Ping Bil Slowman; The global warming hoax reveiled
in [Design]
|
From: Bill Sloman on 29 Nov 2009 18:40 On Nov 26, 3:53 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On a sunny day (Thu, 26 Nov 2009 15:18:18 -0800 (PST)) it happenedBill Sloman > <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote in > <c32889da-14b3-40f6-8ab0-0a6519317...(a)b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>: > > >On Nov 26, 7:35 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On a sunny day (Thu, 26 Nov 2009 10:07:13 -0800 (PST)) it happenedBill Sl= > >oman > >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote in > >> <6e3552a1-ae05-4a2c-835f-9f245f6d0...(a)m25g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>: <snipped a long intersaction that didn't strike me as having any religion in it> > I am so sorry, SO SORRY SOOOOOOOOOO I did not realize that this is your *religion*. Would you like to identify the particular element of text that brought on this epiphany? Ron L. Hubbard made a lot of money out of religion, and science isn't paying me too well at the moment. > I do not argue religious beliefs with people, it is not possible. You don't argue at all as far as I can see - just reiterate your silly ideas. The concept of evidence seems to have passed you by. Incidentally, I've just checked out the GroenLinks web-site http://groenlinks.nl/ and it doesn't seem to contain an reference to moving us all into unheated grass huts. Did you have some other greenies in mind, or was that piece of information delivered to you by personal revelation? -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Bill Sloman on 29 Nov 2009 18:47 On Nov 29, 10:41 am, John Fields <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 08:27:20 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman > > <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >On Nov 29, 5:53 am, John Fields <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > >> On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 17:55:50 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman > > >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >> >On Nov 28, 3:58 am, John Fields <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > >> >> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 00:38:11 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman > > >> >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >> >> >On Nov 27, 2:44 am, John Fields <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 15:18:18 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman > > >> >> >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >> >> >> >On Nov 26, 7:35 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> On a sunny day (Thu, 26 Nov 2009 10:07:13 -0800 (PST)) it happenedBill Sloman > >> >> >> >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote in > >> >> >> >> <6e3552a1-ae05-4a2c-835f-9f245f6d0...(a)m25g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>: > > >> >> >> >> >> Without the [fossile] energy companies there would be no media, no energy= > >> >> >> >> >, > >> >> >> >> >> as your car does not run on electricity (yet). > >> >> >> >> >> Without those machines, used to build cities, roads, transport goods, the= > >> >> >> >> >re would be no civilisation > >> >> >> >> >> and not even internet, and no printing material, no paper, some paper man= > >> >> >> >> >ufacturers have their own power plants. > > >> >> >> >> >And if we keep on digging up fossil carbon and burning it, all these > >> >> >> >> >nice things will go away again. > > >> >> >> >> >> Been there. > >> >> >> >> >> Now wake up from your green dreams. > > >> >> >> >> >An ironic appeal, since it comes from someone who clearly doesn't know > >> >> >> >> >what he is talking about. > > >> >> >> >> mm, why do you say that of everybody except your comic book scientists? > > >> >> >> >I don't say it about everybody, but there are a number of people who > >> >> >> >post here on subjects that they know very little about, and they quite > >> >> >> >often post total nonsense. > > >> >> >> --- > >> >> >> Like about being able to extract energy from a varying magnetic field > >> >> >> surrounding a conductor by wrapping a solenoid around the conductor? > > >> >> >Joel Koltner was making a joke. The smiley should have told you that. > > >> >> --- > >> >> He wasn't making a joke, he was being humorous in his presentation, you > >> >> wretch. > > >> >> But, whether he was making a joke or not is immaterial, since I _proved_ > >> >> my point by experimentation and presented the data and method for anyone > >> >> who cared to replicate the experiment to do so. > > >> >Few people are so lacking in a sense of proportion that they'd bother.. > > >> You really are no scientist are you? > > >And I'd suddenly become a "scientist" if I started wasting my time on > >experiments that told me nothing I didn't already know, about a > >subject in which I wasn't interested? > > --- > At this point, what with the deceit you practice ... The deceit I practice? Perhaps you'd like to identify a specific deceit. I've certainly told you things that you don't believe, but it would have been deceitful to tell you what you wanted to hear. <snipped the rest, whatever it was> -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Bill Sloman on 29 Nov 2009 19:05 On Nov 29, 11:24 am, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On a sunny day (Sun, 29 Nov 2009 10:32:54 -0800 (PST)) it happenedBill Sloman > <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote in > <4f60819e-9ee3-4ec2-8e4e-2068d5c3a...(a)c34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>: > > >And I have learned other languages - French, German, and a little > >Russian. I've never used any of them enough to be truly fluent, and > >learning Dutch compleltely destroyed my capacity to speak German, > >though I now understand it a bit better than I used to. > > Now all you need is to understand climate cycles a bit better. This is pretty much my understanding of the climate cycles up to now http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles Since our injecting loads of CO2 into the atmosphere - enough to cause enough heating already to substatially decrease the ice-cover within the Arctic Circle - seems to be over-riding the positive feedbacks that amplifed the the small forcing from the Milankovitch Effect enough to let it explain the ice age to interglacial oscillation, this is of strictly historical interest. I can't really see the necessity to understand something that isn't happening any more. Idiot conservatives do keep on acting as if the world hasn't changed right up to the moment that the change overwhelms them, so it probably wouldn't be a good idea to acquire you "understanding" of natural cycles, or your total ignorance of the physics that drove them. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Joerg on 29 Nov 2009 19:12 Jon Kirwan wrote: > 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: >> [...] >> >>> 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.) > Careful. A friend of Swedish descent with similar skin complexion died from melanoma about three years ago :-( >>> 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. ... Nope, I haven't. And won't. Don't ever use that word in anything that is to be submitted to agencies such as FDA or FAA ;-) > ... 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 don't mind the word but in the context it sure sounded like an attempt to "somehow" paper over the recent cooling trend. Because it doesn't fit into their grand scheme I guess. > 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. > Mine has not been so good. Upon very polite requests I was at times basically told to go away. I have published stuff myself and every single inquiry was answered to the best of what I could do. I consider that a matter of decency but some scientists nowadays seem not to. This was back in the 90's when it required much more work, copying, buying stamps, writing envelopes, trudging down to the mailbox (in Europe they don't pick up at the house mailboxes). Nowadays all they'd have to do is send a link. Anyhow, a refusal to disclose underlying data makes me extremely suspicious and distrustful of scientific "work". > 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. > Ok, great that you had such experience. I often didn't. What I do not like is that people who aren't climate scientists and have not put a lot of work into it are sometimes brushed aside. I would never ever do that to a novice or a casual requester. It's against my moral principles. >>> 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. > To say it arrogantly I believe I have a better handle on that noise stuff than many climate guys on the climate :-) <ducking> > 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. > Exactly. And that (considering others) is one of my points of contention with IPCC. > 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. > Meantime we are missing the boat in so many more important areas. Like developing safe and efficient nuclear power generation. Everyone wants electric cars to be the future, wants it carbon-free, and nobody has the foggiest idea where the juice shall come from. Instead we are pushed towards wasting our time and energy with carbon credits, taxes and whatnot. That's what I am squarely against. If we are concerned about the environment, and I am, then we've got to roll up our sleeves and find technical solutions for the real issues at hand. Like what our energy sources will be in the future. > 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.) > We do have alternatives. Nuclear power is just one example but it ain't ready yet. If we'd only be willing to invest in the research again instead of imposing some <expletive swallowed> carbon tax that just feeds yet another fat bureaucracy. >>> "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. > Agree. But nevertheless every one of us has to build their opinion about it (along with a gazillion other issues) because eventually we'll be asked to make some decisions. Be that at the ballot box or elsewhere. And not everyone has the time or intellectual wherewithall to delve deep into the matter. Therefore, many of us must rely on being fed the "condensed version". That version must be credible to the people and I think many climate scientists have done themselves a great disservice by their behavior, and I don't just mean the recent emails. [IPCC material snipped] >> 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 is was sure written in that style, along the lines "you've got questions, we've got the answers". While they don't have them. > ... 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. > There is no proof. But there is clear evidence of some past things, like the stuff I pointed out. For example, the notion that many glaciers have been mostly free of ice not too long ago is fact. There is proof. Roman coins have no ability to "tunnel themselves" through thick ice and land at just the right spot. [...] >> 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. > I wasn't meaning you but the thought process of many other AGW prononents including some in this NG. > 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. > It ain't end of story for me. For example I am not a proponent of simply papering over the recent cooling trend. That is not just an isolated event. A trend that obviously has even some bigshot climate scientists from the AGW party concerned, as evidenced in the leaked emails. [...] >> 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. ... I believe the findings by the Swiss at Schnidljoch were pretty powerful. If you don't think so, ok, then we differ in opinion here. > ... 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. > But I believe the skepticisim towards some conclusions is worth it, because they may be premature. That's my whole point. >>> 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. > That's where we differ a bit and I think that's ok. My position is that it is not always necessary to put tons of sweat into an issue to develop an opinion on it. There are only about 700,000 hours in the average person's life and that's a limit. Sometimes we must trust experts. To me that trust is very important. > 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. > Good points. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM.
From: Bill Sloman on 29 Nov 2009 19:13
On Nov 27, 9:38 am, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > On Nov 27, 6:44 am, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On a sunny day (Fri, 27 Nov 2009 01:33:39 -0800 (PST)) it happenedBill Sloman > > <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote in > > <c66059e5-cc29-4007-8344-3abc11935...(a)d10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>: > > > >Jan's point - in context - is that Exxon-Mobil should get a free pass > > >to continue to extract and burn fossil carbon because it's > > >predecessors helped to set up the infra-structure that currently > > >sustains us, but will evnetually bring us down if we keep on burning > > >fossil carbon at the current rate. > > > That is not accurate, for the nth time I stated many times we should move towards nuclear power. > > But it will not be anytime soon nuke power can replace all our energy sources, so Exxon & friends > > will be with us for a long time with oil. > > > It would be nice if you did not start every post with "You know nothing I know everything', > > although that is your religion, no need to push that on anyone OK? > > I understood you perfectly Jan, if it makes you feel any better. A > few others didn't, but I guess that's just a hazard of internet and > text postings. James Arthur also posts total nonsense, even if he is more pretentious about it. One can understand his fellow-feeling for Jan. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen |