Ping Bil Slowman; The global warming hoax reveiled
in [Design]
|
From: Jim Thompson on 23 Nov 2009 12:03 On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 08:43:35 -0800, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 04:12:23 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman ><bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >>On Nov 23, 12:06�pm, ChrisQ <m...(a)devnull.com> wrote: >>> 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. 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.
From: dagmargoodboat on 23 Nov 2009 12:53 On Nov 22, 8:44 pm, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > On Nov 22, 8:07 pm, dagmargoodb...(a)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
From: krw on 23 Nov 2009 13:10 On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 09:53:23 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodboat(a)yahoo.com wrote: >On Nov 22, 8:44�pm, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >> On Nov 22, 8:07�pm, dagmargoodb...(a)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).
From: dagmargoodboat on 23 Nov 2009 13:34 On Nov 22, 8:44 pm, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > On Nov 22, 8:07 pm, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > > On Nov 22, 1:48 pm, John Larkin 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
From: Bill Sloman on 23 Nov 2009 18:59
On Nov 23, 1:49 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On a sunny day (Sun, 22 Nov 2009 15:36:28 -0800 (PST)) it happenedBill Sloman > <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote in > <66cb3666-675c-447c-949d-eb6e666ff...(a)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 |