.
> >You haven't ever displayed any kind of physical insight,
>
> ---
> How would _you_ know?
On account of having had to acquire some physical insight in order to
get a Ph.D. in physical chemistry
> You float on the surface and display a convex negative meniscus about
> 99% of the time, and when someone _does_ throw you a little pearl of
> surfactant you dog-paddle as hard as you can to keep from going under.
A rather artificial literary conceit. It doesn't mean anything, in
this context, except that you must have plagiarised it from somebody
with literary ambitions.
> >so it is unlikely that your insight will be worth much, but this is a
> >democratic society, so Exxon-Mobil and similar firms are free to spend
> >millions of dollars concocting plausible lies good enough to persuade
> >the unsophisticated voter to let them keep on making money by digging
> >up and selling fossil carbon for use as fuel.
>
> ---
> Seems that the doom and gloom boys have been caught with their hands in
> the cookie jar as far as plausible lies goes,
And one of these "plausible lies" is?
Ravinghorde really does want to believe the haul of private e-mails
does contain something genuinely scandalous, but he's out of luck.
> and your criticism of what
> you call Raveninghhorde's: "passion for idiotic conspiracy theories"
> seems hypocritical when laid next to your: "Exxon-Mobil and similar
> firms are free to spend millions of dollars concocting plausible lies
> good enough to persuade the unsophisticated voter to let them keep on
> making money by digging up and selling fossil carbon for use as fuel."
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Exxon-Funded_Skeptics
Exxon-Mobil has to publish the accounts that show where they spend
their money, and they have - and apparently still are - spending
millions on funding denialist groups.
The British Royal Society isn't in the habit of endorsing idiotic
conspiracy theories, but Exxon-Mobil managed to irritate them enough
to earn a public rebuke
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/sep/20/oilandpetrol.business
> >New Orleans didn't tell you anything, but it is outside the borders of
> >Texas.
>
> ---
> What New Orleans told me was that we have a lot to learn about
> controlling the aftermath of a disaster, and your crack about it being
> outside the borders of Texas is just an intimation that we're provincial
> hicks who can't see past the ends of our noses; a typical trick a lying
> cheat like you would try to pull when you have no evidence that AGW
> caused Katrina but you want it to seem like you do.
> ---
It's highly unlikely that AWG "caused" Katrina. The anthropogenic
global warming that we have had so far has made Katrina-sized
hurricanes somewhat more likely than than they were before 1750, but
there aren't enough hurricanes per year for the increased risk to be
statistically significant - the standard deviation on discrete events
can't be less than the square root of the number of events, so you
need a lot of events to let you see a small increase.
We've had 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F) of global warming since
1900. Nobody has much hope that it will be less than 2°C by the end of
this century. We probably won't have to wait anything likw as long to
have a statistically significant difference by then.
> >You will probably have to lose Galveston again before the penny
> >drops.
>
> ---
> You have no _facts_, of course, and if you believe AGW had anything to
> do with that hurricane, I suggest this makes sense to you:
>
> http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/
In reality, I do have a couple of facts. One is that sea surface
temperatures above 26.5°C favour hurricane growth, and that higher sea
surface temperatures correlate with more intense hurricanes. Global
warming implies both larger areas of tropical ocean above 26.5C for a
greater proportion of the summer - whence more hurricanes - and more
xtensive areas where the surface temperature is even warmer, whence
more intense hurricanes.
Granting your lack of physical insight, this probably means no more to
you than would telling you that the Great Spaghetti Monster responds
to higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere by winding up more
hurricanes and winding them up tighter, but the arguement couched in
terms of sea surface temperature has the advantage of being persuasive
to people who know something about the subject.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Bill Sloman
> On a sunny day (Mon, 23 Nov 2009 15:59:10 -0800 (PST)) it happenedBill Sloman
> <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote in
> <196b7d9d-d84f-4aff-af02-d2220b491...@p36g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>:
>
> >On Nov 23, 1:49 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On a sunny day (Sun, 22 Nov 2009 15:36:28 -0800 (PST)) it happenedBill Sl=
> >oman
> >> <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote in
> >> <66cb3666-675c-447c-949d-eb6e666ff...@h10g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>:
>
> >> Climate warming ice age:
> >> http://www.world-mysteries.com/alignments/mpl_al3b.htm
> >> http://www.sci.ccny.cuny.edu/~stan/d_clim.pdf
>
> >Good. You should now understand what was going on during the Ice Ages
>
> Climate cycles will happen, I have always stated that we should have the energy sources to cope with that.
> If *if* you did read the other link's material,
> then you would understand that Europe (and the world for that matter) will look very different
> thousands of years from now, as it did thousands of years in the past.
You need to read it a little more carefully. For "thousands of years",
substitute "millions of years".
Continental drift isn't all that fast
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/ZhenHuang.shtml
suugests 2cm to 7cm/per year, 20 to 70 metres per millenium, 20 to 70
kilometeres per million years.
Climate change happens rather faster. Ice ages and inter-glacials used
to cycle with a period of about 100,00 years, and if we hadn't pushed
up the concentrations of greenhouse gases we'd be due for another ice
age any millenium now.
The Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum happened rather faster still, and
the Younger Dryas even faster.
<snipped the rest of your ill-informed maunderings>
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen