Ping Bil Slowman; The global warming hoax reveiled
in [Design]
|
From: Bill Sloman on 22 Nov 2009 20:11 On Nov 22, 8:34 pm, John Larkin <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 11:07:53 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com > wrote: > > >On Nov 22, 1:48 pm, John Larkin > ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 06:45:03 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman > > >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >> >On Nov 22, 5:14 am, John Larkin > >> ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >> >> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 18:14:04 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman > > >> >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >> >> >On Nov 22, 12:00 am, John Larkin > >> >> ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 11:54:05 GMT, Jan Panteltje > > >> >> >> <pNaonStpealm...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >The global warming hoax revealed: > >> >> >> >http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html?partne... > > >> >> >> ><Quote from that article> > >> >> >> >This shows these are people willing to bend rules and > >> >> >> >go after other people's reputations in very serious ways,' he said. Spencer > >> >> >> >R. Weart, a physicist and historian who is charting the course of research > >> >> >> >on global warming, said the hacked material would serve as 'great material > >> >> >> >for historians.' > >> >> >> ><end quote> > > >> >> >> >LOL. > >> >> >> >Some science! > > >> >> >> >And that in a leftist newspaper! > > >> >> >>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125883405294859215.html?mod=googlenew... > > >> >> >> "In several of the emails, climate researchers discussed how to > >> >> >> arrange for favorable reviewers for papers they planned to publish in > >> >> >> scientific journals. At the same time, climate researchers at times > >> >> >> appeared to pressure scientific journals not to publish research by > >> >> >> other scientists whose findings they disagreed with." > > >> >> >Most scientists have a fair idea of who might be asked to review their > >> >> >papers, and adjust the papers to encourage editors to go for the more > >> >> >constructive and well-informed of the likely referees. > > >> >> >They also have opinions about the kind of work that other people do, > >> >> >the reliability of the results that other scientists claim, and the > >> >> >quality of the papers that they produce. Some people are bad enough > >> >> >that they end up trying to publish in journals on the edges of their > >> >> >field, where the editors won't know how untrustworthy they are. > >> >> >Personal contacts often mean that they don't get away with it. > > >> >> >> Some good stuff here: > > >> >> >>http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/com... > > >> >> >> " The other paper by MM is just garbage as you knew. De Freitas > >> >> >> again. Pielke is also losing all credibility as well by replying to > >> >> >> the mad Finn as well frequently as I see it. I cant see either of > >> >> >> these papers being in the next IPCC report. K and I will keep them out > >> >> >> somehow even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature > >> >> >> is ! " > > >> >> >Obviously not intended for publication, but why would you ever think > >> >> >that because scientists are obliged to publish sober and rational > >> >> >arguments, they aren't emotionally involved in their work? > > >> >> Because they respect the scientific method? Because they honor truth? > > >> >There's no contradiction between emotional involvement and respecting > >> >the scientific method. > > >> >> I thought they were obliged to publish their actual measured results, > >> >> not cherry-picked or outright fudged data. > > >> >They are. Adjusting papers to persuade editors to select constructive > >> >referees is primarily a matter of choosing the right papers to cite in > >> >the introduction of the paper and and in the discusion of the > >> >conclusions. > > >> >For preferred referees you cite papers for which they are first > >> >authors and you try to avoid citing non-preferred referees or a least > >> >confine yourself to papers where they aren't first authors. Careful > >> >choice of synonyms can also be useful in in directing an editor's > >> >thoughts towards the righ referee. > > >> >> Apparently not. > > >> >Wrong. Cherry-picking and fudging data is a career-wrecking crime, and > >> >since such data doesn't replicate when somebody else does the > >> >experiment, you have to be an idiot as well as a psychopath to try it.. > > >> But climate is not subject to experiment. Historically, science has > >> tended to be erratic, faddish, and usually wrong until corrected by > >> experiment. > > >These guys want to replace confirmation by experiment with proof by > >correlation. Which they're in a unique position to ensure. > > Or proof by simulation. Simulation of extremely nonlinear chaotic > systems whose dynamics and forcing inputs are largely unknown. Weather is chaotic, Climate is pretty predictable - as farmers have been proving for the past few millenia. Simulating climate is a whole lot easier than simulating weather, which doesn't make it easy. A recent copy of the IEEE Spectrum had an article on a proposed "cloud computer" which is to be a