Ping Bil Slowman; The global warming hoax reveiled
in [Design]
|
From: John Larkin on 27 Nov 2009 19:33 On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 16:25:02 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman <bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote: >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. Threatening journal editors is "quality control"? John
From: John Larkin on 27 Nov 2009 19:35 On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 10:38:44 -0800, Rich Grise <richgrise(a)example.net> wrote: >On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 08:56:11 -0800, John Larkin wrote: >> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 23:44:52 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodboat(a)yahoo.com wrote: >>>On Nov 26, 10:11�pm, John Larkin >>> >>>> ps- the mashed potatoes cooked in *five minutes* at 6400 feet in the >>>> pressure cooker that S sent us. >>> >>>I love pressure cookers. I'm glad you like yours. I thunk it up, and S >>>stole me thunder! >> >> Well, thanks to you both. There are few things more disappointing than raw >> mashed potatoes. > >Hey, some people like chunky mashed potatoes, with the skins. It's called >"homestyle", I think. ;-) That's fine, if you like it. But at 6400 feet, after an hour boiling they are still *raw*. > >Once, we had a potato ricer, and we just served up the riced potatoes, >and they were fantastic - there's much more surface area (and holes) to >accommodate lots and lots of gravy. Yum! ;-) What's a potato ricer? John
From: Bill Sloman on 27 Nov 2009 19:35 On Nov 27, 12:23 pm, Rich Grise <richgr...(a)example.net> wrote: > On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 12:26:01 -0600, krw 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"? > > Mark Steyn: "Climaquiddick". ;-)http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/peer-221438-reviewed-climate.html > > Admittedly, he makes no bones about being a hard-right-winger. And has not done his due diligence. If he'd asked anybody who knew anything about the subject he'd have learned that his "The trouble with outsourcing your marbles to the peer-reviewed set is that, if you take away one single thing from the leaked documents, it's that the global warm-mongers have wholly corrupted the "peer- review" process." is talking about the process of cleaning up the peer-review process after a rogue editor had corrupted it by publishing a scandalously inept paper that happened to be wrong in a way that suited the denialists. Mark Steyn may just be inept, but Exxon-Mobil has been known to pay good money for exactly this kind of "ineptitude". -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Bill Sloman on 27 Nov 2009 19:38 On Nov 27, 11:13 am, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde(a)invalid> wrote: > On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 10:17:53 -0800, Rich Grise <richgr...(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 Slomanwrote: > > >>> >> >>> 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. I've been suspecting for some time that Ravinghorde is even further out of touch with reality than even Jim Thompson, and this does tend to confirm it. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Malcolm Moore on 27 Nov 2009 19:49
On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 22:04:14 +0000, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde(a)invalid> wrote: >On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 15:04:43 +1300, Malcolm Moore ><abor1953needle(a)yahoodagger.co.nz> wrote: > >>On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 09:47:17 +0000, Raveninghorde >><raveninghorde(a)invalid> wrote: >> >>>On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 09:03:48 -0800, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> >>>wrote: >>> >>>>Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>> On Nov 24, 3:28 am, Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>SNIP >>> >>>> >>>>> 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? >>> >>>Here's a link to more AGW, academic global warming: >>> >>>http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/25/uh-oh-raw-data-in-new-zealand-tells-a-different-story-than-the-official-one/#more-13215 >>> >>>/quote >>> >>>But analysis of the raw climate data from the same temperature >>>stations has just turned up a very different result: >>> >>>Gone is the relentless rising temperature trend, and instead there >>>appears to have been a much smaller growth in warming, consistent with >>>the warming up of the planet after the end of the Little Ice Age in >>>1850. >>> >>>/end quote >> >>For a bit of balance >> >>http://hot-topic.co.nz/nz-sceptics-lie-about-temp-records-try-to-smear-top-scientist/ > >/quote > >I�m not too impressed, especially when you see where the weather >station for National Institute of Water and Atmosphere (NIWA) is, >right on the rooftop next to the air conditioners: > >/end quote > >http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/27/more-on-the-niwa-new-zealand-data-adjustment-story/#more-13287 Chuckle. Just a slight problem with that claim. The photo (& link) they show is of the NIWA building in Auckland. That's 400 miles away from the Kelburn site where the Wellington measurements (about which they're referring) are taken :-) Actually, VBG. The Kelburn (Wellington) site is part of the Metservice system. NIWA is a fairly new organisation (est 1992) and so use the Metservice historical data. For consistency and because the network of measuring sites already existed, the current data is also still provided by Metservice. I can assure you the Kelburn instruments are in a grassed area above the Botanical Gardens, well away from buildings. Likewise, the Auckland measurements used for the historical record do not come from the NIWA building shown in that story. From memory the site is in The Domain, a park like area of 75 hectares. I hope you might regard your favoured information sources with a bit more cynicism in future. -- Regards Malcolm Remove sharp objects to get a valid e-mail address |