Driver to drive?

[Jim Yanik]

"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <paul@hovnanian.com> wrote in
news:eqednT3ChK9yZbrWnZ2dnUVZ_uWdnZ2d@posted.isomediainc:

Sylvia Else wrote:

Bill Sloman wrote:
On Dec 11, 12:46 am, Sylvia Else <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote:
Rich Grise wrote:
Found on rec.crafts.metalworking, not crossposted because we all
know what happens when I do that!
----
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 09:13:15 -0600, S. Caro wrote:
Cliff wrote:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j9MrjlmXzORMlHNvYfE..
.
[
1,700 UK scientists back climate science (AP) - 3 hours ago
LONDON - Over 1,700 scientists in Britain have signed a
statement defending the evidence for human-made climate change
in the wake of hacked e-mails that emboldened climate skeptics.
....
Yea, but MY scientists are better than YOUR scientists.
--Over 31,000 U.S. scientists deny man-made global warming--

http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0508/0508gwpetition.htm
----
Cheers!
Rich
Is this a matter that's decided by a majority vote?

Sort of. The mindless majority will keep on burning fossil carbon
and the the earth will count the CO2 molecules and warm up
appropriately. Your grand-children will be able to read the outcome
from their thermometers, if their civilisation still retains the
capacity to build thermometers.

The question I was raising is whether the truth of anthropogenic
global warming (about which I'm expressing no view here) is to be
determined by a vote. That is not how scientific questions are
usually decided.

Sylvia.

The science isn't the issue. Its how it will be used.

I don't totally disagree with some of the hypothesis of AGW. But its
the mechanisms being put into place, and how they are being put there
that bother me.

If AGW is real, to what degree it is occurring, and how resources
should be allocated to solve the problems, should be decided by the
market, to the greatest extent possible. I like systems of 'cap and
trade' being proposed. But I'm bothered by the fact that some of the
carbon credits being proposed for trading based on forest
conservation, for example, are going to have value if those forests
are in third world countries, but not here in the USA. So what is
being proposed is a financial transfer from wealthy economies (like
ours) to the third world. That's welfare, plain and simple. While I'm
not against welfare for the needy, I think we should just call a spade
a spade, hand them cash and be done with it.

Their real problem is poor government.
Kleptocracies,if not outright dictatorships.
Rhodesia used to be the breadbasket of Africa,but then Mugabe came
along....now they're starving,or raiding the bush for "bushmeat".
(endangered or protected animals...)

sending any of them money is just stuffing the pockets of the kleptos.

In one rather perverse sense, paying third world countries to keep
land out of productive use actually falls right into line with what
some of our major corporations, like ADM would prefer. Paying them not
to compete.

1st;
3rd world countries CAN'T compete with the US,Canada,and Australia for
growing food.

But more importantly;
Obama has said publicly that he's all for "redistribution of wealth".

And if you read the bills,there's stuff in there about funding a pot to
distribute to other nations to help them with the effects of AGW and the
economic readjustments.

BTW,I've read that Europe's Cap N Trade system isn't achieving much.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Dec 13, 11:20 am, "APR" <I_Don't_W...@Spam.com> wrote:

"Bill Sloman" <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:14910c77-6d8e-400d-8f58-25a9d4166a83@n35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com....
On Dec 11, 10:31 pm, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 12:18:06 -0800, John Larkin

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/

This is an entertaining exercise in examining raw data.

Bill, have a look at the video in the following link. You can download the
data yourself, from what is supposed to be a most reputable source, and do
your own analysis.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_G_-SdAN04

Doesn't this make a a light come on or are you still in the dark.

I've never bothered enabling youtube on my computer. Being presented
with a bespectacled 12-year-old in the opening sequence isn't exactly
going to motivate me to get around to it..

--
Bill Sloman,

 

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 12:06:03 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Dec 14, 10:41 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 18:38:06 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman





bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Dec 12, 1:24 am, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 15:53:31 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman

bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

SNIP

This would be the insult part of your bluster-and-insult contribution.
Your contributions about the scientific status of anthropogenic global
warming is - of course - the bluster, since you seem to collect it all
from denialist web-sites, rather than coming up with original
nonsense.

Sheesh. This is an engineering group. Engineers can't afford to be
sloppy like climate scientists. They can't afford the sort of politics
seen with the CRU/realclimate team.

You don't seem to have worked on any decent-sized projects.

This was a reference to Ravinghorde, not John Larkin.

John Larkin doesn't seem to have the self-control to take the time to
work out the tree structure of a thread in which he feels that he has
been insulted.

Agent lines up things vertically after a lot of indent levels. But
this is a discussion group.

Well, how _about_ you? Tell us about your biggest projects.

John

 

[Paul Keinanen]

On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 11:17:20 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Dec 16, 1:41 am, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@removethishotmail.com> wrote:
Bill Slomanwrote:
On Dec 11, 12:56 am, Sylvia Else <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote:
The question I was raising is whether the truth of anthropogenic global
warming (about which I'm expressing no view here) is to be determined by
a vote. That is not how scientific questions are usually decided.

True. Scientific questions are usually decided by a concensus of
scientists who have all looked at the question in some detail, and end
up agreeing - give or take a few contarians who won't agree with any
majority, on principle - on the evidence and the arguments.

NO. It's agreed by many scientists performing the same experiment(s) and
validating the results. Of course they can't do that when the IPCC and
CRU won't release the data from the experiments.

Climatologists don't do experiments. It is an observational science,
so they merely collect data. Graham's grasp of science can be judged
by his incapacity to appreciate this trivial point.

At least the hockey stick climatologists do a lot of experiments in
order to find the most suitable time series and experiment with time
series weights to get the expected aggregate result

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Dec 16, 1:37 am, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@removethishotmail.com> wrote:

Bill Slomanwrote:

Sure, the suckers who have fallen for the Exxon-Mobil funded denialist
propaganda seem to be a little more numerous, but they are distinctly
short on good arguments.

Whereas the warmingists have NO valid arguments. At a time of
unprecedented CO2 levels in the atmosphere in recent times, the
temperature has been totally stable for the last 10 years.

Actually, the average global temperature has gone up, but not all that
much.

And yet the
warmingists are screaming "we must do something NOW or the sky will fall
down and the sea will engulf us".

Because we've had short term periods of reduced warming before, and
they do eventually come to an end.

Actually, sea level has droped 2mm in the same time frame as the Ice
Caps continue to GROW ! Yes, the EU satellites say so. That's REAL science.

Care ot post a link to this - slightly incredible - evidence?

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Dec 16, 1:41 am, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@removethishotmail.com> wrote:

Bill Slomanwrote:
On Dec 11, 12:56 am, Sylvia Else <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote:
The question I was raising is whether the truth of anthropogenic global
warming (about which I'm expressing no view here) is to be determined by
a vote. That is not how scientific questions are usually decided.

True. Scientific questions are usually decided by a concensus of
scientists who have all looked at the question in some detail, and end
up agreeing - give or take a few contarians who won't agree with any
majority, on principle - on the evidence and the arguments.

NO. It's agreed by many scientists performing the same experiment(s) and
validating the results. Of course they can't do that when the IPCC and
CRU won't release the data from the experiments.

Climatologists don't do experiments. It is an observational science,
so they merely collect data. Graham's grasp of science can be judged
by his incapacity to appreciate this trivial point.

You are UTTERLY CLUELESS. You don't even understand how science operates.

It's ironic that you would make such a claim.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Dec 16, 1:31 am, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@removethishotmail.com> wrote:

Bill Slomanwrote:
On Dec 11, 12:46 am, Sylvia Else <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote:
Is this a matter that's decided by a majority vote?

Sort of. The mindless majority will keep on burning fossil carbon

So why am I working on an energy saving heating device for all types of
buildings using several various heating methods ? I'll tell you. CO2 is
irrelevant but preserving fuel resources is very important in the long
term. Why waste energy pointlessly ?

My home has just been refurbished, incorporating special wall treatments
that most builders have no knowledge of where possible to reduce heat loss.

and the the earth will count the CO2 molecules and warm up appropriately.

CO2 is IRRRELEVANT.

You'd like to think so. If you'd studied any physics, you'd know
better.

<snip>

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Dec 16, 1:53 am, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@removethishotmail.com> wrote:

Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Fri, 11 Dec 2009 10:46:38 +1100) it happened Sylvia Else
syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote

Is this a matter that's decided by a majority vote?

Sylvia.

Yes, science works that way, you vote for the politicians,
they decide an agenda, and assign scientists to support that agenda.
And the agenda is set by what the Captains of Industry need at that moment,
usually more money.
Purely democratic, as you decide what products you buy from the captains of industry.
wait, lemme read this again, hey...
??
Oh well, it is 1 o'clock at night
Sorry.

Vaclav Klaus (the Czech President who wants to debate AGW with Al Gore
who refuses) spoke at the international conference on climate change in
NY in Mar 2008. He concluded as follows .....

At 08:07 into the vid

" I am afraid that we have to restart discussion about the very nature
of government and the relationship between the individual and society. "

Applause for 9 seconds )

" Now this concerns the whole (of) mankind not just the citizens of one
particular country."

short comment about the inevitable collapse of Communism

" To sum up, it is not about climatology, it's about freedom. This
should be the main message of our conference. "

Ovation

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0oVdGPAZ3A

Dear me. When Al Gore does this, Eeyore gets livid. When some unknown
politicians who shares Graham's delusions does it, Graham is wildly
enthusiastic.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Jon Kirwan]

On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 18:25:27 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Dec 11, 1:26 am, Fred Bartoli <" "> wrote:
Sylvia Else a écrit :

Bill Slomanwrote:
On Dec 11, 12:46 am, Sylvia Else <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote:
Rich Grise wrote:
Found on rec.crafts.metalworking, not crossposted because we all
know what
happens when I do that!
----
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 09:13:15 -0600, S. Caro wrote:
Cliff wrote:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j9MrjlmXzORMlHNvYfE...

[
1,700 UK scientists back climate science (AP) - 3 hours ago
LONDON - Over 1,700 scientists in Britain have signed a statement
defending the evidence for human-made climate change in the wake of
hacked e-mails that emboldened climate skeptics. ....
Yea, but MY scientists are better than YOUR scientists.
--Over 31,000 U.S. scientists deny man-made global warming--
http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0508/0508gwpetition.htm

----
Cheers!
Rich
Is this a matter that's decided by a majority vote?

Sort of. The mindless majority will keep on burning fossil carbon and
the the earth will count the CO2 molecules and warm up appropriately.
Your grand-children will be able to read the outcome from their
thermometers, if their  civilisation still retains the capacity to
build thermometers.

The question I was raising is whether the truth of anthropogenic global
warming (about which I'm expressing no view here) is to be determined by
a vote. That is not how scientific questions are usually decided.

Sylvia.

Right. Here on sed, it's not vote but rather bash.

Sure, the suckers who have fallen for the Exxon-Mobil funded denialist
propaganda seem to be a little more numerous, but they are distinctly
short on good arguments.

Essentially no one (and less than 5% of the internet population) has
any idea what usenet is. They just draw a blank. And only a few of
what remains there even bother with it.

The distribution of opinion in SED is far from representing the public
at large on anything, let alone this subject. Worse, essentially zero
posters in SED have done so much as to comprehensively inform
themselves on even the smallest ledge of any of climate science --
modern or ancient -- and I can't recall a single serious discussion
here over a single peer-reviewed climate science paper, let alone done
with understanding of the material. As such, the opinions here are
worth no more than a random roll of a thousand-sided die. Being more
than a little generous about it.

Some people here like to talk about people they know. For example,
Jörg mentions his own neighbors' opinions, which are quite different
from my own. But I'm also a Precinct Committee Person (elected
official of the lowest order) who travels around my district and talks
with families. My own experience is quite different than Jörg's. None
of which means much. Our districts may simply be quite different and
that's all it may mean. But opinions here are a measure of nothing
more than opinions here.

I know no naysayer here will dares, but I'd suggest that we discuss,
without ad hominem and engaging only the methods, source materials,
and conclusions in a serious way, of "Nonlinear threshold behavior
during the loss of Arctic sea ice," by I. Eisenmana and J. S.
Wettlauferb, 2009. There's a few partials, boundary conditions, and
diff eqs, plus references to papers going back to at least 1969 ("The
effect of solar radiation variations on the climate of the earth," M.
I. Budyko, 1969, for example) and it would require some small effort
and study by anyone here wishing to intelligently discuss it. It
includes its development of the math in the SI Appendix and the main
article segues with a very simple and basic understanding of a
bistable state and a mathematical bifurcation surface. But it is
recent, relevant, and I sincerely doubt any but a very few naysayers
here can begin to understand the math involved, simple as it really
is. Let alone discuss the implications with any care and sincere
engagement. There's plenty to attack, much of it already discussed in
the paper; more to research; and yet much that is still said of
importance. The training required to understand that paper is modest
and nothing even close to what is required for atmospheric and oceanic
fluid dynamics. It's 5th grader child's play, by comparison. Which
pretty much puts the dunce cap on most of the naysaying posters here.
They can't even approach the work. So all they do is ignorantly rant.

In case there is a taker of a sincere, informed and comprehensive
discussion, the paper is freely available here:

http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~ian/publications/Eisenman-Wettlaufer-2009-incl-SI.pdfSee
One of the earliest referenced papers, by the above paper, is also
available here:

http://www.math.umn.edu/~mcgehee/Seminars/ClimateChange/references/Budyko1969Tellus21p611-Albedo.pdf

There are others, of course, and some will have to be gotten by
requesting them from the authors. But that's what a serious
discussion entails, doesn't it?

I have NO respect for those here willing to espouse firm name-calling
directed at _all_ climate scientists as a group, unless they are
willing to do the necessary work for their opinions. And I've yet to
see the slightest shred of that willingness.

Says a great deal to me about their own lack of self-respect, not to
mention credibility.

Jon

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Dec 16, 1:24 am, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@removethishotmail.com> wrote:

Sylvia Else wrote:

Is this a matter that's decided by a majority vote?

As I have often mentioned, early consensus in science is almost
invariably WRONG. Even scientists will jump to conclusions too easily
before examining the actual evidence more closely.

Graham could usefully examine the history of global warming for
evidence of this kind of behaviour. The data has been unambiguous for
a few decades now, but - if you go back far enough - you can find
people (now dead) who shared some of Graham delusions,

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Dec 16, 1:22 am, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@removethishotmail.com> wrote:

Rich Grise wrote:
Found on rec.crafts.metalworking, not crossposted because we all know what
happens when I do that!
----
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 09:13:15 -0600, S. Caro wrote:
Cliff wrote:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j9MrjlmXzORMlHNvYfE....
[
1,700 UK scientists back climate science (AP) - 3 hours ago

LONDON - Over 1,700 scientists in Britain have signed a statement
defending the evidence for human-made climate change in the wake of
hacked e-mails that emboldened climate skeptics. ....

Yea, but MY scientists are better than YOUR scientists.

--Over 31,000 U.S. scientists deny man-made global warming--

http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0508/0508gwpetition.htm

I think you'll find the UK has more than 1700 'scientists' whatever they
are.

A recent Daily Mail poll showed just 13% of their readers believed in
AGW, down from ~ 30% a few months back.

Which tells us all we need to know about Daily Mail readers.

'Climategate' is going to kill AGW. I intend to email the University in
question to 'quarantine' the CRU and call in a Police IT Forensics team.

Climategate is going to go away as soon as Copenhagen is over. It is
obviously a propaganda stunt, and the denialism machine will stop
puffing it as soon as the climate falls off the front pages.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[RichD]

On Dec 16, "zzbun...@netscape.net" <zzbun...@netscape.net> wrote:

If Isaac Newton were alive today, 30 years old,
what would he be doing?

   Well, for calculus idiots, it may be more
enlightening what he wouldn't be doing.
   He wouldn't be working on Laser Disks, Blue Ray,
HDTV, Home Broadband, mp3, mpeg, muliplexed fiber
optics, Digital Books, Atomic Clock Wristwatches

 He wouldn't be working on PGP, Microcomputers,
 GPS, Digital Terrain Mapping, Post 1900 Cell Phones,
  He wouldn't be working on Post Cambridge-nomics,
All-In-One Printers, and Rapid Prototying.

 He wouldn't be working Laser-Guided Phasors,
Holograms, Self-Replicating Machines,
Self-Assembling Robots, Cyber Batteries, and Post
Gutenburg Publishing,

  He wouldn't be working on Hybid-Electric Energy,
Microwave Cooling, and Post Ferro E-M.

Why not?

--
Rich

 

[Raveninghorde]

On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 15:32:13 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Dec 13, 11:43 am, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 19:37:46 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman





bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Dec 11, 10:31 pm, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 12:18:06 -0800, John Larkin

For one example of a trick see:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/

This is an entertaining exercise in examining raw data. The author
obviously didn't ask anybody why the Darwin temperature records might
have needed to be adjusted, or why they seemed to be a bit odd in
1941.

Most Australians would have been able to explain why records don't
look too good in 1941.

http://www.cultureandrecreation.gov.au/articles/darwinbombing/

Had the author gone as far as running a Google search on "Darwin 1941"
he would have found this item right at the
top of the list.

Japanese bombs do happen to be a slightly more credible explanation
than the one the author seems to fancy, but they don't happen to
generate anything like the same number of conspiracy theory brownie
points, so he didn't bother to search hard enough to find this
tolerably salient explanation.

Bill, you got me there and it shows my ignorance of the science.
Please explain the temporal mechanics.

There was a war on. Weather observations do tend to get disrupted when
this happens, even before the enemy starts dropping bombs - as
happened on the 14th Feburary 1942

None of this reflects on the contents of the article and the war is a
red herring.

Japanese bombs in 1942 following Pearl Harbor in December 1941 means a
temperature correction is needed before the boming happened. And this
bombing caused:  "The temperature dropped over a six year period, from
a high in 1936 to a low in 1941. The station did move in 1941 but
what happened in the previous six years?"

The usual natural variation?

Note the temperature measurment site moved in 1941, before the
bombing, from the bombed Post Office to the airport.

SNIP

Now the Russians are accusing the Hadley Centre of cherry picking only
the warm stations from Russia.

http://en.rian.ru/papers/20091216/157260660.html

/quote

Climategate has already affected Russia. On Tuesday, the Moscow-based
Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the
Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the
British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably
tampered with Russian-climate data.

The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not
substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory.

Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the
country's territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data
submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports.

Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature
calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of
meteorological stations and observations.

The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate
Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any
substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st
century.

The HadCRUT database includes specific stations providing incomplete
data and highlighting the global-warming process, rather than stations
facilitating uninterrupted observations.

On the whole, climatologists use the incomplete findings of
meteorological stations far more often than those providing complete
observations.

IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in
large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming
effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations.

The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature
distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the world's land mass.
The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature
data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration.

/end quote

 

[Raveninghorde]

On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 10:42:49 -0800, Rich Grise <richgrise@example.net>
wrote:

On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 10:46:38 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote:
Rich Grise wrote:

--Over 31,000 U.S. scientists deny man-made global warming--

http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0508/0508gwpetition.htm

Is this a matter that's decided by a majority vote?

If it involves ripping off millions of wage-earners to transfer funds to
the parasite class (which cap & tax does), then absolutely!

In fact, it should be a 2/3 majority or unanimous, which a simple majority
isn't.

Hope This Helps!
Rich

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2009/12/vast-nexus-of-influence.html

/quotes

Bearing in mind that the issue is based on the central deception that
the life-giving gas carbon dioxide is a "pollutant", behind the push
to create this multi-trillion dollar industry is a vast nexus of
influence, at or near the heart of which – it is emerging – is the
chairman of the UN's IPCC, Dr Rajendra Kumar Pachauri.

Carefully cultivating the image of the concerned "scientist", he has
on the back of the global warming hype not only been able to amass a
considerable personal fortune (about which he is extraordinarily shy)
but has also built a powerful global organisation under the brand-name
"TERI", as the front for his lobbying and power-broking activities.



With Dr Pachauri as its president, it is being headed by a United
Nations official, supposedly an impartial public servant, in charge of
advising government on climate change. What is stunning, therefore, is
to see the number of oganisations which are paying fees (sponsorship)
to Pachauri's Washington operation.

US readers, for instance, might be intrigued to learn that their tax
dollars take a four-way hit. No less than four US government agencies
pay into Pachauri's pot, the US Agency for International Development,
the US Department of Energy and US Environment Protection Agency. plus
the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, a US Department of Energy National
Laboratory, which also pays a contribution.

/end quotes

 

[Raveninghorde]

On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 22:46:54 +0000, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
<dirk.bruere@gmail.com> wrote:

Rich Grise wrote:
Found on rec.crafts.metalworking, not crossposted because we all know what
happens when I do that!
----
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 09:13:15 -0600, S. Caro wrote:
Cliff wrote:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j9MrjlmXzORMlHNvYfE9yAlgtiBwD9CGDL281
[
1,700 UK scientists back climate science (AP) - 3 hours ago

LONDON - Over 1,700 scientists in Britain have signed a statement
defending the evidence for human-made climate change in the wake of
hacked e-mails that emboldened climate skeptics. ....

Yea, but MY scientists are better than YOUR scientists.

--Over 31,000 U.S. scientists deny man-made global warming--

http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0508/0508gwpetition.htm
----

Cheers!
Rich


And one anonymous scientist told a reporter that they felt they would
get no more work if they did not sign.

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/12/14/scientists-say-trust-us.html

/quote

Here's an interesting thing though - people who didn't sign it:

* Phil Jones
* Keith Briffa
* Bob Watson
* Andrew Watson
* Mike Hulme
* Tim Osborn

Some people might say that it's remarkable that some of the most
prominent climatologists in the country failed to sign a statement of
confidence in climatology.

Or perhaps they know something that the rest of us merely suspect.

Then again, maybe they were busy on other things.

/end quote

 

[Raveninghorde]

On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 21:51:02 +0000, Raveninghorde
<raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 10:42:49 -0800, Rich Grise <richgrise@example.net
wrote:

On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 10:46:38 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote:
Rich Grise wrote:

--Over 31,000 U.S. scientists deny man-made global warming--

http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0508/0508gwpetition.htm

Is this a matter that's decided by a majority vote?

If it involves ripping off millions of wage-earners to transfer funds to
the parasite class (which cap & tax does), then absolutely!

In fact, it should be a 2/3 majority or unanimous, which a simple majority
isn't.

Hope This Helps!
Rich

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2009/12/vast-nexus-of-influence.html

/quotes

Bearing in mind that the issue is based on the central deception that
the life-giving gas carbon dioxide is a "pollutant", behind the push
to create this multi-trillion dollar industry is a vast nexus of
influence, at or near the heart of which – it is emerging – is the
chairman of the UN's IPCC, Dr Rajendra Kumar Pachauri.

Carefully cultivating the image of the concerned "scientist", he has
on the back of the global warming hype not only been able to amass a
considerable personal fortune (about which he is extraordinarily shy)
but has also built a powerful global organisation under the brand-name
"TERI", as the front for his lobbying and power-broking activities.



With Dr Pachauri as its president, it is being headed by a United
Nations official, supposedly an impartial public servant, in charge of
advising government on climate change. What is stunning, therefore, is
to see the number of oganisations which are paying fees (sponsorship)
to Pachauri's Washington operation.

US readers, for instance, might be intrigued to learn that their tax
dollars take a four-way hit. No less than four US government agencies
pay into Pachauri's pot, the US Agency for International Development,
the US Department of Energy and US Environment Protection Agency. plus
the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, a US Department of Energy National
Laboratory, which also pays a contribution.

/end quotes

Even better (as in worse)

Big UK steel works closed.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6798052/What-links-the-Copenhagen-conference-with-the-steelworks-closing-in-Redcar.html

/quotes

One of Corus's prizes was the Redcar steel works, once Europe's
largest blast furnace. It is this which is now to be mothballed,
according to Corus because of worldwide "over-production". But this is
transparently not the case, since its new owner, Tata, is planning to
more than double its steel production in India over the next three
years. Furthermore, only last month Corus announced plans to build a
20 million euro plant in the Netherlands, with the help of 15 million
euros from the EU and 5 million euros from the Dutch government.


The real gain to Corus from stopping production at Redcar, however, is
the saving it will make on its carbon allowances, allocated by the EU
under its Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). By ceasing to emit a
potential six million tonnes of CO2 a year, Corus will benefit from
carbon allowances which could soon, according to European Commission
projections, be worth up to Ł600 million over the three years before
current allocations expire.


Thus, at the end of the day, Redcar will lose its biggest employer and
one of the largest manufacturing plants left in Britain. Tata, having
gained up to Ł1.2 billion from "carbon credits", will get its new
steel plants – while the net amount of CO2 emitted worldwide will not
have been reduced a jot.


Dr Pachauri's other main job, apart from being chairman of the IPCC,
is as director-general of the Tata Energy Research Institute, funded
by Tata, which he has run since 1981.

He may not benefit in any way personally from Tata's exploitation of
the various carbon trading schemes set up to implement the 1997 Kyoto
Protocol, but it is the IPCC which provides the recommendations which
drive those schemes, Last year, on official figures, buying and
selling the right to emit CO2 was worth $126 billion across the world.
/end quotes

 

[Raveninghorde]

On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 14:43:01 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Dec 16, 3:25 am, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 12:06:03 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman





bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Dec 14, 10:41 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 18:38:06 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman

bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Dec 12, 1:24 am, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 15:53:31 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman

bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

SNIP

This would be the insult part of your bluster-and-insult contribution.
Your contributions about the scientific status of anthropogenic global
warming is - of course - the bluster, since you seem to collect it all
from denialist web-sites, rather than coming up with original
nonsense.

Sheesh. This is an engineering group. Engineers can't afford to be
sloppy like climate scientists. They can't afford the sort of politics
seen with the CRU/realclimate team.

You don't seem to have worked on any decent-sized projects.

This was a reference to Ravinghorde, not John Larkin.

John Larkin doesn't seem to have the self-control to take the time to
work out the tree structure of a thread in which he feels that he has
been insulted.

Agent lines up things vertically after a lot of indent levels.

But you still managed to ignore the line

"> >> >On Dec 12, 1:24 am, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid
wrote:"


But this is a discussion group.

Which excuses you from having to think about what you are responding
to?

Well, how _about_ you? Tell us about your biggest projects.

I've got only one big project going on at the moment - getting a new
aortic valve. It doesn't call for much creative input on my part, but
does require a certain amount of showing up at the local hospitals and
putting up with stuff, which can be distracting.

As John says this is a discussion group.

But to answer your question to me:

I don't do big projects. I do niche projects. My kit ends up world
wide with people such as US Army, China Telecom, NASA, IBM, Thales and
that's current production of my designs.

And my 168 LED light bulb which I posted on ABSE came second in a
technical evaluation by big oil. So I'm not yet a shill.

 

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 14:43:01 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Dec 16, 3:25 am, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 12:06:03 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman





bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Dec 14, 10:41 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 18:38:06 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman

bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Dec 12, 1:24 am, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 15:53:31 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman

bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

SNIP

This would be the insult part of your bluster-and-insult contribution.
Your contributions about the scientific status of anthropogenic global
warming is - of course - the bluster, since you seem to collect it all
from denialist web-sites, rather than coming up with original
nonsense.

Sheesh. This is an engineering group. Engineers can't afford to be
sloppy like climate scientists. They can't afford the sort of politics
seen with the CRU/realclimate team.

You don't seem to have worked on any decent-sized projects.

This was a reference to Ravinghorde, not John Larkin.

John Larkin doesn't seem to have the self-control to take the time to
work out the tree structure of a thread in which he feels that he has
been insulted.

Agent lines up things vertically after a lot of indent levels.

But you still managed to ignore the line

"> >> >On Dec 12, 1:24 am, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid
wrote:"


But this is a discussion group.

Which excuses you from having to think about what you are responding
to?

Pretty much yes. I don't need to be careful about things that don't
matter.

Well, how _about_ you? Tell us about your biggest projects.

I've got only one big project going on at the moment - getting a new
aortic valve. It doesn't call for much creative input on my part, but
does require a certain amount of showing up at the local hospitals and
putting up with stuff, which can be distracting.

As expected; all hat, no horse.

John

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Dec 16, 9:08 pm, Paul Keinanen <keina...@sci.fi> wrote:

On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 11:17:20 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman





bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Dec 16, 1:41 am, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@removethishotmail.com> wrote:
Bill Slomanwrote:
On Dec 11, 12:56 am, Sylvia Else <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote:
The question I was raising is whether the truth of anthropogenic global
warming (about which I'm expressing no view here) is to be determined by
a vote. That is not how scientific questions are usually decided.

True. Scientific questions are usually decided by a concensus of
scientists who have all looked at the question in some detail, and end
up agreeing - give or take a few contarians who won't agree with any
majority, on principle - on the evidence and the arguments.

NO. It's agreed by many scientists performing the same experiment(s) and
validating the results. Of course they can't do that when the IPCC and
CRU won't release the data from the experiments.

Climatologists don't do experiments. It is an observational science,
so they merely collect data. Graham's grasp of science can be judged
by his incapacity to appreciate this trivial point.

At least the hockey stick climatologists do a lot of  experiments in
order to find the most suitable time series and experiment with time
series weights to get the expected aggregate result

It's called understanding your data, rather than doing experiments.
The distinction is that experiments produce new data, analyses merely
produce a clearer comprehension of what the data means (if you are
lucky).

You may not have noticed that the historical climatologists have
started mining long-lived arctic lake sediments for new data

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091019162929.htm

which still seems to produce teh same hockey stick curves.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Dec 16, 3:25 am, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 12:06:03 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman





bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Dec 14, 10:41 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 18:38:06 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman

bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Dec 12, 1:24 am, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 15:53:31 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman

bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

SNIP

This would be the insult part of your bluster-and-insult contribution.
Your contributions about the scientific status of anthropogenic global
warming is - of course - the bluster, since you seem to collect it all
from denialist web-sites, rather than coming up with original
nonsense.

Sheesh. This is an engineering group. Engineers can't afford to be
sloppy like climate scientists. They can't afford the sort of politics
seen with the CRU/realclimate team.

You don't seem to have worked on any decent-sized projects.

This was a reference to Ravinghorde, not John Larkin.

John Larkin doesn't seem to have the self-control to take the time to
work out the tree structure of a thread in which he feels that he has
been insulted.

Agent lines up things vertically after a lot of indent levels.

But you still managed to ignore the line

"> >> >On Dec 12, 1:24 am, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid>
wrote:"

But this is a discussion group.

Which excuses you from having to think about what you are responding
to?

Well, how _about_ you? Tell us about your biggest projects.

I've got only one big project going on at the moment - getting a new
aortic valve. It doesn't call for much creative input on my part, but
does require a certain amount of showing up at the local hospitals and
putting up with stuff, which can be distracting.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen