Guest
You ate before the EU, who you trying to kid ? Or fool into staying in an unhealthy agreement for the country ?
You ate before the EU, who you trying to kid ? Or fool into staying in an unhealthy agreement for the country ?
Guest
>"What a silly argument, have you not heard of supplements? Anyone can cover the basics, those are cheap as can be. "
And half the people can't absorb them in that form.
And half the people can't absorb them in that form.
Guest
On Monday, April 29, 2019 at 12:44:32 PM UTC+10, jurb...@gmail.com wrote:
The UK used to import its food from the British Empire, which became the British Commonwealth, before it joined the EU. One of the side-effects of the British entry into the EU was that Tasmania's apple orchards lost their main customer and got abandoned or plowed up.
Getting that system working again after a hard Brexit may take a while.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
The UK used to import its food from the British Empire, which became the British Commonwealth, before it joined the EU. One of the side-effects of the British entry into the EU was that Tasmania's apple orchards lost their main customer and got abandoned or plowed up.
Getting that system working again after a hard Brexit may take a while.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Guest
On Monday, 29 April 2019 03:41:50 UTC+1, jurb...@gmail.com wrote:
Sea salt is not hard to find, nor are salt licks. What exactly were you looking for?
NT
Sea salt is not hard to find, nor are salt licks. What exactly were you looking for?
NT
Guest
jurb6006@gmail.com wrote in
news:f308f3cf-9bec-4b76-93c5-94140c19d1f6@googlegroups.com:
And half those who are able to take them at the wrong point and they
end up passing straight through them undigested / not absorbed.
One must eat vitamins AFTER a large meal. I have seen xrays of body
builders' colon full of vitamins that went through them like corn
kernels.
news:f308f3cf-9bec-4b76-93c5-94140c19d1f6@googlegroups.com:
And half those who are able to take them at the wrong point and they
end up passing straight through them undigested / not absorbed.
One must eat vitamins AFTER a large meal. I have seen xrays of body
builders' colon full of vitamins that went through them like corn
kernels.
Guest
On Monday, 29 April 2019 03:45:27 UTC+1, jurb...@gmail.com wrote:
there are decent ones too.
there are decent ones too.
Guest
>"Sea salt is not hard to find, nor are salt licks. What exactly were you looking for? "
The stuff I am looking for is. They make money off what they refine out of the salt. So they can refine it and just not fine grid it or add that anti-clumping agent and it is sea salt. That is because thy can claim that all salt is from the sea.
There is pink Himalayan salt that is actually from the mountains and supposed to very good, and of course expensive. But then there is other pink salt, it is colored ad sold as curing salt.
Salt is better without that additive, but with those trace minerals still in it, it is much much better.
I got Bokek and Ceara Atlanta(sp). The former is harvested from the Dead Sea, the latter is from northern regions of the Atlantic Ocean. They claimed it is harvested the old fashioned way, dam up a shallow body of seawater and let the sun dry it out. the you just collect it up. It is like salt they had hundreds of years ago.
I approached a company about having some samples analysed but found it cost prohibitive. Sure it would be nice to send in what I have, though the purpose would be to find a good supplier now. But the cost at something like $1,500 per sample is just a bit to steep for me. I mean I could buy say four kinds now and send in samples along with what I got and $7,500 later not find anything good.
As long as there are no regulations the can legally call almost any sodium chloride sea sat.
The stuff I am looking for is. They make money off what they refine out of the salt. So they can refine it and just not fine grid it or add that anti-clumping agent and it is sea salt. That is because thy can claim that all salt is from the sea.
There is pink Himalayan salt that is actually from the mountains and supposed to very good, and of course expensive. But then there is other pink salt, it is colored ad sold as curing salt.
Salt is better without that additive, but with those trace minerals still in it, it is much much better.
I got Bokek and Ceara Atlanta(sp). The former is harvested from the Dead Sea, the latter is from northern regions of the Atlantic Ocean. They claimed it is harvested the old fashioned way, dam up a shallow body of seawater and let the sun dry it out. the you just collect it up. It is like salt they had hundreds of years ago.
I approached a company about having some samples analysed but found it cost prohibitive. Sure it would be nice to send in what I have, though the purpose would be to find a good supplier now. But the cost at something like $1,500 per sample is just a bit to steep for me. I mean I could buy say four kinds now and send in samples along with what I got and $7,500 later not find anything good.
As long as there are no regulations the can legally call almost any sodium chloride sea sat.
Guest
On Monday, 29 April 2019 17:22:01 UTC+1, jurb...@gmail.com wrote:
NT:
There is concentrace trace mineral drops, but they're not cheap.
NT
NT:
There is concentrace trace mineral drops, but they're not cheap.
NT
Guest
jurb6006@gmail.com wrote in
news:0c8d3694-8b52-48c1-ae3a-56188e28e6fc@googlegroups.com:
For *some* things.
Too much of so many things and especially salt are very bad for you.
news:0c8d3694-8b52-48c1-ae3a-56188e28e6fc@googlegroups.com:
For *some* things.
Too much of so many things and especially salt are very bad for you.
Guest
jurb6006@gmail.com wrote in
news:0c8d3694-8b52-48c1-ae3a-56188e28e6fc@googlegroups.com:
Common table salt... Pretty much all of it, is recovered from salt
dome mines using deep reservoirs in the dome of highly salt infused
water. They pump that out and produce table salt from evaporation
process. They pump more water into the dome tubes and pull more salty
water out. The evaporation insures that there are no inclusions and
pure salt gets to your table... Unless it is iodized, of course. But
that would be added just before the evaporation cycle.
news:0c8d3694-8b52-48c1-ae3a-56188e28e6fc@googlegroups.com:
Common table salt... Pretty much all of it, is recovered from salt
dome mines using deep reservoirs in the dome of highly salt infused
water. They pump that out and produce table salt from evaporation
process. They pump more water into the dome tubes and pull more salty
water out. The evaporation insures that there are no inclusions and
pure salt gets to your table... Unless it is iodized, of course. But
that would be added just before the evaporation cycle.
J
Jeff Liebermann
Guest
On Mon, 29 Apr 2019 09:21:55 -0700 (PDT), jurb6006@gmail.com wrote:
Analysis of pink Himalayan salt:
<https://themeadow.com/pages/minerals-in-himalayan-pink-salt-spectral-analysis>
However, that only contains about 4% minerals (formly known as
contaminants). If you really want your minerals, perhaps Celtic Sea
salt at 23% would be better:
<http://www.celticseasaltblog.com/salt-analysis-meaning/>
You might enjoy a visit to the Wieliczka Salt Mine in Poland:
<https://www.wieliczka-saltmine.com>
<https://www.google.com/search?q=Wieliczka+Salt+Mine&tbm=isch>
San Francisco Bay has some large evaporation ponds:
<https://www.cargill.com/page/sf/sf-bay-salt-ponds>
However, they're being restored back to their natural wetlands
condition over the next 30 years:
<https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/salt-ponds-san-francisco>
Cargill also has a salt mine UNDER Lake Erie, which appears to be a
potential safety risk:
<https://www.cleveland.com/business/2013/08/cargill_salt.html>
<https://www.ideastream.org/news/exploring-the-cleveland-salt-mine>
--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
Analysis of pink Himalayan salt:
<https://themeadow.com/pages/minerals-in-himalayan-pink-salt-spectral-analysis>
However, that only contains about 4% minerals (formly known as
contaminants). If you really want your minerals, perhaps Celtic Sea
salt at 23% would be better:
<http://www.celticseasaltblog.com/salt-analysis-meaning/>
You might enjoy a visit to the Wieliczka Salt Mine in Poland:
<https://www.wieliczka-saltmine.com>
<https://www.google.com/search?q=Wieliczka+Salt+Mine&tbm=isch>
San Francisco Bay has some large evaporation ponds:
<https://www.cargill.com/page/sf/sf-bay-salt-ponds>
However, they're being restored back to their natural wetlands
condition over the next 30 years:
<https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/salt-ponds-san-francisco>
Cargill also has a salt mine UNDER Lake Erie, which appears to be a
potential safety risk:
<https://www.cleveland.com/business/2013/08/cargill_salt.html>
<https://www.ideastream.org/news/exploring-the-cleveland-salt-mine>
--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
C
Cursitor Doom
Guest
On Sun, 28 Apr 2019 19:30:18 -0700, jurb6006 wrote:
I'm sorry old mate, I very much like a lot of what you post; it's
interesting and well-reasoned, but the fact that you don't quote and
attribute properly makes it impossible to understand who you're following
up and the context involved. So with a heavy heart, I have no choice but
to plonk you. Sorry about that.
--
This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via
the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other
protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of
GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet
protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.
I'm sorry old mate, I very much like a lot of what you post; it's
interesting and well-reasoned, but the fact that you don't quote and
attribute properly makes it impossible to understand who you're following
up and the context involved. So with a heavy heart, I have no choice but
to plonk you. Sorry about that.
--
This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via
the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other
protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of
GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet
protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.
Guest
On Wednesday, May 1, 2019 at 6:10:29 AM UTC+10, Cursitor Doom wrote:
Definitely interesting, but only Cursitor Doom could see it as "well reasoned".
Impossible for Cursitor Doom, who is severely cognitively challenged. Merely tedious for the rest of us.
> So with a heavy heart, I have no choice
He's always got a choice, and he chooses to exclude one more source of potentially conflicting information to make his echo-bubble even more to his (poor) taste.
> but to plonk you. Sorry about that.
Not a sincere apology.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Definitely interesting, but only Cursitor Doom could see it as "well reasoned".
Impossible for Cursitor Doom, who is severely cognitively challenged. Merely tedious for the rest of us.
> So with a heavy heart, I have no choice
He's always got a choice, and he chooses to exclude one more source of potentially conflicting information to make his echo-bubble even more to his (poor) taste.
> but to plonk you. Sorry about that.
Not a sincere apology.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
J
Joseph Gwinn
Guest
On Apr 27, 2019, bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote
(in article<929d51e1-2478-4a80-b560-2cb8c450c387@googlegroups.com>
:
Having actually read the emails and having some acquaintance with how science
is done, my reading is also that the Climate Research Unit folk were true
believers, and were actively trying to suppress what they fervently believed
to be somewhere between wrong-headed and corrupt thoughts.
The CRU folk would have sent people with such thoughts to reeducation camps,
if the option were available. They were explicitly trying to destroy the
careers of wrong-thinking people.
But the CRU folk did _believe_ in what they were doing, and so were not lying
(which requires both knowing that something is untrue, plus intent to deceive
people about that thing -- it is *not* enough that a stated thing turns out
to be untrue -- intent to deceive must also be proven).
As for the Climate Hiatus (which had been noticed a few years earlier), the
CRU folk felt that it had to be some kind of modeling or experimental error
that would soon be understood and remedied, and so they simply didn´t talk
about it, hoping that the deniers would not notice.
Ten years later we now know that the Hiatus was and remains real, and people
have been trying to figure out where the missing heat is hiding, the leading
theories being that the heat is being accumulated somewhere in the ocean
deeps. Nowhere else makes much sense, for lack of sufficient thermal
capacity, but I am not convinced that we today understand the mechanism or
more likely mechanisms well enough to support any bold predictions. As
science articles always end, more research is needed.
As for the thoroughly bad paper in question, do you have a copy? I never did
obtain a copy, and so have no opinion on its merits. Given the level of
contention here, only direct examination of original sources will do.
Point not understood. Isn´t freedom of opinion basic to Science, and thus
always appropriate? Please expand.
..
> > By the way, the issue here is not whether Climate Change is or is not true.
Above lost line reinstated. Items arguing that Climate Change is itself true
or false are out of scope here, and so are deleted. As are ad hominem
attacks.
..
Joe Gwinn
(in article<929d51e1-2478-4a80-b560-2cb8c450c387@googlegroups.com>
:On Sunday, April 28, 2019 at 9:14:51 AM UTC+10, Robert Baer wrote:
Joseph Gwinn wrote:
On Apr 23, 2019, Cursitor Doom wrote
(in article <q9nhvf$95k$2@dont-email.me>
On Sun, 21 Apr 2019 16:08:27 -0700, bloggs.fredbloggs.fred wrote:
snip
People have spun the stolen emails from East Anglia many ways, and the are
has become thoroughly muddled, with everybody insisting that only they hav
the one true summary.
The bottom line is that the e-mails were reviewed by several groups who did
know enough about what academics do, and are supposed to do, to be able to
come to useful conclusions. None of them thought that e-mails revealed any
questionable activity. Climate change denialists have stuck with the
conclusion that they like.
https://www.amazon.com/Climate-Files-Battle-Global-Warming/dp/0852652291
is a book by a UK science journalist - Fred Pearce - who, like pretty much
all UK science journalists, doesn't know much about science. He didn't think
that the scientists involved had ever tried to mislead anybody, but he didn't
much like the way they'd gone after a denialist editor who had worked his way
onto the editorial board of a peer-reviewed climate science journal and
subsequently ignored the peer-reviews he'd received and published a
thoroughly bad paper whose content suited the denialist propaganda machine.
Having actually read the emails and having some acquaintance with how science
is done, my reading is also that the Climate Research Unit folk were true
believers, and were actively trying to suppress what they fervently believed
to be somewhere between wrong-headed and corrupt thoughts.
The CRU folk would have sent people with such thoughts to reeducation camps,
if the option were available. They were explicitly trying to destroy the
careers of wrong-thinking people.
But the CRU folk did _believe_ in what they were doing, and so were not lying
(which requires both knowing that something is untrue, plus intent to deceive
people about that thing -- it is *not* enough that a stated thing turns out
to be untrue -- intent to deceive must also be proven).
As for the Climate Hiatus (which had been noticed a few years earlier), the
CRU folk felt that it had to be some kind of modeling or experimental error
that would soon be understood and remedied, and so they simply didn´t talk
about it, hoping that the deniers would not notice.
Ten years later we now know that the Hiatus was and remains real, and people
have been trying to figure out where the missing heat is hiding, the leading
theories being that the heat is being accumulated somewhere in the ocean
deeps. Nowhere else makes much sense, for lack of sufficient thermal
capacity, but I am not convinced that we today understand the mechanism or
more likely mechanisms well enough to support any bold predictions. As
science articles always end, more research is needed.
As for the thoroughly bad paper in question, do you have a copy? I never did
obtain a copy, and so have no opinion on its merits. Given the level of
contention here, only direct examination of original sources will do.
Point not understood. Isn´t freedom of opinion basic to Science, and thus
always appropriate? Please expand.
..
> > By the way, the issue here is not whether Climate Change is or is not true.
Above lost line reinstated. Items arguing that Climate Change is itself true
or false are out of scope here, and so are deleted. As are ad hominem
attacks.
..
Joe Gwinn
Guest
On Wednesday, May 1, 2019 at 10:44:32 PM UTC+10, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
Getting four reviews, all of which said "don't publish this rotten paper" and publishing it anyway is decidedly wrong-headed, and since the paper was really handy for the denialist propaganda machine, the suspicion of corruption was rather strong.
Why bother? If somebody has to sold out to the merchants of doubt, re-education would be a waste of time.
> They were explicitly trying to destroy the careers of wrong-thinking people.
Ignoring four "reject" reviewers reports and getting found out is a career-destroying move on its own. It's more that they detected a decidedly anti-social act, and made the evidence about it available to people who need to know about it.
When the journal's publisher declined to fire the editor concerned, the editorial board all resigned in protest, and at that point the publisher got the message.
Twaddle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_hiatus
The El Nino/La Nina alternation changes the average global temperature.
The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation has the same sort of effect over longer periods.
The average temperature of the surface of the globe is a noisy signal, and cherry-picking segments to claim that there's been a "hiatus" in anthropogenic global warming is silly.
I'm sure you could find it."The Climate Files" names the journal. I'm not going to bother to re-read it to try an find it - I think my copy is still back in Nijmegen.
https://www.amazon.com/Climate-Files-Battle-Global-Warming/dp/0852652291
Science is about creating a coherent body of work. You submit your work to peer-reviewed journals, and referees read it, and give the editor their opinion on whether it is worth publishing or not. Consilience is what is being aimed for
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consilience
You can have any opinion you like, but you can't publish it in a peer-reviewed journal if it doesn't make sense in that context.
Read up on "continental drift" sometime.
https://www.livescience.com/37529-continental-drift.html
You can't talk about climate change on the basis that it is merely a hypothesis. There's rather too much supporting evidence that says it is real, and rather too much bought and paid for propaganda claiming that it isn't.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt
"Out of scope" doesn't let you off the hook.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
On Apr 27, 2019, bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote
(in article<929d51e1-2478-4a80-b560-2cb8c450c387@googlegroups.com>
On Sunday, April 28, 2019 at 9:14:51 AM UTC+10, Robert Baer wrote:
Joseph Gwinn wrote:
On Apr 23, 2019, Cursitor Doom wrote
(in article <q9nhvf$95k$2@dont-email.me>
On Sun, 21 Apr 2019 16:08:27 -0700, bloggs.fredbloggs.fred wrote:
snip
People have spun the stolen emails from East Anglia many ways, and the are
has become thoroughly muddled, with everybody insisting that only they hav
the one true summary.
The bottom line is that the e-mails were reviewed by several groups who did
know enough about what academics do, and are supposed to do, to be able to
come to useful conclusions. None of them thought that e-mails revealed any
questionable activity. Climate change denialists have stuck with the
conclusion that they like.
https://www.amazon.com/Climate-Files-Battle-Global-Warming/dp/0852652291
is a book by a UK science journalist - Fred Pearce - who, like pretty much
all UK science journalists, doesn't know much about science. He didn't think
that the scientists involved had ever tried to mislead anybody, but he
didn't much like the way they'd gone after a denialist editor who had worked
his way onto the editorial board of a peer-reviewed climate science journal
and subsequently ignored the peer-reviews he'd received and published a
thoroughly bad paper whose content suited the denialist propaganda machine.
Having actually read the emails and having some acquaintance with how science
is done, my reading is also that the Climate Research Unit folk were true
believers, and were actively trying to suppress what they fervently believed
to be somewhere between wrong-headed and corrupt thoughts.
Getting four reviews, all of which said "don't publish this rotten paper" and publishing it anyway is decidedly wrong-headed, and since the paper was really handy for the denialist propaganda machine, the suspicion of corruption was rather strong.
Why bother? If somebody has to sold out to the merchants of doubt, re-education would be a waste of time.
> They were explicitly trying to destroy the careers of wrong-thinking people.
Ignoring four "reject" reviewers reports and getting found out is a career-destroying move on its own. It's more that they detected a decidedly anti-social act, and made the evidence about it available to people who need to know about it.
When the journal's publisher declined to fire the editor concerned, the editorial board all resigned in protest, and at that point the publisher got the message.
Twaddle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_hiatus
The El Nino/La Nina alternation changes the average global temperature.
The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation has the same sort of effect over longer periods.
The average temperature of the surface of the globe is a noisy signal, and cherry-picking segments to claim that there's been a "hiatus" in anthropogenic global warming is silly.
I'm sure you could find it."The Climate Files" names the journal. I'm not going to bother to re-read it to try an find it - I think my copy is still back in Nijmegen.
https://www.amazon.com/Climate-Files-Battle-Global-Warming/dp/0852652291
Science is about creating a coherent body of work. You submit your work to peer-reviewed journals, and referees read it, and give the editor their opinion on whether it is worth publishing or not. Consilience is what is being aimed for
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consilience
You can have any opinion you like, but you can't publish it in a peer-reviewed journal if it doesn't make sense in that context.
Read up on "continental drift" sometime.
https://www.livescience.com/37529-continental-drift.html
You can't talk about climate change on the basis that it is merely a hypothesis. There's rather too much supporting evidence that says it is real, and rather too much bought and paid for propaganda claiming that it isn't.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt
"Out of scope" doesn't let you off the hook.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
J
Joseph Gwinn
Guest
On May 1, 2019, bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote
(in article<e2402b87-2c7b-4f24-839a-02b11c3c0c1e@googlegroups.com>:
What is open for debate is who was correct, reviewers (who may or may not
also be true believers), or the author. We need to see the actual paper.
Heh. Misses the point.
Coercion does work, then.
Matter of opinion it seems. The literature has not yet settled.
I´ve read these theories as well.
Now that I think of it, the journal is named in the emails. But I recall that
is was rare and paywall-defended.
I´m not sure I would have used this as an example, as it proved the
consensus and consilience can be very
wrong.<https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/medicine/2005/press-release/>
Yes, the area is thoroughly polluted with conflicting theories and spin.
Given that these are trillion-dollar issues, how could it be otherwise? Back
to original sources.
This is now trotted out whenever someone disagrees, but actually proves
nothing, as it´s fundamentally an ad hominem argument.
Sure it does, because my assessment of the emails had nothing to do with the
truth or falsity of Global Warming. Said another matter, what was being done
was ugly regardless of the scientific issue being discussed. In other words,
even if it turned out that there was for instance no hiatus, those actions
were still ugly, and unbecoming.
Joe Gwinn
(in article<e2402b87-2c7b-4f24-839a-02b11c3c0c1e@googlegroups.com>
:On Wednesday, May 1, 2019 at 10:44:32 PM UTC+10, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
On Apr 27, 2019, bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote
(in article<929d51e1-2478-4a80-b560-2cb8c450c387@googlegroups.com>
On Sunday, April 28, 2019 at 9:14:51 AM UTC+10, Robert Baer wrote:
Joseph Gwinn wrote:
On Apr 23, 2019, Cursitor Doom wrote
(in article <q9nhvf$95k$2@dont-email.me>
On Sun, 21 Apr 2019 16:08:27 -0700, bloggs.fredbloggs.fred wrote:
snip
People have spun the stolen emails from East Anglia many ways, and the
are
has become thoroughly muddled, with everybody insisting that only they
have the one true summary.
The bottom line is that the e-mails were reviewed by several groups who di
know enough about what academics do, and are supposed to do, to be able to
come to useful conclusions. None of them thought that e-mails revealed any
questionable activity. Climate change denialists have stuck with the
conclusion that they like.
https://www.amazon.com/Climate-Files-Battle-Global-Warming/dp/0852652291
is a book by a UK science journalist - Fred Pearce - who, like pretty much
all UK science journalists, doesn't know much about science. He didn't
think
that the scientists involved had ever tried to mislead anybody, but he
didn't much like the way they'd gone after a denialist editor who had
worked
his way onto the editorial board of a peer-reviewed climate science journa
and subsequently ignored the peer-reviews he'd received and published a
thoroughly bad paper whose content suited the denialist propaganda machine
Having actually read the emails and having some acquaintance with how
science
is done, my reading is also that the Climate Research Unit folk were true
believers, and were actively trying to suppress what they fervently believed
to be somewhere between wrong-headed and corrupt thoughts.
Getting four reviews, all of which said "don't publish this rotten paper" and
publishing it anyway is decidedly wrong-headed, and since the paper was
really handy for the denialist propaganda machine, the suspicion of
corruption was rather strong.
What is open for debate is who was correct, reviewers (who may or may not
also be true believers), or the author. We need to see the actual paper.
Heh. Misses the point.
Coercion does work, then.
Matter of opinion it seems. The literature has not yet settled.
I´ve read these theories as well.
Now that I think of it, the journal is named in the emails. But I recall that
is was rare and paywall-defended.
I´m not sure I would have used this as an example, as it proved the
consensus and consilience can be very
wrong.<https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/medicine/2005/press-release/>
Yes, the area is thoroughly polluted with conflicting theories and spin.
Given that these are trillion-dollar issues, how could it be otherwise? Back
to original sources.
This is now trotted out whenever someone disagrees, but actually proves
nothing, as it´s fundamentally an ad hominem argument.
Sure it does, because my assessment of the emails had nothing to do with the
truth or falsity of Global Warming. Said another matter, what was being done
was ugly regardless of the scientific issue being discussed. In other words,
even if it turned out that there was for instance no hiatus, those actions
were still ugly, and unbecoming.
Joe Gwinn
Guest
On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 12:01:27 PM UTC+10, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
It got widely cited on denialist websites, which makes it unlikely that it got the science right.
The point you want to make is that climate science is an ideology, not a science, which doesn't happen to be true, and plays into the world view that the denialist propaganda machine wants to popularise.
Don't expect me - or anybody with any grasp of what's actually going on - to fall for such a puerile trick.
Investigative journalism and consequent exposure does work. An editorial board resigning isn't any kind of coercive act. Quite the reverse - the editorial board abandoned the journal, and the publisher was left on his own to evaluate his options. He wasn't going to be able to make money out of publishing a medium quality academic journal if the board of academics who had previously endorsed it had decided to bail out.
There's always some half-wit publishing in a marginal journal who likes to make that kind of claim. The "Climate Hiatus" was always a denialist fraud, and if you haven't work that out yet, you are hopelessly gullible.
That isn't "theory" but practical fact. Grow up.
It wasn't a great journal, and mainly existed to make money for it's publisher, and let second-grade academics get second grade publications onto their CV. It didn't sound as if its impact factor was large.
Wegner had a bold idea, which turned out to be fundamentally correct (despite the occasional detail that Wegner got fatuously wrong), but it didn't make sense at the time, and it took about fifty years for geological knowledge and understanding to advance to the point where it could make sense, when it was enthusiastically accepted..
<https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/medicine/2005/press-release/>
Not in the same class. The result was a surprise, but it didn't contradict anything that people actually knew, as opposed to what they'd assumed without thinking about it.
The conflicting interests are those of the population as a whole, who don't want climate change, and those of the fossil-carbon extraction industry who are making enough money out of warming up the planet to be able to buy safe refuge in places that won't warm up much.
It's not difficult to distinguish between the legitimate interest and the confected spin, and irresponsible to act as if the are two sides invovled atre of comparable merit.
> Given that these are trillion-dollar issues, how could it be otherwise?
Better regulation of fake news?
The fact that unsavoury people are behaving dishonestly for money is definitely an ad hominem argument, but so is naming and shaming other forms of human rights abuse. The people involved were and are criminally dishonest, and you are busy setting yourself up as one of their accomplices.
Off on cloud nine, are we?
Cleaning out an augean stable is an unbecoming activity, but turning up your noise at it doesn't get the stables clean.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
On May 1, 2019, bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote
(in article<e2402b87-2c7b-4f24-839a-02b11c3c0c1e@googlegroups.com>
On Wednesday, May 1, 2019 at 10:44:32 PM UTC+10, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
On Apr 27, 2019, bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote
(in article<929d51e1-2478-4a80-b560-2cb8c450c387@googlegroups.com>
On Sunday, April 28, 2019 at 9:14:51 AM UTC+10, Robert Baer wrote:
Joseph Gwinn wrote:
On Apr 23, 2019, Cursitor Doom wrote
(in article <q9nhvf$95k$2@dont-email.me>
On Sun, 21 Apr 2019 16:08:27 -0700, bloggs.fredbloggs.fred wrote:
snip
People have spun the stolen emails from East Anglia many ways, and the area has become thoroughly muddled, with everybody insisting that only they have the one true summary.
The bottom line is that the e-mails were reviewed by several groups who did know enough about what academics do, and are supposed to do, to be able to come to useful conclusions. None of them thought that e-mails revealed any questionable activity. Climate change denialists have stuck with the conclusion that they like.
https://www.amazon.com/Climate-Files-Battle-Global-Warming/dp/0852652291
is a book by a UK science journalist - Fred Pearce - who, like pretty
much all UK science journalists, doesn't know much about science. He
didn't think that the scientists involved had ever tried to mislead
anybody, but he didn't much like the way they'd gone after a denialist
editor who had worked his way onto the editorial board of a
peer-reviewed climate science journal and subsequently ignored the peer-
reviews he'd received and published athoroughly bad paper whose content > > > > suited the denialist propaganda machine
Having actually read the emails and having some acquaintance with how
science is done, my reading is also that the Climate Research Unit folk
were true believers, and were actively trying to suppress what they
fervently believed to be somewhere between wrong-headed and corrupt
thoughts.
Getting four reviews, all of which said "don't publish this rotten paper"
and publishing it anyway is decidedly wrong-headed, and since the paper was
really handy for the denialist propaganda machine, the suspicion of
corruption was rather strong.
What is open for debate is who was correct, reviewers (who may or may not
also be true believers), or the author. We need to see the actual paper.
It got widely cited on denialist websites, which makes it unlikely that it got the science right.
The point you want to make is that climate science is an ideology, not a science, which doesn't happen to be true, and plays into the world view that the denialist propaganda machine wants to popularise.
Don't expect me - or anybody with any grasp of what's actually going on - to fall for such a puerile trick.
Investigative journalism and consequent exposure does work. An editorial board resigning isn't any kind of coercive act. Quite the reverse - the editorial board abandoned the journal, and the publisher was left on his own to evaluate his options. He wasn't going to be able to make money out of publishing a medium quality academic journal if the board of academics who had previously endorsed it had decided to bail out.
There's always some half-wit publishing in a marginal journal who likes to make that kind of claim. The "Climate Hiatus" was always a denialist fraud, and if you haven't work that out yet, you are hopelessly gullible.
That isn't "theory" but practical fact. Grow up.
It wasn't a great journal, and mainly existed to make money for it's publisher, and let second-grade academics get second grade publications onto their CV. It didn't sound as if its impact factor was large.
Wegner had a bold idea, which turned out to be fundamentally correct (despite the occasional detail that Wegner got fatuously wrong), but it didn't make sense at the time, and it took about fifty years for geological knowledge and understanding to advance to the point where it could make sense, when it was enthusiastically accepted..
<https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/medicine/2005/press-release/>
Not in the same class. The result was a surprise, but it didn't contradict anything that people actually knew, as opposed to what they'd assumed without thinking about it.
The conflicting interests are those of the population as a whole, who don't want climate change, and those of the fossil-carbon extraction industry who are making enough money out of warming up the planet to be able to buy safe refuge in places that won't warm up much.
It's not difficult to distinguish between the legitimate interest and the confected spin, and irresponsible to act as if the are two sides invovled atre of comparable merit.
> Given that these are trillion-dollar issues, how could it be otherwise?
Better regulation of fake news?
The fact that unsavoury people are behaving dishonestly for money is definitely an ad hominem argument, but so is naming and shaming other forms of human rights abuse. The people involved were and are criminally dishonest, and you are busy setting yourself up as one of their accomplices.
Off on cloud nine, are we?
Cleaning out an augean stable is an unbecoming activity, but turning up your noise at it doesn't get the stables clean.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
W
whit3rd
Guest
On Wednesday, May 1, 2019 at 7:01:27 PM UTC-7, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
Deciding to associate (or resign in protest) is normal social interaction,
and not 'coercion'.
Can't wait for 'settled' in this contentious environment. Ocean stirring and ice melting
don't leave a detailed record that we'll be able to analyze, so the
'unconvinced' will always have a glitch to point to.
We need enough info to proceed into the future, we dont need omniscience.
It can be otherwise by insisting on disclosure of interest. Wei-Hock Soon
who didn't disclose his energy-industry funding was committing a major ethical breach, and
in an ideal world, it wouldn't take years for such things to come to light.
Serious science theories don't conflict for long, if there are observations and
a venue for serious discussion. The 'conflicting theories' you see in tweets
aren't part of a serious discussion. "Warmist", like "Jewish science" is a keyphrase
indicating that the spin doctors are running the discussion, not the scientists.
I"m thinking that 'trillion-dollar issues' doesn't change any of the science,
and that's another disturbing phrase to see in a science discussion.
Deciding to associate (or resign in protest) is normal social interaction,
and not 'coercion'.
Can't wait for 'settled' in this contentious environment. Ocean stirring and ice melting
don't leave a detailed record that we'll be able to analyze, so the
'unconvinced' will always have a glitch to point to.
We need enough info to proceed into the future, we dont need omniscience.
It can be otherwise by insisting on disclosure of interest. Wei-Hock Soon
who didn't disclose his energy-industry funding was committing a major ethical breach, and
in an ideal world, it wouldn't take years for such things to come to light.
Serious science theories don't conflict for long, if there are observations and
a venue for serious discussion. The 'conflicting theories' you see in tweets
aren't part of a serious discussion. "Warmist", like "Jewish science" is a keyphrase
indicating that the spin doctors are running the discussion, not the scientists.
I"m thinking that 'trillion-dollar issues' doesn't change any of the science,
and that's another disturbing phrase to see in a science discussion.
J
Joseph Gwinn
Guest
On May 2, 2019, bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote
(in article<0c9d4d83-59af-477e-96a5-1b5b34fa0c15@googlegroups.com>:
We have reached our usual limit cycle. Our positions are quite clear now, so
Iâll stop now. You may have the last word.
Joe Gwinn
(in article<0c9d4d83-59af-477e-96a5-1b5b34fa0c15@googlegroups.com>
:On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 12:01:27 PM UTC+10, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
On May 1, 2019, bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote
(in article<e2402b87-2c7b-4f24-839a-02b11c3c0c1e@googlegroups.com>
On Wednesday, May 1, 2019 at 10:44:32 PM UTC+10, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
On Apr 27, 2019, bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote
(in article<929d51e1-2478-4a80-b560-2cb8c450c387@googlegroups.com>
On Sunday, April 28, 2019 at 9:14:51 AM UTC+10, Robert Baer wrote:
Joseph Gwinn wrote:
On Apr 23, 2019, Cursitor Doom wrote
(in article <q9nhvf$95k$2@dont-email.me>
On Sun, 21 Apr 2019 16:08:27 -0700, bloggs.fredbloggs.fred wrote:
snip
People have spun the stolen emails from East Anglia many ways, and the
area has become thoroughly muddled, with everybody insisting that only
they have the one true summary.
The bottom line is that the e-mails were reviewed by several groups who
did know enough about what academics do, and are supposed to do, to be
able to come to useful conclusions. None of them thought that e-mails
revealed any questionable activity. Climate change denialists have stuck
with the conclusion that they like.
https://www.amazon.com/Climate-Files-Battle-Global-Warming/dp/0852652291
is a book by a UK science journalist - Fred Pearce - who, like pretty
much all UK science journalists, doesn't know much about science. He
didn't think that the scientists involved had ever tried to mislead
anybody, but he didn't much like the way they'd gone after a denialist
editor who had worked his way onto the editorial board of a
peer-reviewed climate science journal and subsequently ignored the peer-
reviews he'd received and published athoroughly bad paper whose content
suited the denialist propaganda machine
Having actually read the emails and having some acquaintance with how
science is done, my reading is also that the Climate Research Unit folk
were true believers, and were actively trying to suppress what they
fervently believed to be somewhere between wrong-headed and corrupt
thoughts.
Getting four reviews, all of which said "don't publish this rotten paper"
and publishing it anyway is decidedly wrong-headed, and since the paper was
really handy for the denialist propaganda machine, the suspicion of
corruption was rather strong.
What is open for debate is who was correct, reviewers (who may or may not
also be true believers), or the author. We need to see the actual paper.
It got widely cited on denialist websites, which makes it unlikely that it
got the science right.
The CRU folk would have sent people with such thoughts to reeducation
camps, if the option were available.
Why bother? If somebody has to sold out to the merchants of doubt,
re-education would be a waste of time.
Heh. Misses the point.
The point you want to make is that climate science is an ideology, not a
science, which doesn't happen to be true, and plays into the world view that
the denialist propaganda machine wants to popularise.
Don't expect me - or anybody with any grasp of what's actually going on - to
fall for such a puerile trick.
They were explicitly trying to destroy the careers of wrong-thinking
people.
Ignoring four "reject" reviewers reports and getting found out is a
career-destroying move on its own. It's more that they detected a decidedly
anti-social act, and made the evidence about it available to people who
need
to know about it.
When the journal's publisher declined to fire the editor concerned, the
editorial board all resigned in protest, and at that point the publisher
got
the message.
Coercion does work, then.
Investigative journalism and consequent exposure does work. An editorial
board resigning isn't any kind of coercive act. Quite the reverse - the
editorial board abandoned the journal, and the publisher was left on his own
to evaluate his options. He wasn't going to be able to make money out of
publishing a medium quality academic journal if the board of academics who
had previously endorsed it had decided to bail out.
But the CRU folk did _believe_ in what they were doing, and so were not
lying (which requires both knowing that something is untrue, plus intent
to deceive people about that thing -- it is *not* enough that a stated
thing turns out to be untrue -- intent to deceive must also be proven).
As for the Climate Hiatus (which had been noticed a few years earlier),
the CRU folk felt that it had to be some kind of modeling or experimental
error that would soon be understood and remedied, and so they simply
didn´t talk about it, hoping that the deniers would not notice.
Ten years later we now know that the Hiatus was and remains real, and
people have been trying to figure out where the missing heat is hiding,
the leading theories being that the heat is being accumulated somewhere in
the ocean deeps. Nowhere else makes much sense, for lack of sufficient
thermal capacity, but I am not convinced that we today understand the
mechanism or more likely mechanisms well enough to support any bold
predictions. As science articles always end, more research is needed.
Twaddle.
Matter of opinion it seems. The literature has not yet settled.
There's always some half-wit publishing in a marginal journal who likes to
make that kind of claim. The "Climate Hiatus" was always a denialist fraud,
and if you haven't work that out yet, you are hopelessly gullible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_hiatus
The El Nino/La Nina alternation changes the average global temperature.
The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation has the same sort of effect over
longer periods.
The average temperature of the surface of the globe is a noisy signal, and
cherry-picking segments to claim that there's been a "hiatus" in
anthropogenic global warming is silly.
I´ve read these theories as well.
That isn't "theory" but practical fact. Grow up.
As for the thoroughly bad paper in question, do you have a copy? I never
did obtain a copy, and so have no opinion on its merits. Given the level
of contention here, only direct examination of original sources will do.
I'm sure you could find it."The Climate Files" names the journal. I'm not
going to bother to re-read it to try an find it - I think my copy is still
back in Nijmegen.
https://www.amazon.com/Climate-Files-Battle-Global-Warming/dp/0852652291
Now that I think of it, the journal is named in the e-mails. But I recall
that
is was rare and paywall-defended.
It wasn't a great journal, and mainly existed to make money for it's
publisher, and let second-grade academics get second grade publications onto
their CV. It didn't sound as if its impact factor was large.
Fed Pearce was thinking in terms of freedom of opinion, which isn't
appropriate in this context.
Point not understood. Isn´t freedom of opinion basic to Science, and
thus
always appropriate? Please expand.
Science is about creating a coherent body of work. You submit your work to
peer-reviewed journals, and referees read it, and give the editor their
opinion on whether it is worth publishing or not. Consilience is what is
being aimed for
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consilience
You can have any opinion you like, but you can't publish it in a
peer-reviewed journal if it doesn't make sense in that context.
Read up on "continental drift" sometime.
https://www.livescience.com/37529-continental-drift.html
I´m not sure I would have used this as an example, as it proved the
consensus and consilience can be very wrong.
Wegner had a bold idea, which turned out to be fundamentally correct (despite
the occasional detail that Wegner got fatuously wrong), but it didn't make
sense at the time, and it took about fifty years for geological knowledge and
understanding to advance to the point where it could make sense, when it was
enthusiastically accepted..
https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/medicine/2005/press-release/
Not in the same class. The result was a surprise, but it didn't contradict
anything that people actually knew, as opposed to what they'd assumed without
thinking about it.
By the way, the issue here is not whether Climate Change is or is not
true.
Above lost line reinstated. Items arguing that Climate Change is itself
true or false are out of scope here, and so are deleted. As are ad hominem
attacks.
You can't talk about climate change on the basis that it is merely a
hypothesis. There's rather too much supporting evidence that says it is
real, and rather too much bought and paid for propaganda claiming that it
isn't.
Yes, the area is thoroughly polluted with conflicting theories and spin.
The conflicting interests are those of the population as a whole, who don't
want climate change, and those of the fossil-carbon extraction industry who
are making enough money out of warming up the planet to be able to buy safe
refuge in places that won't warm up much.
It's not difficult to distinguish between the legitimate interest and the
confected spin, and irresponsible to act as if the are two sides invovled
atre of comparable merit.
Given that these are trillion-dollar issues, how could it be otherwise?
Better regulation of fake news?
Back to original sources.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt
This is now trotted out whenever someone disagrees, but actually proves
nothing, as it´s fundamentally an ad hominem argument.
The fact that unsavoury people are behaving dishonestly for money is
definitely an ad hominem argument, but so is naming and shaming other forms
of human rights abuse. The people involved were and are criminally dishonest,
and you are busy setting yourself up as one of their accomplices.
"Out of scope" doesn't let you off the hook.
Sure it does, because my assessment of the emails had nothing to do with the
truth or falsity of Global Warming.
Off on cloud nine, are we?
Said another matter, what was being done
was ugly regardless of the scientific issue being discussed. In other words,
even if it turned out that there was for instance no hiatus, those actions
were still ugly, and unbecoming.
Cleaning out an augean stable is an unbecoming activity, but turning up your
noise at it doesn't get the stables clean.
We have reached our usual limit cycle. Our positions are quite clear now, so
Iâll stop now. You may have the last word.
Joe Gwinn
J
Joseph Gwinn
Guest
On May 2, 2019, whit3rd wrote
(in article<5111a288-f1da-4b86-9b2f-b42eb85de137@googlegroups.com>:
Well, I did know how he made his living.
By the same token, anybody who works for an greenie group must be convicted
of bias?
Yep. But "for long" can be the better part of a century.
The point about a trillion-dollar issue is simply that when one proposes that
people spend trillions of dollars on something, one should expect resistance,
very close questioning, and loud debate. And it will take a very long time to
resolve. It has always been thus.
In the US, one must convince approximately 200 million people. But even if
that is done, there is a scaling issue: The population of the US is about 300
million. The total population of China, India, and Pakistan is more like
3,000 million, and they are mostly poor, and mostly use coal. It actually
makes little difference what the US (and the EU for that matter) does, it
will be swamped by China, India, and Pakistan, as they try to escape poverty,
to become rich like us.
Appeals to the authority of science are all well and good, butwith that much
at stake, don´t expect such assertions to settle the argument.
Joe Gwinn
(in article<5111a288-f1da-4b86-9b2f-b42eb85de137@googlegroups.com>
:Well, I did know how he made his living.
By the same token, anybody who works for an greenie group must be convicted
of bias?
Yep. But "for long" can be the better part of a century.
The point about a trillion-dollar issue is simply that when one proposes that
people spend trillions of dollars on something, one should expect resistance,
very close questioning, and loud debate. And it will take a very long time to
resolve. It has always been thus.
In the US, one must convince approximately 200 million people. But even if
that is done, there is a scaling issue: The population of the US is about 300
million. The total population of China, India, and Pakistan is more like
3,000 million, and they are mostly poor, and mostly use coal. It actually
makes little difference what the US (and the EU for that matter) does, it
will be swamped by China, India, and Pakistan, as they try to escape poverty,
to become rich like us.
Appeals to the authority of science are all well and good, butwith that much
at stake, don´t expect such assertions to settle the argument.
Joe Gwinn