Driver to drive?

[Bill Sloman]

On Dec 11, 4:07 pm, 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.

You've clearly forgotten, or never read, the propaganda put out by the
same people who are now telling you that the case for anthropogenic
global warming is far weaker than the scientific community seems to
think.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Dec 11, 8:33 pm, Rich Grise <richgr...@example.net> wrote:

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.

Rich doesn't know what he is talking about either, be we've known that
for a while now.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Dec 11, 5:42 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:

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$gd1.18...@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!

Jan really does want his home to be submerged under the rising oceans.
Mine is some 30 metres above NAP - effectively, sea-level - so I'll
get the sunny beaches, plam trees and rising property values, while he
will be a stateless refugee.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Dec 11, 5:37 pm, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

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/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.

You can't fool us. You are a nym ofBill Sloman.

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

John Larkin gets it wrong again. But this time he's relying on his own
internal nonsense generator.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Dec 11, 5:26 pm, tlackie <tlac...@gmail.com> wrote:

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.

Actually, you just destroyed your own credibility. Water vapour is
easy, and has been part of the pro-anthropogenic global warming case
pretty much since the 1950's when we got the computers that let us
take advantage of well-resolved infra-red spectra.

Water droplets in the atmosphere - clouds - present more of a
difficulty, but they can be modelled well enough for most practical
purposes. A recent article in IEEE spectrum discussed the "Cloud
Computer" which would have enough processing power to run a climate
model with a sufficiently small cell size to handle cloudy and
unclouded cells as distinct entities, rather than relying on values
averaged across a cell.

Since you obviously don't know the difference, you've just established
that you don't know what you are talking about.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Dec 11, 8:35 pm, Rich Grise <richgr...@example.net> wrote:

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.

Actually, quite a few warmingists are getting enthusiastic about
nuclear power - it certainly exists, even if we have yet to work out
an acceptable way of dealing with the radioactive waste.

We've got into trouble by burning fossil carbon and dumping the waste
into the atmosphere - it would be a touch ironic to jump out of the
frying pan into nuclear power and find out that we can't find a safe
way of dealing with the waste produced by burning uranium,

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[krw]

On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 09:14:51 -0600, Vladimir Vassilevsky
<nospam@nowhere.com> 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 ?

No, it means 1700 voted and the answer is more government.

Scientific facts can't be decided by voting.

Political ones are. The problem is *who* gets to vote.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Dec 11, 9:18 pm, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 10:10:32 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...@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_d...

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

It is obvious that they aren't. Even if you haven't heard of urban
sprawl and urban heat islands, you should still have enough sense to
realise that 0.4C is less than 0.76C.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Dec 11, 7:10 pm, dagmargoodb...@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.

Not actually true. The 0.74 ą 0.18 °C (1.33 ą 0.32 °F) rise over the
last century is significantly larger than natural variation.

There's little doubt we've been warming since the last big glaciation,
~12-18k years ago.

Not true either - the temperature peaked about 8000 years ago, and was
declining - very slowly - until around 1750 when the industrial
revolution got under way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ice_Age_Temperature.png

 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.

But it applies to the whole planet.

Meanwhile, we can't accurately model 20% factors.

Which James Arthur doesn't bother to identify, knowing full well that
he's probably got that wrong as well.

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]

A rather bizarre claim. Most of the stuff that James Arthur seems to
be objecting to - as usual he is being self-protectively unspecific -
is actually published in peer-reviewed journals. As for "double-
checking the model's source code"; this would be a little too labour
intensive to form a regular part of the peer-review process. It's hard
enough to persuade people to referee papers without asking them to
take on a heroic code-reading task.

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_d...

Presumably this represents compensations for weather stations that
have become surrounded by suburban heat islands - this is calibation
data, no matter how enthusiasticly the conspiracy theory enthusiasts
prefer their fantasies.

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

You had that data, and yet you cliamed

"There's little doubt we've been warming since the last big
glaciation,
~12-18k years ago."

when that curve makes it obvious that we haven't. This is backed up by
geological evidence of slightly higher sea-levels 8000 years ago, so
don't waste your time getting excited about the uncertainties in the
temperature evidence.

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 Gordian knot twiddled to match their
prejudices.

Since it is the fossil-carbon extaction industry that is twiddling
with the science in the hope of fooling people into letting them make
money out of wrecking the environment for a few more years, your
analogy is even more far-fetched than it seems

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

Feh.

A fine simulation of disgust. I'm reminded of Huxely's response to
Wilberforce

"Huxley is said to have replied that he would not be ashamed to have a
monkey for his ancestor, but he would be ashamed to be connected with
a man who used his great gifts to obscure the truth."

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[John Larkin]

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

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.

Excuse me, but this is an electronics design newsgroup. You don't dare
discuss electronics because it would be obvious that you don't know
much about it. You use AGW as a venue where you can call people
stupid, figuring you won't get called on facts. You haven't the balls
to take your annoying AGW blather to a serious climate discussion
group where it belongs.

No, I didn't figure out that from a Exxon-Mobil sponsored web site.

And the delights of CO2 is my original idea.

How's the transistor model thing progressing?

John

 

[John Larkin]

On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 00:24:38 +0000, Raveninghorde
<raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

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.

No. We design things, other people build them according to our plans,
and the things have to work.

Sloman doesn't work, in several senses of the word.

John

 

[Bill Sloman]

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.

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.

One guy I knew who was rather weak at that went on to a brilliant
career, as a senior manager in Scientific Generics (a Cambridge
consulting firm).

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.

So how come you haven't learned enough scepticism to recognise
Climategate as a well-timed political trick designed to sow
unjustified confusion just before the Copenhagen summit?

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

If they publish a paper that doesn't stand up, they can kiss their
career goodbye. McIntyre has made a number of rather unpleasant
accusations about Mann's publications, but they haven't convinced
Mann's peers, who have gone on to replicate and confirm Mann's work,
and the man himself has a good academic job.

The denialist propaganda machine can't afford to admit that Mann was
right and McIntyre was wrong, so they have had to cook up a
particularly mad conspiracy theory that claims that the climatology
community are all lying to protect Mann, which means that every last
one of them put their careers at risk for Mann back when he was a wet-
behind-the-ears graduate student.

If you had a sceptical neurone in your brain, you'd have applied
Occams Razor to the question, and cut out a lot of denialist rubbish.

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.

Obviously, since most of the denialist rubbish you come up with has
clearly been leached from denialist web-sites.

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

Only if you have faith in the rubbish that you are being spoon fed on
denialist web sites.

Try looking at the dates on the papers you cite, and use google to
find stuff that cross-references them in the following year or so. If
you had any serious search skills - which seems unlikely - you'd have
a slightly less biassed take on climate science.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Dec 12, 3:21 am, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 15:53:31 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman





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

Excuse me, but this is an electronics design newsgroup. You don't dare
discuss electronics because it would be obvious that you don't know
much about it.

I'm perfectly happy to discuss those aspects of electronics where I do
have something to contribute. For instance, I wanted to use latching
reed relays back in 1979 in an application whrer the thermocouple
potentials between the iron-based reed material and the copper on the
PCB was embarrassing. It made the boss nervous, so we didn't do it,
and I never even got a latching relay to play with. This means that I
haven't got anything useful to tell you, and I know it, which isn't
quite the same as not knowing much about it.

You use AGW as a venue where you can call people
stupid, figuring you won't get called on facts.

You haven't been paying attention, have you.

You haven't the balls
to take your annoying AGW blather to a serious climate discussion
group where it belongs.

To take part in a serious discussion of anthropogenic global warming,
you need a Ph.D. in the subject, or at least to have done a comparable
amount of work in the area. I haven't, but I do have enough of a
scientific education to detect when you and James Arthur - amongst
others - are peddling rubbish.

No, I didn't figure out that from a Exxon-Mobil sponsored web site.

They don't actually carry the Exxon-Mobil logo - you have to go to
Sourcewatch and check out where they get their funding to establish
the connection. I've done that often enough, and posted the link.

And the delights of CO2 is my original idea.

You may think so, but if you go to

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

and read a bit of the history, you will find that it was a commonly
held point of view until the science got into the nitty-gritty
somewhere around the 1970's, and it has been recycled on may denialist
web-sites, along with a lot of other antiquated misconceptions.

How's the transistor model thing progressing?

Not well. I'm in the process of getting a new aortic valve and the
various preliminaries are getting in the way.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Paul Keinanen]

On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 15:49:40 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

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

Once some of these web sites publish something that you agree with.

How do you react ?

 

[Raveninghorde]

On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 18:22:45 -0800, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 00:24:38 +0000, Raveninghorde
raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

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.

No. We design things, other people build them according to our plans,
and the things have to work.

Sloman doesn't work, in several senses of the word.

John

Just watching an article about a green energy scheme being presented
at Copenhagen.

Simply put a car going over a speed bump in the road will cause the
speed bump to move and generate electricity.

Have any of these guys heard of conservation of energy? Why do they
think this is a green scheme?

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Fri, 11 Dec 2009 16:24:58 -0800 (PST)) it happened Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
<ae5ab312-8b61-4d33-8501-ff9cc4a36d85@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>:

On Dec 11, 5:42 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
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$gd1.18...@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 sig=
ma 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!

Jan really does want his home to be submerged under the rising oceans.
Mine is some 30 metres above NAP - effectively, sea-level - so I'll
get the sunny beaches, plam trees and rising property values,

Then WTF are you complaining about all the time ?

 

[John Larkin]

On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 10:52:25 +0200, Paul Keinanen <keinanen@sci.fi>
wrote:

On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 15:49:40 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

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

Once some of these web sites publish something that you agree with.

How do you react ?

Sloman's perceptions and reasoning are overwhelmed by his emotions;
that's obvious from his posts. That's one reason he can't design good
electronics.

Most people trained (I won't say "educated") to be scientists are
rotten electronics designers. That's because electronics design is
sufficiently complex to transcend simple reasoning, but the scientist
types can't get past rules-based thinking and are too impressed by
precedent. There's a direct analogy to modeling climate systems: some
people think simple computer models fed bad data can predict the
behavior of chaotic systems, some know better.

John

 

[John Larkin]

On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 10:29:23 +0000, Raveninghorde
<raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 18:22:45 -0800, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 00:24:38 +0000, Raveninghorde
raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

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.

No. We design things, other people build them according to our plans,
and the things have to work.

Sloman doesn't work, in several senses of the word.

John

Just watching an article about a green energy scheme being presented
at Copenhagen.

Simply put a car going over a speed bump in the road will cause the
speed bump to move and generate electricity.

Have any of these guys heard of conservation of energy? Why do they
think this is a green scheme?

Somebody else is seriously suggesting that piezos be attached to the
outside of cars to recover energy from air turbulance.

Actually, as regards the speed bump, a car's shock absorber wastes
energy as heat, so it could be recovered. Hydraulic recovery would
make more sense than piezo, but neither really makes sense.

I once worked with a company that made tennis rackets that had piezos
and resistors embedded inside, to absorb shock. They were idiots, of
course. Story for another day.

John

 

[Dave]

On Dec 11, 12:24 am, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net>
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

Science used to rely on experiment.

   And honesty.

and Integrity ...... :--\

 

[Dave]

On Dec 11, 1:12 am, Greegor <greego...@gmail.com> wrote:

Is 1700 a uinanimous vote?

More like anonymous, and they were all cloned from one pseudo-
scientist from Scotland. (Who is actually a bagpipe player for a local
pub)

Is 1700 the number who knuckled under to group pressure?

How were these ""votes"" collected?

Chinese abacus

Who did it?

An organization in Britain fashioned after ACORN

Is there no "Confirmation Bias" involved?

"No comment"