Ping Bil Slowman; The global warming hoax reveiled
in [Design]
|
From: Jan Panteltje on 22 Nov 2009 12:21 On a sunny day (Sat, 21 Nov 2009 15:00:17 -0800) it happened John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in <ojrgg5dgttd1th8l7pcdam5oc5b6pdkbbm(a)4ax.com>: >On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 11:54:05 GMT, Jan Panteltje ><pNaonStpealmtje(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >>The global warming hoax revealed: >> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html?partner=rss&emc=rss >> >><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=googlenews_wsj > > >"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." > > > >Some good stuff here: > >http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/hadley_hacked/ > >" 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 can�t 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 ! " > > >John ftp://panteltje.com/pub/little_pizzas_img_1635.jpg
From: John Larkin on 22 Nov 2009 13:48 On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 06:45:03 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman <bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote: >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 can�t 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. But climate is not subject to experiment. Historically, science has tended to be erratic, faddish, and usually wrong until corrected by experiment. John
From: dagmargoodboat on 22 Nov 2009 14:07 On Nov 22, 1:48 pm, John Larkin <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 06:45:03 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman > > > > <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >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. > > But climate is not subject to experiment. Historically, science has > tended to be erratic, faddish, and usually wrong until corrected by > experiment. These guys want to replace confirmation by experiment with proof by correlation. Which they're in a unique position to ensure. They're the ones with infinite government funding, they're the official interface to and gate-keepers of the raw data, and they're not letting other people have it. Why? Because the data do not support their model. That's wrong. -- Cheers, James Arthur
From: John Larkin on 22 Nov 2009 14:34 On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 11:07:53 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodboat(a)yahoo.com wrote: >On Nov 22, 1:48�pm, John Larkin ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 06:45:03 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman >> >> >> >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >> >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 can�t 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. >> >> But climate is not subject to experiment. Historically, science has >> tended to be erratic, faddish, and usually wrong until corrected by >> experiment. > >These guys want to replace confirmation by experiment with proof by >correlation. Which they're in a unique position to ensure. Or proof by simulation. Simulation of extremely nonlinear chaotic systems whose dynamics and forcing inputs are largely unknown. > >They're the ones with infinite government funding, they're the >official interface to and gate-keepers of the raw data, and they're >not letting other people have it. Why? Because the data do not >support their model. > >That's wrong. Wrong morally and most likely wrong in fact. John
From: Joerg on 22 Nov 2009 16:50
Bill Sloman wrote: > 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 again 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 Netherlands 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 you >>>> 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 suffocated 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 have 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. > > http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5i0gwwjN8hkEa1SyfHo_b7LhZ3z2A > > <snipped the rest of the idiot anxieties> > Oh yeah? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Nyos -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM. |