Ping Bil Slowman; The global warming hoax reveiled
in [Design]
|
From: Jim Thompson on 1 Dec 2009 22:38 On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 19:30:17 -0800, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 17:27:17 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman ><bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >>On Dec 2, 12:47�am, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: >>> 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. >> >>Huh? I don't remember saying that. The point was that France gets a a >>substantial proportion of its energy from nuclear power stations, >>while Jan seemed to be saying that everything is powered by burning >>fossil carbon. >> >>>�So, a fact check as to the extent >>> that independence was entirely appropriate. >> >>Except that it wasn't a fact check at all, but the usual debating >>trick of framing things to suit your own point of view, delivered >>with the usual sanctimonious bombast. > >Your off-topic ratio must be literally around 99%. Your >offensive-to-friendly ratio is similar. > >Why? > >John I'm puzzled! Is there some orgasmic result from feeding trolls? If not, WHY do you keep doing it? ...Jim Thompson -- | James E.Thompson, CTO | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
From: Jon Kirwan on 2 Dec 2009 03:57 On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 15:41:58 -0800, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >Jon Kirwan wrote: >> On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 06:50:40 -0800, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> >> wrote: >> >>> But I would not brush them off. >> >> Yes, you would, I think. > >After an initial request? Never. If I _knew_ the source and motivation (such as Climate Audit), I might. Again, perhaps you are better than I am here. >> I've posted _here_ in this group, perhaps some years back, very >> specific sources. Others (in particular, Rich), simply ignored them >> and still kicked sand at me. > >VERY different. I haven't kicked sand at them in my requests. Just >politely asked. Just like the guy who asked me about a publication of >mine, stating that he didn't understand the math behind it. I swallowed >hard and wrote a letter back (no email back then), explaining it. >Nowadays I could have sent him a link. He sent me a thank you note back >and that he'd shared it with his group, and that now the others also >understood. All guys in the first semester ... I frankly don't know every circumstance. You can talk about yours and I perhaps I may agree with you... But we don't have the letters here to examine and I think you said you felt it would be inappropriate to post them, so we are stuck on that point. Without the facts in evidence, all I have are your feelings about it -- which I grant your right to have. But I cannot come to an independent view on it. So there we are. (My experiences don't leave me feeling as you have from yours. And I suspect I have had more interactions than you, each with a change to expose to me the kind of problems you are talking about... without doing so. So I shake my head, is all.) If you can post what you wrote and the responses, then perhaps I could see what you saw. But that's not in the cards, I gather. >> At some point, you just stop wasting your time, Joerg. One does have >> a life. And if others can't even be bothered to act on generously >> offered time and effort _and_ references to go look for themselves, >> I'm pretty sure that it becomes _reasonable_ to just stop wasting your >> breath until the other side shows you they are willing to work. >> >> I've stopped posting here on the subject for that very reason. I have >> a life, you know? And if others can't be bothered, then neither can >> I. >> >> It's rational behavior, taken in context. > >True. However, you and I are just regular engineers. When it's someone >working on the taxpayer nickel it is slightly different. And that's >exactly why I think FOIA is an excellent tool. We needed that. Well, I think the FOI request process is one of many potentially good tools. And I've seen administrations act illegally in my view to block them. And I've seen them literally use a shredder late into the night (and get caught at it) destroying documents that would have otherwise been revealed by one, as well. I would hope scientists rise above that kind of behavior. But if you found a few that seriously considered acting poorly, neither would it shock me. Jon
From: Jon Kirwan on 2 Dec 2009 03:57 On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 15:47:48 -0800, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >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. I'll leave it here. I don't know what you'd hope to achieve, either way. An investigation to investigate what, exactly? The people or the science? If the people, I suspect you will have it -- there is no escaping that some folks in positions of power will use the event and others will provide cover for themselves by staying out of the way. If the science, then it will be active climate scientists who must do that. And I don't think you will be satisfied there. Jon
From: Bill Sloman on 2 Dec 2009 04:12 On Dec 1, 12:32 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On a sunny day (Mon, 30 Nov 2009 17:42:42 -0800 (PST)) it happenedBill Sloman > <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote in > <7139b36e-0c66-44fa-9532-02a046bf8...(a)b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>: > > >> 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. > > The general impression greenies leave is this: > Save the birds, the bugs, the fish, anything except humans. > Stop all energy production and industrialisation. > Live like a bird in nature but grass shack will do, but be careful not to step on the grass. > > Did not you notice? I can't say that I have noticed anything of the sort. School children and pop-stars might say things like that, but I don't have any contact with Dutch school children, and don't read the kinds of papers that report what pop-stars have to say. Can you point to an example of this kind of program? Granting your capacity to extract "general impressions" that don't have much to do with reality, I'd like better evidence than your "general impression". -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Jon Kirwan on 2 Dec 2009 04:18
On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 15:58:34 -0800, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >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. I didn't say "ethical." Don't change the goal posts on me in the middle of a run. I am talking about you recommend that "an honest climate scientist should not be afraid of dirt." The reality of the science and effectiveness of propaganda in an era of sound bites and images and a near complete lack of factual content is manifest. In a perfect world, I'd agree. We don't live in 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. Read your comments here, again. But do so from the point of view of someone outside of you. I am staying on target about gaining a fully comprehensive view before deciding on the basis of some very sparse points you cleave onto, that there is systemic, cross-discipline perfidy going on in climate research. Do you realize the grand sweep of your accusations -- the sheer and unbridled magnitude of them? And based upon what, exactly? Some article you read and some history class or two? And unwilling to actually dig fully into it? Is that it? And you don't feel the need to engage _any_ facet fully, but would instead prefer to simply keep your beliefs on this wan basis rather than perhaps go the extra mile? I honestly have NO IDEA at all where your point will take me. I might conclude exactly as you seem so eager and willing to conclude, after we get through it in detail -- perhaps a few months from now. And I'm willing to track down appropriate individuals, share communications with you and them, and see where it takes you and me without preconceptions -- because I have none, being completely ignorant right now. And even then, you aren't willing to put in effort (seemingly happy if I do, but not if you do) and would prefer to simply remain with an accusatory finger pointed outward? You have the right to control your time, Joerg. And I respect that choice. But I don't know what to say, really, to an accusation where the accuser isn't willing to do their due diligence first. I will simply have to wait until you feel ready, I suppose, if ever. Let me know. I'd probably enjoy the experience. Jon |