Driver to drive?

[John Larkin]

On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 09:08:31 +0000, Martin Brown
<|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

Sylvia Else 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


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

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.

Absolutely wrong. In those cases, unimpachable experiment and
statistical analysis could prove causality beyond any reasonable
doubt. The case for AGW is far weaker.

John

 

[Vladimir Vassilevsky]

Greegor wrote:

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?

1000 scientists voted for 2 x 2 = 5
1500 scientists voted for 2 x 2 = 3
Does this mean 2 x 2 = 3 ?
Scientific facts can't be decided by voting.

VLV

 

[Martin Brown]

John Larkin wrote:

On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 09:08:31 +0000, Martin Brown
|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

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

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.

Absolutely wrong. In those cases, unimpachable experiment and
statistical analysis could prove causality beyond any reasonable
doubt. The case for AGW is far weaker.

So you would like to believe. Odd then that the same bunch of
pathological liars who worked for big tobacco now find gainful
employment manufacturing propaganda for the AGW denialist camp.

Statistical analysis by would be climate sceptics *has* to include GHG
forcing after about 1970 or they cannot fit the observed data. Satellite
monitoring of the solar flux prevents hand waving "the sun got brighter"
just so explanations.

You should look at the science. The vast majority of scientists across
all disciplines (not just climate scientists) are now convinced that the
effects of AGW have been demonstrated conclusively. The high impact of
the long term damage of climate change means that the expectation value
of future insurance losses is already getting dangerously high.

If you looked at the real scientific evidence rather than faked CO2 is
good for you "dittohead science" on denialist websites you seem
intelligent enough to be able to come to the same conclusion.

It is a pity that your political blinkers prevent you from seeing that
evidence.

Regards,
Martin Brown

 

[John Larkin]

On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 16:21:56 +0000, Martin Brown
<|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 09:08:31 +0000, Martin Brown
|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

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

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.

Absolutely wrong. In those cases, unimpachable experiment and
statistical analysis could prove causality beyond any reasonable
doubt. The case for AGW is far weaker.

So you would like to believe. Odd then that the same bunch of
pathological liars who worked for big tobacco now find gainful
employment manufacturing propaganda for the AGW denialist camp.

You can't fool us. You are a nym of Bill Sloman.

Which means you haven't done any interesting electronics in years
either.

John

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Fri, 11 Dec 2009 16:21:56 +0000) it happened Martin Brown
<|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote in
<EkuUm.28005$gd1.18193@newsfe05.iad>:

It is a pity that your political blinkers prevent you from seeing that
evidence.

There is no evidence.
And even if the A in GW was significant, in the sense more then the 2 sigma Sloman claims,
the solution is to have nuke power plants.
More power plants, CO2 production will not go down in this industrialised world.
An on top of that GW is not bad, I want more of it here, now,
palm trees, sunny beaches, property value increases, let's have it, kill the AGW weenies.
Kill the energy taxes,
And our friends the plants and trees like CO2 too
Give it to them!

Regards,
Martin Brown

 

[tlackie]

On Dec 11, 9:21 am, Martin Brown <|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk>
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 09:08:31 +0000, Martin Brown
|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

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

Absolutely wrong. In those cases, unimpachable experiment and
statistical analysis could prove causality beyond any reasonable
doubt. The case for AGW is far weaker.

So you would like to believe. Odd then that the same bunch of
pathological liars who worked for big tobacco now find gainful
employment manufacturing propaganda for the AGW denialist camp.

Statistical analysis by would be climate sceptics *has* to include GHG
forcing after about 1970 or they cannot fit the observed data. Satellite
monitoring of the solar flux prevents hand waving "the sun got brighter"
just so explanations.

You should look at the science. The vast majority of scientists across
all disciplines (not just climate scientists) are now convinced that the
effects of AGW have been demonstrated conclusively. The high impact of
the long term damage of climate change means that the expectation value
of future insurance losses is already getting dangerously high.

If you looked at the real scientific evidence rather than faked CO2 is
good for you "dittohead science" on denialist websites you seem
intelligent enough to be able to come to the same conclusion.

It is a pity that your political blinkers prevent you from seeing that
evidence.

Regards,
Martin Brown

I can completely destroy your hysterical pro-AGW "science" with two
words: water vapor

....no political agenda involved.

 

[Rich Grise]

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

 

On Dec 11, 10:07 am, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 09:08:31 +0000, Martin Brown



|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Sylvia Else 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

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

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.

Absolutely wrong. In those cases, unimpachable experiment and
statistical analysis could prove causality beyond any reasonable
doubt. The case for AGW is far weaker.

John

The problem with AGW is that, whatever it amounts to, it's buried in
the noise of ordinary variation.

There's little doubt we've been warming since the last big glaciation,
~12-18k years ago. If man's adding to that, it's subtle. And,
because the changes are noisy and small, the interpretation is
subjective. The alleged AGW component is <0.5% of total insolation.
Meanwhile, we can't accurately model 20% factors.

Scientific consensus? How? There's been no peer review w.r.t. the
CRU, the treemometers... Those agreeing have never seen the data, nor
the adjustments. I doubt anyone's double-checked the models' source
code either. So, when others concur, what exactly are they adding?
Zip.[1]

Here's something man *has* been adding to:
(graph of historical adjustments to the raw temperature data, from
NOAA)
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/ushcn/ts.ushcn_anom25_diffs_urb-raw_pg.gif

Compare that to the "Reconstructed Temperature" graph here:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png

None of us would give a fig about climastrology and its infancy,
except that politicians propose to chain us all to a tree on the basis
of these ridiculous models, a Goredian knot twiddled to match their
prejudices.

Meanwhile, somehow the doomsayers always turn out to be the most
conspicuous energy-wasters.

Feh.

[1] Witness Climategate's READMEHARRY--the CRU doesn't know the
provenance of their *own* data!

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[Rich Grise]

On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 09:14:51 -0600, Vladimir Vassilevsky wrote:

Greegor wrote:

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?

1000 scientists voted for 2 x 2 = 5
1500 scientists voted for 2 x 2 = 3
Does this mean 2 x 2 = 3 ?
Scientific facts can't be decided by voting.

Pure democracy (which, from the original Greek means "mob rule"), can have

its flaws, e.g.: "Let's all vote on what everybody's favorite color is!"

That's why the Founding Fathers wrote checks and balances into the
Constitution, which the current regime seems to be using for so much
toilet paper.

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Rich Grise]

On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 07:07:37 -0800, John Larkin wrote:

On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 09:08:31 +0000, Martin Brown

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.

Absolutely wrong. In those cases, unimpachable experiment and statistical
analysis could prove causality beyond any reasonable doubt. The case for
AGW is far weaker.

Not so. The "Smoking causes cancer" thing was proclaimed by the edict of a

group of 12 anonymous antismokers. Like with climategate, all of the
evidance that was contrary to Henry Waxman's antismokerist agenda was
suppressed.

I know this, because I was a paralegal assistant during the big money grab
of the 1990's (my job title was "document coder"), and I saw thousands of
documents related to both the P. Lorillard and Philip Morris trials.

Waxman is the Harry Anslinger of the antismokerist era.

I hear that now he's a major player in AGWism.

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Rich Grise]

On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 08:26:11 -0800, tlackie wrote:

On Dec 11, 9:21 am, Martin Brown <|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk
John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 09:08:31 +0000, Martin Brown
Sylvia Else 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
Is this a matter that's decided by a majority vote?
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.

Absolutely wrong. In those cases, unimpachable experiment and
statistical analysis could prove causality beyond any reasonable
doubt. The case for AGW is far weaker.

So you would like to believe. Odd then that the same bunch of
pathological liars who worked for big tobacco now find gainful
employment manufacturing propaganda for the AGW denialist camp.

Statistical analysis by would be climate sceptics *has* to include GHG
forcing after about 1970 or they cannot fit the observed data. Satellite
monitoring of the solar flux prevents hand waving "the sun got brighter"
just so explanations.

You should look at the science. The vast majority of scientists across
all disciplines (not just climate scientists) are now convinced that the
effects of AGW have been demonstrated conclusively. The high impact of
the long term damage of climate change means that the expectation value
of future insurance losses is already getting dangerously high.

If you looked at the real scientific evidence rather than faked CO2 is
good for you "dittohead science" on denialist websites you seem
intelligent enough to be able to come to the same conclusion.

It is a pity that your political blinkers prevent you from seeing that
evidence.

I can completely destroy your hysterical pro-AGW "science" with two words:
water vapor

...no political agenda involved.

If you need more, look up "Solar cycle."

But the warmingists don't even acknowledge the EXISTENCE of either of
these.

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Rich Grise]

On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 16:42:45 +0000, Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Fri, 11 Dec 2009 16:21:56 +0000) it happened Martin Brown

It is a pity that your political blinkers prevent you from seeing that
evidence.

There is no evidence.
And even if the A in GW was significant, in the sense more then the 2
sigma Sloman claims, the solution is to have nuke power plants. More power
plants, CO2 production will not go down in this industrialised world. An
on top of that GW is not bad, I want more of it here, now, palm trees,
sunny beaches, property value increases, let's have it, kill the AGW
weenies. Kill the energy taxes,
And our friends the plants and trees like CO2 too Give it to them!

Oh, yeah - that's another thing that the warmingists deny the existence of.

Cheers!
Rich

 

[John Larkin]

On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 10:10:32 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Dec 11, 10:07 am, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 09:08:31 +0000, Martin Brown



|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Sylvia Else 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

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

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.

Absolutely wrong. In those cases, unimpachable experiment and
statistical analysis could prove causality beyond any reasonable
doubt. The case for AGW is far weaker.

John

The problem with AGW is that, whatever it amounts to, it's buried in
the noise of ordinary variation.

There's little doubt we've been warming since the last big glaciation,
~12-18k years ago. If man's adding to that, it's subtle. And,
because the changes are noisy and small, the interpretation is
subjective. The alleged AGW component is <0.5% of total insolation.
Meanwhile, we can't accurately model 20% factors.

Scientific consensus? How? There's been no peer review w.r.t. the
CRU, the treemometers... Those agreeing have never seen the data, nor
the adjustments. I doubt anyone's double-checked the models' source
code either. So, when others concur, what exactly are they adding?
Zip.[1]

Here's something man *has* been adding to:
(graph of historical adjustments to the raw temperature data, from
NOAA)
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/ushcn/ts.ushcn_anom25_diffs_urb-raw_pg.gif

Good grief, the adjustments *are* the AGW warming curve.

John

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Fri, 11 Dec 2009 12:18:06 -0800) it happened John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in
<j4a5i5d17un4d23jamt8ab46a9fjaid9mj@4ax.com>:

Here's something man *has* been adding to:
(graph of historical adjustments to the raw temperature data, from
NOAA)
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/ushcn/ts.ushcn_anom25_diffs_urb-raw_pg.gif

Good grief, the adjustments *are* the AGW warming curve.

John

LOL, sure it has to come from somewhere no?

 

[Raveninghorde]

On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 12:18:06 -0800, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 10:10:32 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Dec 11, 10:07 am, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 09:08:31 +0000, Martin Brown



|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Sylvia Else 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

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

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.

Absolutely wrong. In those cases, unimpachable experiment and
statistical analysis could prove causality beyond any reasonable
doubt. The case for AGW is far weaker.

John

The problem with AGW is that, whatever it amounts to, it's buried in
the noise of ordinary variation.

There's little doubt we've been warming since the last big glaciation,
~12-18k years ago. If man's adding to that, it's subtle. And,
because the changes are noisy and small, the interpretation is
subjective. The alleged AGW component is <0.5% of total insolation.
Meanwhile, we can't accurately model 20% factors.

Scientific consensus? How? There's been no peer review w.r.t. the
CRU, the treemometers... Those agreeing have never seen the data, nor
the adjustments. I doubt anyone's double-checked the models' source
code either. So, when others concur, what exactly are they adding?
Zip.[1]

Here's something man *has* been adding to:
(graph of historical adjustments to the raw temperature data, from
NOAA)
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/ushcn/ts.ushcn_anom25_diffs_urb-raw_pg.gif

Good grief, the adjustments *are* the AGW warming curve.

John

I am surprised you're surprised.

For one example of a trick see:

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

Or

Spot the data for Andean Bolivia.

/quote

Guess the easiest thing to do was just Nuke Bolivia. Hey, it’s high
and cold… and doesn’t have a single hot tropical beach in the whole
place. Heck, I’d bet their airport doesn’t even get much traffic…
We’ll keep it in the baseline period though (but GIStemp will fill in
the “anomaly map” with thermometers stretched from 1000 km away that
are used to fill in the Grids and Boxes from 1200 km away. So we can
have Bolivia on the “anomaly map” even if we don’t have any
thermometers there…

(Yes, it IS on the anomaly maps from GISS). but with a pattern that
looks remarkably just like whatever is happening in the nearby
country.

/end quote

http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/11/16/ghcn-south-america-andes-what-andes/

 

[Raveninghorde]

On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 21:31:03 +0000, Raveninghorde
<raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 12:18:06 -0800, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 10:10:32 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Dec 11, 10:07 am, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 09:08:31 +0000, Martin Brown



|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Sylvia Else 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

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

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.

Absolutely wrong. In those cases, unimpachable experiment and
statistical analysis could prove causality beyond any reasonable
doubt. The case for AGW is far weaker.

John

The problem with AGW is that, whatever it amounts to, it's buried in
the noise of ordinary variation.

There's little doubt we've been warming since the last big glaciation,
~12-18k years ago. If man's adding to that, it's subtle. And,
because the changes are noisy and small, the interpretation is
subjective. The alleged AGW component is <0.5% of total insolation.
Meanwhile, we can't accurately model 20% factors.

Scientific consensus? How? There's been no peer review w.r.t. the
CRU, the treemometers... Those agreeing have never seen the data, nor
the adjustments. I doubt anyone's double-checked the models' source
code either. So, when others concur, what exactly are they adding?
Zip.[1]

Here's something man *has* been adding to:
(graph of historical adjustments to the raw temperature data, from
NOAA)
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/ushcn/ts.ushcn_anom25_diffs_urb-raw_pg.gif

Good grief, the adjustments *are* the AGW warming curve.

John



I am surprised you're surprised.

For one example of a trick see:

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

Or

Spot the data for Andean Bolivia.

/quote

Guess the easiest thing to do was just Nuke Bolivia. Hey, it’s high
and cold… and doesn’t have a single hot tropical beach in the whole
place. Heck, I’d bet their airport doesn’t even get much traffic…
We’ll keep it in the baseline period though (but GIStemp will fill in
the “anomaly map” with thermometers stretched from 1000 km away that
are used to fill in the Grids and Boxes from 1200 km away. So we can
have Bolivia on the “anomaly map” even if we don’t have any
thermometers there…

(Yes, it IS on the anomaly maps from GISS). but with a pattern that
looks remarkably just like whatever is happening in the nearby
country.

/end quote

http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/11/16/ghcn-south-america-andes-what-andes/

Or just posted on wattsupwiththat:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/11/giss-raw-station-data-before-and-after/#more-14001

 

[Rich Grise]

On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 20:40:30 +0000, Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Fri, 11 Dec 2009 12:18:06 -0800) it happened John Larkin

Here's something man *has* been adding to:
(graph of historical adjustments to the raw temperature data, from
NOAA)
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/ushcn/ts.ushcn_anom25_diffs_urb-raw_pg.gif

Good grief, the adjustments *are* the AGW warming curve.

LOL, sure it has to come from somewhere no?

Interesting article:
"Inconvenient truth: Tough market cuts emissions"
http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/carbon-223569-emissions-regulation.html

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Raveninghorde]

On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 15:53:31 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@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.

Engineers have to come up with working solutions. There are no excuses
for making mistakes. If you are wrong you fess up and fix it.

This makes good engineers sceptical by nature. If you ain't then you
get caught out in weeks or months when customers scream and production
grinds to a halt and people don't get paid.

On the other hand you claim authority for climate scientists yet they
have no responsibilty for the outcome of their work.

It is not our job to come up with original ideas in climate science,
the scientists get paid for that. Most of us in this group have enough
to do coming up with the original work we do every day.

However we know enough to look at data and see whether it stacks up or
not. Climate science doesn't stack up.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Dec 11, 4:01 pm, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 17:32:55 +1100, "APR" <I_Don't_W...@Spam.com
wrote:







"John Larkin" <jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:mtg3i51ck5kb159o5go205kt6g03k7u6ln@4ax.com...
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 19:18:44 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

Tell us about some interesting science that you're involved in.

There's nothing that you would understand.

In other words, nothing.

John

It amazes me, John, how people who propose to be intelligent can continue to
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.

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.

You really will have to stop getting your "facts" from Exxon-Mobil
funded web-sites.

There's a modest probability that there is no systematic warming going
on at all... just random variation and bad/cooked data.

Dream on.

There's a good probability that if earth is currently warming, it's
not primarily caused by human-generated CO2.

You have come across a remotely plausible alterantive hyothesis? As I
said, there a few have been published and they appear regularly on
denialist web-sites. The follow-up papers that shot them down in
flames don't get the same kind of coverage.

There a high probability that moderate planetary warming and increased
CO2 are both good things for most of the life on earth.

While immoderate planetary warming produces global extinctions, and
the last dramatic excursion - the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum -
while falling short of being an extinction event, produced enough
population crashes to be noted as a period of rapid speciation, as the
survivors diversified into the new and different ecological niches
that opened up as the temperature went up, and closed down again when
it dropped back again some 20,000 years later.

It might have been a good thing for species diversity, but if it
happened now it would thin us out to hunter-gather densities, and
destroy. our current civilisation. The temperature spike involved was
about 6 °C - at the top end of the IPCC projections for the end of
this century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum

"During these events – of which the PETM was by far the most severe –
around 1,500 to 2,000 gigatons of carbon were released into the ocean/
atmosphere system over the course of 1,000 years. This rate of carbon
addition almost equals the rate at which carbon is being released into
the atmosphere today through anthropogenic activity."

Those who don't know history are condemned to repeat it, though George
Santayana probably wouldn't have seen an event some 55.8 million years
back in the geological past as history.

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.

Not so much unreasonable as ill-informed - in the literal sense that
you are propagating bad and inaccurate information that you have
picked up from sources whose business is to devalue valid scientific
information so that they can continue to make money by digging up
fossil carbon and selling it as fuel.

And squirrels do collect nuts.

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.

Always a seductive idea.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Dec 11, 4:04 pm, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 05:03:12 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman





bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Dec 11, 5:00 am, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 19:18:44 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman

bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Dec 11, 3:34 am, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 18:24:41 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman

bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Dec 11, 3:04 am, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 10:46:38 +1100, 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?

Sylvia.

Science used to rely on experiment.

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.

This is s.e.d., moron.

Does that make your foolish claim any less wrong? There are
experimental sciences and observational sciences, and both can produce
useful information.

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.

Never upset the technician who builds your equipment.

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.

This sort of equipment is sold on the basis of its specification
sheet. A snazzy paint job won't bring in any more customers.

Tell us about some interesting science that you're involved in.

There's nothing that you would understand.

In other words, nothing.

What you don't understand doesn't exist? Odd, since you "understand"
quite a lot of stuff that exists only in your fertile imagination.

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.

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.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen