Ping Bil Slowman; The global warming hoax reveiled
in [Design]
|
From: Jan Panteltje on 22 Nov 2009 07:07 On a sunny day (Sat, 21 Nov 2009 17:44:10 -0800 (PST)) it happened Bill Sloman <bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote in <c84b300f-508c-4a83-aaab-8964e64d30f1(a)l2g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>: >On Nov 21, 11:41�pm, Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >> Jan Panteltje wrote: >> > On a sunny day (Sat, 21 Nov 2009 13:10:31 -0800) it happened Joerg >> > <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote in <7mr3a8F3jab6...(a)mid.individual.net>= >: >> >> >>> One can wonder what the real truth is, about temperature, and then ag= >ain about >> >>> what causes it, you know there were, and will be, ice ages, nobody >> >>> was having coal plants in the previous one to create CO2 (in the Neth= >erlands they now want to store the CO2 >> >>> in the ground under my house almost), so, all feeble science. >> >> >> Time to sell? Once this sort of "project" has moved along far enough y= >ou >> >> might not be able to, for the price you'd want. >> >> > 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 suff= >ocated 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 hav= >e 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. > >Of course, if this were likely to happen, Barendrecht would have >vanished in a giant fireball sometime in the last few thousand years, >when the - now exhausted - natural gas field under the town had pushed >a bubble of natural gas up to the surface. Well, think Groningen (a place in The Netherlands where natural gas is pumped up), many an small earthquake has happened there because of the ground caving in, I could feel some of those here. Of course once you start filling up those cavities with _millions_of_tons_ of CO2, more instability will happen. You only need a cloud pushed up of 2 meters high for more then five minutes to kill all lifeforms in the area. I do not see you climb a tree when half conscious snapping for air. So it is an idiotic idea, does not do any good for anybody, and an other folly you seem to support, just like global warming. I would state it this way: If we asked all politicians that voted for it, to accept the death penalty if anything went wrong, would they still vote for it? I think there would be very few votes in favour.
From: Bill Sloman on 22 Nov 2009 09:20 On Nov 22, 1:07 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On a sunny day (Sat, 21 Nov 2009 17:44:10 -0800 (PST)) it happened Bill Sloman > <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote in > <c84b300f-508c-4a83-aaab-8964e64d3...(a)l2g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>: > > > > > > >On Nov 21, 11:41 pm, Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: > >> Jan Panteltje wrote: > >> > On a sunny day (Sat, 21 Nov 2009 13:10:31 -0800) it happened Joerg > >> > <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote in <7mr3a8F3jab6...(a)mid.individual.net>= > >: > > >> >>> One can wonder what the real truth is, about temperature, and then ag= > >ain about > >> >>> what causes it, you know there were, and will be, ice ages, nobody > >> >>> was having coal plants in the previous one to create CO2 (in the Neth= > >erlands they now want to store the CO2 > >> >>> in the ground under my house almost), so, all feeble science. > > >> >> Time to sell? Once this sort of "project" has moved along far enough y= > >ou > >> >> might not be able to, for the price you'd want. > > >> > 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 suff= > >ocated 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 hav= > >e 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. > > >Of course, if this were likely to happen, Barendrecht would have > >vanished in a giant fireball sometime in the last few thousand years, > >when the - now exhausted - natural gas field under the town had pushed > >a bubble of natural gas up to the surface. > > Well, think Groningen (a place in The Netherlands where natural gas is pumped up), > many an small earthquake has happened there because of the ground caving in, > I could feel some of those here. The ground above the gas field can move up and down, but whatever sealed the gas field for a few hundred million years has to have survived a lot of similar perturbations. > Of course once you start filling up those cavities with _millions_of_tons_ of CO2, > more instability will happen. Less, actually, since you are replacing the original natural gas and restoring the status quo that had been in place for a feww hundred million years. > You only need a cloud pushed up of 2 meters high for more then five minutes > to kill all lifeforms in the area. Sure. But you have to have some realistic idea of how the CO2 would percolate up through more than a mile of geology to form that 2 metre thick layer. In Lake Victoria, the CO2 rich layer of water in the depths of the lake turned itself into a kind of geyser to get up to the surface. I presume that your unfettered imagination is postulating a similar kind of never-before-seen pseudo-volcanic event under Barendrecht. Learn a bit more about the subject and you will rapidly feel less anxious. > I do not see you climb a tree when half conscious snapping for air. Since there weren't any volcanic outbursts of natural gas in the hudreds of milion years that the natural gas field soent waitng under Barendrecht, you have a very good chance of dying of old age long before - several hundred millions years before - you might want to climb a tree to get away from any CO2 that escaped. Your denial of anthropogenic global warming - if widely shared - would see you clambering up the same tree to get above the waters of the expanded North Sea in a rather shorter time. > So it is an idiotic idea, does not do any good for anybody, > and an other folly you seem to support, just like global warming. The idiotic ideas and the folly are all yours. You are getting excited about a totally improbable potential disaster, and ignoring the real problem. > I would state it this way: > If we asked all politicians that voted for it, to accept the death penalty if anything > went wrong, would they still vote for it? > I think there would be very few votes in favour. But your proposition - that we ignore anthropogenic global warming because you can't be bothered to get your head around the scientific evidence - has a finite possibility of condemning the whole human race to death in a global extinction, which hasn't stopped you voting for it. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Bill Sloman on 22 Nov 2009 09:28 On Nov 22, 10:17 am, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde(a)invalid> wrote: > On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 18:03:41 +0000, 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/ > > Interesting summary of issues here: > > http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/11/20/climate-cuttings-33... > > 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) Seems reasonable, considering what you do with evidence that directly contradicts your propositions. > # 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- Hide quoted text - Since being a climate sceptic requires that you don't understand the evidence, it is usually a symptom of scientific incompetence, which is a perfectly valid reason for getting rid of an editor. In your capacity as a climate sceptic who doesn't understand the scientific evidence you may not be susceptible to this argument, but that doesn't invalidate it. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Bill Sloman on 22 Nov 2009 09:45 On Nov 22, 5:14 am, John Larkin <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 18:14:04 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman > > > > > > <bill.slo...(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 cant 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? There's no contradiction between emotional involvement and respecting the scientific method. > I thought they were obliged to publish their actual measured results, > not cherry-picked or outright fudged data. They are. Adjusting papers to persuade editors to select constructive referees is primarily a matter of choosing the right papers to cite in the introduction of the paper and and in the discusion of the conclusions. For preferred referees you cite papers for which they are first authors and you try to avoid citing non-preferred referees or a least confine yourself to papers where they aren't first authors. Careful choice of synonyms can also be useful in in directing an editor's thoughts towards the righ referee. > Apparently not. Wrong. Cherry-picking and fudging data is a career-wrecking crime, 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. The denialists have been claiming that Mann fudged his data for years, despite the fact that some dozen subsequent independent studies have confirmed his results - the latest replication come from lake botton samples from long-lived lakes in northern Canada, where they have been slicing the cores into slivers half a millimetre thick and extracting climate data. The Proceedings of the (US) National Academy of Science got quite excited about it. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: dagmargoodboat on 22 Nov 2009 10:08
On Nov 21, 11:14 pm, John Larkin <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 18:14:04 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman > > > > <bill.slo...(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 cant 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 What the e-mails reveal more than anything is that these aren't scientists, but advocates. They're not objective, open-minded, dispassionate seekers of the truth. They're heavily invested in preconceived models, which they're determined to mold Nature to fit. Doesn't mean they're wrong, of course. But it does make them unreliable as "authorities." -- Cheers, James Arthur |