Ping Bil Slowman; The global warming hoax reveiled
in [Design]
|
From: John Larkin on 23 Nov 2009 20:42 On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 16:31:49 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman <bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote: >On Nov 23, 5:43�pm, John Larkin ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 04:12:23 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman >> >> <bill.slo...(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. >> >> >> 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? >> >> 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? > >> 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
From: Joerg on 23 Nov 2009 21:28 Bill Sloman wrote: > On Nov 22, 11:04 pm, Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >> Bill Slomanwrote: >>> On Nov 22, 5:14 am, John Larkin >>> <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>>> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 18:14:04 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman >>>> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >>>>> On Nov 22, 12:00 am, John Larkin >>>>> <jjlar...(a)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). > > 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. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM.
From: dagmargoodboat on 23 Nov 2009 21:43 On Nov 23, 1:10 pm, krw <k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: > On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 09:53:23 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...(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. 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
From: Bill Sloman on 24 Nov 2009 03:08 On Nov 24, 3:43 am, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > On Nov 23, 1:10 pm, krw <k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 09:53:23 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...(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. > > 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 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
From: Bill Sloman on 24 Nov 2009 03:19
On Nov 24, 3:28 am, Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: > Bill Slomanwrote: > > On Nov 22, 11:04 pm, Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: > >> Bill Slomanwrote: > >>> On Nov 22, 5:14 am, John Larkin > >>> <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >>>> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 18:14:04 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman > >>>> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >>>>> On Nov 22, 12:00 am, John Larkin > >>>>> <jjlar...(a)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 cant 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). > > > 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 |