Ping Bil Slowman; The global warming hoax reveiled
in [Design]
|
From: Bill Sloman on 28 Nov 2009 21:23 On Nov 28, 4:25 pm, Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: > Bill Slomanwrote: > > 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. Except that they aren't. And neither the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period were particularly dramatic temperature excursions. Denialists do claim that the existence of these small and local excursions proves that the warming that we are seeing at the moment isn't anthropogenic, but the logic doesn't really hold up. To make the argument work you have to claim - and prove - that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas, or that the measured concentrations in the atmosphere aren't higher than they have been for 650,000 years (as recorded in the ice core data) and probably for the last 20 million years (if you trust the geological data). Worrying about the exact fate of Viking settlement is a rather foolish distraction, though your claim that the former settlements are now under a thick layer of ice - when most of them aren't and never have been - does sugggest that you aren't too careful with your facts, nor presumably are you all that careful about where you get them. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: dagmargoodboat on 28 Nov 2009 21:23 On Nov 28, 5:50 pm, "JosephKK"<quiettechb...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 18:43:49 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com > wrote: > > >On Nov 23, 1:10 pm, krw <k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: <snip> > >> Climatology can't "predict" history, yet some idiots want to use it to > >> control everyone. Politicians (are) like that. > > >Climatology predicts history fine with a little bit of curve-fitting. > >Climatrology, like astrology (or maybe let's call it climatrollogy), > >looks into the future. > > SOL James, but it doesn't, at least if you use the same model the AGW > group does. Even others that contain any of the canonical > presumptions of AGW fail to reconcile with well documented history. SOL? I don't understand. The meaning I know doesn't work here. But, I was referring to a whim I posted wayyy back, that you can curve- fit a polynomial that mimics history to perfection, yet has zero predictive value. E.g. the stock market, where that gets tried and is a temporary fad every few years, until it blows up. Much of the evolution of the main models fits that description--build it, then monkey with the constants until it seems stable, as opposed to a) inputting precise measurements of b) accurately known parameters into c) models that faithfully duplicate physical processes. I'm told that pre-twiddling the early models railed, either freezing atmosphere, or melting lead. -- Cheers, James Arthur
From: Bill Sloman on 28 Nov 2009 21:34 On Nov 28, 6:05 pm, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > On Nov 28, 1:40 pm,Bill Sloman<bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > > > > > > > On Nov 27, 4:33 pm, John Larkin > > > <jjSNIPlar...(a)highTHISlandtechnology.com> wrote: > > > On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 16:25:02 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman > > > > <bill.slo...(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"? > > > They weren't threatening him, they were getting him fired > > forpublishing what was - at the very least - outrageously poor work. > > > He'd published a very poor paper, bad enough to provoke three memebers > > of the editorial board into resigning. > > > When the dust settled, one of the board members who had resigned came > > back as the new editor. > > > Ravinghorde and his fellow conspiracy theorists want to see this as > > the scandalous ejection of an editor who was brave enough to publish a > > dissenting paper, but they can't be bothered to produce the paper and > > explain why it provoked such an intense response when the people who > > published Lindzen's dissenting papers have got off scot-free. > > This (above) is why many serious scientists dare not voice contrary > opinions--they'd get lynched, and they know it. As I said - with an example - sceptical scientists don't get lynched and they do get published. If you want to disagree, you need to provide rather better evidence than your fallible memory of what your anonymous informant told you. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Bill Sloman on 28 Nov 2009 21:44 On Nov 28, 4:49 am, John Fields <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 07:12:48 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman > > <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >The aim is to educate you to the point where you can save yourself - > >there still seems to be quite a way to go. > > --- > Oh, please... > > The all-merciful guru wants to teach the human race to save themselves; > but only if they do it _his_ way. John Fields seems think that learning to understand the science that underpins our understanding of anthropogenic global warming is equivalent to being indoctrinated in some kind of religious cult. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: John Larkin on 28 Nov 2009 21:52
On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 18:05:57 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodboat(a)yahoo.com wrote: >On Nov 28, 1:40�pm, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >> Ravinghorde and his fellow conspiracy theorists want to see this as >> the scandalous ejection of an editor who was brave enough to publish a >> dissenting paper, but they can't be bothered to produce the paper and >> explain why it provoked such an intense response when the people who >> published Lindzen's dissenting papers have got off scot-free. >> >> -- >> Bill Sloman, Nijmegen > >This (above) is why many serious scientists dare not voice contrary >opinions--they'd get lynched, and they know it. One of the requisites of a serious scientist is guts. In fact, bravery is fundamental to a lot of important activities. Brave people are able to think, because fear doesn't distort their perceptions or reasoning. And brave people make the best partners in most any activity, because you can never trust a coward. John |