Ping Bil Slowman; The global warming hoax reveiled
in [Design]
|
From: dagmargoodboat on 24 Nov 2009 10:11 On Nov 24, 6:35 am, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde(a)invalid> wrote: > On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 07:08:17 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...(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 Even better, from Hans Von Storch: "Also mails from/to Eduardo Zorita and myself are included; also we have been subject of frequent mentioning, usually not in a flattering manner. Interesting exchanges, and evidences, are contained about efforts to destroy "Climate Research"; that we in the heydays of the hockeystick debate shared our ECHO-G data with our adversaries; and that Mike Mann was successful to exclude me from a review-type meeting on historical reconstructions in Wengen (demonstrating again his problematic but powerful role of acting as a gatekeeper.)" --ibid All you have to do is examine the models themselves to see they're loaded with Finnegan's Finagling Factors.[1] http://www-pcmdi.llnl.gov/ipcc/model_documentation/ipcc_model_documentation..php A number of obvious negative feedbacks are omitted[2], they're laced with assumptions of convenience that are wrong on their face--e.g. assuming vegetation and ice sheets that never change--arbitrary constants, and cloud models that don't reproduce reality. [1] Finnegan's Finagling Factor: that number which, added to, subtracted from, multiplied by, or divided into the number you actually got, gives you the result you really wanted. [2] Often not from neglect, but because no one knows how to quantify or model them. As a second measure of global climate models (GCM), we know from actual life how poorly the models predict El Nino, or hurricanes, or other near-term phenomena that depend on accurate understanding of real temperature, deep ocean currents, or other quantities critical to long-term projections (if those are even possible), but which are not known well enough to make even short-term predictions. As a 3rd measure of GCM, before you graced s.e.d. with your inquiries, I related that I got that same info (above) from one of the persons *responsible* for one of the main climate models. That person said GCM are important and useful tools in understanding climate, and for making predictions as far as several weeks into the future. Beyond that, says (s)he, the models quickly diverge uselessly from reality. None of this proves or disproves the basic contention--that CO2 is warming the earth. But we're constantly sold AGW as fact based on arguments of authority from people who do not know--no one understands the global climate well enough to predict it--and on the authority of these global climate models that were never meant to be so abused. IOW, pseudo-science, politics, and pro-/e- motion. Bahh. -- Cheers, James Arthur
From: Joerg on 24 Nov 2009 12:03 Bill Sloman wrote: > 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 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. > > 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. > All one has to do is look at Al Gore, his mansions and all. Living green. Yeah, right. > 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. > Got a link the _proves_ that Exxon tries to fudge science here? Similar to those embarrassing email? -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM.
From: dagmargoodboat on 24 Nov 2009 12:16 On Nov 24, 7:25 am, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On a sunny day (Tue, 24 Nov 2009 00:43:51 -0800 (PST)) it happened Bill Sloman > <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote in > <be3e96e1-68fd-4366-b23d-5c7f15549...(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. > > ;-) "These posts (and western civilization) made possible by Exxon-Mobil." -- Cheers, James Arthur
From: Robert Latest on 24 Nov 2009 13:41 John Larkin wrote: > > George is, as usual, dead on target here: > > http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/will112209.php3 > > He's the best public thinker I know of. He's a rotten thinker. He drools on and on about how new fossil fuel reserves are discovered, yet he never realizes that they are limited ressources which the industrialized nations are exploiting at the expense of the less developed world and generations to come. Then, of course, this seems to be a religious website. Probably a good place to publish stories about Unlimited Fossil Fuel. robert
From: dagmargoodboat on 24 Nov 2009 14:04
On Nov 24, 1:41 pm, Robert Latest <boblat...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > John Larkin wrote: > > > George is, as usual, dead on target here: > > >http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/will112209.php3 > > > He's the best public thinker I know of. > > He's a rotten thinker. He drools on and on about how new fossil fuel > reserves are discovered, yet he never realizes that they are limited > ressources which the industrialized nations are exploiting at the > expense of the less developed world and generations to come. > > Then, of course, this seems to be a religious website. Probably a good > place to publish stories about Unlimited Fossil Fuel. > > robert All the third-world countries I've visited were held back by their politics, not us driving cars. Civil war, Marxism, cronyism--when the civil society is provoked, unsettled, uncertain, gasping for breath, it cannot prosper. -- Cheers, James Arthur |