Ping Bil Slowman; The global warming hoax reveiled
in [Design]
|
From: dagmargoodboat on 1 Dec 2009 18:47 Malcolm Moore <abor1953nee...(a)yahoodagger.co.nz> wrote: > dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > >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." Maybe. But Bill later said he meant France as an example of independence from fossil fuels. So, a fact check as to the extent that independence was entirely appropriate. -- Cheers, James Arthur
From: Joerg on 1 Dec 2009 18:47 Jon Kirwan wrote: > On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 07:45:06 -0800, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> > wrote: > >> Jon Kirwan wrote: >>> On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 17:19:59 -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: [...] >>>>>> In >>>>>> some countries that is considered a criminal act (when you actually >>>>>> delete it) and AFAIR a probe into this has been contemplated by two US >>>>>> congressmen. And I think they are darn right to demand one now. >>>>>> >>>>>> If data really has been deleted in this sense I guess some folks better >>>>>> look for a nice place somewhere where they have no extradition. Maybe >>>>>> Brazil? >>>>>> <snip of more I'll have time for, later> >>>>> I'll admit this to you. The comment I quoted from your web site is >>>>> one of the two things that bothered me. But you really seem to be >>>>> seeing things there I don't, too. So lay this out carefully for me. >>>>> I'd like to see what you see, and what supports it. >>>> Hope I did above :-) >>> Maybe. ;) We'll see. >>> >>>>> Anyway, yes I have a problem with this kind of frank comment. But I >>>>> saw the fuller context. I'd like to know if you went to the actual >>>>> exchanges, yourself, or if all you've done is read some angry summary >>>>> and got angry yourself without taking _your_ time to see for yourself. >>>> Unless you or someone else proves that these emails were faked or pulled >>>> out of some hat then this is very serious. And I hope the two >>>> congressmen who want to have this investigated prevail with their >>>> efforts. The people of this world have a right to get to the ground of this. >>> Oh, I think the emails are real. Though I can't say for sure, of >>> course. Could be doctored. But what I've read through 'looks real' >>> to me. So I tentatively conclude they are. >>> >>> Some of them bother me. But I realize that these people are real >>> humans who have genuine emotions. I take the good with the bad, as I >>> said before. None of us are perfect. >> No, we aren't. However, the style in those emails is something I have >> never ever seen in business. It is a style that I do not like and that >> raises suspicion. > > I'm bothered by some of them, too. But you know? The emails I copied > out are some megabytes in size and cover _some_ interactions of _some_ > people involved. They are a 'random snapshot' of some kind, but also > selective by their very nature. I think if the fuller context were > out there (all emails by all climate scientists) we'd find more, but > still on balance would find serious people working generally hard to > do serious and meaningful work, fairly and honestly. There will be > exceptions, of course. And some will obviously be less professional > and still others will do poor work, as well, that others know about > and snipe on about. But I think the _weight_ of it would be something > to be proud of. > > As I said, though, these are people like you and me. > Granted, many of them will be. But some clearly are not. I am quite concerned when statements like in those emails are coming from people higher up in the pecking order of an organization that is supposed to work for the common good. I have seen it too many times that something leaked from an organization, it was said "oh, it's just very few bad apples" and then an investigation found a huge morass. I hope that's not so in this case but I believe an investigation is most certainly in order at this point. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM.
From: dagmargoodboat on 1 Dec 2009 18:53 On Nov 30, 1:09 pm, Rich Grise <richgr...(a)example.net> wrote: > On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 16:25:18 -0800, Joerg wrote: > > Bill Sloman wrote: > > >> But the ice sheet wasn't growing directly on top of the farm, was it > > > No, but obviously the growing ice pack caused it, didn't it? I have the > > feeling you will not accept any proof and will try to find all sorts of > > excuses and hair in the soup. What's next? Their language wasn't Norwegian > > enough anymore so they don't count? > > Cooking the books:http://www.gocomics.com/chipbok/2009/11/25/ > > Cheers! > Rich Funny! -- Cheers, James Arthur
From: Joerg on 1 Dec 2009 18:58 Jon Kirwan wrote: > On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 08:06:55 -0800, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> > wrote: > >> Jon Kirwan wrote: [...] >>> ... And yes, if Climate Audit gave me an FOI >>> request, I'd probably assume it wasn't because they were serious about >>> applying informed analysis to see if there was a real error (because >>> there is a place and time for that they can already use) but instead >>> because they are "looking for dirt" to use in smearing people. >> An honest climate scientist should not be afraid of dirt. > > I completely disagree with you on this point, Joerg. It shows such > naivety that it is shocking to me. I've already talked about, and you > admitted, that propaganda works on the bulk of the population. There > is no good reason to cooperate in making the job of propagandists > easier. Mud simply sticks. That's the end of it. You don't give > them more ammo to work with, if you can avoid it. > Even just contemplating to skirt the law (by dodging FOIA) is not my understanding of ethical work. But ok, we'll never agree on