Ping Bil Slowman; The global warming hoax reveiled
in [Design]
|
From: Jon Kirwan on 2 Dec 2009 17:16 On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 09:56:35 -0800, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >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. :) I suspect one will happen, but not the other. >> ... 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 :-) Well, lawyers will have fun. But the communications will probably go as you expected, now that yet another object lesson has been learned -- they will use phone calls and private, out-of-band communications. If I were active in this field, aware as I am of the divisiveness and disingenuous behavior that surrounds these activities, I'd be exclusively using public-key encryption and phone conversations for anything other than official communications and publishable works and regularly using disk-scrubbing (or a ball-peened hammer to beat it to death) on my hard disks, routinely. Regarding personal communications with my defenses down and being frank with others, I'd act like I was asked to act when working for Lockheed on highly specialized secret projects -- things go in to a room or computer, but absolutely nothing leaves without being turned to dust and useless rubble. Period. Jon
From: Jan Panteltje on 2 Dec 2009 17:29 On a sunny day (Thu, 03 Dec 2009 10:35:24 +1300) it happened Malcolm Moore <abor1953needle(a)yahoodagger.co.nz> wrote in <08mdh5lafs2v2f5fhervp7np5mnmmgsn2q(a)4ax.com>: >On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 12:01:48 GMT, Jan Panteltje ><pNaonStpealmtje(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >>On a sunny day (Tue, 1 Dec 2009 17:27:17 -0800 (PST)) it happened Bill Sloman >><bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote in >><6a65fb45-1d30-40e4-a3ad-88c318eb0f31(a)k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>: >> >>>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. >> >>I never said that, and I was the one who made the case for nuclear power. >>You are starting to be a twising lier, just like your fellow warmists. > >You posted a lie here the other day when you forwarded a post from >us.politics describing someone as a professor when they certainly >aren't. I corrected you here on sed. I did not see your correction. >Have you posted back to us.politics pointing out this error? If not >why not? Do you condone lies from your side of the debate? It is not really that important, if he is prof or not, as it does not change global temperature now or in the future. > >-- >Regards >Malcolm >Remove sharp objects to get a valid e-mail address > >
From: Jon Kirwan on 2 Dec 2009 17:38 On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 09:53:20 -0800, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >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. The IPCC is not the be-all and end-all. Others have said so in this group, so have I. The United States, itself, has at least three separate agencies doing their own investigations of the peer reviewed literature (not to mention reviewing grant proposals and making funding decisions well before any results are to be had) and they have each come to similar conclusions -- but on their own. And the US isn't the only country funding groups doing that. >> 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" :-) Okay. I think my main point here is that to remind you of something you already know -- becoming sufficiently informed to say much at all takes lots of effort. Just as it does for an engineer before they can offer clients practical and realistic advice or produce successful product designs. I'm sure you'd feel much as I would if some wildcat without any training, experience, study and reading, or even serious hobby experience started hanging out their shield to the public as an electronics engineer or a PE. Those who clearly have no personal investment of their own time, practical work, and education can certainly run around dissenting in public about electronics designers or perhaps their willingness to collude with those in power to fleece the ill-informed public of their hard earned money, for example. But it would be somewhat painful for you to stand by and watch, I'd suppose. You know yourself and you know that you are a fair-minded person and a capable one. You might want to suggest that they spend a little time with you, walk in your shoes... if you were being gentle about it and cared about them. You might be a bit more abrupt, in other circumstances. I'm willing to spend time... my time. And it's not easy to say that, because I value it highly. It would affect my life, my kids, and family. But for you, yes. But you have to be willing to reciprocate. Otherwise, it's unfair. And I think you understand that fact. We'll leave it there. Jon
From: Joerg on 2 Dec 2009 17:51 Jon Kirwan wrote: > On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 09:56:35 -0800, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> > wrote: > >> Jon Kirwan wrote: >>> On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 15:47:48 -0800, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Jon Kirwan wrote: [...] >>>>> 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. > > :) I suspect one will happen, but not the other. > I suspect the same as you. But at least I hope someone tries to find out whether or not data has been "cooked". >>> ... 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 :-) > > Well, lawyers will have fun. But the communications will probably go > as you expected, now that yet another object lesson has been learned > -- they will use phone calls and private, out-of-band communications. > > If I were active in this field, aware as I am of the divisiveness and > disingenuous behavior that surrounds these activities, I'd be > exclusively using public-key encryption and phone conversations for > anything other than official communications and publishable works and > regularly using disk-scrubbing (or a ball-peened hammer to beat it to > death) on my hard disks, routinely. > > Regarding personal communications with my defenses down and being > frank with others, I'd act like I was asked to act when working for > Lockheed on highly specialized secret projects -- things go in to a > room or computer, but absolutely nothing leaves without being turned > to dust and useless rubble. Period. > Except that you can't work like at Lockheed when in a taxpayer-funded ivory tower. Sure, one can use phones or at least private email. There have to be meeting minutes and all sorts of other traceable things. I've worked in medical most of my life and there you cannot hide a thing. And I never did. For example, if an FDA probe would find an email answer to an issue but the email with the questions is nowhere to be found da big red flag would be raised. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM.
From: John Fields on 2 Dec 2009 18:20
On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 21:50:17 -0800, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 08:09:09 -0600, John Fields ><jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > >>On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 17:59:33 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman >><bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote: >> >>>On Nov 28, 4:19�pm, John Fields <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: >>>> On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 10:44:15 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >>>> >On Nov 28, 4:44�am, John Fields <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: >>>> >> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 03:07:11 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman >>>> >>>> >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >>>> >> >On Nov 26, 8:33�pm, John Fields <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: >>>> >> >> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 09:36:14 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman >>>> >>>> >> >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >>>> >> >> >It is a pity that I got it wrong. Peer review would probably have >>>> >> >> >prevented this. >>>> >>>> >> >> >James Arthur happens to be wrong - his concurrence doesn't create a >>>> >> >> >concensus, which in practice is confined to the opinions of people who >>>> >> >> >know what they are talking about. >>>> >>>> >> >> --- >>>> >> >> Then nothing you post would lead to the creation of a consensus. >>>> >>>> >> >Certainly not to a concensus of which you'd form a part. >>>> >>>> >> --- >>>> >> I'd certainly keep it from becoming a consensus by showing you up for >>>> >> the fraud you are. >>>> >>>> >There you go again. I'm not a fraud, but you are too ignorant and dumb >>>> >to get to grips with the evidnece that makes this obvious to the >>>> >better equipped. >>>> >>>> --- >>>> As is typical with frauds, instead of honestly addressing the issues >>>> causing contention, trying to resolve them amicably, and taking your >>>> lumps when you deserve them, you resort to invective in order to try to >>>> silence your critics. >>> >>>John Fields has learned the word 'amicable". It is sad that he shows >>>no evidence of knowing what it means. >> >>--- >>Really? >> >>I get along quite well with almost everybody here, while you, with your >>neverending pomposity and penchant for using deception to foment discord >>seem to have trouble getting along with _anybody_. >>--- >> >>><snipped the usual rubbish> >> >>--- >>Of course... >> >>Pretend what you can't counter is worthless. >> >> >>JF > >And believe it or not i like and respect John Fields, Jim Thompson, >Michael Terrell, Vladimir Vassilevsk, Jeorg, Jan P., Don K., James >Arthur, Spehro, Martin Brown, Nico Cosel, Phil Hobbs, Frank Buss, >Dimiter Popov, and many more. --- Thank you very much! :-) JF |