Ping Bil Slowman; The global warming hoax reveiled
in [Design]
|
From: John Fields on 29 Nov 2009 15:36 On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 14:45:22 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > >Jamie wrote: >> >> Bill Sloman wrote: >> >> > On Nov 28, 4:35 am, John Fields <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: >> > >> >>On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 00:43:51 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman >> >> >> >><bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>>Your scepticism is nether humble nor yours. You pick up neatly >> >>>packaged chunks of scepticism from your frieindly neighbourhood >> >>>denialist propaganda machine and regurgitate them here. >> >>>Jahred Diamond's >> >>>book "Collapse" makes it pretty clear that the leaders of a failing >> >>>society will have their attention firmly fixed on maintaining their >> >>>status within that society - in your case, your status as a successful >> >>>businessman - right up to the point where it starts collapsing around >> >>>their ears. >> >> >> >>--- >> >>Seems to me that your accusation that Larkin here regurgitates >> >>propaganda he's picked up elsewhere is PKB. >> > >> > >> > John, you really don't have to remind us that you can't tell the >> > difference between peer-reviewed scientific publications and the kind >> > of rubbish that denialist web-sites spread around. Get yourself a >> > scientific education and you might be able to do better. >> > >> > -- >> > Bill Sloman, Nijmegen >> > >> Hmm, I think I can smell fire and brimstone. --- Funny! :-) JF
From: John Larkin on 29 Nov 2009 15:56 Try this! http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/HARRY_READ_ME.txt John
From: John Fields on 29 Nov 2009 16:26 On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 18:06:24 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman <bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote: >On Nov 28, 4:24�pm, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...(a)My- >Web-Site.com> wrote: >> On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 18:19:17 -0600, John Fields >> >> >> >> >> >> <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: >> >On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 10:44:15 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman >> ><bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >> >> >>On Nov 28, 4:44�am, John Fields <jfie...(a)austininstruments.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. >> >> >>> --- >> >>> I'd certainly keep it from becoming a consensus by showing you up for >> >>> the fraud you are. >> >> >>There you go again. I'm not a fraud, but you are too ignorant and dumb >> >>to get to grips with the evidnece that makes this obvious to the >> >>better equipped. >> >> >--- >> >As is typical with frauds, instead of honestly addressing the issues >> >causing contention, trying to resolve them amicably, and taking your >> >lumps when you deserve them, you resort to invective in order to try to >> >silence your critics. >> >> >A cowardly practice, at best, and exactly what one would expect of a >> >"scientist" �who pretends to be clad in shining armor. >> >> >This says it best, I think... >> >> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ja7cuVh96AI&feature=related >> >> >I'm in for a penny and I can afford a pound or two, so let's talk a >> >little about why you proposed that energy can be extracted from the >> >magnetic field surrounding a conductor carrying an alternating current >> >by wrapping a solenoid around it. >> >> >Can it be done when the axis of the solenoid is congruent with the axis >> >of the conductor? � >> >> >The ball's in your court and, unlike you, the better equipped of us know >> >how to speel and �don't write "evidnece" >> >JF >> >> Most fraudulent scientists are smart enough to slink quietly away when >> their fraud is discovered. �Slowman has no such IQ. > >Jim Thompson and John Fields both think that I'm a fraud. --- Actually, Bill, we _know_ you're a fraud. And we're just the tip of the iceberg, I'm sure, so the longer you keep on posting to USENET and your posts are examined by more and more critical eyes and minds, the more obvious the fact that you're a fraud will become. --- >This is - of course - a devastating blow to my self-esteem, since I've always had >such a high opinion of their judgement, but somehow I guess I'll learn >to live with this public humiliation. --- You reap what you sow. --- >But I guess I'll stick around until they get around to telling us >which of my hypothetical frauds they have discovered. > >This may take a while. --- Just off the top of my head, the most recent was the power line and solenoid debacle where you didn't know that you can't extract energy from an AC power line by wrapping a solenoid around it and then, after being proven wrong, pretended that you knew it all along. Then there was the 24 oscillator fiasco where you only admitted you were wrong by attributing my success in eliminating lockup to luck. And, need I mention the plethora of damnations you've posted against the humble 555 being the device of choice for a cheap one-shot or astable in _any_ circuit you've "designed?" Yeah, I guess I do. More to the point though, why are you on this group in the first place? It's not like you're any good at, or enjoy, circuit design. If you were we'd have seen a lot more circuit designs from you over the years but, as it stands, all you're doing is using this group as a springboard from which you can spew your vitriol and political garbage over a population which, I'm pretty sure, would rather see you gone if that's all you have to "offer". JF
From: Jon Kirwan on 29 Nov 2009 16:42 On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 07:05:59 -0800, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >Jon Kirwan wrote: >> On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 09:49:13 -0800, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> >> wrote: >> >>> Jon Kirwan wrote: > >[...] > >>>> There is an increased hydrologic cycle. In some cases, precipitation >>>> (in terms of annual averages) may not even change, but the >>>> distribution over the year may. >>>> >>>> For example, in my area (which, by the way, is where Andrew Fountain >>>> is .. or was .. located... who is a primary contact regarding Mt. >>>> Shasta's glaciers), the precipitation is remaining similar on an >>>> annual basis, but is shifting away from summer/fall precipitation >>>> (which used to be a near constant complaint I'd hear from California >>>> transplants) and towards winter/spring. Larger annual amplitude, >>>> similar average value. It does have a real impact, though. We will >>>> have to create more summer-time storage to supply the 1.5 million >>>> people who depend upon the glaciers now for their fresh water supply >>>> during late summer. Glaciers, normally quite decently sized here in >>>> Portland and northward, are receding quite rapidly. We've lost almost >>>> 50% of the mass balance at Mt. Hood, for example, and expect to see it >>>> reach zero in the late summertime perhaps in 30 years or so if the >>>> current rate remains unchanged. The reasons why these mountains are >>>> losing them faster than some areas is largely understood -- they are >>>> neither insulated by lots of rock, nor highly reflective by being >>>> completely free of rock; instead, they have the right mix of loose >>>> gravel and dirt on them for higher melt rates. We've had a few unique >>>> _slides_ that took out important roadways in the last few years, as >>>> well. (As you can see, I can cherry-pick data, too. ;) >>>> >>> I am not disputing that. As I wrote in my reply to Bill, there are >>> glaciers in Europe that are going almost totally bare. What the >>> warmingists don't seem to grasp or sometimes deny tooth and nail is that >>> this is quite normal. >> >> I don't buy this, at all. Sorry. >> >> Yes, the world has been warmer. Yes, glaciers have been much less in >> abundance. Yes, oceans have been much higher. Etc., etc. >> >> None of this means these are directions we want to head. ... > >I do, because I do not like winters :-) hehe. Joerg, I'm Swedish. Transparent skin, freckles, starkly blonde hair (lightly golden, I'm told), and I develop 2nd degree blisters after 20 minutes in the LA sun. As you can imagine, I __love__ overcast skies!!! (Which I may still keep a lot of, up here.) >> say there isn't an historically unique rate of change in evidence >> today. Nor does it say humans aren't having a pervasive impact that >> contributes strongly to both the sign (+ or -) and the magnitude of >> recent rates. > >You are right. But there is also no proof that humans do. Proof is not to be had in science. It's something you learn to live with and even embrace with understanding. >> You simply are placing yourself against what the current state of >> science theory and result says. And that's not a very smart place to >> put yourself unless you are in a position to claim a comprehensive >> exposure to it. The scientists active in these areas make it their >> business. >> >> You've done nothing to convince me that you are in a better position >> to be able to say "this is quite normal," Joerg. It may sting a >> little to realize that I would take their word over yours. But in >> this case, I do. It's as basic as that. > >Ok, I accept your opinion. But on the same token I have not been >convinced that this is not normal. I would have hoped that there'd be >some link about that increased hydrologic cycle, like an article from >reputable scientists and none that use "tricks". I think you must be referring to those letters I recently downloaded (cripes, that was a lot to wade through) when saying "tricks." I've used the exact same term in my own work, though. And I think you may have in yours, as well. And neither of us meant it in a bad way or a disingenuous one. I use the term, not infrequently, when talking to other mathematicians about some approach to solving a problem. In short, I saw nothing particularly sinister on that point. I did find some aspects of what I read objectionable, though. But none of it affected my opinion about the broader science conclusions. Just of people. Oh, well. I have watched as the science has gone from fits and starts (for example, with R&S 1971 paper on CO2 and aerosols) and uncertainty everywhere to a re-alignment and a course that has gradually improved over time. You probably have NOT (but you may have) have spent as much time as I have, reading early papers, reading criticisms of them, seeing how certain initial impressions were challenged, fixed, rechallenged, etc. I have watched and read. And I've seen the transitions as new ideas, better quality minds were injected into the field, and science tools were applied, and watched the overall quality of the work product improve over time. I've been following all this since about 1987, when I was first got involved in Dobson meters and had all manner of science reports tossed at me. I now frequently write lead researchers, directly, and ask for copies of their work and some discussions, at times. I don't even waste a moment doing that when I want to know more, now. And that experience has been generally good, as well, though not always. In short, it's not a matter of entirely looking from the sidelines or entirely just placing my "trust" somewhere. That trust has been earned by hard work, both on my end and theirs. I am still nothing more than an amateur, here. And I still interpret science work product incorrectly because I don't fully grasp all the ideas. And I get my face slapped, at times, by those scientists who feel a need to let me know when I mis-state their work product or the overall arch of some area they are working within. And I have learned the hard way, by trying my own hand at the physics and deduction to specifics, that their work (where it is better understood and I have a chance at taking my own pot-shot at it because I don't need to worry so much about whether or not it is well-grounded and can find a variety of sources which agree) is applied appropriately. So it is a little more than simple acceptance of their authority. I've questioned things at times when the knowledge was less-certain, gotten the fuller taste of their opinions at the time, tried my own hand at it, and then watched over time as the data and experimental results gradually came in over time... and saw just how well they had informed me at the outset about not only what they felt they knew, but also what they felt they didn't know. Their scores, by my measure, were remarkable. So it's been earned. >> Here's some quotes from last week's report: >> >> "Has global warming recently slowed down or paused? >> >> "No. There is no indication in the data of a slowdown or pause in the >> human-caused climatic warming trend. The observed global temperature >> changes are entirely consistent with the climatic warming trend of >> ~0.2 �C per decade predicted by IPCC, plus superimposed short-term >> variability (see Figure 4). The latter has always been � and will >> always be � present in the climate system. Most of these short-term >> variations are due to internal oscillations like El Ni�o � Southern >> Oscillation, solar variability (predominantly the 11-year Schwabe >> cycle) and volcanic eruptions (which, like Pinatubo in 1991, can cause >> a cooling lasting a few years). > >See the first sentence there? It's quite typical in such reports. They >assume they _know_ it's human cause while IMHO they do not. This is a summary report intended to do a quick paste-up of the most recent published results. It isn't intended to make the attribution, itself. That is the purpose of the IPCC's formal process and has already been well documented via the IPCC AR4 (and the TAR, if you want to go back that far.) Attribution is a matter of a lot of different papers, too. And it also develops out of the fact that no one has been able to successfully provide an alternative theory that can explain what is now the overwhelming weight of abundant observation. If you see correlated noise spikes in some signal node and you also _know_ that there is a handy, low impedance output clock source somewhere that just happens to have the same frequency, and no one else has a good alternative for you... well, you pretty much feel like you _know_ what the cause is. And, in fact, there is abundant theory in electronics to tell you, as well, exactly _how_ the one can couple into the other. Plus, you then have pretty good knowledge about how to abate the problem, based upon those theories. Of course, if someone _did_ come up with another viable theory and if that theory _could_ also explain those noise spikes, then you'd have to consider that, as well. If someone (not an electronics engineer, but someone who is a welder, let's say) just says to you, "well, there is no _proof_ of your theory about the source of the correlated noise" you'd probably just go and 'fix the problem' with a solution developed out of well-understood theory and show them that it fixes the problem. In the Earth's case, we can't do that. It would be nice if we could, because then you'd be convinced. But sadly, the experiment is ongoing right now and we are all engaged in arguing about what solution to try and no one is willing to yet get behind your solution or mine or any one else's. So we are just stuck, looking on. In the case of the correlated noise in a circuit and that welder who isn't convinced (but must be before he will allow you to screw with his circuit), if you weren't allowed to try your solution just to see, then you'd still know you were right because you have abundant theory and experimental result and practice from elsewhere to make you very certain you know the right answer... but you'd be barred from "proving it" because that welder (and other welders, janitors, business managers, and pretty much everyone around the place) won't let you show them until you prove this specific case.... which you can't, unless you are allowed to try your hand and show them. Similar thing. We are in a situation where the science had reached the point where attribution is unambiguous given the lack of an alternative (and there is no other viable alternative that explains observation, right now) and where existing theory does actually explain it (some of the theory, such as radiation physics, is extremely well understood both within and without the laboratory environment and can be fairly easily shown to anyone who cares enough to work for their own opinion.) >> "If one looks at periods of ten years or shorter, such short-term >> variations can more than outweigh the anthropogenic global warming >> trend. For example, El Ni�o events typically come with global-mean >> temperature changes of up to 0.2 �C over a few years, and the solar >> cycle with warming or cooling of 0.1 �C over five years (Lean and Rind >> 2008). However, neither El Ni�o, nor solar activity or volcanic >> eruptions make a significant contribution to longer-term climate >> trends. For good reason the IPCC has chosen 25 years as the shortest >> trend line they show in the global temperature records, and over this >> time period the observed trend agrees very well with the expected >> anthropogenic warming. >> >> "Nevertheless global cooling has not occurred even over the past ten >> years, contrary to claims promoted by lobby groups and picked up in >> some media. In the NASA global temperature data, the past ten 10-year >> trends (i.e. 1990-1999, 1991-2000 and so on) have all been between >> 0.17 and 0.34 �C warming per decade, close to or above the expected >> anthropogenic trend, with the most recent one (1999-2008) equal to >> 0.19 �C per decade. The Hadley Center data most recently show smaller >> warming trends (0.11 �C per decade for 1999-2008) primarily due to the >> fact that this data set is not fully global but leaves out the Arctic, >> which has warmed particularly strongly in recent years. > >Better get in line for the coming winter clothes sales :-) > >http://www.cobybeck.com/illconsidered/images/hadcrut-jan08.png > >[ snipped the IPCC article quote] > >Jon, I assume you know by know that I (and a lot of other) don't give >much of a hoot what the IPCC writes. Let alone believe it. Well, I think that is your political choice to make. As it is, others. I've been involved both directly (in developing and testing instrumentation) and indirectly (as a hobbyist looking on from the outside) for many years now. And I've completely disagreed with the central thrust of active climate scientists beforehand and was, slowly over time, forced piecemeal to change my opinion. It's been a long, hard path for me and it took many years to gradually come around through hard work and effort __ON MY PART__. You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make them drink. In the end, the only way to know yourself is to apply your skills and talents directly to some aspect or facet and see where it takes you. And I mean, seriously and fully engage yourself. I've done that. It was painful and a damn lot of time and effort on my part. Sometimes, I wish I'd just accepted things and not wasted that time. But I did and in the process I have earned my thick callouses. Like playing guitar, you don't get the callouses just standing on the sidelines and kibitzing about it. Or complaining about the music you hear. You get the scars and callouses by working out, yourself. Making it personal and paying the price. Been there, done that, learned my lessons. >>> A few thousand years ago they wear also iceless or >>> nearly iceless, as evidence by the findings of ancient weaponry, shoes, >>> coins, and the typical litter that unfortunately always happens along >>> major thoroughfares. They must have lacked an "Adopt-a-Highway" program >>> back then ;-) >>> >>> Since they found Roman coins there the last warm period without ice on >>> the glacier cannot have been be that long ago: >>> >>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7580294.stm >>> >>> >>>> That aside, some places, due to the increased cycle will experience >>>> increases and some decreases. The total global precipitation will >>>> slightly increase. >>>> >>>> From the Copenhagen Diagnosis, recently released: >>>> >>>> "Post IPCC AR4 research has also found that rains become >>>> more intense in already-rainy areas as atmospheric water vapor >>>> content increases (Pall et al. 2007; Wentz et al. 2007; Allan >>>> and Soden 2008). These conclusions strengthen those of earlier >>>> studies and are expected from considerations of atmospheric >>>> thermodynamics. However, recent changes have occurred faster >>>> than predicted by some climate models, raising the possibility >>>> that future changes will be more severe than predicted. >>>> >>>> "... >>>> >>>> "In addition to the increases in heavy precipitation, there have >>>> also been observed increases in drought since the 1970s >>>> (Sheffield and Wood 2008), consistent with the decreases in >>>> mean precipitation over land in some latitude bands that have >>>> been attributed to anthropogenic climate change (Zhang et al. >>>> 2007). >>>> >>>> "The intensification of the global hydrological cycle with >>>> anthropogenic climate change is expected to lead to further >>>> increases in precipitation extremes, both increases in very >>>> heavy precipitation in wet areas and increases in drought in dry >>>> areas. While precise figures cannot yet be given, current studies >>>> suggest that heavy precipitation rates may increase by 5% - 10% >>>> per �C of warming, similar to the rate of increase of atmospheric >>>> water vapor." >>>> > >See above: cannot be proven, current studies suggest. All assumptions. That wasn't it's purpose. It's a summary designed to fold in new information. You need to go back to the IPCC AR4, in particular Working Group I's work. And even then, all you get is a summary as the IPCC AR4 doesn't do the actual observation and theoretical work. All they do is interpret and summarize the actually work. For the actual knowledge, you have to go find all the relevant source materials and read each and every one of them and then sit down and try your own hand at it. You are asking a cat to act like a dog. The report (nor any of climate science) attempts to "prove" anything. But you are totally wrong to say "all assumptions." That is obviously over-reaching, and I am pretty sure you know it is, too. Even if you were right on the broader point (which you aren't), you must know that is going overboard. (There is no need to make absolute statements to make your point -- all it shows me is that you feel the need to speak more loudly, to shout, in order to make your argument seem stronger.) Proof isn't to be had. You know that. And "it" isn't "all assumptions" and you know that, too. >>>> On a separate topic, I thought you might be interested in the GLIMS >>>> numbers for the glaciers on Mt. Shasta: >>>> >>>> (Unnamed, I think) G237813E41427N 1950-07-01 58849 >>>> G237815E41410N 1950-07-01 58850 >>>> Konwakiton Glacier G237805E41400N 1950-07-01 58851 >>>> Watkins Glacier G237821E41403N 1950-07-01 58852 >>>> Whitney Glacier G237787E41415N 1950-07-01 58853 >>>> G237804E41420N 1950-07-01 58854 >>>> Bolam Glacier G237799E41421N 1950-07-01 58855 >>>> G237803E41424N 1950-07-01 58856 >>>> G237813E41422N 1950-07-01 58857 >>>> Hotlum Glacier G237814E41418N 1950-07-01 58858 >>>> G237818E41416N 1950-07-01 58859 >>>> >>>> You can use those to secure data on those from the GLIMS dataset. Not >>>> that it probably matters. But there it is because I wasted my time >>>> looking for them. Oh, well. >>> Thanks, but right now I have to first find some inductors for an EMI >>> case :-) >> >> hehe. Well, I wasted my time already. So there. > >All I got there was "view database", didn't go to a database. Then "view >catalog", and only the name of scientists came up. What does it say? >That the Shasta glaciers shrink? Hehe. I've no idea what it says!! I assume you are right and that it will show growth. It's just that I wasted my time finding that damned stuff so I was darned well going to pass it on to someone!! >No pun intended but so far this discussio took the usual route of deviation: > >a. Notion that a particular glacier grows. > >b. Answer that this is due to increased precipitation. > >c. I bring link where the precip data is in there since 1948, such trend >not obvious at all. > >d. Deviation to other things, no proof that my assumption "c" is clearly >wrong (and it might be). The point I was making isn't the above thread of thought. I would have imagined that you'd have remembered where I went. But it seems you've lost your way in all these details. My apologies. My point doesn't depend on whether or not ONE particular glacier is growing or shrinking or whether or not someone can offer a specific explanation about it, either way. Climate is averages. You point to a specific glacier (or set of glaciers) and point out that they are growing, as though that is meaningful. My point is that an isolated data point, whether that data point covers 1 year or 30 years, has no importance whatsoever when discussing 30-year _global_ averages. You need to be comprehensive in your view. You weren't. That was my point. End of story. >>>>>>> Here in Northern California people look at their water bills, they see >>>>>>> drought rates being charged more and more often. Warmingists predicted >>>>>>> we'd be swamped with precipitation by now. Didn't happen. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Then they look at their heating bills. Amounts of required fuel rising, >>>>>>> for example we went from 2 cords to 4 cords. So it ain't getting warmer. >>>>>>> We would never again buy a house with a pool around here. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This is a middle class neighborhood with a fairly high percentage of >>>>>>> engineers, so you'd normally assume people with a pretty level head. >>>>>>> Nearly all now think that AGW is just one gigantic ruse to raise taxes >>>>>>> in one way or another. Again, this is not me ranting, it's what we hear >>>>>> >from the people. Meaning voters :-) >>>>>> >>>>>> None of that changes anything about what I said. Climate is averages >>>>>> and I think you _know_ this. >>>>>> >>>>>> If you said, "the average voltage, at 1Hz bandwidth, at this node is 4 >>>>>> volts" and I responded by using a high bandwidth tool and pointing out >>>>>> a 5 nanosecond spike at 8V and said, "no, it's 8V", you'd know I was >>>>>> being disingenuous. And you'd be right. >>>>> And that 8V spike could be the root cause why a chip always fails so >>>>> you'd have made a valid and concerning observation :-) >>>> Not the point when talking about averages, is it? >>>> >>>>>> If you are interested in access to specific details, you might read: >>>>>> >>>>>> http://nsidc.org/glims/ >>>>>> >>>>>> However, if scarfing through a database is a pain, an informed summary >>>>>> of the circumstances of mountain glaciers around the world can be had >>>>>> from: Cogley, J. G., 2009, "Geodetic and direct mass-balance >>>>>> measurements: comparison and joint analysis," Annals of Glaciology 50, >>>>>> 96-100. I can get you a copy, if you intend to read it. >>>>> I know that most glaciers are receding for a while now. >>>> Accepted. >>>> >>>>> That has >>>>> happened in the past as well, and then they grew again. What I harbor >>>>> doubts about is that this is human-caused. These doubt haven't exactly >>>>> been reduced after the revelations of emails lately. >>>> Understood. It is the __attribution__ that you are questioning. In >>>> many cases, it's worth keeping that in view. Not __everything__ in >>>> the world is 100% due to humans. ;) >>> True. But the question is whether it's 90%, 50%, or maybe only 2%. That >>> where warmingists are often making shaky assumptions. >> >> Of course that's an important question. It's been answered, to a >> sufficient degree to be useful. > >I have some serious doubts about that. Especially after the recent email >revelations. I've read through a lot of them. I find two main issues there that offend my sensibilities. But they aren't things that in any way affect my understanding of climate science, itself. No, I'm not going to go into the details right now. Because it would only be a distraction into my emotional reactions (and perhaps yours) and that takes away from a discussion of science theory and observation. >>>>> 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 :-) >>>> Those cases have been addressed in the literature. I've read a few >>>> and felt those I saw were reasoned as well as my ignorance allowed me >>>> to determine and didn't overstate or understate the cases. I can >>>> track down more and we can read them together, if you are interested >>>> in reading more comprehensively on these specifics. At that point, >>>> I'd probably take what you said afterwards as a much more serious >>>> criticism. >>> Thing is, there's tons and tons of other cases. I mean, guys like old >>> Oetzi was for sure not doing a glacier hike just for the fun of it. He >>> was probably hunting on fertile grounds that were ice-free, and then >>>from what archaeologists have determined killed if not murdered up there. >>> [...] >> >> In other words, you don't want to spend the time needed to gain a >> comprehensive view. I can accept that. But realize what it means as >> far as my taking your opinion on any of this. >> >> My feeling here is that climate science is huge. Really huge. No one >> masters all of it. But if you can't even be bothered to take a point >> you are making -- not something someone else decides to say or write, >> but something you decide on your own is true enough that you are >> willing to place yourself in a position of making claims about it -- >> and follow through with even that single thing long enough to find out >> where it takes you when you gain a fuller view of even that tiny >> corner of things.... > >All I did is point out some things that happened in the past. Such as >mostly ice free passage ways that existed not too long ago, a few >thousand years, and that existed for a long time. Things that scientists >and also Bill constantly try to brush aside, things that are proven. I don't think you did point out anything. You need to be comprehensive in your view, before you can do that. And so far as I've seen, not only have you not done that but you haven't indicated to me a willingness to do it in the future, either. I don't know anything about this, except one or two summaries I've glimpsed. I know I don't know anything here. And I'm quite willing to walk this path with you, if you are serious about it. I've no idea where it would take us. Perhaps we'd wind up exactly where you predict we would, largely ignorant right now. Perhaps somewhere entirely different. I don't know. But without supplying our intellects and hard work, we never will now for ourselves, either. And my point is that unless and until you (or I) do the work at hand, our opinions on this subject really aren't worth the electrons with which they are written. >> Well, why should I care, then? >> >> Yeah. It takes work. So what? Spend it, or don't. But if you >> don't, even in cases where you feel comfortable talking strongly about >> it... then it undermines (to me) what you say. You either care about >> your opinion or you don't. And if you don't, why should I? (On this >> subject, obviously. On many others, I'm all ears.) > >Just like nearly all other people, I have to rely on work by scientists >because I either can't do it, don't want to do it or simply don't have >the time to do it. It is the same in business where micro-management >spells doom. You have to trust others or you go under together with the >whole company. Because you haven't done it all by yourself does not mean >you can't have and voice an opinion. > >When looking at the behavior of a substantial number of climate >scientists over the last few years I found lots of red flags. The latest >emails are by far the biggest. IMHO a respectable scientists never ever >thinks that way, let alone write it. I find that highly unprofessional >and it has now thoroughly undermined whatever trust was left for me in >their scientific "evidence". Sorry, but that's the way I see it. > >What I do not want is hip-shot actions such as CO2 taxes or dangerous >and untested stuff like CO2 sequestration underneath areas where people >live, all based on science that I now highly question. And believe me, I >am not alone, the number of people around here that believe the IPCC has >dwindled drastically. > >What is much more important for me is what each and every one of us is >_personally_ doing to reduce their carbon, smog and other footprints. I >am ready to go to the mat about that at any time. You and I look at similar things and reach different conclusions. I will argue that the reason has nothing to do with differences in life perspectives -- because you and I, I think, have already tested enough of that and I believe that while we would disagree about some things I think you and I would agree about a lot more. And I know enough to trust your intuition, experience, and general background. I believe that it is because you simply haven't put in enough personal sweat here. And I think that is all it is. On the subject of the exchanges, I've read a lot of them myself. And in a couple of cases, can say that I 'kind of' know the individuals involved and enough of what was meant. As I wrote, there are two things that bothered me after going through years of such exchanges. But none of it affects the actual _work_ I've done or the understandings I've earned in the process or the opinions of my own I've changed as I've learned over time. That is all personally my own sweat and effort and no one can take that away from me -- least of all two things I find unprofessional in tone, but otherwise not affecting what I've learned and done. And as I said, I'm not going to divert a discussion and have to deal with your emotions, my emotions, and the emotions of others in some free-for-all -- few of whom have actually spent any significant part of their own life's blood on the subject. I know what I'd wish a few had had better sense than... but I live with the good and bad in all of us, so I can take a longer view here. Jon
From: John Fields on 29 Nov 2009 16:51
On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 18:44:08 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman <bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote: >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. --- Not at all. It's obvious that if one wants to understand the impact of anthropogenic global warming on our good earth or if, in fact, anthropogenic global warming exists and, if it does, is good or bad, one must get into the nitty-gritty of it all. The thing that disturbs me about your presentation is that it seems to be coming, not from Nijmegen, but from Guyana. JF |