this one. >>> As you admit earlier here, the McDonald's approach _works_. Just >>> paint an emotion and people are driven like sheep by it. And this >>> technical stuff is beyond their ken, anyway. Or they don't have the >>> time because they have a life, too. So a good smear compaign works >>> wonders. Always has. Always will. And reading through emails is a >>> great way to find some really nice 'sizzle.' The public won't care >>> about the meat, anyway. >>> >> Yep. And I hope those scientists have learned their lesson, that one >> does not write such stuff. >> >> [...] >> >>>>>> <snip> >>>>>>>> Joerg: >>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>> I don't know anything comprehensive about that. So no real opinion >>>>>>> about it. >>>>>> Then I might use your own words: You need to bone up on this stuff. >>>>> No, I don't. If you want to inform me more fully because it is >>>>> important _to you_ that I know about it, that's fine. The mere fact >>>>> that I'm ignorant really means that I don't know everything there is >>>>> to know. But I already knew that. Oh, well. >>>> Now you are contradicting yourself. You told me that I need to dive >>>> deeper into climate science to have an opinion. I told you that you need >>>> to dive deeper into the climate of the past and now suddenly that is wrong? >>> No, I'm just saying I don't know anything about "Schnidljoch." Never >>> even heard of it until I read your words. It does happen to be true >>> that I live a limited life. >> See? Same here. I've got to work to earn a living, then there needs to >> be family time, and volunteer work which I won't sacrifice to study >> reams of climate stuff because then I'd let people down. This is why we >> all must rely on other source we can trust for much of our opinion-building. >> >>>>>> History is very important, and quite well documented because the Romans >>>>>> were sort of perfectionists in this area. Archaeologists always came >>>>>> across as honest and modest folks, at let to me. So when they find >>>>>> evidence I usually believe them. And they did find evidence here, big time. >>>>> I think you are making too much out of far too little. But I don't >>>>> know what you see and perhaps you will be able to walk me through your >>>>> path so that I get it and agree with you. I already said a couple of >>>>> things bother me about the released letters and I've just today >>>>> admitted one of the general areas of that. None of it changes what >>>>> the knowledge I've gained in specific areas where I've spent my time. >>>>> Not in the least. >>>> Schnidljoch is just one example of many, of passes in the Alps that have >>>> been mostly or completely free of ice in the not too distant past (Roman >>>> era). There is proof of that and I have pointed that out, with link. You >>>> can actually go there and look at the stuff they found. Then it got >>>> colder and they became covered in thick ice, became glaciers, >>>> unpassable, uninhabitable. Just like large swaths of Greenland did. Now >>>> the ice begins to melt again and lots of scientists panic ;-) >>>> >>>> [...] >>> Well, I suppose I need you to inform me about all this. ;) >> In a nutshell, this is the story of what happened (a lot of the more >> detailed write-ups are in German): >> >> http://www.oeschger.unibe.ch/about/press_coverage/article_de.html?ID=182 >> >> I can almost here some of the guys from East Anglia exclaim "Oh s..t! >> Why did they have to find this?" ;-) > > I'll look later when I get some time. I probably WON'T get enough > time to form an opinion about it, though. Too busy over the next few > months and I _know_ in advance that it will take me weeks of research > to become comprehensively informed, if not months. I even suspect > _you_ aren't comprehensively informed on this. So maybe I should wait > until you agree with me, jointly, to walk the same walk here and both > become _fully_ informed on this issue before I proceed. Why should I > waste my precious weeks of life, if you aren't willing? > All I want is that AGW folks take this stuff into consideration. I have looked for this because when I read in one AGW-related article that such glacier conditions have never existed in civilized times I remembered details from history classes, about the Romans, and that just didn't jibe. Sure enough, it didn't. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM.
From: Don Klipstein on 1 Dec 2009 18:59
In <dd2039b4-78e6-44d6-8739-a48a3e594e60(a)m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, dagmargoodboat(a)yahoo.com wrote: >On Nov 29, 12:02 am, d...(a)manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote: >> dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote in part: >> >> >Cast aside your irrelevant bile and consider: we're in a 10- >> >year cooling trend. >> >> HadCRUT-3 by year for the most recent 10 full years, from Hadley Centre: >> >> 1999: .339 >> 2000: .360 >> 2001: .381 >> 2002: .401 >> 2003: .418 >> 2004: .424 >> 2005: .420 >> 2006: .404 >> 2007: .383 >> 2008: .360 >> >> UAH TLT V. 5.2, average of 12 monthly figures: >> >> 1999: .041 >> 2000: .036 >> 2001: .201 >> 2002: .289 >> 2003: .277 >> 2004: .195 >> 2005: .314 >> 2006: .263 >> 2007: .284 >> 2008: .050 >> >> I would not go so far as to call this a 10 year cooling trend. > >Thanks Don. I'd heard there was a decade-long cooling trend, but >hadn't checked, not realizing that was controversial. > >Hopefully none of that Had-CRUT data came from Phil Jones' outfit. >Otherwise we have to worry about stuff like this: > >http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/30/playing-hide-and-seek-behind-the-trees/ The CRU in HadCRUT is Climate Reasearch Unit of University of East Anglia. That is one reason why I also showed the least-warming of all 5 major indices of global temperature trend, from Christy and Spencer. - Don Klipstein (don(a)misty.com) |