Ping Bil Slowman; The global warming hoax reveiled
in [Design]
|
From: Joerg on 30 Nov 2009 20:32 Bill Sloman wrote: > On Nov 28, 1:26 am, Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >> Bill Slomanwrote: >>> On Nov 27, 10:43 am, Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >> [...] >> >>>> 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. >>> At the moment. Presumably the Northern Pacific Multidecadal >>> Oscillation is giving you cooler air from further north than it used >>> to (carrying less water vapour). In due course it will probably give >>> warmer wetter weather, with an added extra-global warming bonus. >> We are waiting for that bonus since about 8 years. When is "due course"? >> Are we there yet? When are we there? I want my share of global warming. >> >> <stomping with feet on floor> > > We don't know. When the Argo buoys have collected some more data, we > may be able to do better. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png > > shows a roughly flat spot from 1940 to 1980. Some of that may have > been real cooling caused by SO2 emissions, which were being cleaned up > from about 1975, and we are pushing up the CO2 level rather faster > now, but that's the most recent extended pause. > Looks like it's going back down: http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/comparison.html >>>> 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 :-) >>> Sure. The propaganda funded by Exxon-Mobil and other fossil-carbon >>> extraction industries has been depressingly effective. >>> http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf >>> Exxon-Mobil - amongst others - have recycled the techniques and >>> organisations (and some of the people) that the tobacco companies had >>> used to minimise the impact of the scientific evidence about the >>> dangers of tobacco smoke. >> Yeah, your old conspiracy theory. > > It isn't a theory, but a collection of facts. Nobody is alleging a > conspiracy. Exxon-Mobil went out and sub-contracted for some anti- > anthropogenic global warming propaganda from the usual sources, and > the sub-contractors go to work. Exxon-Mobil recorded the payments to > these sub-contractors in their published accounts, and these accounts > form part of the record. The sub-contractors don't make any boomes > about what thye are doing, though some of them are a but coy about the > people who are supporting them. > > This is like calling a historian's description of Obama's election > campaign a "conspiracy theory". > No, you said "fudged data". Now where did they? -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM.
From: Bill Sloman on 30 Nov 2009 20:42 On Nov 30, 12:28 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On a sunny day (Sun, 29 Nov 2009 15:40:50 -0800 (PST)) it happenedBill Sloman > <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote in > <94c41e51-38cf-4801-8cb2-a63c18819...(a)r5g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>: > > >> 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? > > AGW *is* your religion. You and Rich Grise do seem to be agreed about this. As Arthur C. Clark said, "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic". Sloman's corollary is that "any sufficiently ignorant individual won't be able to tell science from religion". > >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? > > Did you knwo that greenpeace' (greenpiss?) just stated last week that they will more target > 'religious fanatic greenpeacers?' You seem to be referring to the HardTalk BBC interview on the 5th August 2009, where the retiring head of Greenpeace admitted to "emotionalising" the issues. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/hardtalk/8184392.stm This doesn't exactly come as a surprise to me - I don't contribute to Greenpeace precisely because they simplify issue in a way that I find offensive. They have been doing it for many years. This doesn't actually make them religious fanatics. > You, and your grass shack? The claim about the "greenies" wanting us to move into unheated grass shacks came from you. I can't remember seeing any such policy in any of the Greenpeace literature that my wife used to get, and I'm begiining to get the impression that you invented it. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Bill Sloman on 30 Nov 2009 20:59 On Nov 30, 2:45 pm, John Fields <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 15:47:51 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman > > > > <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >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> > > --- > That snippage was deceitful because what you snipped identified the > deceit you asked for. The deceit is yours. You say that I claimed that one could " extract energy from a varying magnetic field surrounding a conductor by wrapping a solenoid around the conductor? " but this was - in fact - your misunderstanding of what I actually said - " Wrapping a clamp-on meter around one line means that there is current circulating around the clamp - the current that goes through the selected line in one direction is matched by equal and opposite current flowi g through the other lines in the other direction. The coupling coefficient is unlikely to be good, but it is finite." The clamp-on meter is in fact an openable toroidal core, which lets you thread one of the power comapnies wires through the centre of the core without breaking the wire, creating a one-turn primary. You extract power from the primary winding by winding a secondary around part of the toroidal core, in the usual way. The solenoid is entirely your invention. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Bill Sloman on 30 Nov 2009 21:02 On Nov 29, 7:52 pm, John Fields <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 10:32:54 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman > > <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >On Nov 29, 5:08 am, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:> > >> You living in the Netherlands so long, I would have expected you to speak Dutch too. > > >I do. I passed NT2 (Dutch as a second language) in reading, listening > >and speaking someyears ago. I didn't pass on my written Dutch - nobody > >has ever wanted me to write Dutch so I've never had enough practice to > >get rid of the minor grammatical errors. > > --- > Then you didn't pass on your written English, either, I surmise. Oddly enough, they didn't test me on that - it was a test of my comptetence in Dutch. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Jon Kirwan on 30 Nov 2009 21:33
On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 17:25:27 -0800, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >Jon Kirwan wrote: >> On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 14:25:52 -0800, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> >> wrote: >> >>> Jon Kirwan wrote: >>>> <much snipped, my apologies> >>>> >>>> In general, there is no profit for a science team to duplicate work. >>>> If they duplicate the work and get the same or similar results from >>>> it, they've merely stared at their belly buttons and wasted a lot of >>>> money in the process. If they duplicate the work and find an error, >>>> then a correction is made and science moves on. But the team doesn't >>>> really get much credit for it. It reflects more upon the team that >>>> made the error. The ones finding it merely did a 'clean up' job that >>>> shows they can follow procedure like they should be able to and really >>>> doesn't reflect on their creativity and ability to "do science." So >>>> again, they wasted their time even if they helped fix an error that >>>> someone else should have caught. >>>> >>>> An example of this later case is the artifact of the diurnal >>>> correction that had been incorrectly applied to MSU T2LT raw data by >>>> Roy Spencer and John Christy. For years, scientists outside this >>>> inner circle had been "clubbed" by the University of Alabama's results >>>> that conflicted with pretty much every other approach by teams all >>>> over the world. Both Spencer and Christy were repeatedly asked to go >>>> back through their methodology to see if they could find an error. >>>> Over and over, they insisted they didn't need to do that. Finally, >>>> Carl Mears and Frank Wentz apparently got sick and tired enough with >>>> the continuing conflict that they decided to waste their own precious >>>> time to duplicate the efforts by Spencer and Christy. That effort, by >>>> all rights, should have been Spencer and Christy's efforts. But since >>>> they weren't taking action, if finally all came to a head. In any >>>> case, Mears and Wentz went through all the trouble to secure the data >>>> sets and then attempt to duplicate the processing. In the end, they >>>> discovered an error in the diurnal correction used by the Alabama >>>> team. Once shown their error -- and it took them four or five months >>>> to admit it -- they publicly made corrections to their processing and >>>> republished old data which then, while on the lower end of the >>>> spectrum, was "within" the range of error of the results of other work >>>> long since published. At that point, though, Spencer and Christy's >>>> work had been tarnished and Remote Sensing Systems began publishing >>>> their own analysis in parallel. It happens. But there isn't much >>>> credit given for this. Just credit taken away. >>>> >>>> Most scientists want to find creative new approaches to answering >>>> questions that will confirm or disconfirm the work of others -- not >>>> duplicate the exact same steps. Or they want to solve new problems. >>>> That illustrates creativity and leads to a reputation. Novelty is >>>> important. >>>> >>>> _Methods_ and _results_ are disclosed, though. But software programs >>>> and interim data aren't that important. ... >>> But raw input data is. That's what it was about. >> >> Yes. However, raw data has been fairly easy to attain, my experience. >> Very much _unlike_ raw data in the clinical/medical field where >> _everyone_ seems to consider it highly proprietary. >> >> Mind telling me what raw data you asked for? > >Sea level data. A FTP link would have sufficed. That isn't raw data, Joerg. It's digested and developed from several methods applied to a range of data sets taken in a variety of ways from sites all over the world, each of which have their unique characteristics that need to be understood and applied to develop a sense of 'global sea level'.... all of which goes through refinements and changes, from time to time. Assuming, of course, that you meant to have "global sea level data" when you wrote "sea level data." It would have helped you a lot had you known what you were looking for. Have you ever sat down and actually _read_ a report on these kinds of subjects? I mean, really just one of them? Or the IPCC AR4 discussion, even? If you had, you'd know that "sea level data" isn't "raw data" without my saying so. Here, take a look at this one from this year: http://www.igsoc.org/annals/50/50/a50a043.pdf Since you were discussing mountain glaciers earlier, you have given me a segue. It's really a very simple paper that illustrates the issues involved when trying to see if there is a way to develop an improved understanding by joining datasets from different sources and means. Now, I think you can understand the reaction if you were writing to some scientist about glaciers and asking for "glacier levels." They wouldn't really know what you meant if you were asking for the raw data. Which raw data? Suppose I asked you about the getting access to "capacitor values?" You might wonder, "Um... which types of capacitors? What values, exactly? Do they need to know about temperature or voltage effects? What application is this for?" Etc. And then you'd begin to wonder if the questioner had any clue, at all, asking like that. I would. This is why I said it helps if you inform yourself by actually doing some serious, sit-down reading of the material. Get familiar with the issues of the day. Learn a little, first. By then, you can refine your questions to something they can make good sense of and place it into a context they understand. I mean, how many times have you seem people writing in about electronics and asking some bizarrely phrased question that makes it patently obvious they have no clue, at all? And you know, before even thinking about answering, that anything you say will only make it worse? "There is too much current for my radio to work right. How can I lower the current?" Stuff like that where you not only know they have no clue, you know there is NO CHANCE that you can give a short, directed answer that helps, either. It really does help a lot to do some reading on your own before going around asking questions. I don't mean to be flip or abrupt, Joerg. Your question is the kind of question that non-specialists really might have to help them think about things. But you also have to understand this from the side of someone who is deep into the details (like you are, here.) Consider how you might have to respond in similar circumstances. The data you asked for isn't 'raw data.' >>>> ... If you are going to attempt >>>> replication (and sometimes you do want to, as mentioned), you want to >>>> do it with a "fresh eye" to the problem so that you actually have a >>>> chance to cross-check results. You need to walk a similar path, of >>>> course. To do that, you want to know the methodology used. And of >>>> course you need the results to check outcomes in the end. That's all >>>> anyone really needs. >>>> >>>> If you are creative enough to take a different approach entirely in >>>> answering the questions, then you don't even need that. >>>> >>>> The methods and sources used are an important trail to leave. And >>>> they leave that much, consistently. Beyond that, it's really just too >>>> many cooks in the kitchen. If you can't dispute or replicate knowing >>>> methods and sources, then perhaps you shouldn't be in the business at >>>> all. >>>> >>>> When you say "underlying data," I haven't yet encountered a case where >>>> I was prevented access if I were able to show that I could actually >>>> understand their methods and apply the data, appropriately. ... >>> Why is it that one would only give out data if using "their methods"? >> >> I didn't say "using their methods," Joerg. I said that I understood >> them, or tried to. In some cases, I frankly didn't fully apprehend >> what they did and they simply helped me to understand them and then >> still gave me access. In any case, I wasn't saying that was a "gate >> keeper" as you seem to have imagined. If you read my writing with >> understanding, you've have gleened that I was suggesting that they >> want to know if I am semi-serious or just some random gadfly. >> >> I sure would NOT want to get jerked around by every nut and, if I >> refused, to then get tarred and feathered by you because I decided I >> didn't feel up to it. > >But if the scientist took the time to write a few sentences, why not >just send a link to a web site with the data? Because it doesn't exist? Sometimes, the data is developed as an output of specific methods applied to a range of datasets coming from a variety of sources of varying pedigree/provenance and there are a host of error bounds and other assumptions, known about and unknown, applied in order to generate an internal result that is then summarized. The interim data is internal and, frankly, doesn't really matter. They've disclosed the methodology and sources in the paper and they very well may not wish to send you the internal work product. Doesn't bother me in the least, if so. I've had to replicate results by following procedures. In fact, it's good for you to have to work for it, like that. Helps you understand things better when you have to do it, yourself, too. >It doesn't have to be >exhaustive, just some place from where one can probe further and, most >of all, something from official sources (such as NOAA or other >countries' agencies). May not be there. However, the raw data (like tree ring counts from some Scottish researcher looking at a certain set of preserved trees at a particular museum) is often available. Now, if you want that tree ring data from yet another researcher looking at fossilized trees from Tibet, 10 years earlier, then you might need to contact someone else. And if you want that fused together in some kind of new data set, you might need to contact someone else... if that fused data is the explicit OUTPUT of a paper. Just like in electronics. You get to know the signal inputs, conditions, and drive requirements... up to a point. And you get to know the outputs... up to a point. As far as the internals go? Maybe. Maybe not. If you are informed, you can probably "work it out" on your own. You don't need them to disclose everything. It's not entirely different, except that scientists disclose a LOT more I think and take a less-proprietary approach. So even better, in my opinion. But you really don't _need_ the internal work product. You can access the raw data inputs because they are usually the explicit outputs of someone else's work. You can use the outputs, too. But you don't have a right to dig into the internal stuff.... if you want it, you really need to ask VERY NICELY and you need to let them know a lot more about you and what you intend to do with it. I'd want the same thing. Otherwise, I might spend the next 10 years of my life having to either teach that person step by step or else have them paste my name all over the internet, saying that they have all this data directly from me all the while completely and totally misinterpreting it to everyone else... but looking like they know stuff because __I__ gave them the data and I cannot deny that fact. >> Basically, I treat them respectfully as I'd want to be treated by >> someone else asking _me_ for a favor. Do that and you get a long >> ways, my experience. > >That's what I always do. In requests as in replies. It's good practice. I wish I followed it as well as you do. >>> That's exactly what I'd not want to do. In my case all I wanted to look >>> at is where exactly sea levels were rising and by how much. After >>> finding lots of data from places where it didn't happen I was brushed >>> off with the remark "Well, the ocean is not a bathtub". Here, I would >>> have expected a set of data that shows that I am wrong. But ... nada. Great. >>> >>> <snip of material I'll respond to later when I have time> >> >> Do you honestly feel they owe you an education, Joerg? It's a lot >> better to show that you've at least made some effort on your own. >> YMMV, of course. Act as you want to. I'm just suggesting... > >I did not want an education, just a hint as to where underlying data >might be. I don't think that's asking too much. Maybe you are. Maybe you aren't. But "sea level data" doesn't cut it unless you are more specific. Jon |