Ping Bil Slowman; The global warming hoax reveiled
in [Design]
|
From: Bill Sloman on 21 Nov 2009 14:39 On Nov 21, 7:53 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On a sunny day (Sat, 21 Nov 2009 09:01:43 -0800 (PST)) it happened Bill Sloman > <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote in > <9641cb0f-e096-4fd7-acac-7c555184d...(a)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
From: Bill Sloman on 21 Nov 2009 14:46 On Nov 21, 7:03 pm, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde(a)invalid> wrote: > On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 05:53:00 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com > wrote: > > > > > > >On Nov 21, 6:54 am, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...(a)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 > > 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. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Raveninghorde on 21 Nov 2009 15:37 On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 11:46:02 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman <bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote: >On Nov 21, 7:03�pm, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde(a)invalid> wrote: >> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 05:53:00 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >On Nov 21, 6:54�am, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...(a)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 >> >> 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. http://xkcd.com/664/
From: Joerg on 21 Nov 2009 16:10 Jan Panteltje wrote: > On a sunny day (Sat, 21 Nov 2009 09:01:43 -0800 (PST)) it happened Bill Sloman > <bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote in > <9641cb0f-e096-4fd7-acac-7c555184d674(a)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. > 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. 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.
From: Jon Kirwan on 21 Nov 2009 16:52
On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 11:54:05 GMT, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealmtje(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >The global warming hoax revealed: > 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! 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 |