Ping Bil Slowman; The global warming hoax reveiled
in [Design]
|
From: Bill Sloman on 27 Nov 2009 19:21 On Nov 27, 8:48 am, John Larkin <jjSNIPlar...(a)highTHISlandtechnology.com> wrote: > On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 03:07:11 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman > > > > > > <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >On Nov 26, 8:33 pm, John Fields <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > >> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 09:36:14 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman > > >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >> >It is a pity that I got it wrong. Peer review would probably have > >> >prevented this. > > >> >James Arthur happens to be wrong - his concurrence doesn't create a > >> >concensus, which in practice is confined to the opinions of people who > >> >know what they are talking about. > > >> --- > >> Then nothing you post would lead to the creation of a consensus. > > >Certainly not to a concensus of which you'd form a part. > > http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870349940457455963038204... "Science" journalists who don't know much about science do tend to take this line. The paper that Jones and Mann were objecting too weren't a "dissenting view" but a scandalously inept piece of denialist propaganda, whose publication prompted three members of the editorial board to resign. The publisher apparently got the message, fired the editor and replaced him with one of three board members who had resigned. Ravinghorde will probably see this as an example of the academic mafia trampling on the First Amendment right of everybody to publish what they like, but the scientific community has always insisted that papers published in peer-reviewd journals meet certain well-known quality standards, and when these standards haven't been met the community does tend to move in to enforce better quality control (in precisely the kinds of ways that Mann and Jones discussed). This is an integral part of the scientific method. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Bill Sloman on 27 Nov 2009 19:25 On Nov 27, 9:44 am, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > On Nov 27, 11:48 am, John Larkin > > > > > > <jjSNIPlar...(a)highTHISlandtechnology.com> wrote: > > On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 03:07:11 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman > > > <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > > >On Nov 26, 8:33 pm, John Fields <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > > >> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 09:36:14 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman > > > >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > > >> >It is a pity that I got it wrong. Peer review would probably have > > >> >prevented this. > > > >> >James Arthur happens to be wrong - his concurrence doesn't create a > > >> >concensus, which in practice is confined to the opinions of people who > > >> >know what they are talking about. > > > >> --- > > >> Then nothing you post would lead to the creation of a consensus. > > > >Certainly not to a concensus of which you'd form a part. > > >http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870349940457455963038204... > > > John > > Spot-on. Anything but. The journalist is treating a highly necessary bit of quality control as "suppresion of dissent". If they'd done theri job properly, they'd have found this out. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Joerg on 27 Nov 2009 19:26 Bill Sloman wrote: > On Nov 27, 10:43 am, Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: [...] >> 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. > > At the moment. Presumably the Northern Pacific Multidecadal > Oscillation is giving you cooler air from further north than it used > to (carrying less water vapour). In due course it will probably give > warmer wetter weather, with an added extra-global warming bonus. > We are waiting for that bonus since about 8 years. When is "due course"? Are we there yet? When are we there? I want my share of global warming. <stomping with feet on floor> >> 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 :-) > > Sure. The propaganda funded by Exxon-Mobil and other fossil-carbon > extraction industries has been depressingly effective. > > http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf > > Exxon-Mobil - amongst others - have recycled the techniques and > organisations (and some of the people) that the tobacco companies had > used to minimise the impact of the scientific evidence about the > dangers of tobacco smoke. > Yeah, your old conspiracy theory. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM.
From: Bill Sloman on 27 Nov 2009 19:26 On Nov 27, 10:23 am, Rich Grise <richgr...(a)example.net> wrote: > On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 08:48:49 -0800, John Larkin wrote: > >http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870349940457455963038204... > > "Climategate" - I LOVE it! ;-) ;-) ;-) You would. You are just as ignorant as Ravinghorde, and gullible enough to swallow his fatuous conrspiracy theories. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Bill Sloman on 27 Nov 2009 19:27
On Nov 27, 10:26 am, krw <k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: > On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 10:23:59 -0800, Rich Grise <richgr...(a)example.net> > wrote: > > >On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 08:48:49 -0800, John Larkin wrote: > > >>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870349940457455963038204.... > > >"Climategate" - I LOVE it! ;-) ;-) ;-) > > Short version: "Weathergate"? krw is as ignorant as James Arthur - he too doesn't know the difference between climate and weather. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen |