Ping Bil Slowman; The global warming hoax reveiled
in [Design]
|
From: Bill Sloman on 21 Nov 2009 21:20 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'd ever worked with academics, you'd be aware that they waste a lot of time on office politics. 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. > 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. You haven't ever displayed any kind of physical insight, 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. New Orleans didn't tell you anything, but it is outside the borders of Texas. You will probably have to lose Galveston again before the penny drops. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1900_Galveston_hurricane -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Bill Sloman on 21 Nov 2009 21:50 On Nov 22, 2:56 am, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > On Nov 21, 4:52 pm, Jon Kirwan <j...(a)infinitefactors.org> wrote: > > > > > > > On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 11:54:05 GMT, 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! > > > The points are addressed in realclimate.org. By Gavin, who is one of > > those whose emails were disclosed and others who post there. The > > _truer_ feelings that some climate scientists have for some of the > > public naysayers are exposed. Oh, well. Too bad. > > It's not surprising they don't like their critics. But as scientists > they shouldn't be > a) resisting sharing their data, > b) colluding to suppress competing publications, > c) or directing one another--or anyone else--to delete their e-mails > wrt AR4. > > Scientists cooperate, sometimes compete, but never conspire. Scientists are human, and they conspire all the time. The great majority of them have enough sense to avoid conspiring to keep competent scientific work out of the literature, but everything else is fair game. And playing fair with scientific journals is a tolerably modern virtue. In the nineteenth century there was an endless succession of scientific journals in Germany. Every established journal eventually fell under the influence of some god-professor or other, and stopped publishing papers by anybody except his students and ex-students, so the rest of the field would have to set up a new journal in order to be able to publish their research. The publishers eventually got wise to this, and made sure that they could dump editors who were damaging the status (and thus the market share) of the journals that they published, but it didn't happen overnight. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: John Larkin on 21 Nov 2009 23:14 On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 18:14:04 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman <bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote: >On Nov 22, 12:00�am, John Larkin ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 11:54:05 GMT, 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! >> >> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125883405294859215.html?mod=googlenew... >> >> "In several of the emails, climate researchers discussed how to >> arrange for favorable reviewers for papers they planned to publish in >> scientific journals. At the same time, climate researchers at times >> appeared to pressure scientific journals not to publish research by >> other scientists whose findings they disagreed with." > >Most scientists have a fair idea of who might be asked to review their >papers, and adjust the papers to encourage editors to go for the more >constructive and well-informed of the likely referees. > >They also have opinions about the kind of work that other people do, >the reliability of the results that other scientists claim, and the >quality of the papers that they produce. Some people are bad enough >that they end up trying to publish in journals on the edges of their >field, where the editors won't know how untrustworthy they are. >Personal contacts often mean that they don't get away with it. > >> Some good stuff here: >> >> 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? I thought they were obliged to publish their actual measured results, not cherry-picked or outright fudged data. Apparently not. John
From: Raveninghorde on 22 Nov 2009 04:17 On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 18:03:41 +0000, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde(a)invalid> wrote: >On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 05:53:00 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodboat(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-on-the-hadley-cru-story/ >> >>Details: >>http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/19/breaking-news-story-hadley-cru-has-apparently-been-hacked-hundreds-of-files-released/#more-12937 > > >And a search engine for CRU emails > >www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/ Interesting summary of issues here: http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/11/20/climate-cuttings-33.html e.g /quotes Mann sends calibration residuals for MBH99 to Osborn. Says they are pretty red, and that they shouldn't be passed on to others, this being the kind of dirty laundry they don't want in the hands of those who might distort it.(1059664704) # Reaction to McIntyre's 2005 paper in GRL. Mann has challenged GRL editor-in-chief over the publication. Mann is concerned about the connections of the paper's editor James Saiers with U Virginia [does he mean Pat Michaels?]. Tom Wigley says that if Saiers is a sceptic they should go through official GRL channels to get him ousted. (1106322460) [Note to readers - Saiers was subsequently ousted] # Later on Mann refers to the leak at GRL being plugged.(1132094873) /end quotes
From: Jan Panteltje on 22 Nov 2009 06:44
On a sunny day (Sat, 21 Nov 2009 14:41:58 -0800) it happened Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote in <7mr8loF3j4o64U1(a)mid.individual.net>: >> Could be, I already looked up if CO2 was heavier then air (it is): >> http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090611040945AAPt3oV >> else it would be very dangerous to live here. >> But some geological processes could push it upwards, you would get suffocated in your sleep, >> nowhere to run, even if you found out what was happening. >> CO2 detector, oxygen equipment, fast car or helicopter, and you MAY have a chance :-) > > >If for some reason pressure shifts down there and a bubble gets pushed >up you may not have time to start the turbo-shaft engine in your >helicopter. Besides you sitting there slumped over the controls, it also >needs some oxygen to work. Yes, after I wrote that, I realised the copter and the car would not start... no oxygen. Then the only way would be a helium balloon in the attic, with big flaps that open in the roof, so it can take of vertically, and then, when in fresh air, have the wind blow you elsewhere. Hot air balloon will not work either, no oxygen for the burners, and hydrogen is dangerous, but could perhaps be used. Like that balloon that real scientist makes in the movie 'Waterworld' (recommended movie), the one he saves everybody with. >But they'd keep on driving their Volvos :-) Yup. |