F
Fred Bartoli
Guest
Sylvia Else a écrit :
--
Thanks,
Fred.
Right. Here on sed, it's not vote but rather bash.
--
Thanks,
Fred.
M
Martin Riddle
Guest
"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:0159d5a6$0$11364$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
Cheers
news:0159d5a6$0$11364$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
Well its 51 to 49% so global warming must be happening furshure.
Cheers
J
John Larkin
Guest
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 10:46:38 +1100, Sylvia Else
<sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:
John
<sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:
Science used to rely on experiment.
John
B
Bill Sloman
Guest
On Dec 11, 12:56 am, Sylvia Else <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote:
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.
This happened a while ago with anthropogenic global warming, and the
current furore is simply the fossil carbon extraction industry trying
to cast doubt on the scientific process and its conclusions.
Since the interesting question with anthropogenic global warming isn't
whether it is real - it is - but what we are going to do about it,
which necessarily involves politics and thus voting. My response
addressed that question.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
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.
This happened a while ago with anthropogenic global warming, and the
current furore is simply the fossil carbon extraction industry trying
to cast doubt on the scientific process and its conclusions.
Since the interesting question with anthropogenic global warming isn't
whether it is real - it is - but what we are going to do about it,
which necessarily involves politics and thus voting. My response
addressed that question.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
B
Bill Sloman
Guest
On Dec 11, 1:26 am, Fred Bartoli <" "> wrote:
propaganda seem to be a little more numerous, but they are distinctly
short on good arguments.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
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.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
B
Bill Sloman
Guest
On Dec 11, 3:04 am, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
evolutionary experiments.
John Larkins opinions about science are at best superficial, and often
quite wrong - as here.
I'd like to find a cheerful and supportive way of saying this, but I
can't think of one. Suggestions would be welcome.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
Newton's astronomical experiments are famous, as are Darwin's
evolutionary experiments.
John Larkins opinions about science are at best superficial, and often
quite wrong - as here.
I'd like to find a cheerful and supportive way of saying this, but I
can't think of one. Suggestions would be welcome.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
B
Bill Sloman
Guest
On Dec 11, 1:04 am, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
perverse enthusiasm for evidence. Dubbya knew what he wanted his
scientists to tell him about global warming , but for some reason he
couldn't get them to deliver.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
The politicians would like it work that way, but scientists have this
perverse enthusiasm for evidence. Dubbya knew what he wanted his
scientists to tell him about global warming , but for some reason he
couldn't get them to deliver.
Don't worry Jan. You don't think straight during the day eithier.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
B
Bill Sloman
Guest
On Dec 11, 12:46 am, Sylvia Else <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote:
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.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
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.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
J
John Larkin
Guest
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 18:24:41 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
But I spent the afternoon in the advanced misroscopy lab at UCSF
Mission Bay Campus, where I learned some interesting stuff about spin
transfer NMR. Had a few ideas, too, that weren't received with scorn.
They have a Bruker 800 MHz magnet with cryo probe that's about 14 feet
high. A big flat-grey ugly beast. When you pay a couple of megabucks
for something like this, one might expect a snazzier paint job.
Tell us about some interesting science that you're involved in.
John
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
This is s.e.d., moron.
But I spent the afternoon in the advanced misroscopy lab at UCSF
Mission Bay Campus, where I learned some interesting stuff about spin
transfer NMR. Had a few ideas, too, that weren't received with scorn.
They have a Bruker 800 MHz magnet with cryo probe that's about 14 feet
high. A big flat-grey ugly beast. When you pay a couple of megabucks
for something like this, one might expect a snazzier paint job.
Tell us about some interesting science that you're involved in.
Say something about electronics.
John
J
John Larkin
Guest
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 19:18:44 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
John
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
In other words, nothing.
John
B
Bill Sloman
Guest
On Dec 11, 3:34 am, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
experimental sciences and observational sciences, and both can produce
useful information.
sheet. A snazzy paint job won't bring in any more customers.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
Does that make your foolish claim any less wrong? There are
experimental sciences and observational sciences, and both can produce
useful information.
Never upset the technician who builds your equipment.
This sort of equipment is sold on the basis of its specification
sheet. A snazzy paint job won't bring in any more customers.
There's nothing that you would understand.
Will that make you look any less foolish?
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
M
Michael A. Terrell
Guest
"Paul Hovnanian P.E." wrote:
It's the AGW mothership, looking for Sloman.
--
Offworld checks no longer accepted!
It's the AGW mothership, looking for Sloman.
--
Offworld checks no longer accepted!
M
Michael A. Terrell
Guest
John Larkin wrote:
And honesty.
--
Offworld checks no longer accepted!
And honesty.
--
Offworld checks no longer accepted!
A
APR
Guest
"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:mtg3i51ck5kb159o5go205kt6g03k7u6ln@4ax.com...
anthropogenic global warming. They don't seem to be able to come to grips
with the natural variance of climate. These traits seem to be specific to
the majority of left wing socialist nutters evident in all communities.
These same GW advocates play down or ignore the significance of the emails
from the Uni of EA that demonstrate a total lack of ethics on the part of
those supposedly at the forefront GW research (if you could call them
researchers), those who have promoted and facilitated the manipulation of
temperature data to suit the hidden agenda of the UN and many governments.
The shortage of common sense these people demonstrate through their narrow
minded focus is cause for compassion and understanding however much ridicule
we feel like directing at them.
news:mtg3i51ck5kb159o5go205kt6g03k7u6ln@4ax.com...
dismiss the voluminous number of papers that present data refuting
anthropogenic global warming. They don't seem to be able to come to grips
with the natural variance of climate. These traits seem to be specific to
the majority of left wing socialist nutters evident in all communities.
These same GW advocates play down or ignore the significance of the emails
from the Uni of EA that demonstrate a total lack of ethics on the part of
those supposedly at the forefront GW research (if you could call them
researchers), those who have promoted and facilitated the manipulation of
temperature data to suit the hidden agenda of the UN and many governments.
The shortage of common sense these people demonstrate through their narrow
minded focus is cause for compassion and understanding however much ridicule
we feel like directing at them.
G
Greegor
Guest
Is 1700 a uinanimous vote?
Is 1700 the number who knuckled under to group pressure?
How were these ""votes"" collected?
Who did it?
Is there no "Confirmation Bias" involved?
Is 1700 the number who knuckled under to group pressure?
How were these ""votes"" collected?
Who did it?
Is there no "Confirmation Bias" involved?
M
Martin Brown
Guest
Sylvia Else wrote:
whether or not AGW is happening. The science is now pretty well settled.
We are changing the atmosphere by measurable amounts and in the long
term it will have consequences - mostly for low lying populous areas
like London, Tokyo, New York, and New Orleans (not worth rebuilding).
And in some cases whole countries like Bangladesh on a river delta.
But it is exactly the same sort of manufactured controversy as that
about the risks of smoking or not wearing a seat belt when driving.
Indeed some of the same practitioners have been working as Exxon
sponsored denialists that were involved in keeping the suckers smoking
tobacco. Their product is spreading uncertainty in the public mind to
prevent people making a rational informed decision. It was so bad at one
point that the UK's premier scientific society wrote an open letter to
Exxon complaining about them deliberately misrepresenting the science.
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2006/09/19/LettertoNick.pdf
(facsimile of the actual letter)
There is some point in scientists standing up to be counted on this one
rather than ceding the high ground to handful of ultraright US free
market think tank spokesmen who pretend that the science is unclear. It
is curious that extremes of left and right both deny climate science.
In the UK it was the right wing Tory Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher
that first put the issue on the agenda so we do not have the same rabid
political polarisation of the issue as in America.
But for reasons of "balance" TV debates frequently put up one denialist
and one mainstream scientist for a discussion without making it clear
that there is a big difference in the validity of their arguments. The
denialist arguments are well honed to appeal to the general public with
a cunning mixture of half truths and plausible lies. Pretty much the
same happens with UFO abductees - and the devil has all the best tunes.
I don't really like petitions, but scientists do have to stand up for
the truth. I am reminded of 100 authors against Einstein and his retort
"Why 100 authors? If I were wrong, then one would have been enough!".
Make no mistake NATURE will be the final arbiter on this issue.
Regards,
Martin Brown
Unfortunately in the public mind there is still controversy about
whether or not AGW is happening. The science is now pretty well settled.
We are changing the atmosphere by measurable amounts and in the long
term it will have consequences - mostly for low lying populous areas
like London, Tokyo, New York, and New Orleans (not worth rebuilding).
And in some cases whole countries like Bangladesh on a river delta.
But it is exactly the same sort of manufactured controversy as that
about the risks of smoking or not wearing a seat belt when driving.
Indeed some of the same practitioners have been working as Exxon
sponsored denialists that were involved in keeping the suckers smoking
tobacco. Their product is spreading uncertainty in the public mind to
prevent people making a rational informed decision. It was so bad at one
point that the UK's premier scientific society wrote an open letter to
Exxon complaining about them deliberately misrepresenting the science.
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2006/09/19/LettertoNick.pdf
(facsimile of the actual letter)
There is some point in scientists standing up to be counted on this one
rather than ceding the high ground to handful of ultraright US free
market think tank spokesmen who pretend that the science is unclear. It
is curious that extremes of left and right both deny climate science.
In the UK it was the right wing Tory Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher
that first put the issue on the agenda so we do not have the same rabid
political polarisation of the issue as in America.
But for reasons of "balance" TV debates frequently put up one denialist
and one mainstream scientist for a discussion without making it clear
that there is a big difference in the validity of their arguments. The
denialist arguments are well honed to appeal to the general public with
a cunning mixture of half truths and plausible lies. Pretty much the
same happens with UFO abductees - and the devil has all the best tunes.
I don't really like petitions, but scientists do have to stand up for
the truth. I am reminded of 100 authors against Einstein and his retort
"Why 100 authors? If I were wrong, then one would have been enough!".
Make no mistake NATURE will be the final arbiter on this issue.
Regards,
Martin Brown
B
Bill Sloman
Guest
On Dec 11, 7:32 am, "APR" <I_Don't_W...@Spam.com> wrote:
claim to refute global warming that get presented on denialist web-
sites were falsified shortly after after publication. In at least one
case, the supporting data was shown to be wrong. The counter-arguments
naturally don't show up on denialist web-sites
..
warming talks about the gradual warming involved being swamped by the
short term noise in the global climate. The claim that anthropogenic
global warming inplies a slow and steady increase in the global
temperature is a totally implausible straw man invented by the
denialist propaganda machine, which isn't aimed at a particularly
sophisticated target audience.
swallow any kind of nonsense.
claim this, the private e-mails stolen from the University of East
Anglia don't support any such claim. By judicious text-chopping, some
phrases can - if taken out of context - be made to look as if they are
consistent with such a hypothesis, but only the brain-dead could be
taken in.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
In fact the - limited - number of papers presenting hypotheses that
claim to refute global warming that get presented on denialist web-
sites were falsified shortly after after publication. In at least one
case, the supporting data was shown to be wrong. The counter-arguments
naturally don't show up on denialist web-sites
..
On the contrary, any serious discussion of anthropogenic global
warming talks about the gradual warming involved being swamped by the
short term noise in the global climate. The claim that anthropogenic
global warming inplies a slow and steady increase in the global
temperature is a totally implausible straw man invented by the
denialist propaganda machine, which isn't aimed at a particularly
sophisticated target audience.
As opposed to the gulible right wing nutters who seems willing to
swallow any kind of nonsense.
As much as our little band of conspiracy theory nitwits would like to
claim this, the private e-mails stolen from the University of East
Anglia don't support any such claim. By judicious text-chopping, some
phrases can - if taken out of context - be made to look as if they are
consistent with such a hypothesis, but only the brain-dead could be
taken in.
It is funny you should mention that.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
B
Bill Sloman
Guest
On Dec 11, 5:00 am, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
quite a lot of stuff that exists only in your fertile imagination.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
What you don't understand doesn't exist? Odd, since you "understand"
quite a lot of stuff that exists only in your fertile imagination.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
J
John Larkin
Guest
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 17:32:55 +1100, "APR" <I_Don't_Want@Spam.com>
wrote:
that there's a great deal of very bad, some corrupt, science being
used by politicians and activists to determine policy that could be
very, very harmful if done wrong.
There's a modest probability that there is no systematic warming going
on at all... just random variation and bad/cooked data.
There's a good probability that if earth is currently warming, it's
not primarily caused by human-generated CO2.
There a high probability that moderate planetary warming and increased
CO2 are both good things for most of the life on earth.
It's unknown and likely unknowable how warming will affect specifics
of future regional weather, except for a likelyhood of somewhat
increased worldwide-averaged precipitation.
I don't think any of those statements are unreasonable, especially in
s.e.d., but they will, predictably, make the climate squirrels go
ballistic.
I think I'll play with some latching relays today. I need to store
enough energy in enough capacitors to have an FPGA set the states of
75 relays *after* a power failure. About 12 volts, 1.5 amps for around
6 milliseconds should do it.
John
wrote:
I don't believe that the issue is by any means decided. I do think
that there's a great deal of very bad, some corrupt, science being
used by politicians and activists to determine policy that could be
very, very harmful if done wrong.
There's a modest probability that there is no systematic warming going
on at all... just random variation and bad/cooked data.
There's a good probability that if earth is currently warming, it's
not primarily caused by human-generated CO2.
There a high probability that moderate planetary warming and increased
CO2 are both good things for most of the life on earth.
It's unknown and likely unknowable how warming will affect specifics
of future regional weather, except for a likelyhood of somewhat
increased worldwide-averaged precipitation.
I don't think any of those statements are unreasonable, especially in
s.e.d., but they will, predictably, make the climate squirrels go
ballistic.
I think I'll play with some latching relays today. I need to store
enough energy in enough capacitors to have an FPGA set the states of
75 relays *after* a power failure. About 12 volts, 1.5 amps for around
6 milliseconds should do it.
John
J
John Larkin
Guest
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 05:03:12 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
an electronics discussion group, not a bluster-and-insult venue.
I think you are 98% hot air and 2% old stories. By choice.
John
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
If you;re doing science, tell us about it. Electronics ditto. This is
an electronics discussion group, not a bluster-and-insult venue.
I think you are 98% hot air and 2% old stories. By choice.
John