Ping Bil Slowman; The global warming hoax reveiled
in [Design]
|
From: dagmargoodboat on 24 Nov 2009 08:19 On Nov 24, 3:08 am, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > 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^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hfraud to make it comprehensible). Last line, above, corrected. -- Cheers, James Arthur
From: dagmargoodboat on 24 Nov 2009 09:37 On Nov 23, 9:43 pm, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > On Nov 23, 1:10 pm, krw <k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: > > > 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: > > >> > 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
From: John Larkin on 24 Nov 2009 10:00 On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 06:37:56 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodboat(a)yahoo.com wrote: >On Nov 23, 9:43�pm, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: >> On Nov 23, 1:10�pm, krw <k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: >> >> > 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: > >> > >> > 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. That's a keeper. John
From: John Larkin on 24 Nov 2009 10:04 On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 00:43:51 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman <bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote: >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. 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." > >> >> 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. I am not a businessman; I'm a circuit designer. Are you into the 2012 cult? John
From: John Larkin on 24 Nov 2009 10:07
On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 12:25:47 GMT, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealmtje(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >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. > >;-) 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 |