Ping Bil Slowman; The global warming hoax reveiled
in [Design]
|
From: Joel Koltner on 24 Nov 2009 16:00 <dagmargoodboat(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:ccd55e6a-2676-4460-9bc3-65b5524cd2a8(a)u20g2000vbq.googlegroups.com... "Conserve. That means using more efficient devices (e.g. replacing T12 fluorescents with T8s), and using them more wisely (e.g. turning off Al Gore's lights when he's not home). That's possible, with zero technical risk, and perhaps 40-50% payback." Agreed, people certainly should make an effort to not just waste resources when not doing so has zero or a very small cost. I'm all for legally required standards for fuel economy, appliance efficiency, etc. -- but of course there's always debate on just where the line should be drawn. (E.g., most recently here the debate on plasma TVs...)
From: Rich Grise on 24 Nov 2009 16:45 On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 10:48:36 -0800, John Larkin wrote: > On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 06:45:03 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman >> >>Wrong. Cherry-picking and fudging data is a career-wrecking crime, Unless you're a warmingist. Then there's BIG bucks in it. >>and >>since such data doesn't replicate when somebody else does the experiment, >>you have to be an idiot as well as a psychopath to try it. > So, you admit that the warmingists are idiots and psychopaths. Kind of a surprise that you'll admit this, but not that they're idiots and psychopaths. And what experiment? The one that's going to bankrupt the whole world? Thanks, Rich
From: dagmargoodboat on 24 Nov 2009 19:03 On Nov 24, 3:37 pm, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde(a)invalid> wrote: > On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 20:30:00 +0000, Raveninghorde > > <raveninghorde(a)invalid> wrote: > > and this: > > http://www.devilskitchen.me.uk/2009/11/data-horribilis-harryreadmetxt... OMG, that's rich. Try searching the HARRY_READ_ME.TXT file http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/HARRY_READ_ME.txt for "cloud." (Clouds' influence on insolation is ~10^2 greater than the AGW hypothesized from CO2.) A few years ago I downloaded and read some of the FORTRAN code for one of the models. What trash. James Arthur
From: Bill Sloman on 24 Nov 2009 19:36 On Nov 24, 1:18 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On a sunny day (Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:02:34 -0800 (PST)) it happenedBill Sloman > <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote in > <53439409-1c59-4180-846c-a5019132d...(a)j9g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>: > > >Sad, but not exactly a volcanic eruption. Since you have not > >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 Gypsum, geothermal heating and damage does pick it up twice on the first page, so Joerg should have been able to find it. It was his fact, not mine, and his responsibility to validate it. > 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! I'm not per se interested in changing the climate cycles, I'm interested in getting people to think, which - if it worked - might get them to think sensibly about anthropogenic global warming, amongst other topics. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Bill Sloman on 24 Nov 2009 20:35
On Nov 24, 2:00 pm, John Fields <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 18:20:53 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman > > > > > > <bill.slo...(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/-Hidequoted 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. > --- You can criticise the practitioners to your heart's content. I'm interested in the science, and it doesn't happen to be bullshit. > >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. > --- That you can't tell the difference between me and a full-time academic gives a pretty accurate measure of your - nonexistent - perspicacity in the area. > >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 going 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. > --- Dream on. > >> 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 > --- Your discipline? You clearly specialise in rural ignorance, but this isn't usually elevanted to the dignity of a discipline. And your conviction that the data has been cooked is based on a credulous belief that Ravinghorde and favourite nitwit conspiracy theorists have got it right. If Exxon-Mobile were suddenly to see some profit in beleiving in anthropogenic global warming you'd presumably be just as ready to believe the output of their propaganda mill telling you that the data hadn't been cooked after all. > >You haven't ever displayed any kind of physical insight, > > --- > How would _you_ know? On account of having had to acquire some physical insight in order to get a Ph.D. in physical chemistry > 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. A rather artificial literary conceit. It doesn't mean anything, in this context, except that you must have plagiarised it from somebody with literary ambitions. > >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 one of these "plausible lies" is? Ravinghorde really does want to believe the haul of private e-mails does contain something genuinely scandalous, but he's out of luck. > 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." http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Exxon-Funded_Skeptics Exxon-Mobil has to publish the accounts that show where they spend their money, and they have - and apparently still are - spending millions on funding denialist groups. The British Royal Society isn't in the habit of endorsing idiotic conspiracy theories, but Exxon-Mobil managed to irritate them enough to earn a public rebuke http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/sep/20/oilandpetrol.business > >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. > --- It's highly unlikely that AWG "caused" Katrina. The anthropogenic global warming that we have had so far has made Katrina-sized hurricanes somewhat more likely than than they were before 1750, but there aren't enough hurricanes per year for the increased risk to be statistically significant - the standard deviation on discrete events can't be less than the square root of the number of events, so you need a lot of events to let you see a small increase. We've had 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F) of global warming since 1900. Nobody has much hope that it will be less than 2°C by the end of this century. We probably won't have to wait anything likw as long to have a statistically significant difference by then. > >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/ In reality, I do have a couple of facts. One is that sea surface temperatures above 26.5°C favour hurricane growth, and that higher sea surface temperatures correlate with more intense hurricanes. Global warming implies both larger areas of tropical ocean above 26.5C for a greater proportion of the summer - whence more hurricanes - and more xtensive areas where the surface temperature is even warmer, whence more intense hurricanes. Granting your lack of physical insight, this probably means no more to you than would telling you that the Great Spaghetti Monster responds to higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere by winding up more hurricanes and winding them up tighter, but the arguement couched in terms of sea surface temperature has the advantage of being persuasive to people who know something about the subject. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen |