Ping Bil Slowman; The global warming hoax reveiled
in [Design]
|
From: Rich Grise on 27 Nov 2009 13:40 > Bill Sloman wrote: >> >> You've made it clear that you don't enjoy having your errors corrected, >> and you probably think that it would be a nice idea to save other people >> from similar discomfort, but you shoudl keep in mind that looking like >> an idiot on sci.electronics.design can be a lot cheaper than making a >> fool of yourself in front of paying customers. You're obviously speaking from personal experince. ;-) Cheers! Rich
From: Joerg on 27 Nov 2009 13:43 Jon Kirwan wrote: > On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 09:03:28 -0800, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> > wrote: > >> Bill Sloman wrote: >>> On Nov 25, 12:09 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> [...] >> >>>> But the glaciers, those will further retreat from Europe, and north of America, >>>> only to come back then later, in thousands of years cycles. >>> Since we've messed up the positive feedback that drove that cycle and >>> added more than enough CO2 and methane to the atmosphere, the glacier >>> aren't going to be coming back any time soon. >>> >>> The shapes and locations ofof the continents will still be pretty much >>> the same. I doubt if the world will look that different. >>> >> Ahm, the glacier north of us on Mt.Shasta is growing ... >> >> Maybe it hasn't heard of AGW and someone should tell it :-) > > Joerg, you should know better than to be this highly selective in what > you consider a good argument. Read this USA Today article from a year > and a half ago more closely: > > http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/environment/2008-07-08-mt-shasta-growing-glaciers_N.htm > Only problem is that the proof doesn't seem to be in the pudding: http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMONtpre.pl?ca5983 They should know better than to publish something like this without _showing_ the underlaying statistics :-) Here in Northern California people look at their water bills, they see drought rates being charged more and more often. Warmingists predicted we'd be swamped with precipitation by now. Didn't happen. Then they look at their heating bills. Amounts of required fuel rising, for example we went from 2 cords to 4 cords. So it ain't getting warmer. We would never again buy a house with a pool around here. This is a middle class neighborhood with a fairly high percentage of engineers, so you'd normally assume people with a pretty level head. Nearly all now think that AGW is just one gigantic ruse to raise taxes in one way or another. Again, this is not me ranting, it's what we hear from the people. Meaning voters :-) -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM.
From: krw on 27 Nov 2009 13:46 On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 10:34:59 -0800, Rich Grise <richgrise(a)example.net> wrote: >On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 22:19:07 -0800, John Larkin wrote: >> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 21:18:03 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodboat(a)yahoo.com wrote: >>>On Nov 26, 5:26 pm, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >>> >>>> James Arthur thinks that climate models can't predict any more than a >>>> fortnight ahead before they blow up. Oddly enough they can, but weather >>>> models can't. >>> >>>If I ever wrote that, it was a mistake. But I don't believe I ever did. >>>(But since you keep saying it, and Joerg lives in Oregon, it must be >>>true.) >>> >>>I'd have to ask the person who writes them exactly how far in the future >>>GCMs go these days before diverging uselessly into chaos, but IIRC they >>>gave some useful, broad indications as much as a few months in advance. >>>Not accurate, but enough. >>> >>>And it was the same expert GCM worker who said GCMs were completely >>>useless beyond a few months, because they diverge, and specifically, are >>>completely inapplicable and unreliable over even a year, much less the >>>decades-to-centuries they're being used for. >> >> The only way one can predict the desired dire consequences of CO2 is to >> conjecture a number of positive feedback mechanisms. Those same positive >> feedbacks make the models unstable. >> > >Just this morning I saw an AGW preach on edjamacaishunal teevee, and I >swear I saw them do this: > >1. Take some raw data: >http://mysite.verizon.net/richgrise/images/gw-1.gif > >2. Cherry-pick what suits your purposes: >http://mysite.verizon.net/richgrise/images/gw-2.gif > >3. Extrapolate: >http://mysite.verizon.net/richgrise/images/gw-3.gif > >Of course, they only showed it from step 2 to step 3. > >I wonder if(when?) the mainstream media are going to clue up to >Climategate? After the mainstream media clues up to Obama.
From: Raveninghorde on 27 Nov 2009 14:12 On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 07:37:17 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman <bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote: >On Nov 26, 11:40�am, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde(a)invalid> wrote: >> The wikipedia article quotes IPCC numbers. Unfortunately anything from >> the IPCC is suspect given that Mann/Jones et al seem to have acted as >> bouncers for the consensus. > >IPCC just collects numbers from the peer-reviewd literature. Those >numbers are generated by physicists on the basis of models of infra- >red absorbtion and emission through the atmosphere, and the authors >involved wouldn't come into contact with Mann, who works on old >climate data from trees and lake beds, and probably not with Philip D. >Jones, who seems to spend his time crunching current observations. > >As usual, you enthusiasm for fatuous conspiracy theories is clouding >your vision. Peer review? You are joking! Please keep up with the topic. Peer review in climate science is less valid than using a ouja board. /quotes In one email, under the subject line �HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL,� Phil Jones of East Anglia writes to Mann: �I can�t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow--even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!� �This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the �peer-reviewed literature�. Obviously, they found a solution to that--take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering �Climate Research� as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board...� and they show in the temperature record, AMO and PDO /end quotes By the way, MEDIEVAL WARM PERIOD and LITTLE ICE AGE, which you deny, are back. Your pope has changed his mind and they show in the temperature record, AMO and PDO. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/27/told-ya-so-more-upside-down-mann-in-his-latest-paper/ But as Mann submitted before climategate he is still fudging the record: /quotes yes, Tiljander series are still used as inverted. This means that if a proxy has a strong inverted correlation to the (two-pick?) local temperature, it gets picked � no matter what the physical interpretation is! Since RegEM doesn�t care about the sign, it is now really so that the sign does not matter to them anymore. Anything goes! /end quotes
From: Raveninghorde on 27 Nov 2009 14:13
On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 10:17:53 -0800, Rich Grise <richgrise(a)example.net> wrote: >On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 20:37:00 -0800, dagmargoodboat wrote: >> On Nov 26, 1:18�pm, John Larkin >>> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 08:41:26 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com >>> >On Nov 26, 6:26�am, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>> >> On a sunny day (Wed, 25 Nov 2009 17:46:50 -0800) it happened John >>> >> Larkin <jjSNIPlar...(a)highTHISlandtechnology.com> wrote in >>> >> >On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 08:59:25 -0800, Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> >>> >> >>Bill Sloman wrote: >>> >>> >> >>> You live in Oregon. Here is a web site that gives the locations >>> >> >>> of potentially active volcanoes in your state. >>> >>> >> >>>http://www.nationalatlas.gov/dynamic/dyn_vol-or.html >>> >>> >> >>> I'd suggest that if you are worried by potential sources of >>> >> >>> danger under your feet, you should pack up and move to >>> >> >>> Barendrecht immediately. >>> >>> >> >>>http://scienceray.com/earth-sciences/five-worst-volcanic-disasters-in... >>> >>> >> >>I live in Northern California, about 35 miles east of Sacramento. >>> >> >>And I am rather unafraid of volcanos, earthquakes and fires versus >>> >> >>some "grand" ideas of man to "solve" a perceived crisis. >>> >>> >> >Listen up, Joerg. If Sloman says you live in Oregon, you live in >>> >> >Oregon. It's a peer-reviewed fact. >>> >>> >> Yes, exactly, that is real science. >>> >>> >I also strongly insist that Joerg lives in Oregon, therefore, not only >>> >is it a peer-reviewed fact, but there's also a consensus. >>> >>> I have just run a simulation that proves that Joerg lives in Oregon. >>> >>> There can be no more doubt. >> >> After applying the appropriate correction factors, I too find that Joerg >> lives in Oregon. >> >> So, now we have independent confirmation. > >I used to live in northern California, and what Joerg describes isn't >anything like where I was, so, I now have Faith that he lives in Oregon. > >;-) >Rich I have redefined the peer review process, Joerg now lives in Indonesia. |