processor powerful enough to run climate simulations that are fine-grained enough - cells around a a kilometre across - to include cloud formation directly. > >They're the ones with infinite government funding, If they had "infinite funding" they'd have their "cloud computer" now. > They're the > >official interface to and gate-keepers of the raw data, and they're > >not letting other people have it. Why? Because the data do not > >support their model. > > >That's wrong. > > Wrong morally and most likely wrong in fact. The claim is wrong - the data does support their models - and it is immoral in that James Arthur is slandering scientists by making claims that he can't support, beyond a poorly remembered dinner-table conversation that he does seem to lack the scieintific training to have understood correctly. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Bill Sloman on 22 Nov 2009 20:18 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.... > >>>> " The other paper by MM is just garbage as you knew. De Freitas > >>>> again. Pielke is also losing all credibility as well by replying to > >>>> the mad Finn as well frequently as I see it. I cant see either of > >>>> these papers being in the next IPCC report. K and I will keep them out > >>>> somehow even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature > >>>> is ! " > >>> Obviously not intended for publication, but why would you ever think > >>> that because scientists are obliged to publish sober and rational > >>> arguments, they aren't emotionally involved in their work? > >> Because they respect the scientific method? Because they honor truth? > > > There's no contradiction between emotional involvement and respecting > > the scientific method. > > Did you really read John's quote? Quote of quote: "K and I will keep > them out somehow even if we have to redefine what the peer-review > literature is ! " > > If this was truly said then I have lost all respect for those guys. Any > and all. But they have already lost much of it a long time ago, at least > in this neighborhood (which is full of engineers). There are "peer-reviewed" journals around whose editors have been known to publish denialist propaganda of zero academic merit without sending it out for review. As long as there wasn't money to be made out of publishing pseudo- academic articles, the scientific community could afford to be pretty relaxed about what constituted a peer-reviewed journal. Exxon-Mobil and similar organisations with a large financial interest in denying anthrpogenic global warming have created a situation where tighter definitions are desirable. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Bill Sloman on 22 Nov 2009 20:30 On Nov 23, 12:36 am, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde(a)invalid> wrote: > On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 14:04:45 -0800, 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... > >>>>> " The other paper by MM is just garbage as you knew. De Freitas > >>>>> again. Pielke is also losing all credibility as well by replying to > >>>>> the mad Finn as well frequently as I see it. I cant see either of > >>>>> these papers being in the next IPCC report. K and I will keep them out > >>>>> somehow even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature > >>>>> is ! " > >>>> Obviously not intended for publication, but why would you ever think > >>>> that because scientists are obliged to publish sober and rational > >>>> arguments, they aren't emotionally involved in their work? > >>> Because they respect the scientific method? Because they honor truth? > > >> There's no contradiction between emotional involvement and respecting > >> the scientific method. > > >Did you really read John's quote? Quote of quote: "K and I will keep > >them out somehow even if we have to redefine what the peer-review > >literature is ! " > > >If this was truly said then I have lost all respect for those guys. Any > >and all. But they have already lost much of it a long time ago, at least > >in this neighborhood (which is full of engineers). > > >[...] > > I like this one: > > /quote > > The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the > moment and it is a travesty that we can't. > > /end quote > > But the science is settled:( The science is clear enough, but the data that is required to verify the likeliest explanation - changes in heat distribution due to the North Atlantic and Pacific Multidecadal Oscillations - depends on a bunch of data-collecting robots that haven't been out there for long enough yet. http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/global_change_analysis.html#circ There's your travesty. I've told you about this before - it is a pity you are too ill-informed to be able to process and absorb the information. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Bill Sloman on 22 Nov 2009 20:43 On Nov 22, 4:08 pm, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > On Nov 21, 11:14 pm, John Larkin > > > > > > <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > > On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 18:14:04 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman > > > <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > > >On Nov 22, 12:00 am, John Larkin > > ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > > >> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 11:54:05 GMT, Jan Panteltje > > > >> <pNaonStpealm...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > >> >The global warming hoax revealed: > > >> >http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html?partne... > > > >> ><Quote from that article> > > >> >This shows these are people willing to bend rules and > > >> >go after other people's reputations in very serious ways,' he said. Spencer > > >> >R. Weart, a physicist and historian who is charting the course of research > > >> >on global warming, said the hacked material would serve as 'great material > > >> >for historians.' > > >> ><end quote> > > > >> >LOL. > > >> >Some science! > > > >> >And that in a leftist newspaper! > > > >>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125883405294859215.html?mod=googlenew... > > > >> "In several of the emails, climate researchers discussed how to > > >> arrange for favorable reviewers for papers they planned to publish in > > >> scientific journals. At the same time, climate researchers at times > > >> appeared to pressure scientific journals not to publish research by > > >> other scientists whose findings they disagreed with." > > > >Most scientists have a fair idea of who might be asked to review their > > >papers, and adjust the papers to encourage editors to go for the more > > >constructive and well-informed of the likely referees. > > > >They also have opinions about the kind of work that other people do, > > >the reliability of the results that other scientists claim, and the > > >quality of the papers that they produce. Some people are bad enough > > >that they end up trying to publish in journals on the edges of their > > >field, where the editors won't know how untrustworthy they are. > > >Personal contacts often mean that they don't get away with it. > > > >> Some good stuff here: > > > >>http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/com.... > > > >> " The other paper by MM is just garbage as you knew. De Freitas > > >> again. Pielke is also losing all credibility as well by replying to > > >> the mad Finn as well frequently as I see it. I cant see either of > > >> these papers being in the next IPCC report. K and I will keep them out > > >> somehow even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature > > >> is ! " > > > >Obviously not intended for publication, but why would you ever think > > >that because scientists are obliged to publish sober and rational > > >arguments, they aren't emotionally involved in their work? > > > Because they respect the scientific method? Because they honor truth? > > > I thought they were obliged to publish their actual measured results, > > not cherry-picked or outright fudged data. > > > Apparently not. > > > John > > What the e-mails reveal more than anything is that these aren't > scientists, but advocates. Successful scieintists have to be good advocates for their own ideas. > They're not objective, open-minded, dispassionate seekers of the > truth. No they are objective, open-minded, passionate seekers of the truth, and particularly of those aspects of the truth that can be written up in attention-getting papers. > They're heavily invested in preconceived models, which they're > determined to mold Nature to fit. Most scientists have a heavy investment in the model that is currently popular in their field, but they all know that if they can come up with a better model they can wipe the floor with the competition. Very few are silly enough to try to mould Nature to produce the kind of publication they need - it does happen, and it makes the front pages when they get caught. And they do get caught, because science is all about consilience. Everybody's results have to make sense when they are compared with everybody else's results and those that don't get a lot of attention. > Doesn't mean they're wrong, of course. But it does make them > unreliable as "authorities." Says James Arthur, in a remarkable implausible claim of authority. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Bill Sloman on 22 Nov 2009 20:44
On Nov 22, 8:07 pm, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > On Nov 22, 1:48 pm, John Larkin > > > > > > <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > > On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 06:45:03 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman > > > <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > > >On Nov 22, 5:14 am, John Larkin > > ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > > >> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 18:14:04 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman > > > >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > > >> >On Nov 22, 12:00 am, John Larkin > > >> ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > > >> >> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 11:54:05 GMT, Jan Panteltje > > > >> >> <pNaonStpealm...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > >> >> >The global warming hoax revealed: > > >> >> >http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html?partne... > > > >> >> ><Quote from that article> > > >> >> >This shows these are people willing to bend rules and > > >> >> >go after other people's reputations in very serious ways,' he said. Spencer > > >> >> >R. Weart, a physicist and historian who is charting the course of research > > >> >> >on global warming, said the hacked material would serve as 'great material > > >> >> >for historians.' > > >> >> ><end quote> > > > >> >> >LOL. > > >> >> >Some science! > > > >> >> >And that in a leftist newspaper! > > > >> >>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125883405294859215.html?mod=googlenew... > > > >> >> "In several of the emails, climate researchers discussed how to > > >> >> arrange for favorable reviewers for papers they planned to publish in > > >> >> scientific journals. At the same time, climate researchers at times > > >> >> appeared to pressure scientific journals not to publish research by > > >> >> other scientists whose findings they disagreed with." > > > >> >Most scientists have a fair idea of who might be asked to review their > > >> >papers, and adjust the papers to encourage editors to go for the more > > >> >constructive and well-informed of the likely referees. > > > >> >They also have opinions about the kind of work that other people do, > > >> >the reliability of the results that other scientists claim, and the > > >> >quality of the papers that they produce. Some people are bad enough > > >> >that they end up trying to publish in journals on the edges of their > > >> >field, where the editors won't know how untrustworthy they are. > > >> >Personal contacts often mean that they don't get away with it. > > > >> >> Some good stuff here: > > > >> >>http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/com... > > > >> >> " The other paper by MM is just garbage as you knew. De Freitas > > >> >> again. Pielke is also losing all credibility as well by replying to > > >> >> the mad Finn as well frequently as I see it. I cant see either of > > >> >> these papers being in the next IPCC report. K and I will keep them out > > >> >> somehow even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature > > >> >> is ! " > > > >> >Obviously not intended for publication, but why would you ever think > > >> >that because scientists are obliged to publish sober and rational > > >> >arguments, they aren't emotionally involved in their work? > > > >> Because they respect the scientific method? Because they honor truth? > > > >There's no contradiction between emotional involvement and respecting > > >the scientific method. > > > >> I thought they were obliged to publish their actual measured results, > > >> not cherry-picked or outright fudged data. > > > >They are. Adjusting papers to persuade editors to select constructive > > >referees is primarily a matter of choosing the right papers to cite in > > >the introduction of the paper and and in the discusion of the > > >conclusions. > > > >For preferred referees you cite papers for which they are first > > >authors and you try to avoid citing non-preferred referees or a least > > >confine yourself to papers where they aren't first authors. Careful > > >choice of synonyms can also be useful in in directing an editor's > > >thoughts towards the righ referee. > > > >> Apparently not. > > > >Wrong. Cherry-picking and fudging data is a career-wrecking crime, and > > >since such data doesn't replicate when somebody else does the > > >experiment, you have to be an idiot as well as a psychopath to try it. > > > But climate is not subject to experiment. Historically, science has > > tended to be erratic, faddish, and usually wrong until corrected by > > experiment. > > These guys want to replace confirmation by experiment with proof by > correlation. Which they're in a unique position to ensure. Astronomy has had to struggle with exactly the same problem. I presume you also are going to rip down all the observatories and insist that the sun really does go around the earth. > They're the ones with infinite government funding, "Infinite"? >They're the > official interface to and gate-keepers of the raw data, and they're > not letting other people have it. You must be thinking of Roy Spencer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_(scientist) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements "One widely reported satellite temperature record, developed by Roy Spencer and John Christy at the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH), is currently version 5.2 which corrects previous errors in their analysis for orbital drift and other factors. The record comes from a succession of different satellites and problems with inter- calibration between the satellites are important, especially NOAA-9, which accounts for most of the difference between the RSS and UAH analyses [15]. NOAA-11 played a significant role in a 2005 study by Mears et al. identifying an error in the diurnal correction that leads to the 40% jump in Spencer and Christy's trend from version 5.1 to 5.2. [16]" > Why? Because the data do not support their model. It comes a lot closer now that Roy Spencer finally got around to correcting the data for which he was responsible. > That's wrong. It would be wrong, if it were true. In fact the evidence for anthropogenic global warming has been convincing since the ice core data became available in the 1990's and is irrefutable now. The denialists don't seem to have noticed, but Exxon-Mobil and similar interested parties might be less generous with their support if the denialist propaganda machine confined itself to verifiable facts. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen |