Ping Bil Slowman; The global warming hoax reveiled
in [Design]
|
From: JosephKK on 28 Nov 2009 18:12 On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 16:35:46 -0800, John Larkin <jjSNIPlarkin(a)highTHISlandtechnology.com> wrote: >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 > Kind of a scaled up garlic press.
From: JosephKK on 28 Nov 2009 18:36 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/ Well after having read it, adjusting the natural data with data from an airport (an obvious hot spot) seems to be beyond injudicious.
From: JosephKK on 28 Nov 2009 18:42 On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 16:23:18 +0000 (UTC), don(a)manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote: >In <16f3e1ab-eafe-4837-bb21-3b3ff93ae361(a)f10g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>, >Bill Sloman wrote in large part: > >>On Nov 23, 12:06 pm, ChrisQ <m...(a)devnull.com> wrote: > >>> If the work is publicly funded, then it should be available to any >>> interested party. Apparently not though, which begs the question, why ?. >>> What are they trying to hide ?. >> >>I've answered this question before. Researchers publish their data in >>the peer-reviewed scientific literature. They do a lot of work on the >>raw data to make it accessible and understandable. If a third party >>wants access to the raw data, the researchers have to a do a lot more >>work to provide a user-friendly interface that lets these third >>parties make sense of the raw data, and in the process they make it >>easier for other scientists to take advantage of the pick and shovel >>work that they have done to build up their position in their area. >> >>All of this means that researchers aren't trying to hide their raw >>data - they are just trying to avoid having to put in a lot of work >>that won't advance them in their field, and will allow others to >>advance themselves at their expense. > > I thought someone mentioned in a previous thread an answer to this, >often already done: > > Publish the raw data with some time delay, such as a year, after what it >was used for was published. > > - Don Klipstein (don(a)misty.com) As reasonable as that is, it is still not done. WHY?
From: Bill Sloman on 28 Nov 2009 19:11 On Nov 28, 12:54 pm, Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: > Bill Slomanwrote: > > On Nov 27, 5:46 pm, Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: > >> Bill Slomanwrote: > >>> On Nov 27, 2:17 pm, Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: > >>>> Jon Kirwan wrote: > >>>>> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 10:43:33 -0800, Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> Jon Kirwan wrote: > >>>>>>> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 09:03:28 -0800, Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> > >>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>> Bill Slomanwrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Nov 25, 12:09 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>> [...] > >>>> As you said, climate is averages, but we must look much, much farther > >>>> than just 50, 100 or 150 years. As has been discussed here before, there > >>>> has for example been homesteading and farming in areas of Greenland that > >>>> are now under a thick layer of ice. Of course that is an inconvenient > >>>> truth for warmingists. Bill might claim that Exxon-Mobil has gone there > >>>> in the dead of night, drilled holes, dropped some Viking tools and > >>>> artefacts down those holes and then poured water back into them :-) > >>> No. The areas that that the Vikings farmsteaded during the Medieval > >>> Warm Period have never been coverd with thick ice. You can still see > >>> the walls of their church at Hvalsey > >>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Greenland > >>> There are suggestions that the Viking settlement wasn't so much frozen > >>> out as out-performed by the Inuit when they got there - the Inuit had > >>> better boats, better fishing techniques, better hunting techniques and > >>> warmer clothing, and the Vikings couldn't live on what the Inuit left > >>> over. > >> Sure you can pick a church near the coast which was always free of ice > >> but other areas weren't. > > > Identify one. The settlement was not lost because it was inundated > > with ice, but because the weather got just a little too cold to allow > > the Vikings to harvest enough food to keep them going. > > http://academic.emporia.edu/aberjame/ice/lec19/holocene.htm > > Quote "Fjallsjökull, an outlet glacier of Vatnajökull ice cap on the > southeastern coast of Iceland. Advance of this glacier in the 1695-1710 > period destroyed a farm that dated from Viking settlement. Photo date > 8/94; © by J.S. Aber." That's some 300 years after the Vikings abandoned the colony. Glaciers, like rivers, dig out new channels from time to time. This isn't a farm that is now buried under the ice sheet, or anything like it. > AFAIR that settlement dates back to about 900 and was discovered by a > guy named Bardarson (spelling could be off a bit). When the chimney flue > is plugged because the house is covered by a glacier it's time to move > on ;-) Except that he had moved on some 300 years earlier, so the glacier didn't contribute materially to his decision (unless he was remarkably prescient, and somebody who was that prescient wouldn't have moved in in the first place). And I like the image of the famer fleeing from the on-coming glacier with all his possessions loaded onto sledges being dragged away by his team of snails. > Another Viking farm (Eyrarhorn, probably spelled with Norwegian letters) > became submerged because the growing weight of the ice sheet pushed the > land under. But the ice sheet wasn't growing directly on top of the farm, was it ... -- Bill Soman, Nijmegen
From: Bill Sloman on 28 Nov 2009 19:18
On Nov 25, 3:00 am, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On a sunny day (Tue, 24 Nov 2009 16:36:08 -0800 (PST)) it happenedBill Sloman > <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote in > <1fc4cb23-4899-43a0-b863-117f62eae...(a)s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>: > > >Gypsum, geothermal heating and damage does pick it up twice on the > >first page, so Joerg should have been able to find it. It was his > >fact, not mine, and his responsibility to validate it. > > If I say 'cookie', do I need to supply a wikipedia reference it exists? > > >> And, that is not the only case that exists. > >> There was a more recent one IIRC. > > >> The only urban legend here is that you think you can change climate cycle= > >s by posting > less about global warming. > >> Or was it more? > >> I think less, because that saves energy, CO2, so get on with it! > > >I'm not per se interested in changing the climate cycles, I'm > >interested in getting people to think, which - if it worked - might > >get them to think sensibly about anthropogenic global warming, amongst > >other topics. > > Sensibly thinking about it leads to the insight that the anthropogenic component is insignificant in the view of the > big climate cycles. Sorry Jan. Your kind of thinking may tend that way, but only because it is insensible of the scientific evidence. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen |