Ping Bil Slowman; The global warming hoax reveiled
in [Design]
|
From: Jim Thompson on 2 Dec 2009 12:05 On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 09:03:19 -0800, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 16:29:08 GMT, Jan Panteltje ><pNaonStpealmtje(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >>On a sunny day (Wed, 02 Dec 2009 07:03:57 -0800) it happened John Larkin >><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in >><5a0dh59m47e9og9983fn9316ckrni4jrqt(a)4ax.com>: >> >>>On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 11:54:05 GMT, Jan Panteltje >>><pNaonStpealmtje(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>> >>>>The global warming hoax revealed: >>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html?partner=rss&emc=rss >>>> >>>><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! >>>> >>> >>> >>>537 posts in this thread so far, many over 400 lines, mostly written >>>by people who aren't very good with electronics. >>> >>>Get a life, guys. You'll never be good climatologists. If you work at >>>it, you may aspire to being passable circuit designers. >>> >>>John >> >>So spoke the great master circuit plumber _) > >in sci.electronics.design > >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: Mark Zenier on 2 Dec 2009 00:56 In article <7nb91fF3l1abgU1(a)mid.individual.net>, Joerg <news(a)analogconsultants.com> wrote: >Yeah, your old conspiracy theory. Sigh. http://www.defendingscience.org/Doubt_is_Their_Product.cfm Mark Zenier mzenier(a)eskimo.com Googleproofaddress(account:mzenier provider:eskimo domain:com)
From: Mark Zenier on 2 Dec 2009 00:48 In article <slrnhh1de5.65g.don(a)manx.misty.com>, Don Klipstein <don(a)manx.misty.com> wrote: > > (I have a bit of impression that the location in question is east rim of >the Central Valley ENE of Sacramento - any correction/clarification? >How about elevation? - that may matter in local or regional weather and >climate issues.) (Remembering some trivia from some threads about aiming TV antennas to pick up DTV). http://www.airnav.com/airport/O61 Mark Zenier mzenier(a)eskimo.com Googleproofaddress(account:mzenier provider:eskimo domain:com)
From: Joerg on 2 Dec 2009 12:53 Jon Kirwan wrote: > 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? > No. My message to scientists (which they won't read anyhow ...) is simply this: Look at this, and this, and that, and please explain it to us. For example why Schnidljoch was nearly free of ice. Or why AGW proponent scientists have predicted that the Himalaya glaciers will be mostly gone in 30 years while Russian scientists claimed it'll take ten times that long (no, I don't have that article anymore). I neither have the time nor the scientific background to find out. That's why we taxpayers _pay_ guys that do. They need to do this job, not you and I. > 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? > I don't accuse, I am saying that we should look at additional information outside IPCC. Because I feel that some sort of censoring is going on there. Not sure of the extent but that will (hopefully) come out in the now ongoing investigations. > 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. > It's not me who is accusing, it's scientists whom I took the liberty to quote. I know you probably don't like the guy but we all must keep an open ear, and if it is true what he says in brief here then that would be quite significant: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/30/playing-hide-and-seek-behind-the-trees/ Before you tell me that I haven't spent 2000+ hours researching please note that I said "if" :-) -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM.
From: Joerg on 2 Dec 2009 12:56
Jon Kirwan wrote: > 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? ... Both. > ... 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. > Now that things hit the fan, their arms are twisted and they can't possibly dodge FOI the guys from the other side of the fence will have access and that's a very good thing. So I might be satisfied :-) -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM. |