Ping Bil Slowman; The global warming hoax reveiled
in [Design]
|
From: Bill Sloman on 24 Nov 2009 03:43 On Nov 24, 2:42 am, John Larkin <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 16:31:49 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman > > <bill.slo...(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: <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
From: Raveninghorde on 24 Nov 2009 06:35 On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 07:08:17 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodboat(a)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 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
From: Jan Panteltje on 24 Nov 2009 07:18 On a sunny day (Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:02:34 -0800 (PST)) it happened Bill Sloman <bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote in <53439409-1c59-4180-846c-a5019132dd4f(a)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!
From: Jan Panteltje on 24 Nov 2009 07:25 On a sunny day (Tue, 24 Nov 2009 00:43:51 -0800 (PST)) it happened Bill Sloman <bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote in <be3e96e1-68fd-4366-b23d-5c7f15549e78(a)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. ;-)
From: John Fields on 24 Nov 2009 08:00
On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 18:20:53 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman <bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote: >On Nov 22, 2:36�am, John Fields <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: >> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 11:46:02 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman >> >> <bill.slo...(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. >> >> --- >> 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 |