Driver to drive?

[Jim Thompson]

On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 19:32:09 -0800, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

[snip]

Even newer ones have issues...

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=18&ved=0CCcQFjAHOAo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wmo.int%2Fpages%2Fprog%2Fwww%2FIMOP%2Fmeetings%2FUpper-Air%2FSystems-Intercomp%2FDoc3-1(1)UKMetO.ppt&ei=D44xS8TFDIKYsgPPoMm9BA&usg=AFQjCNFZtitQYsUjFWDqougKAUUiCKVPyw&sig2=b7pZ_lhUaVvwnXgFtp00Hg

Seems as though air temperature is hard to measure.

John

I'm getting...

"WMO website structure has changed

The page you are looking for might have been removed, had its name
changed or is temporarily unavailable."

For that link :-(

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

Help save the environment!
Please dispose of socialism properly!

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

TheJoker wrote:

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 23:27:05 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:


HiggsField wrote:

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 05:56:55 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:


Rick Jones wrote:

In comp.protocols.tcp-ip Mark <makolber@yahoo.com> wrote:
Passing encrypted video over a satellite network built for
unencrypted analog video is not a trivial challenge. As far as I
know, there exists no scheme to do this that has not been broken
already. The problem is that encryption works partly by diffusing
information so that no part of the output looks like any part of
the input. The satellite link is filled with errors and distortion
that have to be contained to retain adequate video quality.

um,, is that why General Instrument was able to do it did it 15 years
ago for HBO?

Is it "known" that the GI stuff (irony isn't cracked?


You do know there were two levels of Videocipher? VC-1 was designed
for military applications.

Total bullshit. It was designed for backhaul work. It was also used
by companies like General Motors, to feed training seminars, etc. to all
their dealerships. They were one of the first OTA educational systems of
that depth.

ALL the major networks ended up using it, and that is what made GI the
de facto standard, and is why they were UNsuccessfully sued as a
monopoly. Uplink encoding is used by any content provider, and they must
use GI gear because that is what all the birds use. So they ARE a
monopoly, by default, but it is not their fault all the networks went
with their gear.

VC-II was a very scaled down version done for
HBO in the early '80s.

VC-I was in use in 1983 and from then on.

It was retired on the last day of last year, 2008.

VC-II (1985)"was done for" satellite receivers, uplink encoders and
decoders, and backhaul work, not just for HBO. It was retired in 1993 as
piracy had to be nipped out of the system. That was VC-II RS and that is
where the false keys and rolling keys and such came from. Then came
DigiCipher and DigiCipher II.

I installed one of the first VC-II units for
beta testing for HBO at United Video in Cincinnati, Ohio. That would
make it 25 years.

It appears that you understand basic math.

VC-II was hardware items for cable system operators, sure, but it was
ALSO hardware items for use in end user satellite set-top boxes, which
have nothing to do with cable.


ESD, dimbulb.

You're a total retard, TurdEl.

You're always trying to pull people down to your level, Chicken
Choker.

--
Offworld checks no longer accepted!

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Jerry Avins wrote:

Archimedes' Lever wrote:
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 02:08:44 +0000 (UTC), Rick Jones <rick.jones2@hp.com
wrote:

Is it "known" that the GI stuff (irony isn't cracked?

rick jones

None of their stuff has ever been cracked.

There were chips sold that made receivers "all channel" devices that
circumnavigated PPV choices, etc, but NOBODY... EVER... BROKE... ANY
General Instrument crypto schema.

Circumnavigated?

What do you expect from dimbulb?

THE DIMBULB SCORECARD

Abbey Somebody <abnormal@castlefrankenstein.org>
AnimalMagic <AnimalMagic@petersbackyard.org>
Archimedes' Lever <OneBigLever@InfiniteSeries.Org>
AtTheEndofMyRope <AtTheEndofMyRope@AtTheEndofMyRope.org>
AwlSome Auger <AwlSomeAuger@BuyOneGetOneFree.org>
Bart! <B@rt_The_Sheriff_Is_A_Nig**!.org>
BigBalls <BiggestBallsOfAll@thebigbarattheendoftheuniverse.org>
BillyPilgrim <BillyPilgrim@thebigbarattheendoftheuniverse.org>
Bungalow Bill <BugalowBill@AbbeyRoad.UKCOM>
Capt. Cave Man <ItIsSoEasyACaveManCanDoIt@upyers.org>

CellShocked <cellshocked@thecellvalueattheendofthespreadsheet.org>
ChairmanOfTheBored <RUBored@crackasmile.org>
Chieftain of the Carpet Crawlers
<theslipperman@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org>
Corbomite Carrie <Corbomite@maneuver.org>
DarkMatter <DarkMatter@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org>
DarkSucker <DarkSucker@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org>
Do I really need to say? <rael@thescree.org>
Dorothy with the Red Shoes on <Dorothy@notinkansas.org>
Dr. Heywood R. Floyd <Heywood@thebarattheendofthemonolith.org>
FatBytestard <FatBytestard@somewheronyourharddrive.org>

FunkyPunk FieldEffectTrollsistor <FunkShunPoignter@yermomma.org>
FunkyPunk FieldEffectTrollsistor <FunkShunPointer@yermomma.org>
George Orr <GergoOrr@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org>
GoldIntermetallicEmbrittlement
<GoldIntermetallicEmbrittlement@youdontknowjack.org>
Hattori Hanzo <OutintheSnow@billsbackyard.org>
Herbert John \Jackie\" Gleason" <BufordTJustice@Texarkanacops.gov>
HiggsField <higgdfield@whutthableapduyoukno.org>
IAmTheSlime <TheSlimeFromYourVideo@oozingacrossyourlivingroomfloor.org>
ItsASecretDummy <secretasianman@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org>
Jupiter Jaq <JupiterJaq@BuyOneGetOneFree.org>

Kai <kai@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org>
LargeMarge <LargeMarge@thetentwoposition.org>
life imitates life <pasticcio@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org>
lurch <lurch@yourangcousinitslibrary.org>
MadManMoon <TheWholePlanetIsMine@hereandnow.org>
MakeNoAttemptToAdjustYourSet <DoNotAttemptToAdjustYourSet@anytime.org>
MassiveProng@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org
<MassiveProng@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org>
MeowSayTongue <MeowSayTongue@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org>
Mr.Eko <ekointhedirt@lostisland.org>
Mr. Haney <mrhaney@thebarattheendofthefarmroad.org>

Mycelium <myceliumgrows@underyourshrooms.org>
Mycelium <mycelium@thematrixattheendofthemushroomstem.org>
Neanderthal <dance@gottafindawomanrighton.org>
OutsideObserver <Stand And Deliver@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org>
Pieyed Piper <pieyedPiper@thebongshopattheendoftheuniverse.org>
Phat Bytestard <PhatBytestard@getinmahharddrive.org>
RoyLFuchs <RoyLFuchs@urfargingicehole.org>
scorpius
<scorpius@thewormholethatemptiesontheothersideoftheuniverse.org>
SkyPilot <somewhere@theedgeofspace.org>
SomeKindOfWonderful
<SomeKindOfWonderful@allthegirlsintheworldbeware.org>

Son of a Sea Cook <NotaBrewster@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org>
SoothSayer <SaySooth@TheMonastery.org>
Spurious Response <SpuriousResponse@cleansignal.org>
StickThatInYourPipeAndSmokeIt <Zarathustra@thusspoke.org>
Sum Ting Wong <SumTingWong@thebarattheendoftheVenusianLightnigBolt.org>
Sum Ting Wong
<SumTingWong@thebarattheendoftheVenusianLightnigBoltmonolith.org>
SuspendedInGaffa <suspendedingaffa@kateshouse.org>
The Great Attractor
<SuperM@ssiveBlackHoleAtTheCenterOfTheMilkyWayGalaxy.org>
TheGlimmerMan <justaglimmer@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org>
TheJoker <LeonardooftheLarcenousLaugh@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org>

The Keeper of the Key to The Locks
<TheLoner@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org>
TheKraken <ReachUpandSuckYouDowntotheDepths@yup.org>
The Last Mimsy <mimsy@TheOtherSideoftheLookingGlass.org>
TheQuickBrownFox <thequickbrownfox@overthelazydog.org>
The Loner <TheLoner@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org>
TralfamadoranJetPilot <BillyPilgrim@thebigbarattheendoftheuniverse.org>
TutAmongUs@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org
<TutAmongUs@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org>
UltimatePatriot <UltimatePatriot@thebestcountry.org>
UpGrade <UpGrade@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org>
ValleyGirl <LuvYerNailz@LikeIWouldGiveIt.Comeon>

VioletaPachydermata <PurpleElephant@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org>
WallyWallWhackr <wallywallwhackr@thematrixattheendofthemushroomstem.org>
100WattDarkSucker <100WattDarkSucker@thebigbarattheendoftheuniverse.org>











--
Offworld checks no longer accepted!

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

JosephKK wrote:

On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 09:23:02 +0000, Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

JosephKK wrote:
On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 09:49:31 +0000, Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

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

Make no mistake NATURE will be the final arbiter on this issue.

With the regards to the same published people being involved with tobacco defenders
and being AGW skeptics, please do provide names and publications and dates. Please
note that the implication that science for hire can (and has been) be used against
AGW as well.
OK. Allowing for the UK being the libel law tourism capital of the world
(something which has brought the UK legal profession into disrepute) and
the litigious nature of the USA I will name only one key player who is
now dead (the dead cannot sue for libel).

Take a look at the later work of Frederick Seitz who was once an
excellent solid state physicist and educator but after his retirement he
sold his soul to R J Reynolds as a denier for hire on tobacco smoke. His
official biography in the mainstream press is very kind:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/obituaries/article3523253.ece

The Washington Post makes his deep involvement with the tobacco industry
slightly clearer:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/05/AR2008030503524.html

The public disclosure of tobacco related documents shows hard evidence:

http://tobaccodocuments.org/rjr/508263286-3286.html

It is also worth knowing what Phillip Morris thought of him:

http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/hwj53e00/pdf;jsessionid=FC140D71858F79431662F7E03E333274

The links from any of the usual source watch sites will allow you to
easily work out who are the other "deniers for hire" today, and also
which are the front organisations for their propaganda. Here is the
sourcewatch link to get you started if you want to find out more:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Frederick_Seitz

They are not all complete liars and charlatans but you do not have to
look that hard to find other tobacco "deniers for hire" in the game.
They are an incestuous little bunch so the links are not hard to find.

Regards,
Martin Brown

Hmmm. This "tobacco denier", became to "AGW denier". One instance. Care to
try some more? Please remember that AGW'ers are being accused of "science for
hire" as well.

Go and look at the sourcewatch link if you want more.
It isn't that hard to find the others.

I am not going to risk a personal libel suit from a "denier for hire" or
a front organisation with infinitely deep pockets by naming living
individuals. In the UK international libel actions are now commonplace,
very expensive and extremely frivolous. The odds are stacked heavily in
favour of the plaintiff and defence is extremely costly with no prospect
of getting costs back even if you successfully defend the action.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6898172.ece

California has banned libel tourism, other states are considering it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/may/04/libel-tourism-press-freedom

As we do not have the same right to free speech as you enjoy I will not
name living individuals.

Regards,
Martin Brown

Gosh, and the UK likes to be called the cradle of free speech.

They had a choice. Free speach, or the metric system.


--
Offworld checks no longer accepted!

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Dec 23, 4:32 pm, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 05:32:22 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman





bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Dec 23, 2:16 am, krw <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 13:14:16 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Dec 22, 1:06 pm,Bill Sloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Dec 22, 6:29 pm, John Larkin

Or perhaps the increased velocity of communications and pressure to
publish has changed the time response. The real issue is whether
experimental results are influenced by the numbers from other
experimenters, or by desired results, namely by psychological
pressures. In the AGW case, it sure looks like it is, because the
choice of "corrections" is arbitrary.

We know that you'd like to think so. If you said that in a
sufficiently public forum, you'd be - very rightly - sued for libel..

John's post?  Not libel.  READ_ME_HARRY.TXT says as much, and, in the
USA, truth is an absolute defense.

IOW, Slowman doesn't like what John said so, like the good Europeon he
is, issues a threat of bankruptcy for daring to state an inconvenient
truth.

The whole point is that what John claimed isn't true - corrections
aren't arbitrary - and John and Arthur are living in a fools paradise
if they think that some misinterpreted chunk of text is an "absolute
defense".

I'm not threatening anybody - just pointing out one of the dangers of
recycling ignorant misconceptions.

Threaten me all you like, if it spices up your life.

Impugn the integrity of ay scientist you want to, if it spices up your
life. I'd recommend a less irresponsible hobby, but you may enjoy the
excitement of becoming an attractive target for libel lawyers prepared
to work on contingency.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Dec 22, 10:07 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Dec 22, 11:34 am,Bill Sloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

On Dec 22, 4:55 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Dec 19, 10:29 pm,Bill Sloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

On Dec 20, 1:32 am, John Larkin wrote:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/309/5740/1548

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements

What a mess! People seem to keep trying various corrections until they
get what they want.

Actually, the correct formulation is "until the data makes sense".

Finnegan's Finagling Factor: that number which, added to,
subtracted from, multiplied by, or divided into the number you
actually got, gives you the result you really wanted.

This is a serious misreading of what I was saying, as would be obvious
to anybody who had gone on to read the substance of what I wrote. The
Wikipedea discussion of the University of Alabama at Hintsville's
(UAH) correction from 5.1 to 5.2 points out that

/quote

For some time, the UAH satellite data's chief significance was that
they appeared to contradict a wide range of surface temperature data
measurements and analyses showing warming in line with that estimated
by climate models. In April 2002, for example, an analysis of the
satellite temperature data showed warming of only 0.04 °C per decade,
compared with surface measurements showing 0.17 ą 0.06 °C per decade.
The correction of errors in the analysis of the satellite data, as
noted above, have brought the two data sets more closely in line with
each other.

Christy et al. (2007) find that the tropical temperature trends from
radiosondes matches closest with his v5.2 UAH dataset.[17]
Furthermore, they assert there is a growing discrepancy between RSS
and sonde trends beginning in 1992, when the NOAA-12 satellite was
launched[18]. This research found that the tropics were warming, from
the balloon data, +0.09 (corrected to UAH) or +0.12 (corrected to RSS)
or 0.05 K (from UAH MSU; ą0.07 K room for error) a decade.

/end quote

Since the corrections were based on a more thorough analysis of the
way orbital decay affects the satellite observations, this isn't
Finagle factoring, but a way of making better sense of the data. That
the improved processing brings the results better into line with
independent observations of the same regions is a bonus and provides
some confidence that the investigators have finally concentrated their
attention on aspects of the data processing that needed it.

Or, alternatively, calls into question the utility of satellite-based
surface temperature inferences, since these have to made through
numerous interface layers & obstructions.

This is true of pretty much every scheme for measuring temperature,

Either they're reliable indicators of surface temp. and we're not
warming, or they're not reliable.

No measuring scheme is totally reliable. There is always some source
of error. When the UAH satelite data is processed with the 5.2 scheme,
it shows that the surface of the earth is warming, just like every
other indicator; it doesn't give exactly the same number for the rate
of warming as either of the other two methods discussed in the
Wikipedia article, but none of the three is wildly different from one
another.

The obvious advantage of satellite-based measurements is that they do
cover the whole planet at frequent intervals, making them much more
useful than radiosondes.

Even if satellite data was less accurate - reliable - than radiosonde
data (which it doesn't seem to be), it would still be useful because
there is more often at more frequent intervals

Regardless, their version doesn't inspire confidence: that they a)
measured and published wrong data and b) _now_, _this time_ they've
really got it right.

You don't know much about this kind of work, do you. Complicated
instruments don't reveal all their problems overnight - it takes years
of work to understand most of the problems involved and to correct
those that can be corrected. Christy and Spencer do seem to have taken
longer than they might have done to get one of the bugs out of their
temperature record, but the process does depend on inspiration as well
as perspiration, and inspiration does tend to strike unpredictably.

 In
this particular case, the University of Alabama at Huntsville had been
putting out data that was curiously out of whack with everybody else's
data for quite some time. Spencer and Christy weren't exactly
energetic about checking out their data-processing for possible
problems, and ended up with a certain amount of egg on their faces
when they finally got around to replacing verion 5.1 of their data-
processing package with version 5.2, which brought their data a lot
closer to consilience with the rest of the world.

Consilience - the process of getting a lot of different and
independent sources to fit together into a consistent picture of the
world - is a concept that appeals to me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consilience

It's a very low frequency word, but an absolutely fundamental concept.

Consilience is using one /technique/ as a reference to improve
another, grinding one straight edge against another to make both
truer.

Which is exactly what happend here

Adjusting your data to match your theory?

The UAH were adjusting their data processing, not their raw data, to
correct for problems that other investigators had demonstrated to be
signficant.

The only theory involved here is the one that says the same lump of
gas should have the same temperature at the same time if you measure
it with several different instruments by several different techniques.

But they tweaked their data to match tweaked data.  That corrupts
both.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/ushcn/ts.ushcn_anom25_d...

 Adjusting multiple data
sets so they agree, corrupting all so that none is true?

If that had been what was going on, it would have been reprehensible.

Sir Mr. Raveninghorde posted some quotes and sources to that effect.

As I've mentioned beforeRavinghorde is a less-than-reliable witness.
He often post sources that appear to support his point of view if you
only read as far as the quote he has pulled out of the text, but go on
to come to some rather different conclusion if you go to the trouble
of reading the whole thing to acquire some sense of the message that
the authors were trying to get across.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Dec 23, 4:33 pm, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 05:31:31 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman





bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Dec 22, 10:28 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 10:06:45 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman

bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Dec 22, 6:29 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 08:48:14 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman

bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Dec 21, 4:57 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 09:15:01 +0000, Martin Brown

|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Bill Slomanwrote:
On Dec 20, 1:32 am, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 14:22:45 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman

bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Dec 18, 10:26 pm, "JosephKK"<quiettechb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 00:57:15 +0000, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@removethishotmail.com> wrote:
Bill Slomanwrote:
On Dec 11, 3:04 am, John Larkin wrote:
Science used to rely on experiment.
Newton's astronomical experiments are famous, as are Darwin's
evolutionary experiments.
Physics in particular also relies on repeatable OBSERVATIONS.
Name a single observation that the warmingists can show is even real,
never mind repeatable.
Graham
Kind of difficult when Hansen et al., keep adjusting the data from what
the satellite reported to what they want it to have reported.
Try reading the raw satellite data sometime. And note that the biggest
recent correction to satellite data was made by Roy W Spencer and John
Christy at the University of Alabama at Huntsville, under a certain
amount of external pressure
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/309/5740/1548
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements
What a mess! People seem to keep trying various corrections until they
get what they want.

Actually, the correct formulation is "until the data makes sense". In
this particular case, the University of Alabama at Huntsville had been
putting out data that was curiously out of whack with everybody else's
data for quite some time. Spencer and Christy weren't exactly
energetic about checking out their data-processing for possible
problems, and ended up with a certain amount of egg on their faces
when they finally got around to replacing verion 5.1 of their data-
processing package with version 5.2, which brought their data a lot
closer to consilience with the rest of the world.

Consilience - the process of getting a lot of different and
independent sources to fit together into a consistent picture of the
world - is a concept that appeals to me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consilience

It's a very low frequency word, but an absolutely fundamental concept.

You should always be a little bit wary of consilience. It can also mean
the application of the tricky correction factors in such a way as to get
the "right" answer according to established experimental procedures.

Looking for *why* there is a difference is *very* important.

That in the Wikipedia article, if you can be bothered to read it
carefully.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements

A graph of speed of light with error bars is a sobering one in this
respect. Initial estimates were good but as the techniques became ever
more sophisticated and based on evacuated waveguides one of the top
experimentalists made a tiny error in applying a dispersion correction
taking the true answer outside the formal error bars. Successive
experimenters then refined the technique still further narrowing the
error bars without spotting the fundamental systematic error. ISTR it
was noticed around 1945 when another method gave a new answer.

A version of Shewarts graph updated is online at
http://www.sigma-engineering.co.uk/light/lightindex.shtml

Note how the step response is underdamped, with a period of roughly 40
years. Light doesn't work this way, but people do.

The UAH data got corrected in rather less than 40 years. People may be
getting better, or - more likely - the temperature distribuiton up
through the atmosphere is of more immediate interest that seven and
eighth significant digits of the speed of light.

Or perhaps the increased velocity of communications and pressure to
publish has changed the time response. The real issue is whether
experimental results are influenced by the numbers from other
experimenters, or by desired results, namely by psychological
pressures. In the AGW case, it sure looks like it is, because the
choice of "corrections" is arbitrary.

We know that you'd like to think so. If you said that in a
sufficiently public forum, you'd be - very rightly - sued for libel.

This isn't sufficiently public?

Sue me!

You haven't libelled me. The chance that the scientists that you have
libelled will discover the libel is remote, and the chance that if
they did discover the libel, they'd then figure that you were rich
enough to justify launching a lawyer at you is probably equally low.
Jim Thompson might report you to the relevant people, but most of us
have got some sense of proportion.

Lunatic.

Sue me for that, too.

Granting your judgement, I'd get bigger damages if you'd praised my
competence.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Raveninghorde]

On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 10:33:40 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

SNIP

As I've mentioned beforeRavinghorde is a less-than-reliable witness.
He often post sources that appear to support his point of view if you
only read as far as the quote he has pulled out of the text, but go on
to come to some rather different conclusion if you go to the trouble
of reading the whole thing to acquire some sense of the message that
the authors were trying to get across.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/6847227/Questions-over-business-deals-of-UN-climate-change-guru-Dr-Rajendra-Pachauri.html

/quotes

The head of the UN's climate change panel - Dr Rajendra Pachauri - is
accused of making a fortune from his links with 'carbon trading'
companies


What has also almost entirely escaped attention, however, is how Dr
Pachauri has established an astonishing worldwide portfolio of
business interests with bodies which have been investing billions of
dollars in organisations dependent on the IPCC’s policy
recommendations.

/end quotes

 

On Dec 22, 8:15 pm, d...@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote:

In <ccb44845-5bfa-4353-bb02-b5bbac009...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,



dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Dec 22, 11:34 am, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Dec 22, 4:55 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Dec 19, 10:29 pm,Bill Sloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

On Dec 20, 1:32 am, John Larkin wrote:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/309/5740/1548

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements

What a mess! People seem to keep trying various corrections until they
get what they want.

Actually, the correct formulation is "until the data makes sense".

Finnegan's Finagling Factor: that number which, added to,
subtracted from, multiplied by, or divided into the number you
actually got, gives you the result you really wanted.

This is a serious misreading of what I was saying, as would be obvious
to anybody who had gone on to read the substance of what I wrote. The
Wikipedea discussion of the University of Alabama at Hintsville's
(UAH) correction from 5.1 to 5.2 points out that

/quote

For some time, the UAH satellite data's chief significance was that
they appeared to contradict a wide range of surface temperature data
measurements and analyses showing warming in line with that estimated
by climate models. In April 2002, for example, an analysis of the
satellite temperature data showed warming of only 0.04 °C per decade,
compared with surface measurements showing 0.17 ą 0.06 °C per decade.
The correction of errors in the analysis of the satellite data, as
noted above, have brought the two data sets more closely in line with
each other.

Christy et al. (2007) find that the tropical temperature trends from
radiosondes matches closest with his v5.2 UAH dataset.[17]
Furthermore, they assert there is a growing discrepancy between RSS
and sonde trends beginning in 1992, when the NOAA-12 satellite was
launched[18]. This research found that the tropics were warming, from
the balloon data, +0.09 (corrected to UAH) or +0.12 (corrected to RSS)
or 0.05 K (from UAH MSU; ą0.07 K room for error) a decade.

/end quote

Since the corrections were based on a more thorough analysis of the
way orbital decay affects the satellite observations, this isn't
Finagle factoring, but a way of making better sense of the data. That
the improved processing brings the results better into line with
independent observations of the same regions is a bonus and provides
some confidence that the investigators have finally concentrated their
attention on aspects of the data processing that needed it.

Or, alternatively, calls into question the utility of satellite-based
surface temperature inferences, since these have to made through
numerous interface layers & obstructions.

Either they're reliable indicators of surface temp. and we're not
warming, or they're not reliable.

Regardless, their version doesn't inspire confidence: that they a)
measured and published wrong data and b) _now_, _this time_ they've
really got it right.

SNIP from here

  I doubt the radiosonde data was tweaked.  I have yet to hear a complaint
about the radiosonde data.

  Meanwhile, the UAH index, more specifically the one for lower
troposphere, are by Christy and Spencer - as in the Spencer atwww.drroyspencer.com.  Is anyone here going to call him a warmingist?

I wouldn't care whether he was a or not, as long as he's careful and
honest. The CRU crew were neither.

That's too bad. I don't doubt warming overall--I have no certain
knowledge against it. But it's hard to gauge when it's being
exaggerated by some of the most trusted people measuring it.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

 

On Dec 22, 8:16 pm, krw <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 13:14:16 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Dec 22, 1:06 pm, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Dec 22, 6:29 pm, John Larkin

Or perhaps the increased velocity of communications and pressure to
publish has changed the time response. The real issue is whether
experimental results are influenced by the numbers from other
experimenters, or by desired results, namely by psychological
pressures. In the AGW case, it sure looks like it is, because the
choice of "corrections" is arbitrary.

We know that you'd like to think so. If you said that in a
sufficiently public forum, you'd be - very rightly - sued for libel.

John's post?  Not libel.  READ_ME_HARRY.TXT says as much, and, in the
USA, truth is an absolute defense.

IOW, Slowman doesn't like what John said so, like the good Europeon he
is, issues a threat of bankruptcy for daring to state an inconvenient
truth.

Bill makes it seem like Europeans can't say something even if it's
true.

Sounds like a new pet project for Obama's Congress--the National Truth
Act of 2009, proposed and passed Dec. 31. It could be administered by
the Ministry of Truth.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[Eric Jacobsen]

On 12/22/2009 11:48 PM, Archimedes' Lever wrote:

On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 22:49:52 -0700, Eric Jacobsen
eric.jacobsen@ieee.org> wrote:

On 12/22/2009 9:18 PM, Jerry Avins wrote:
Archimedes' Lever wrote:
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 02:08:44 +0000 (UTC), Rick Jones<rick.jones2@hp.com
wrote:

Is it "known" that the GI stuff (irony isn't cracked?

rick jones
None of their stuff has ever been cracked.

There were chips sold that made receivers "all channel" devices that
circumnavigated PPV choices, etc, but NOBODY... EVER... BROKE... ANY
General Instrument crypto schema.
Circumnavigated?
Went around, I think. Like claiming the lock on the safe is
unpickable, but the hinge pins can be easily pulled. Nobody will bother
to break a weak code when the back door is open.


That is not what happened either, ya dope.

The chips were being fabbed in greater number than those being sold to
the set top box makers, and that meant that hot chips were going out the
back door ... of the fab house. That has nothing to do with breaking
any code anywhere.

I think you misread. You could try again, but I've not a lot of
confidence in the outcome.


--
Eric Jacobsen
Minister of Algorithms
Abineau Communications
http://www.abineau.com

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Dec 23, 3:10 pm, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 05:36:17 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman

bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Dec 22, 10:07 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Dec 22, 11:34 am,Bill Sloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

On Dec 22, 4:55 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Dec 19, 10:29 pm,Bill Sloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

On Dec 20, 1:32 am, John Larkin wrote:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/309/5740/1548

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements

What a mess! People seem to keep trying various corrections until they
get what they want.

Actually, the correct formulation is "until the data makes sense".

Finnegan's Finagling Factor: that number which, added to,
subtracted from, multiplied by, or divided into the number you
actually got, gives you the result you really wanted.

This is a serious misreading of what I was saying, as would be obvious
to anybody who had gone on to read the substance of what I wrote. The
Wikipedea discussion of the University of Alabama at Hintsville's
(UAH) correction from 5.1 to 5.2 points out that

/quote

For some time, the UAH satellite data's chief significance was that
they appeared to contradict a wide range of surface temperature data
measurements and analyses showing warming in line with that estimated
by climate models. In April 2002, for example, an analysis of the
satellite temperature data showed warming of only 0.04 C per decade,
compared with surface measurements showing 0.17 0.06 C per decade.
The correction of errors in the analysis of the satellite data, as
noted above, have brought the two data sets more closely in line with
each other.

Christy et al. (2007) find that the tropical temperature trends from
radiosondes matches closest with his v5.2 UAH dataset.[17]
Furthermore, they assert there is a growing discrepancy between RSS
and sonde trends beginning in 1992, when the NOAA-12 satellite was
launched[18]. This research found that the tropics were warming, from
the balloon data, +0.09 (corrected to UAH) or +0.12 (corrected to RSS)
or 0.05 K (from UAH MSU; 0.07 K room for error) a decade.

/end quote

Since the corrections were based on a more thorough analysis of the
way orbital decay affects the satellite observations, this isn't
Finagle factoring, but a way of making better sense of the data. That
the improved processing brings the results better into line with
independent observations of the same regions is a bonus and provides
some confidence that the investigators have finally concentrated their
attention on aspects of the data processing that needed it.

Or, alternatively, calls into question the utility of satellite-based
surface temperature inferences, since these have to made through
numerous interface layers & obstructions.

Either they're reliable indicators of surface temp. and we're not
warming, or they're not reliable.

Regardless, their version doesn't inspire confidence: that they a)
measured and published wrong data and b) _now_, _this time_ they've
really got it right.

In
this particular case, the University of Alabama at Huntsville had been
putting out data that was curiously out of whack with everybody else's
data for quite some time. Spencer and Christy weren't exactly
energetic about checking out their data-processing for possible
problems, and ended up with a certain amount of egg on their faces
when they finally got around to replacing verion 5.1 of their data-
processing package with version 5.2, which brought their data a lot
closer to consilience with the rest of the world.

Consilience - the process of getting a lot of different and
independent sources to fit together into a consistent picture of the
world - is a concept that appeals to me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consilience

It's a very low frequency word, but an absolutely fundamental concept.

Consilience is using one /technique/ as a reference to improve
another, grinding one straight edge against another to make both
truer.

Which is exactly what happend here

Adjusting your data to match your theory?

The UAH were adjusting their data processing, not their raw data, to
correct for problems that other investigators had demonstrated to be
signficant.

The only theory involved here is the one that says the same lump of
gas should have the same temperature at the same time if you measure
it with several different instruments by several different techniques.

But they tweaked their data to match tweaked data. That corrupts
both.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/ushcn/ts.ushcn_anom25_d...

Adjusting multiple data
sets so they agree, corrupting all so that none is true?

If that had been what was going on, it would have been reprehensible.

Sir Mr. Raveninghorde posted some quotes and sources to that effect.

Ravinghorde has a long history of misunderstanding the sources that he
quotes. See if you can find what he thought he could rely on.

Just because you misunderstand what I understood doesn't mean I don't
understand what you misunderstood.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/a_climatology_conspiracy.html

In this article, reprinted from The American Thinker, two eminent
Professors reveal just one of the many seamy stories that emerge from
the Climategate emails. A prejudiced journal editor conspires with
senior IPCC scientists to delay and discredit a paper by four
distinguished scientists demonstrating that a central part of the
IPCC s scientific argument is erroneous.

The paper may have claimed to demonstrate "that a central part of the
IPCC s scientific argument was erroneous" but it doesn't seem to have
been all that persuasive - if the content had been persuasive, a
comment (no matter how critical) wouldn't have stopped people talking
about it, so we can take it as read that the "emminent Professors"
have an idiosyncratic opinion about the quality of the work. One is a
sceptic and the other looks more like a denialist, so they may be
deluding themselves, even if they didn't delude anybody else of any
significance.

"John R. Christy is ususally considered to be a climate sceptic."
though he does at least work in climatology.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=John_R._Christy

David H. Douglass is a professor of condensed matter physics, and his
opinions on climatology don't have all that much credibility. It would
seem that the Heartland Institute values his opinions on the subject,
despite his lack of academic standing in the area.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=David_Douglass

Sourchwatch describes The American Thinker as a right-wing echo-
chamber, whose statement wind up being echoed by mainstream pundits
such as Rush Limbaugh.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Thinker

Not a source that I'd see as reliable authority about an episode of
academic infighting.

So you may have - for once - understood the content of your text
correctly, but you have totally failed to appreciate how singularly
worthless the text is. Two of the guys who hawked a valueless paper
from journal to journal until they found one where the refereees
didn't do their job right are complaining about a conspiracy of better
referees to mininise the damage done by the incompetent referees. Fine
that they have taken advantage of Climategate to peddle their version
of the story, but a little bit of rational reflection might have
persuaded you that this might not be the whole truth.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Dec 23, 9:34 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Dec 22, 8:16 pm, krw <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:





On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 13:14:16 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Dec 22, 1:06 pm,Bill Sloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Dec 22, 6:29 pm, John Larkin

Or perhaps the increased velocity of communications and pressure to
publish has changed the time response. The real issue is whether
experimental results are influenced by the numbers from other
experimenters, or by desired results, namely by psychological
pressures. In the AGW case, it sure looks like it is, because the
choice of "corrections" is arbitrary.

We know that you'd like to think so. If you said that in a
sufficiently public forum, you'd be - very rightly - sued for libel.

John's post?  Not libel.  READ_ME_HARRY.TXT says as much, and, in the
USA, truth is an absolute defense.

IOW, Slowman doesn't like what John said so, like the good Europeon he
is, issues a threat of bankruptcy for daring to state an inconvenient
truth.

Bill makes it seem like Europeans can't say something even if it's
true.

Actually, I'm pointing out that even Americans have to be careful what
they say when it isn't true. John's claiming that 'in the AGW case, it
sure looks like it is, because the choice of "corrections" is
arbitrary' is fatuous nonsense. His claim is based on self-confident
ignorance rather than malice, but it does happen to be libelous
nonsense, directed at two specific scientists. If he'd gone to trouble
of reading even the Wikipedea report, let alone the references on
which it was based, he'd have different idea of what was going on, but
it would seem that he relied on his intuition to come up with this
utterly baseless claim.

Sounds like a new pet project for Obama's Congress--the National Truth
Act of 2009, proposed and passed Dec. 31.  It could be administered by
the Ministry of Truth.

Chris Mooney's "The Republican War on Science" documented the way that
Dubbya and his croney's dealt with truth when they were in power. I
don't recall you getting excited about that.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Dec 23, 9:28 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Dec 22, 8:15 pm, d...@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote:





In <ccb44845-5bfa-4353-bb02-b5bbac009...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,

dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Dec 22, 11:34 am,Bill Sloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Dec 22, 4:55 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Dec 19, 10:29 pm,Bill Sloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

On Dec 20, 1:32 am, John Larkin wrote:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/309/5740/1548

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements

What a mess! People seem to keep trying various corrections until they
get what they want.

Actually, the correct formulation is "until the data makes sense".

Finnegan's Finagling Factor: that number which, added to,
subtracted from, multiplied by, or divided into the number you
actually got, gives you the result you really wanted.

This is a serious misreading of what I was saying, as would be obvious
to anybody who had gone on to read the substance of what I wrote. The
Wikipedea discussion of the University of Alabama at Hintsville's
(UAH) correction from 5.1 to 5.2 points out that

/quote

For some time, the UAH satellite data's chief significance was that
they appeared to contradict a wide range of surface temperature data
measurements and analyses showing warming in line with that estimated
by climate models. In April 2002, for example, an analysis of the
satellite temperature data showed warming of only 0.04 °C per decade,
compared with surface measurements showing 0.17 ą 0.06 °C per decade.
The correction of errors in the analysis of the satellite data, as
noted above, have brought the two data sets more closely in line with
each other.

Christy et al. (2007) find that the tropical temperature trends from
radiosondes matches closest with his v5.2 UAH dataset.[17]
Furthermore, they assert there is a growing discrepancy between RSS
and sonde trends beginning in 1992, when the NOAA-12 satellite was
launched[18]. This research found that the tropics were warming, from
the balloon data, +0.09 (corrected to UAH) or +0.12 (corrected to RSS)
or 0.05 K (from UAH MSU; ą0.07 K room for error) a decade.

/end quote

Since the corrections were based on a more thorough analysis of the
way orbital decay affects the satellite observations, this isn't
Finagle factoring, but a way of making better sense of the data. That
the improved processing brings the results better into line with
independent observations of the same regions is a bonus and provides
some confidence that the investigators have finally concentrated their
attention on aspects of the data processing that needed it.

Or, alternatively, calls into question the utility of satellite-based
surface temperature inferences, since these have to made through
numerous interface layers & obstructions.

Either they're reliable indicators of surface temp. and we're not
warming, or they're not reliable.

Regardless, their version doesn't inspire confidence: that they a)
measured and published wrong data and b) _now_, _this time_ they've
really got it right.

SNIP from here

  I doubt the radiosonde data was tweaked.  I have yet to hear a complaint
about the radiosonde data.

  Meanwhile, the UAH index, more specifically the one for lower
troposphere, are by Christy and Spencer - as in the Spencer atwww.drroyspencer.com.  Is anyone here going to call him a warmingist?

I wouldn't care whether he was a or not, as long as he's careful and
honest.  The CRU crew were neither.

If you take Ravinghorde-style conspiracy-theorising seriously. The
fact of the matter is that while Climategate has thrown up a few e-
mails that can - if taken out of context and looked at with paranoid
suspicion - be made to seem suspect to conspiracy theory buffs like
Ravinghorde, there's nothing there that rates as a smoking gun, or
anything like it.

Climategate was timed to stir up the denialist fringe in time for
Copenhagen, and now that Copenhagen is over it will fade away, never
to be heard of again.

That's too bad.  I don't doubt warming overall--I have no certain
knowledge against it.  But it's hard to gauge when it's being
exaggerated by some of the most trusted people measuring it.

In other words you are another sucker for denialist propaganda, not
that we hadn't noticed already.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Archimedes' Lever]

On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 11:59:34 -0500, "Michael A. TurdEl"
<mike.turdel@earthlink.net> wrote:

What

Even my zero content, meaningless posts have more depth than any post
you make. You are pathetic, TurdEl.

mike.turdel@earthlink.net Hahaha.. that one will likely get through you
filters when folks spam that addy. Simply because it is *close* to
yours., your ISP will likely pass them to you. Since it is NOT yours,
however, you cannot do a goddamned thing about it.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Dec 23, 8:56 pm, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 10:33:40 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman

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

SNIP

As I've mentioned beforeRavinghorde is a less-than-reliable witness.
He often post sources that appear to support his point of view if you
only read as far as the quote he has pulled out of the text, but go on
to come to some rather different conclusion if you go to the trouble
of reading the whole thing to acquire some sense of the message that
the authors were trying to get across.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/6847227/Questions-over-business-deals...

/quotes

The head of the UN's climate change panel - Dr Rajendra Pachauri - is
accused of making a fortune from his links with 'carbon trading'
companies

What has also almost entirely escaped attention, however, is how Dr
Pachauri has established an astonishing worldwide portfolio of
business interests with bodies which have been investing billions of
dollars in organisations dependent on the IPCC’s policy
recommendations.

/end quotes

The question is, is he guilty of insider trading? Probably not, since
the "inside" knowledge that he has is published in peer-reviewed
journals.

If not, what are you complaining about? The IPCC doesn't write the
peer-reviewed papers that it reports on to the politicians it was
assembled to inform, so he isn't modifying reality to to advance the
companies in hwich he has invested.

I know that in your capacity as a sucker for denialist conspiracy
theories, you think that the IPCC dictates the measurements that
University of Alabama at Huntsville gets out of their satellites
(which ignores the point that both the scientists responsible for
extracting the measurements are card-carrying sceptics) but back in
the real world this sort of lunatic fringe opinion doesn't carry much
weight.

The fact that the Daily Telegraph article is inspired by the U.K.'s
Viscount Christopher Monckton and Australia's Senator Stephen Fielding
(sole elected representative of the Family First Party) - two
denialist fruitcakes - should make it clear just how little it is
worth.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Archimedes' Lever]

On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 14:42:18 -0700, Eric Jacobsen
<eric.jacobsen@ieee.org> wrote:

On 12/22/2009 11:48 PM, Archimedes' Lever wrote:
On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 22:49:52 -0700, Eric Jacobsen
eric.jacobsen@ieee.org> wrote:

On 12/22/2009 9:18 PM, Jerry Avins wrote:
Archimedes' Lever wrote:
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 02:08:44 +0000 (UTC), Rick Jones<rick.jones2@hp.com
wrote:

Is it "known" that the GI stuff (irony isn't cracked?

rick jones
None of their stuff has ever been cracked.

There were chips sold that made receivers "all channel" devices that
circumnavigated PPV choices, etc, but NOBODY... EVER... BROKE... ANY
General Instrument crypto schema.
Circumnavigated?
Went around, I think. Like claiming the lock on the safe is
unpickable, but the hinge pins can be easily pulled. Nobody will bother
to break a weak code when the back door is open.


That is not what happened either, ya dope.

The chips were being fabbed in greater number than those being sold to
the set top box makers, and that meant that hot chips were going out the
back door ... of the fab house. That has nothing to do with breaking
any code anywhere.

I think you misread. You could try again, but I've not a lot of
confidence in the outcome.

Maybe it is due to your bloodline's goddamned idiot factor.

There was NO breach of the crypto code or schema, so it would be YOU
that has obviously mis-read. Hacked boxes were sold, and the hack was
NOT a breaking of the protection schema's operation, it was by bypassing
it altogether within the chip. That scenario is not even possible any
longer.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Dec 23, 6:54 pm, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net>
wrote:

JosephKK wrote:

On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 09:23:02 +0000, Martin Brown <|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

JosephKK wrote:
On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 09:49:31 +0000, Martin Brown <|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

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

Make no mistake NATURE will be the final arbiter on this issue.

With the regards to the same published people being involved with tobacco defenders
and being AGW skeptics, please do provide names and publications and dates.  Please
note that the implication that science for hire can (and has been) be used against
AGW as well.
OK. Allowing for the UK being the libel law tourism capital of the world
(something which has brought the UK legal profession into disrepute) and
the litigious nature of the USA I will name only one key player who is
now dead (the dead cannot sue for libel).

Take a look at the later work of Frederick Seitz who was once an
excellent solid state physicist and educator but after his retirement he
sold his soul to R J Reynolds as a denier for hire on tobacco smoke.. His
official biography in the mainstream press is very kind:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/obituaries/article3523253.ece

The Washington Post makes his deep involvement with the tobacco industry
slightly clearer:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/05/AR200...

The public disclosure of tobacco related documents shows hard evidence:

http://tobaccodocuments.org/rjr/508263286-3286.html

It is also worth knowing what Phillip Morris thought of him:

http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/hwj53e00/pdf;jsessionid=FC140D7185...

The links from any of the usual source watch sites will allow you to
easily work out who are the other "deniers for hire" today, and also
which are the front organisations for their propaganda. Here is the
sourcewatch link to get you started if you want to find out more:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Frederick_Seitz

They are not all complete liars and charlatans but you do not have to
look that hard to find other tobacco "deniers for hire" in the game..
They are an incestuous little bunch so the links are not hard to find.

Regards,
Martin Brown

Hmmm.  This "tobacco denier", became to "AGW denier".  One instance.  Care to
try some more?  Please remember that AGW'ers are being accused of "science for
hire" as well.

Go and look at the sourcewatch link if you want more.
It isn't that hard to find the others.

I am not going to risk a personal libel suit from a "denier for hire" or
a front organisation with infinitely deep pockets by naming living
individuals. In the UK international libel actions are now commonplace,
very expensive and extremely frivolous. The odds are stacked heavily in
favour of the plaintiff and defence is extremely costly with no prospect
of getting costs back even if you successfully defend the action.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6898172.ece

California has banned libel tourism, other states are considering it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/may/04/libel-tourism-press-freedom

As we do not have the same right to free speech as you enjoy I will not
name living individuals.

Regards,
Martin Brown

Gosh, and the UK likes to be called the cradle of free speech.

   They had a choice.  Free speach, or the metric system.  

The libel laws took their present form some decades before the U.K.
finally went metric. As far as I know, the country was never offered a
choice.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[TheJoker]

On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 11:58:53 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

TheJoker wrote:

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 23:27:05 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:


HiggsField wrote:

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 05:56:55 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:


Rick Jones wrote:

In comp.protocols.tcp-ip Mark <makolber@yahoo.com> wrote:
Passing encrypted video over a satellite network built for
unencrypted analog video is not a trivial challenge. As far as I
know, there exists no scheme to do this that has not been broken
already. The problem is that encryption works partly by diffusing
information so that no part of the output looks like any part of
the input. The satellite link is filled with errors and distortion
that have to be contained to retain adequate video quality.

um,, is that why General Instrument was able to do it did it 15 years
ago for HBO?

Is it "known" that the GI stuff (irony isn't cracked?


You do know there were two levels of Videocipher? VC-1 was designed
for military applications.

Total bullshit. It was designed for backhaul work. It was also used
by companies like General Motors, to feed training seminars, etc. to all
their dealerships. They were one of the first OTA educational systems of
that depth.

ALL the major networks ended up using it, and that is what made GI the
de facto standard, and is why they were UNsuccessfully sued as a
monopoly. Uplink encoding is used by any content provider, and they must
use GI gear because that is what all the birds use. So they ARE a
monopoly, by default, but it is not their fault all the networks went
with their gear.

VC-II was a very scaled down version done for
HBO in the early '80s.

VC-I was in use in 1983 and from then on.

It was retired on the last day of last year, 2008.

VC-II (1985)"was done for" satellite receivers, uplink encoders and
decoders, and backhaul work, not just for HBO. It was retired in 1993 as
piracy had to be nipped out of the system. That was VC-II RS and that is
where the false keys and rolling keys and such came from. Then came
DigiCipher and DigiCipher II.

I installed one of the first VC-II units for
beta testing for HBO at United Video in Cincinnati, Ohio. That would
make it 25 years.

It appears that you understand basic math.

VC-II was hardware items for cable system operators, sure, but it was
ALSO hardware items for use in end user satellite set-top boxes, which
have nothing to do with cable.


ESD, dimbulb.

You're a total retard, TurdEl.


You're always trying to pull people down to your level, Chicken
Choker.

Hahaha... that was about as hypocritical a remark as any man could ever
make. Oh... that's right.. you do not rate the "man" moniker either,
much less live up to what the standards are for it.

 

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 15:40:48 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Dec 23, 9:28 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Dec 22, 8:15 pm, d...@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote:





In <ccb44845-5bfa-4353-bb02-b5bbac009...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,

dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Dec 22, 11:34 am,Bill Sloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Dec 22, 4:55 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Dec 19, 10:29 pm,Bill Sloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

On Dec 20, 1:32 am, John Larkin wrote:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/309/5740/1548

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements

What a mess! People seem to keep trying various corrections until they
get what they want.

Actually, the correct formulation is "until the data makes sense".

Finnegan's Finagling Factor: that number which, added to,
subtracted from, multiplied by, or divided into the number you
actually got, gives you the result you really wanted.

This is a serious misreading of what I was saying, as would be obvious
to anybody who had gone on to read the substance of what I wrote. The
Wikipedea discussion of the University of Alabama at Hintsville's
(UAH) correction from 5.1 to 5.2 points out that

/quote

For some time, the UAH satellite data's chief significance was that
they appeared to contradict a wide range of surface temperature data
measurements and analyses showing warming in line with that estimated
by climate models. In April 2002, for example, an analysis of the
satellite temperature data showed warming of only 0.04 °C per decade,
compared with surface measurements showing 0.17 ą 0.06 °C per decade.
The correction of errors in the analysis of the satellite data, as
noted above, have brought the two data sets more closely in line with
each other.

Christy et al. (2007) find that the tropical temperature trends from
radiosondes matches closest with his v5.2 UAH dataset.[17]
Furthermore, they assert there is a growing discrepancy between RSS
and sonde trends beginning in 1992, when the NOAA-12 satellite was
launched[18]. This research found that the tropics were warming, from
the balloon data, +0.09 (corrected to UAH) or +0.12 (corrected to RSS)
or 0.05 K (from UAH MSU; ą0.07 K room for error) a decade.

/end quote

Since the corrections were based on a more thorough analysis of the
way orbital decay affects the satellite observations, this isn't
Finagle factoring, but a way of making better sense of the data. That
the improved processing brings the results better into line with
independent observations of the same regions is a bonus and provides
some confidence that the investigators have finally concentrated their
attention on aspects of the data processing that needed it.

Or, alternatively, calls into question the utility of satellite-based
surface temperature inferences, since these have to made through
numerous interface layers & obstructions.

Either they're reliable indicators of surface temp. and we're not
warming, or they're not reliable.

Regardless, their version doesn't inspire confidence: that they a)
measured and published wrong data and b) _now_, _this time_ they've
really got it right.

SNIP from here

  I doubt the radiosonde data was tweaked.  I have yet to hear a complaint
about the radiosonde data.

  Meanwhile, the UAH index, more specifically the one for lower
troposphere, are by Christy and Spencer - as in the Spencer atwww.drroyspencer.com.  Is anyone here going to call him a warmingist?

I wouldn't care whether he was a or not, as long as he's careful and
honest.  The CRU crew were neither.

If you take Ravinghorde-style conspiracy-theorising seriously. The
fact of the matter is that while Climategate has thrown up a few e-
mails that can - if taken out of context and looked at with paranoid
suspicion - be made to seem suspect to conspiracy theory buffs like
Ravinghorde, there's nothing there that rates as a smoking gun, or
anything like it.

Climategate was timed to stir up the denialist fringe in time for
Copenhagen, and now that Copenhagen is over it will fade away, never
to be heard of again.

I don't think climategate affected Copenhagen much, because the
Copenhagen meet was populated by 35,000 True Believers.

Talk about fading! Copenhagen self-destructed all on its own.

John