Ping Bil Slowman; The global warming hoax reveiled
in [Design]
|
From: Bill Sloman on 29 Nov 2009 19:18 On Nov 29, 12:31 pm, John Fields <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 11:00:30 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman > > > > > > <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >On Nov 29, 5:10 am, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On a sunny day (Sat, 28 Nov 2009 21:05:35 -0800 (PST)) it happenedBill Sloman > >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote in > >> <dc44176d-0d2d-43b4-b9b5-a498b93c3...(a)e27g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>: > > >> >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. > > >> I will take John's understanding of science anytime over yours. > > >Sure. We've noticed. What you may not have noticed is that his set of > >silly ideas doesn't have all that much in common with your set of > >silly ideas. > > >People who understand science do have the advantage of defending the > >same coherent set of ideas. > > --- > I'm sure that Jan and the rest of us here who actually _do_ science > defend the coherent set of ideas which includes experimentation as part > of the scientific method. > > You, on the other hand, seem to pooh-pooh it as an unnecessary exercise > best left to churls and pretend to practice science by mounting endless > tirades where nothing matters but _your_ opinion. I think you are confusing experimentation - which involves findng out something you don't know already - and theatrical gestures. You need to find a more gullible audience. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Joerg on 29 Nov 2009 20:49 Bill Sloman wrote: > On Nov 29, 9:21 am, Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >> Bill Slomanwrote: >>> On Nov 24, 6:03 pm, Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>> Bill Slomanwrote: >>>>> On Nov 24, 3:28 am, Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>>>> Bill Slomanwrote: >>>>>>> On Nov 22, 11:04 pm, Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>> Bill Slomanwrote: >>>>>>>>> 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: >>>>>>>> [...] >>>>>>>>>>>> http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/com... >>>>> Presumably this kind of evidence is a little too hard to fake. >>>> All one has to do is look at Al Gore, his mansions and all. Living >>>> green. Yeah, right. >>> He was rich long before he was active against global warming, even >>> though his book "Earth in the Balance" dates back to 1992. >> A preacher that doesn't live by his teachings? We oughta, coulda, >> shoulda, but not me? > > There you go, thinking that anthropogenic global warming is a > religion, rather than a well-established scientific theory. > It was meant as an example. A pastor who cruises around in a Rolls Royce and preaches modesty will not find a lot of followers. > Presumably Al Gore has done the rational calculation that says his > energy slurping life-style allows him to persuade more people that > anthropogenic global warming is real than he could reach if he > confined himself to lectuing only to venues that he could reach on a > bicycle, and that his influence on this larger audiece will more than > compensate for the extra CO2 emissions that he has generated in > getting to them. > > It makes sense to me. > He needs all these gigantic mansions to "deliver his message"? ROFL! Now that really takes the cake ... >>>>> Sourcewatch gets its data from Exxon-Mobil's published accounts, which >>>>> provide rather better evidence than the kinds of conspiracy theories >>>>> with which Ravinghorde regales us. >>>> Got a link the _proves_ that Exxon tries to fudge science here? Similar >>>> to those embarrassing email? >>> This is the usual reference >>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/sep/20/oilandpetrol.business >>> which reports the British Royal Society's letter to Exxon-Mobil >> So? Quote "In a letter earlier this month to Esso, the UK arm of >> ExxonMobil, the Royal Society cites its own survey which found that >> ExxonMobil last year distributed $2.9m to 39 groups that the society >> says misrepresent the science of climate change" >> >> That is propaganda in my eyes. If the IPCC says that others >> "misrepresent" the science that doesn't mean a thing to me anymore. At >> least not right now. >> >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial >> Quote "... sent letters that "attack the UN's panel as 'resistant to >> reasonable criticism and dissent and prone to summary conclusions that >> are poorly supported by the analytical work'" >> >> Remember the recently leaked emails? If that isn't enough proof of >> "resistant to reasonable criticism" of scientists to you then I can't >> help you. > > If you knew a little bit more about the subject you'd be aware that > the resistance wasn't to "reasonable criticism" but to politically > motivated harassment. The fuss about the recent e-mails is essentially > another steaming heap of denialist propaganda, designed to appeal to > lunatic conspiracy theory fans like Ravinghorde. > Ah yes, critical voices are political harrassment. Where have I heard that before? No, we really don't want to go there ... > We hear a great deal about how the editor of Climate Research got the > boot for publishing a scandalously bad paper that the denialsists > happen to like. We don't hear that Lindzen was publishing his rather > better, if evnetually falsified, sceptical papers in other journals at > the same time without generating any kind of fuss. > >>> is more comprehensive, and >>> http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/global_warmi... >>> points to a very comprehensive report by the Union of Concerned >>> Scientists (UCS). >> Ah yes, the usual witch hunt. By a "union of concerned scientists". > > The quality is a lot better than "the usual witch hunt". They cite > their sources, and Exxon-Mobil hasn't bothered to try to sue them or > even smear them. You don't seem to have noticed that some of the > people who are now telling you that the case for anthropogenic global > warming isn't as strong as the scientific community claims, were > telling you - a decade or so ago - that smoking wasn't as damaging to > your health as those medical alarmists were telling you back then. > > It is all a little transparent when you take the time to look. > >> I've asked for _proof_ where Exxon _fudged_ science. Sorry, but you did >> not deliver that. > > I did. You couldn't be bothered to understand it. > Because they were not proof. Not a single speck of evidence in there where they were caught _fudging_ science. Just the usual propaganda that less and less people believe. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM.
From: Malcolm Moore on 29 Nov 2009 21:47 On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 13:27:38 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodboat(a)yahoo.com wrote: >Malcolm Moore wrote: >> dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > >> <snip old material> >> >> >You have to grant me some leeway here because Bill's a fuzzy writer. >> >He works by implication and innuendo, so I had to infer that >> >> I don't have to grant you anything. > >No, you don't. > >> This saga shows you're the proven fuzzy writer. > >I think I've been extremely clear. Excruciatingly, tediously, >tiringly so, in this post-mortem. > >I understood Jan. You didn't. Oh dear, the fact you've reached that conclusion reinforces my original view. Your comprehension abilities are woefully lacking. Don't bother to explain how you reached that conclusion. >So, if you don't understand me at >least I'm in good company. Grin. The company of those who post erroneous information about the status of an author. >Bill stated a fact--a fact unrelated to Jan's point, you contend >below--without explaining what he thought it proved, or how it >related. That's fuzzy writing. > >Bill could've said "The fact that France gets 80% of its electrical >power from nuclear plants proves XYZ." That would've been clear >writing. And you could have just written "Although France gets the majority of its electricity from nuclear energy, its total energy..." That would have been clear writing. No need for a "fact check". That you didn't write clearly (and surely you don't expect others to use a higher level of clarity than you're prepared to express yourself) reinforces my original view that you misread Bill's statement as refering to France's total energy use. ><snip> > > >> >But Jan and I took it as a wrong answer to Jan's claim, that the very >> >infrastructure we're using was built on fossil fuel. >> >> There was no answer because there was no question. Bill made a correct >> claim in response to Jan's correct claim. > >And there we have it. > >Stating a new, unrelated fact is not a response, that's talking past >someone. If Bill meant his claim as a related response, it was >wrong. If he meant it as a new, interesting fact, it was non- >responsive. > > >Bill explains later that he meant it as a response, which is how I >treated it. > >Either way, it leaves a misleading notion w.r.t. the extent of >France's independence from fossil fuels It was only misleading for those who missed the word "electric". >I thought it interesting that even France is so dependent on fossil >fuels. Even more than 82% (of total energy), if they use coal. So you should have stated that rather than offering a "fact check." -- Regards Malcolm Remove sharp objects to get a valid e-mail address
From: Bill Sloman on 29 Nov 2009 21:50 On Nov 29, 7:41 pm, John Larkin <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 09:10:51 -0800, Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> > wrote: > > > > > > >Bill Slomanwrote: > >> 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: > >> 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). > > >No, warmingists have to prove that CO2 _is_ causing trouble for us. > > The human cost of serious CO2 reduction would be immense, especially > in the poorest countries. Climate researchers have an overpowering > moral obligation to be honest and keep an open mind. The poorest countries don't burn enough fossil carbon that serious CO2 reduction would involve them, and the human costs of not reducing our CO2 are also very likely to be immense, especially in poorer countries, which are already having trouble growing enough food to feed their people. Climate researchers are entirely aware of their obligations to be honest and keep and open mind - particularly when they are all aware that if they did find a convincing alternative explanation for the last century's worth of of global warming, they'd become media stars and be catapulted to the top of their profession. The denialist web-sites that you seem to patronise are under no such obligation to be honest, and they'd lose their subsidies if they admitted that the scientific case for anthropogenic global warming was actually rather solid - as it is. And don't take James Arthur's word for it - he has now twice demonstrated that he doesn't know what he is talking about, despite his claims of high-placed friends in climatological circles and intimate acquaintance with their computer code. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Bill Sloman on 29 Nov 2009 22:15
On Nov 29, 3:52 am, John Larkin <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 18:05:57 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...(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. This is one more of James Arthur's fatuous opinions. There are sceptcal senior scientists around - albeit not many of them, and their sceptical papers regularly get falsified - but they aren't being lynched. > One of the requisites of a serious scientist is guts. In fact, bravery > is fundamental to a lot of important activities. Very possibly. But nobody has produced any evidence to show that any climate scientist has actually been intimidated. It is frequently claimed by the denialist propaganda machine, who have to find some way of explaining why the vast majority of climate scientists regard anthropogenic global warming as a well-established theory, but they have yet to find a convincing example of actual intimidation. Lindzen did claim that Hendrik Tennekes was fired from his job as the head of Royal Dutch Meteorological Institute because of his sceptical views, but in fact he retired at 65 - he might have been able to continue working if he been working for an American or Australian institution, but the Dutch are still depressingly age-ist. > 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. Inspiring stuff, if totally irrelevant. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen |