Toshiba TV29C90 problem; Image fades to black...

[kreed]

On Oct 7, 6:07 pm, "Arfa Daily" <arfa.da...@ntlworld.com> wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net> wrote in messagenews:i-mdnTDIRtyYLRPTnZ2dnUVZ_o6dnZ2d@earthlink.com...

Arfa Daily wrote:

snip

I've just lost the will to live ...

  Take two kill filters and call me in the morning.

--

OK Michael, will do !

I just can't quite understand how 1000+ dissenting voices (links to
government papers citing this previously supplied by Jeff L) from the same
scientific world as the scientists advocating that the problem is man-made
in the first place, can possibly represent "a handful of people" that are
"religious nutters" (!!) or "employed by the fossil fuel lobby".

How it works is that many people are aware that AGW is looking so much
like a crock, one Rasmussen poll in the US quoted that 69% of those
polled believed that the scientists in the IPCC had defrauded data in
order to support global warming.

The public just don't buy it anymore and the same can be seen in the
Australian polls on the Carbon tax, approximately 70% don't want it.
If you start bringing up the subject with people generally, you cannot
find anyone who wants it and almost as many don't believe in AGW to
boot.


Anyone who doesnt fully believe Trevor's fantasy and his beliefs is
simply
not relevant. They are an "idiot" and if they are actually a
scientist, he will simply
claim that they are "not a scientist if they disbelieve AGW", or paid
off by the "fossil fuel lobby"

Trevor worships as gospel anything that comes from the IPCC and
ignores that it may not be what he thinks it is
when it comes to honesty and integrity.

Strange part is that looking at Google, many of the IPCC are involved
in the World Wildlife fund
and they are funded by BP, so in reality you could say that many in
the IPCC who are involved in this
group are funded by the "fossil fuel" industry. Funny how the "fossil
fuel industry" - BP for example fully support AGW and the carbon
taxes.

Take a look at how many others are funded by global banks, who
originally cooked up this fraud (as well as other "dirty air" scams
over the last 40 odd years, and funded it in order to create fear,
and rake in profits This is only the tip of the iceberg of fraud and
corruption.

Trev can't see through this, and also he is very likely in my opinion
also concerned that if the AGW fraud continues to collaps into dust
that his wife (who according to others on here works for the CSIRO)
loses her job in CSIRO, (Which is also headed by a former one of these
global bank officials, and therefore not to be trusted) it will kill
their household income if the institute is defunded, in order to
appease a public that wants blood, after being conned - and possibly
hurt future career prospects for being associated with this
organisation, even if she is not involved in the "climate science"
part and or wasn't knowingly being dishonest.

Its not hard, you just follow the money, and who benefits from it.


If that

many of them really represent just a handful, there must then be millions of
climatologists in the world, and they must all be speaking somehow with the
same voice. Even the sacred IPCC hasn't got that many climatologists on its
panel, and still fewer among its peer reviewers that Trevor is so fond of
quoting, as apparently, there is no actual requirement to be qualified in
that discipline, and the main criteria for acceptance onto the peer review
panel, is to be invited by some (like-minded) person already on it.

That would be about right. Its how government works.

> Arfa

 

[kreed]

On Oct 7, 9:32 pm, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net>
wrote:

Arfa Daily wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:i-mdnTDIRtyYLRPTnZ2dnUVZ_o6dnZ2d@earthlink.com...

Arfa Daily wrote:

snip

I've just lost the will to live ...

  Take two kill filters and call me in the morning.

--
OK Michael, will do !

I just can't quite understand how 1000+ dissenting voices (links to
government papers citing this previously supplied by Jeff L) from the same
scientific world as the scientists advocating that the problem is man-made
in the first place, can possibly represent "a handful of people" that are
"religious nutters" (!!) or "employed by the fossil fuel lobby". If that
many of them really represent just a handful, there must then be millions of
climatologists in the world, and they must all be speaking somehow with the
same voice. Even the sacred IPCC hasn't got that many climatologists on its
panel, and still fewer among its peer reviewers that Trevor is so fond of
quoting, as apparently, there is no actual requirement to be qualified in
that discipline, and the main criteria for acceptance onto the peer review
panel, is to be invited by some (like-minded) person already on it.

   He's a small minded loser who latches onto something, then refuses to
look at the issue.  He searches for others like him to 'prove' that he's
right.  He ignores anything may may even remotely prove him wrong,
because his whole world would collapse.  Even though it's been shown
that his beloved IPCC is composed of liars who cook data and thieves who
knowingly publish bad data to keep their funding, he keeps drinking the
'Jonestown Kool-Aid' and demanding more poison.

--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.

That sounds like a pretty accurate profile of the guy to me.

 

[KR]

On Sep 25, 6:20 pm, "Phil Allison" <phi...@tpg.com.au> wrote:

"Trevor Wilson"

**I suggest you read this:

http://www.choice.com.au/reviews-and-tests/household/energy-and-water...

** A laughably worthless test, not in any way related to normal use.

Something the rabid green lunatics atChoiceare FAMOUS  for  !!!

Look at the pic  -  all the CFLs are suspended in mid air !!

No light fittings, not even a ceiling above them.

The room is air conditioned too.

And  NO  on /off  cycling at all  !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.jenman.com.au/news_article.php?id=262

This article tends to reinforce what you said about Choice.

Not  ONE  of the  KNOWN  issues with CFLs will be revealed in such a test.

BTW:

One reason thatChoicedid not cycle the CFLs is that they found it  VERY
difficult to do.

If you try to switch on 10 or more CFLs at once, it will trip the lighting
circuit breaker ( 8 amp) regularly  -   with over 200 it will not even be
possible at all.

CFLs have large inrush surges, up to 20 amps peak or more for long enough to
active the magnetic trip on lighting breakers.

Looks like the CFLs in that test were powered from a wall outlet (ie using a
16 amp breaker) and brought on in groups of 10 ( using several multi-way
power boards) until they were all lit and left like that for 12 months.

Total Bollocks.

The other green lunatic drivel quoted in the article makes me wanna puke.

.... Phil

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Fri, 7 Oct 2011 19:49:49 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
<trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

**Because a 1000+ dissenting scientists is a MINISCULE proportion of all
those who hold degrees in science. Utterly insignificant, in fact. Think
MILLIONS.

Not quite millions.
31,487 Scientists who have their doubts.
<http://www.petitionproject.org>
The breakdown is:
<http://www.petitionproject.org/qualifications_of_signers.php>
3,805 Atmospheric, environmental, and Earth sciences
935 Computer and mathematical sciences
5,812 Physics and aerospace sciences
4,822 Chemistry
2,965 Biology and agriculture
3,046 Medicine
10,102 Engineering and general science

"List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of
global warming"
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming>

On the other foot, the IPCC AR4 had about 2500 contributors, including
800 listed as authors. The rest seem to be mostly reviewers:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change#Contributors>

Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change
<http://www.nipccreport.org>

In any case, the only opinions of interest are those who are those
who are credentialled in the area of climatology. I see no reference to the
credentials of these alleged "1,000 scientists"

It's amazingly difficult to verify credentials and degrees. I would
not be surprised if a fairly large number of degrees, on both sides of
the debate, were faked. There's also the question of qualifications.
I have a BS in Electrical and Electronics Engineering, which certainly
has little to do with climate. Yet, I my varied experience would
qualify me as a reviewer. Since the head of the IPCC, Rajendra K.
Pachauri, is an economist, and shared the Nobel Peace Prize with Al
Gore, a professional politician, precisely what qualifications do you
believe are required in order to have an opinion on the subject?

If that many of them really represent just a handful,
there must then be millions of climatologists in the world,

**There isn't. There are not very many climatologists.

<http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/consensus.htm>
"The number of climate scientists in the US can be found
by examining the members of the American Geophysical Union
(AGU). As of November 10, 2006 we know that there is a
minimum (no official count of foreign climatologists is
available) of 20,000 working climatologists worldwide."

Spencer (the religious nutter that denies
Darwin's seminal work) is one of the most vocal. That should tell you all
you need to know.

What is your problem with Spencer? Controversial causes and debates
all have their lunatic fringe. Every organization that I've ever been
associated with has had "supporters" that have done more damage than
good by their involvement. Many of them associate themselves with
causes and organizations simply to further their own agenda (cheap
advertising). With anything as argumentative as global warming, the
lunatic fringe is certain to be well represented on both sides of the
debate.

Even the sacred
IPCC hasn't got that many climatologists on its panel,

**So?

It was you that was suggesting that the AGW deniers were
insufficiently qualified. The number of climatologists can be fairly
minimal, and still be correct. Climatologists usually don't do their
own statistics, don't deal with economic impacts, and have minimal
involvement in actual contents of the report. Climatologists and
researchers produce the original numbers on which the reports are
based. Those numbers are taken up by statisticians, chemists,
doctors, atmospheric researchers, economists, etc and turned into a
coherent and peer reviewed report, suitable for general consumption.
If the report required the sole participation of only climate
scientists, then we might see the IPCC AR5 in the next century.

**I'm reasonably certain that religious fruit looks, like Spencer, have
automatically disqualified themselves, due to their insistence that the fact
of evolution is bunk and that the only form of acceptable funding comes from
Exxon.

That's the 3rd time you've mentioned Spencer in your rant. He's not
important.


--
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

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Fri, 07 Oct 2011 07:32:38 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

He's a small minded loser who latches onto something, then refuses to
(...)

I'm having a lousy day and feel the need to unload on someone[1].
You'll suffice. Nothing personal.

I have a different view of Trevor. Even though I don't agree with his
position, I do understand his and the IPCC's point of view. I'll even
read IPCC AR4, specifically looking for how they handled temperature
precedes C02. I would not expect him to respect my opinions unless I
also respect his. Therefore, I have not engaged in any name calling,
labeling, word games, or insults. I'll listen to his logic, his
rationalizations, and even his dogma, as I would listen to others, who
might also be religious, politically incorrect, deranged, unpopular,
or insufficiently credentialed. That's because wisdom doesn't come
from experts. It comes from those who question the experts.

[1] For the curious, I just trashed a laptop LCD trying to replace
the CCFL backlight. Argh.

--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558
# http://802.11junk.com jeffl@cruzio.com
# http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Fri, 7 Oct 2011 01:23:03 +0100, "Arfa Daily"
<arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote:

I've just lost the will to live ...
Arfa

Can I have your test equipment?

--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558
# http://802.11junk.com jeffl@cruzio.com
# http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS

 

[Jerry Peters]

In sci.electronics.repair Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

Arfa Daily wrote:
"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:i-mdnTDIRtyYLRPTnZ2dnUVZ_o6dnZ2d@earthlink.com...

Arfa Daily wrote:

snip

I've just lost the will to live ...


Take two kill filters and call me in the morning.


--
OK Michael, will do !

I just can't quite understand how 1000+ dissenting voices (links to
government papers citing this previously supplied by Jeff L) from the
same scientific world as the scientists advocating that the problem
is man-made in the first place, can possibly represent "a handful of
people" that are "religious nutters" (!!) or "employed by the fossil
fuel lobby".

**Because a 1000+ dissenting scientists is a MINISCULE proportion of all
those who hold degrees in science. Utterly insignificant, in fact. Think
MILLIONS. In any case, the only opinions of interest are those who are those
who are credentialled in the area of climatology. I see no reference to the
credentials of these alleged "1,000 scientists" BTW. They could, like
Spencer, be 'Creation Scientists'. Will you throw your weight behind Spencer
and his odd-ball ideas?

If that many of them really represent just a handful,
there must then be millions of climatologists in the world,

**There isn't. There are not very many climatologists.

and they
must all be speaking somehow with the same voice.

**97% are. 3% dispute the science. Spencer (the religious nutter that denies
Darwin's seminal work) is one of the most vocal. That should tell you all
you need to know.

Did you actually look at that study? After a thorough torturing of the
data to get the desired conclusion, they ended up with *79* "climate
scientists". A perfect example of cherry picking!

Even the sacred
IPCC hasn't got that many climatologists on its panel,

**So?


and still
fewer among its peer reviewers that Trevor is so fond of quoting, as
apparently, there is no actual requirement to be qualified in that
discipline, and the main criteria for acceptance onto the peer review
panel, is to be invited by some (like-minded) person already on it.

Try this: http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/06/ipcc-discussion-thread/
Note that Judith Curry is chair of atmospheric physics at GA Tech.

**I'm reasonably certain that religious fruit looks, like Spencer, have
automatically disqualified themselves, due to their insistence that the fact
of evolution is bunk and that the only form of acceptable funding comes from
Exxon.

You should be, since you are one.

Jerry

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Jeffrey Angus wrote:

On 10/7/2011 6:32 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
he keeps drinking the
'Jonestown Kool-Aid' and demanding more poison.

Point of order, Jonetwon used Flavoraid, not Koolaid.

Minor nit. ;-)

Kept in their Frigidaire, and made with their Kitchen Aid mixer?


--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.

 

[josephkk]

On Tue, 4 Oct 2011 15:31:17 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
<trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

josephkk wrote:
On Tue, 4 Oct 2011 07:33:23 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sat, 1 Oct 2011 17:30:35 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/crud/Vostok_Petit_data_03.jpg

**I've studied the graphs in some considerable detail over the
years and have noted that CO2 rise sometimes precedes temperature
rise and sometimes it lags. This fits in well with current theory
on how temperature changes have occured in the past. Not all have
been caused by CO2 rise. The most important factor to note,
however, is that CO2 levels and temperature levels track each
other very closely. When one goes up, the other does too.

You can't have it both ways.

**Of course you can. High CO2 levels lead to rising temperatures.
High temperatures drive CO2 out of solution from the oceans. When
one rises, the other follows.

Either warming causes a CO2 increase, or
CO2 causes a warming increase.

**Of both.

Since they track each other, it's
presumed that there's a cause and effect mechanism in operation.

**Well, we KNOW that CO2 acts as a GHG. That has been shown
experimentally many times.

If
your claim of mutual causality were true, where an increase in
either factor causes an increase in the other, then that's positive
feedback.

**Correct.


Temperature and CO2 would simply increase without any limit, causing
the planet to look like Venus.

**Not necessarily. We don't have as much CO2 available as there is
on Venus, for instance. We also don't know precisely what caused
prior warmings or high CO2 levels. We are also much further out from
the Sun than Venus is. Make no mistake: The Sun is the major driver
of temperatures on this planet. CO2 is a relatively small driver. It
is NOT an insignificant driver.

We've survived 5 temperature cycles in
the last 500,000 years which demonstrates that it's NOT postive
feedback.

**Not quite. The prior warming periods occured over many thousands
of years. This present warming is occuring within a few hundred. It
is occuring MUCH faster that at any time in the past few hundred
million years. It is the extreme rapidity of the present warming
that is causing considerable concern.


http://rps3.com/Files/AGW/VOSTOKICECoreObservations_Stewart2009.pdf
Assuming the five temperature maximums are related to the 1st
Order 100,000 year Milankovitch cycles, CO2 had little effect
is maintaining the high temperatures. As seen in Cycle 4,
even though CO2 levels were at maximum 299 ppmv CO2,
temperature did not continue to increase, but actually made
a abrupt reversal. Therefore it appears that the mechanical
temperature rise & fall associated with 1st order Milankovitch
cycles appear to overwhelm any warming effect associated with
CO2, for CO2 levels below 299 ppmv;

**Except that CO2 levels are presently around 385ppm and rising. As
is average temperature.


Bottom line. The direct line causal connections are just not there.

**Not quite. Absolute cause and effect cannot be proven for past events.
What we do have, however, is solid science that CO2 acts as a GHG. We also
have compelling evidence that rising CO2 levels and temperatures are solidly
linked. When one rises, the other follows.


Moreover, all of your recent stuff points to at least one well known
input which can produce both increases. Your case is breaking down.

?-)

**You think? You need to supply some science to show that rising CO2 levels
are not the cause of the present warming. Thus far, you've supplied nothing.

Aleready done. Jeff provided the time direction corrected graph. The
presumed causal connection is voided due to the timing of the changes in
CO2 and temperature. You just refuse to understand.

?-))))

 

[josephkk]

On Thu, 6 Oct 2011 07:29:54 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
<trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

Jeff wrote:
If I randomly assume a 1% increase per year in each factor will cause a
corresponding 1% increase in the other, we would hit a 100% increase
in a few years. In order to prevent such an out of control increase
in the model, there would need to be a moderating outside influence,
that prevents such uncontrolled increases. So far, the various
mechanisms for absorbing CO2 (vegetation and ocean absorption) have
been demonstrated to be inadequate. What keeps CO2 and temperature
from increasing each other without limits?

**No idea. And THAT is precisely the problem. Both may end up increasing
until CO2 levels and temperatures are so high that several catastrophic
phenomena occur. CO2 levels could reach (say) 5% or so. Return to 'normal'
levels would likely take several million years.

The explaining power of the model is worthless then.

 

[Arfa Daily]

"Jeff Liebermann" <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote in message
news:8fqu879g9t9ra6n3prniip85lth7lf5535@4ax.com...

On Fri, 7 Oct 2011 01:23:03 +0100, "Arfa Daily"
arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote:

I've just lost the will to live ...
Arfa

Can I have your test equipment?

--
# Jeff Liebermann

Ha ! No ! Today, the world of Arfa just got a bit better. A company that I
used to relieve of a lot of money, but whose work slowly dried up, as that
company changed hands and names over the years, seem to have just got
themselves a new warranty manager. He emailed me mid week and invited me to
call him regarding some new work that he wanted me to look at. It's a bunch
of switch-mode power supplies, and having had a squint at a load of samples
that arrived yesterday, I think there's going to be a lot of straightforward
money to be had again, if he can back the numbers that he was talking !

So I'm going to still need my test equipment for the moment ... d;~}

Arfa

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sat, 8 Oct 2011 01:55:13 +0100, "Arfa Daily"
<arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote:

It's a bunch
of switch-mode power supplies, and having had a squint at a load of samples
that arrived yesterday, I think there's going to be a lot of straightforward
money to be had again, if he can back the numbers that he was talking !

Congratulations. Do they look like this?
<http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/pics/drivel/slides/Blown%20Power%20Supply.html>

So I'm going to still need my test equipment for the moment ... d;~}

Sniff...

--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558
# http://802.11junk.com jeffl@cruzio.com
# http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Jeff Liebermann wrote:

On Fri, 07 Oct 2011 07:32:38 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

He's a small minded loser who latches onto something, then refuses to
(...)

I'm having a lousy day and feel the need to unload on someone[1].
You'll suffice. Nothing personal.

I have a different view of Trevor. Even though I don't agree with his
position, I do understand his and the IPCC's point of view. I'll even
read IPCC AR4, specifically looking for how they handled temperature
precedes C02. I would not expect him to respect my opinions unless I
also respect his. Therefore, I have not engaged in any name calling,
labeling, word games, or insults.

Good for you. Wait a while, and he'll be calling you names.

--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.

 

[Trevor Wilson]

Jeff Liebermann wrote:

On Fri, 7 Oct 2011 19:49:49 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

**Because a 1000+ dissenting scientists is a MINISCULE proportion of
all those who hold degrees in science. Utterly insignificant, in
fact. Think MILLIONS.

Not quite millions.
31,487 Scientists who have their doubts.
http://www.petitionproject.org

**Strawman noted. However, let's take a random name from that list.
Something slightly unusual:

Henry W. Apfelbach, MD

Dr Apfelback (deceased) was an orthopaedic surgeon. He graduated Harvard in
1946.

http://www.avvo.com/doctors/henry-apfelbach-2237598.html

http://www.aaos.org/news/aaosnow/mar11/youraaos9.asp

Not much experience in climate reseach.

And, just to reiterate: The total number of science degree holders on the
planet number in the MILLIONS. 39,000 is a pitiful number. Even if some of
those are duplicates, called Jeri Halliwell (Spice Girls) or even Mickey
Mouse.

So, if I want to know about orthopaedics, I'll consult with someone like Dr
Apfleback. If I want to know about climate science, I'll consult the people
who specialise in that area.

The real question is this: Why did you choose to bring up the long
discedited 'Oregon Petition'?

The breakdown is:
http://www.petitionproject.org/qualifications_of_signers.php
3,805 Atmospheric, environmental, and Earth sciences
935 Computer and mathematical sciences
5,812 Physics and aerospace sciences
4,822 Chemistry
2,965 Biology and agriculture
3,046 Medicine
10,102 Engineering and general science

"List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of
global warming"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

On the other foot, the IPCC AR4 had about 2500 contributors, including
800 listed as authors. The rest seem to be mostly reviewers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change#Contributors

Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change
http://www.nipccreport.org

In any case, the only opinions of interest are those who are those
who are credentialled in the area of climatology. I see no reference
to the credentials of these alleged "1,000 scientists"

It's amazingly difficult to verify credentials and degrees.

**It is, yet you'll note that I managed one, chosen more or less at random,
with a Google search. I selected a slightly unusual name.

I would

not be surprised if a fairly large number of degrees, on both sides of
the debate, were faked.

**The Oregon Petition has been very comprehensively debunked. Using it as an
example is putting your claims on very shakey ground.

There's also the question of qualifications.

I have a BS in Electrical and Electronics Engineering, which certainly
has little to do with climate. Yet, I my varied experience would
qualify me as a reviewer. Since the head of the IPCC, Rajendra K.
Pachauri, is an economist, and shared the Nobel Peace Prize with Al
Gore, a professional politician, precisely what qualifications do you
believe are required in order to have an opinion on the subject?

**ANYONE may have an opinion. ANYONE may present the science. Science is
science. Although helpful, a science degree is not essential to present
solid evidence of a specific area of science. When a specialist in a
particular area of scientific research makes a claim, it makes perfect sense
to take careful notice of that claim. When a non-specialist makes a claim,
it makes perfect sense to dispense with that clima, unless there is some
compelling science to accompany it.

If that many of them really represent just a handful,
there must then be millions of climatologists in the world,

**There isn't. There are not very many climatologists.

http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/consensus.htm
"The number of climate scientists in the US can be found
by examining the members of the American Geophysical Union
(AGU). As of November 10, 2006 we know that there is a
minimum (no official count of foreign climatologists is
available) of 20,000 working climatologists worldwide."

Spencer (the religious nutter that denies
Darwin's seminal work) is one of the most vocal. That should tell
you all you need to know.

What is your problem with Spencer?

**I have serious problems with anyone that embraces 'Creation Science' as
part of their belief system. Creationism is the most debunked, discredited
and utterly banal religious belief system on the planet. Spence is a
religious loon, who embraces 'Creation Science'.

Controversial causes and debates

all have their lunatic fringe. Every organization that I've ever been
associated with has had "supporters" that have done more damage than
good by their involvement. Many of them associate themselves with
causes and organizations simply to further their own agenda (cheap
advertising). With anything as argumentative as global warming, the
lunatic fringe is certain to be well represented on both sides of the
debate.

**Certainly. Trouble is, Spencer is a mover and a shaker in the denialist
camp. He is a big target.

Even the sacred
IPCC hasn't got that many climatologists on its panel,

**So?

It was you that was suggesting that the AGW deniers were
insufficiently qualified. The number of climatologists can be fairly
minimal, and still be correct.

**Of course.


Climatologists usually don't do their

own statistics

**Don't they?

, don't deal with economic impacts,

**Of course not. That is irrelevant to their area of research.

and have minimal

involvement in actual contents of the report.

**I don't know if that is the case. Do you have any evidence to support that
claim?


Climatologists and

researchers produce the original numbers on which the reports are
based. Those numbers are taken up by statisticians, chemists,
doctors, atmospheric researchers, economists, etc and turned into a
coherent and peer reviewed report, suitable for general consumption.

**That would be, generally, the case I would imagine.

If the report required the sole participation of only climate
scientists, then we might see the IPCC AR5 in the next century.

**I'm reasonably certain that religious fruit looks, like Spencer,
have automatically disqualified themselves, due to their insistence
that the fact of evolution is bunk and that the only form of
acceptable funding comes from Exxon.

That's the 3rd time you've mentioned Spencer in your rant. He's not
important.

**I was not the one who used Spencer as an expert in this thread. Since he
was cited, earlier in the thread, I have no issue with bringing him up. If
you wish to denounce Spencer as a nutcase, you may do so at any time.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Trevor Wilson]

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Jeff Liebermann wrote:

On Fri, 07 Oct 2011 07:32:38 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

He's a small minded loser who latches onto something, then
refuses to (...)

I'm having a lousy day and feel the need to unload on someone[1].
You'll suffice. Nothing personal.

I have a different view of Trevor. Even though I don't agree with
his position, I do understand his and the IPCC's point of view.
I'll even read IPCC AR4, specifically looking for how they handled
temperature precedes C02. I would not expect him to respect my
opinions unless I also respect his. Therefore, I have not engaged
in any name calling, labeling, word games, or insults.


Good for you. Wait a while, and he'll be calling you names.

**Not likely. Unlike you, Mr Liebermann is conducting himself reasonably,
rationally, intelligently and is peppering his posts with appropriate cites.
You, OTOH, are engaged in little more than sniping. Your posts are tiresome,
ignorant and without substantive content. You remind me of a 10 year old.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

**Not likely. Unlike you, Mr Liebermann is conducting himself reasonably,
rationally, intelligently and is peppering his posts with appropriate cites.
You, OTOH, are engaged in little more than sniping. Your posts are tiresome,
ignorant and without substantive content. You remind me of a 10 year old.

Yawn.


--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.

 

[Arfa Daily]

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:9fciodF2o0U2@mid.individual.net...

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Fri, 7 Oct 2011 19:49:49 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

**Because a 1000+ dissenting scientists is a MINISCULE proportion of
all those who hold degrees in science. Utterly insignificant, in
fact. Think MILLIONS.

Not quite millions.
31,487 Scientists who have their doubts.
http://www.petitionproject.org

**Strawman noted. However, let's take a random name from that list.
Something slightly unusual:

Henry W. Apfelbach, MD

Dr Apfelback (deceased) was an orthopaedic surgeon. He graduated Harvard
in 1946.

http://www.avvo.com/doctors/henry-apfelbach-2237598.html

http://www.aaos.org/news/aaosnow/mar11/youraaos9.asp

Not much experience in climate reseach.

And, just to reiterate: The total number of science degree holders on the
planet number in the MILLIONS. 39,000 is a pitiful number. Even if some of
those are duplicates, called Jeri Halliwell (Spice Girls) or even Mickey
Mouse.

So, if I want to know about orthopaedics, I'll consult with someone like
Dr Apfleback. If I want to know about climate science, I'll consult the
people who specialise in that area.

The real question is this: Why did you choose to bring up the long
discedited 'Oregon Petition'?



The breakdown is:
http://www.petitionproject.org/qualifications_of_signers.php
3,805 Atmospheric, environmental, and Earth sciences
935 Computer and mathematical sciences
5,812 Physics and aerospace sciences
4,822 Chemistry
2,965 Biology and agriculture
3,046 Medicine
10,102 Engineering and general science

"List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of
global warming"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

On the other foot, the IPCC AR4 had about 2500 contributors, including
800 listed as authors. The rest seem to be mostly reviewers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change#Contributors

Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change
http://www.nipccreport.org

In any case, the only opinions of interest are those who are those
who are credentialled in the area of climatology. I see no reference
to the credentials of these alleged "1,000 scientists"

It's amazingly difficult to verify credentials and degrees.

**It is, yet you'll note that I managed one, chosen more or less at
random, with a Google search. I selected a slightly unusual name.

I would
not be surprised if a fairly large number of degrees, on both sides of
the debate, were faked.

**The Oregon Petition has been very comprehensively debunked. Using it as
an example is putting your claims on very shakey ground.

There's also the question of qualifications.
I have a BS in Electrical and Electronics Engineering, which certainly
has little to do with climate. Yet, I my varied experience would
qualify me as a reviewer. Since the head of the IPCC, Rajendra K.
Pachauri, is an economist, and shared the Nobel Peace Prize with Al
Gore, a professional politician, precisely what qualifications do you
believe are required in order to have an opinion on the subject?

**ANYONE may have an opinion. ANYONE may present the science. Science is
science. Although helpful, a science degree is not essential to present
solid evidence of a specific area of science. When a specialist in a
particular area of scientific research makes a claim, it makes perfect
sense to take careful notice of that claim. When a non-specialist makes a
claim, it makes perfect sense to dispense with that clima, unless there is
some compelling science to accompany it.



If that many of them really represent just a handful,
there must then be millions of climatologists in the world,

**There isn't. There are not very many climatologists.

http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/consensus.htm
"The number of climate scientists in the US can be found
by examining the members of the American Geophysical Union
(AGU). As of November 10, 2006 we know that there is a
minimum (no official count of foreign climatologists is
available) of 20,000 working climatologists worldwide."

Spencer (the religious nutter that denies
Darwin's seminal work) is one of the most vocal. That should tell
you all you need to know.

What is your problem with Spencer?

**I have serious problems with anyone that embraces 'Creation Science' as
part of their belief system. Creationism is the most debunked, discredited
and utterly banal religious belief system on the planet. Spence is a
religious loon, who embraces 'Creation Science'.

Controversial causes and debates
all have their lunatic fringe. Every organization that I've ever been
associated with has had "supporters" that have done more damage than
good by their involvement. Many of them associate themselves with
causes and organizations simply to further their own agenda (cheap
advertising). With anything as argumentative as global warming, the
lunatic fringe is certain to be well represented on both sides of the
debate.

**Certainly. Trouble is, Spencer is a mover and a shaker in the denialist
camp. He is a big target.



Even the sacred
IPCC hasn't got that many climatologists on its panel,

**So?

It was you that was suggesting that the AGW deniers were
insufficiently qualified. The number of climatologists can be fairly
minimal, and still be correct.

**Of course.


Climatologists usually don't do their
own statistics

**Don't they?

, don't deal with economic impacts,

**Of course not. That is irrelevant to their area of research.

and have minimal
involvement in actual contents of the report.

**I don't know if that is the case. Do you have any evidence to support
that claim?


Climatologists and
researchers produce the original numbers on which the reports are
based. Those numbers are taken up by statisticians, chemists,
doctors, atmospheric researchers, economists, etc and turned into a
coherent and peer reviewed report, suitable for general consumption.

**That would be, generally, the case I would imagine.


If the report required the sole participation of only climate
scientists, then we might see the IPCC AR5 in the next century.

**I'm reasonably certain that religious fruit looks, like Spencer,
have automatically disqualified themselves, due to their insistence
that the fact of evolution is bunk and that the only form of
acceptable funding comes from Exxon.

That's the 3rd time you've mentioned Spencer in your rant. He's not
important.

**I was not the one who used Spencer as an expert in this thread. Since he
was cited, earlier in the thread, I have no issue with bringing him up. If
you wish to denounce Spencer as a nutcase, you may do so at any time.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

Without snipping.

I'm sure that you will swear otherwise, and find arguments to back your
position, but I have to say - on the face of it, at least - your position
with regard to 'experts' seems very variable. In one breath, you insist that
valid input on the subject can only come from experts - that's
climatologists according to you - and that any non experts, regardless of
what qualifications - scientific or otherwise - they have, are just fools,
dissenters, deniers, religious fruits, and a whole raft of other derogatory
names.

Then, on the other hand, you seem to imply the complete reverse. You
continuously cite the output of the IPCC as the bible for this man-made
climate change argument, claiming them to be the 'experts', but then
happily accept that many of the scientists on that panel, are from
completely different disciplines, and insist that it doesn't matter. You
further validate the output of the panel, by declaring that it is all peer
reviewed prior to publication, but again, when it is pointed out to you that
many, if not most of the members of the peer review committee, are not
qualified in any scientific discipline remotely related to climatology, your
answer is "so?"

Well, "so" indeed. What exactly is it that they are reviewing and validating
with such authority, that makes the data any more valid in its conclusions ?
The spelling perhaps ? Or the grammar ? If they are not properly qualified
to understand the subtleties and nuances of the subject, then their opinions
carry no more weight than any person of a reasonable education level,
randomly picked off the street.

You picked on one person above, largely because you felt that his name was
odd. You then go on to state that your researches found him to be qualified
in orthopedic surgery which you then claim does not have much to do with
climate research.

So I have to say, back at you - so ?

You really can't have it both ways, Trevor. Either you must believe that
everyone involved in researching, processing and presenting the data needs
to be qualified in a branch of science at least *related* to climatology in
order for them to be authoritative on the subject, or not. You cannot
embrace both cases equally, and use each one as the fancy takes you, to
refute whatever arguments in that regard, are put to you by various people.

Arfa

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sun, 9 Oct 2011 14:28:59 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
<trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Fri, 7 Oct 2011 19:49:49 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

**Because a 1000+ dissenting scientists is a MINISCULE proportion of
all those who hold degrees in science. Utterly insignificant, in
fact. Think MILLIONS.

Not quite millions.
31,487 Scientists who have their doubts.
http://www.petitionproject.org

**Strawman noted.

What strawman? A straw man is a component of an argument and is an
informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.
How does citing a petition signed by 31,487 alleged scientists
constitute a misrepresentation of YOUR position.

Not much experience in climate reseach.

No never answered my question. What would you consider to be the
minimum qualifications necessary to have an opinion in the matter? A
college degree? Ability to understand the data massaging? Carnal
knowledge of statistics?

Incidentally, the last time I checked, representative democracy only
requires that the voter be able to read (but not necessarily
understand) the ballot, and sign their own name. There's no minimum
standard for intelligence, logic, political experience, or even that
they understand English. If the founding fathers wanted the
government run by academics, they would have done things quite
differently.

My guess is at least half the list of signers are bogus. That's not a
wild guess. That's from experience working with the local elections
officials counting petitions and ballots (before computers made voter
fraud easy. At the time, a typical local ballot petition would
require about 25,000 valid signatures. There was not enough time or
resources to check everyone, so we picked out a few "sheets" of
signatures, each of which had either 20 or 40 signatures. Based on
the ratio of valid to signatures on a sheet, we extrapolated the total
number of valid signatures. If it exceeded 25,000, the petition was
deemed valid. If low or close, we grabbed another few more random
sheets and did it again. From experience, at least half the
signatures were bogus. On politically volatile issues, which tends to
invite fraud, we were lucky to get 20% of the signatures valid.

So, using 20-50% valid, would 6,300 to 15,700 valid signatures be
sufficient?

And, just to reiterate: The total number of science degree holders on the
planet number in the MILLIONS. 39,000 is a pitiful number.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition>
True. Quantity is not a great substitute for quality, but in this
case, I think it's sufficient to demonstrate that not everyone is a
true believer in the IPCC view of global warming.

So, if I want to know about orthopaedics, I'll consult with someone like Dr
Apfleback. If I want to know about climate science, I'll consult the people
who specialise in that area.

Apparently, you haven't had much dealings with the medical profession.
My experiences have been that much of the medical profession leans
towards useless procedures, defensive medicine, and padding the bill.
If I want to know something about medicine, I will ask the medical
profession for their opinion, do my own research, and then decide for
myself. Throwing oneself to the mercy of the medical profession is
suicide.

Same with climate experts. These are often the same people that can't
predict tomorrows weather successfully, but are expected to do the
same 100 years in the future. Yes, I know that there's a difference
between weather prediction and climate research, but if you look
carefully, you'll see that almost everyone with weather experience is
now also considered an expert on climate (because that is where the
funding goes). Passing our economy and our lifestyle into the hands
of the climatologist is equally dangerous. Following their lead, we
may solve or delay global warming, but at what price?

The real question is this: Why did you choose to bring up the long
discedited 'Oregon Petition'?

Please show me where it has been discredited? I did some digging and
all I could find was a bunch of unsubstantiated rubbish and word
games, such as:
<http://debunking.pbworks.com/w/page/17102969/Oregon%20Petition>
If you use the same criteria that the elections commission uses for
petitions, and samples the signatories, the petition would be anywhere
from 20-50% valid, which I consider good enough.

It's amazingly difficult to verify credentials and degrees.

**It is, yet you'll note that I managed one, chosen more or less at random,
with a Google search. I selected a slightly unusual name.

I have a calculator, with a substantial collection of known bugs. Duz
that make the calculator useless?
<http://www.hpmuseum.org/cgi-sys/cgiwrap/hpmuseum/articles.cgi?read=735>
Of course not. Even if half the buttons were broken, there would
still be enough functionality left to make the calculator usable. Same
with a petition. Even if half the signatures are bogus, the remainder
is sufficient to make the petition useful.

**The Oregon Petition has been very comprehensively debunked. Using it as an
example is putting your claims on very shakey ground.

Please show me where it has been discredited. Finding a few invalid
names does not magically discredit the entire petition.

Since the head of the IPCC, Rajendra K.
Pachauri, is an economist, and shared the Nobel Peace Prize with Al
Gore, a professional politician, precisely what qualifications do you
believe are required in order to have an opinion on the subject?

**ANYONE may have an opinion. ANYONE may present the science. Science is
science. Although helpful, a science degree is not essential to present
solid evidence of a specific area of science. When a specialist in a
particular area of scientific research makes a claim, it makes perfect sense
to take careful notice of that claim. When a non-specialist makes a claim,
it makes perfect sense to dispense with that clima, unless there is some
compelling science to accompany it.

You avoided my question. Precisely what qualifications do you believe
are required in order to have an opinion on the subject? That doesn't
mean an uninformed opinion, but rather one that you would consider to
be authoritative? Do they need to have a degree? Experience in
writing papers? Well known in their specialty? Involved in weather
or climate in some manner?

Wisdom does not come from experts. It comes from those who question
the experts.

What is your problem with Spencer?

**I have serious problems with anyone that embraces 'Creation Science' as
part of their belief system. Creationism is the most debunked, discredited
and utterly banal religious belief system on the planet. Spence is a
religious loon, who embraces 'Creation Science'.

So, you only listen to those who completely agree with your values? If
I ran background checks on my favorite scientists, politicians, and
engineers, I would find a very mixed bag of religions, party
affiliations, philosophies, and mystical practices. The mistake
you're making is that you're judging the person, not the content. Man
has fought many revolutions and wars in the name of freedom of speech,
thought, religion, philosophy, and economics. Now that almost anyone
has the right to an opinion, without risk of official retaliation, you
offer the principle that only those that are academically qualified,
politically correct, and follow the correct religions, are considered
authoritative.

**Certainly. Trouble is, Spencer is a mover and a shaker in the denialist
camp. He is a big target.

I'm not sure what you mean by "target". Assassination is not a useful
method of argumentation.

Climatologists usually don't do their
own statistics

**Don't they?

Some do, most don't. One of the reasons you see a large number of
names as authors on global warming papers is that the effort usually
involves a team of specialists. Sometimes its in collaboration with
other climatologists, but usually some of the names are statisticians,
professional writers, proof readers, and editors.

and have minimal
involvement in actual contents of the report.

**I don't know if that is the case. Do you have any evidence to support that
claim?

Not directly. Try reading the book "Disconnect" by Devra Davis:
<http://www.amazon.com/Disconnect-Radiation-Industry-HasDone-Protect/dp/0525951946>
The author is an epidemiologist, and one of the authors of the IPCC
working group III (Mitigation) report.
<http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg3/index.php?idp=353>
In her book, she details how some cell phone research reports were
allegedly edited to conform to the position of those paying the bills.
By the time the various reports were published, they had allegedly
been edited sufficiently that even the authors would have difficulty
recognizing their own work. In one case, the summary and conclusion
were changed to show a result different from what the data
demonstrated. These anecdotes were meant to alarm the readers, but is
really a fair description of how things are done in research.


--
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

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 10/10/2011 11:35 AM, Arfa Daily wrote:

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:9fciodF2o0U2@mid.individual.net...
Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Fri, 7 Oct 2011 19:49:49 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

**Because a 1000+ dissenting scientists is a MINISCULE proportion of
all those who hold degrees in science. Utterly insignificant, in
fact. Think MILLIONS.

Not quite millions.
31,487 Scientists who have their doubts.
http://www.petitionproject.org

**Strawman noted. However, let's take a random name from that list.
Something slightly unusual:

Henry W. Apfelbach, MD

Dr Apfelback (deceased) was an orthopaedic surgeon. He graduated
Harvard in 1946.

http://www.avvo.com/doctors/henry-apfelbach-2237598.html

http://www.aaos.org/news/aaosnow/mar11/youraaos9.asp

Not much experience in climate reseach.

And, just to reiterate: The total number of science degree holders on
the planet number in the MILLIONS. 39,000 is a pitiful number. Even if
some of those are duplicates, called Jeri Halliwell (Spice Girls) or
even Mickey Mouse.

So, if I want to know about orthopaedics, I'll consult with someone
like Dr Apfleback. If I want to know about climate science, I'll
consult the people who specialise in that area.

The real question is this: Why did you choose to bring up the long
discedited 'Oregon Petition'?



The breakdown is:
http://www.petitionproject.org/qualifications_of_signers.php
3,805 Atmospheric, environmental, and Earth sciences
935 Computer and mathematical sciences
5,812 Physics and aerospace sciences
4,822 Chemistry
2,965 Biology and agriculture
3,046 Medicine
10,102 Engineering and general science

"List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of
global warming"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming


On the other foot, the IPCC AR4 had about 2500 contributors, including
800 listed as authors. The rest seem to be mostly reviewers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change#Contributors


Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change
http://www.nipccreport.org

In any case, the only opinions of interest are those who are those
who are credentialled in the area of climatology. I see no reference
to the credentials of these alleged "1,000 scientists"

It's amazingly difficult to verify credentials and degrees.

**It is, yet you'll note that I managed one, chosen more or less at
random, with a Google search. I selected a slightly unusual name.

I would
not be surprised if a fairly large number of degrees, on both sides of
the debate, were faked.

**The Oregon Petition has been very comprehensively debunked. Using it
as an example is putting your claims on very shakey ground.

There's also the question of qualifications.
I have a BS in Electrical and Electronics Engineering, which certainly
has little to do with climate. Yet, I my varied experience would
qualify me as a reviewer. Since the head of the IPCC, Rajendra K.
Pachauri, is an economist, and shared the Nobel Peace Prize with Al
Gore, a professional politician, precisely what qualifications do you
believe are required in order to have an opinion on the subject?

**ANYONE may have an opinion. ANYONE may present the science. Science
is science. Although helpful, a science degree is not essential to
present solid evidence of a specific area of science. When a
specialist in a particular area of scientific research makes a claim,
it makes perfect sense to take careful notice of that claim. When a
non-specialist makes a claim, it makes perfect sense to dispense with
that clima, unless there is some compelling science to accompany it.



If that many of them really represent just a handful,
there must then be millions of climatologists in the world,

**There isn't. There are not very many climatologists.

http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/consensus.htm
"The number of climate scientists in the US can be found
by examining the members of the American Geophysical Union
(AGU). As of November 10, 2006 we know that there is a
minimum (no official count of foreign climatologists is
available) of 20,000 working climatologists worldwide."

Spencer (the religious nutter that denies
Darwin's seminal work) is one of the most vocal. That should tell
you all you need to know.

What is your problem with Spencer?

**I have serious problems with anyone that embraces 'Creation Science'
as part of their belief system. Creationism is the most debunked,
discredited and utterly banal religious belief system on the planet.
Spence is a religious loon, who embraces 'Creation Science'.

Controversial causes and debates
all have their lunatic fringe. Every organization that I've ever been
associated with has had "supporters" that have done more damage than
good by their involvement. Many of them associate themselves with
causes and organizations simply to further their own agenda (cheap
advertising). With anything as argumentative as global warming, the
lunatic fringe is certain to be well represented on both sides of the
debate.

**Certainly. Trouble is, Spencer is a mover and a shaker in the
denialist camp. He is a big target.



Even the sacred
IPCC hasn't got that many climatologists on its panel,

**So?

It was you that was suggesting that the AGW deniers were
insufficiently qualified. The number of climatologists can be fairly
minimal, and still be correct.

**Of course.


Climatologists usually don't do their
own statistics

**Don't they?

, don't deal with economic impacts,

**Of course not. That is irrelevant to their area of research.

and have minimal
involvement in actual contents of the report.

**I don't know if that is the case. Do you have any evidence to
support that claim?


Climatologists and
researchers produce the original numbers on which the reports are
based. Those numbers are taken up by statisticians, chemists,
doctors, atmospheric researchers, economists, etc and turned into a
coherent and peer reviewed report, suitable for general consumption.

**That would be, generally, the case I would imagine.


If the report required the sole participation of only climate
scientists, then we might see the IPCC AR5 in the next century.

**I'm reasonably certain that religious fruit looks, like Spencer,
have automatically disqualified themselves, due to their insistence
that the fact of evolution is bunk and that the only form of
acceptable funding comes from Exxon.

That's the 3rd time you've mentioned Spencer in your rant. He's not
important.

**I was not the one who used Spencer as an expert in this thread.
Since he was cited, earlier in the thread, I have no issue with
bringing him up. If you wish to denounce Spencer as a nutcase, you may
do so at any time.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au


Without snipping.

I'm sure that you will swear otherwise, and find arguments to back your
position, but I have to say - on the face of it, at least - your
position with regard to 'experts' seems very variable. In one breath,
you insist that valid input on the subject can only come from experts -
that's climatologists according to you - and that any non experts,
regardless of what qualifications - scientific or otherwise - they have,
are just fools, dissenters, deniers, religious fruits, and a whole raft
of other derogatory names.

**Incorrect. I will attempt to clarify my position:

* The Oregon Petition has been discredited. Many times. It is very
seriously flawed.
* Dr Apfelbach has signed the petition, but, AFAK, has never published
any original science to validate his position. Since Dr Apfelbach is
deceased, we can't even know if his position was aligned with the
perpetrators of the Oregon Petition. Dr Apfelbach is not likely to be
the only scientist in that situation. IE: Dead, unpublished (in the area
of climatology) and possibly not in agreement with the position espoused
by the Oregon Petition.
* ANY person (specialist or non-specialist) who makes new claims WRT any
area of science, must also provide healthy, peer-reviewed science to
back that claim.
* A specialist in a particular area of science must be assumed to have
knowledge of that area of science and should always be granted a
reasonable level of credibility.

Then, on the other hand, you seem to imply the complete reverse. You
continuously cite the output of the IPCC as the bible for this man-made
climate change argument, claiming them to be the 'experts', but then
happily accept that many of the scientists on that panel, are from
completely different disciplines, and insist that it doesn't matter.

**The climate scientists are the ones that have submitted the data. The
IPCC has collated that data. The people who collate data, make policy
decisions and provide technical input on possible solutions don't
necessarily need to be qualified in the area of climatology, nor do they
necessarily need to be scientists. For instance: A specific area of the
debate centres around the ramifications of a carbon tax or an ETS.
Scientists are not necessarily qualified to provide expert opinions on
the ramifications of such actions. Economists, however, are just the
kinds of people that are required to provide the opinions.


You

further validate the output of the panel, by declaring that it is all
peer reviewed prior to publication, but again, when it is pointed out to
you that many, if not most of the members of the peer review committee,
are not qualified in any scientific discipline remotely related to
climatology, your answer is "so?"

**Peer-review people are ALWAYS in the same area of expertise as those
who are doing the research. ALWAYS. IOW: Climate research is
peer-reviewed by climatologists, not nuclear physicists.

Well, "so" indeed. What exactly is it that they are reviewing and
validating with such authority, that makes the data any more valid in
its conclusions ? The spelling perhaps ? Or the grammar ?

**That was not the comment made, nor was it related to my response. The
IPCC requires the expertise of a large number of disparate people. Not
all are climatologists. Some are economists, for instance.


If they are

not properly qualified to understand the subtleties and nuances of the
subject, then their opinions carry no more weight than any person of a
reasonable education level, randomly picked off the street.

**Irrelevant. I suggest you read up on the IPCC, it's charter and what
it does. It would be helpful for you to read IPCC AR4 too. I guess you
won't be doing that any time soon though.

You picked on one person above, largely because you felt that his name
was odd. You then go on to state that your researches found him to be
qualified in orthopedic surgery which you then claim does not have much
to do with climate research.

So I have to say, back at you - so ?

**The Oregon Petition was put foreward as an example of 39,000
scientists who (allegedly) disputed the theory of AGW, the IPCC and the
research performed by climatologists. That is why I say: so? It's
irrelevant. Let's put it into context:

I was service manager for Marantz Australai for 5 years, from 1974 -
1979. I have more than passing familiarity with Marantz products
manufactured from 1972 - 1980.

Let's say a client brings you a Marantz 2325 reciever in for service.
The fault is one that causes the amplifier to make a sudden,
intermittant noise, sometimes tripping the protection relay.

You ask 200 plumbers, 200 electricians, 200 doctors, 200 hi fi
sales-people, 200 TV techs and 200 geologists what the problem is. You
recieve the following answers:

* Output transistors are faulty. (200 opinions)
* The on/off switch is faulty. (200 opinions)
* The front end diff amp pair is faulty. (200 opinions)
* The fueholder is faulty. (200 opinions)
* You need an (expensive) mains filter. (200 opinions)
* It's cosmic radiation. (200 opinions)

From that list, you'd reasonably assume that the front end diff amp is
the most likely cause of the fault, yet a mere 200 out of 1,200 people
tell you that is the cause.

If you asked me, I'd say: None of them. It's one of the varistors in the
output stage. For safety, replace all 4 (two in each output stage)

Who're you gonna trust? The guys that offer a completely plausible
reason, based on no experience? Or the one, lone opinion, from the guy
who knows the 2325 back to front and inside out?

You really can't have it both ways, Trevor. Either you must believe that
everyone involved in researching, processing and presenting the data
needs to be qualified in a branch of science at least *related* to
climatology in order for them to be authoritative on the subject, or
not. You cannot embrace both cases equally, and use each one as the
fancy takes you, to refute whatever arguments in that regard, are put to
you by various people.

**I believe you've misread what I wrote. I'll take the rap for not
stating my case with adequate precision. Sorry.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 10/10/2011 1:15 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

On Sun, 9 Oct 2011 14:28:59 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Fri, 7 Oct 2011 19:49:49 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

**Because a 1000+ dissenting scientists is a MINISCULE proportion of
all those who hold degrees in science. Utterly insignificant, in
fact. Think MILLIONS.

Not quite millions.
31,487 Scientists who have their doubts.
http://www.petitionproject.org

**Strawman noted.

What strawman? A straw man is a component of an argument and is an
informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.
How does citing a petition signed by 31,487 alleged scientists
constitute a misrepresentation of YOUR position.

**It's a strawman, in the sense that you were previously referring to a
completely different situation, concerning 1,000 scientists. 30,000
scientists, which do not necessarily have any experience, knowledge or
interest in climatology is pretty much irrelevant, given that there are
MILLIONS of science degree holders. In fac, 30,000 is a drop in the
ocean, by comparison.

Not much experience in climate reseach.

No never answered my question. What would you consider to be the
minimum qualifications necessary to have an opinion in the matter?

**ANYONE is entitled to an opinion. Regardless of educational
qualifications. 30,000 people who have no experience, nor knowledge of
climatology means nothing. The Oregon Petition is an exercise in
complete futility.


A

college degree? Ability to understand the data massaging? Carnal
knowledge of statistics?

Incidentally, the last time I checked, representative democracy only
requires that the voter be able to read (but not necessarily
understand) the ballot, and sign their own name. There's no minimum
standard for intelligence, logic, political experience, or even that
they understand English. If the founding fathers wanted the
government run by academics, they would have done things quite
differently.

My guess is at least half the list of signers are bogus.

**Your guess is duly noted. I have no idea how many are bogus. I know
that at least one MD is dead and is still on the list. I don't know how
many more are dead, bogus or just disinterested bystanders.


That's not a

wild guess. That's from experience working with the local elections
officials counting petitions and ballots (before computers made voter
fraud easy. At the time, a typical local ballot petition would
require about 25,000 valid signatures. There was not enough time or
resources to check everyone, so we picked out a few "sheets" of
signatures, each of which had either 20 or 40 signatures. Based on
the ratio of valid to signatures on a sheet, we extrapolated the total
number of valid signatures. If it exceeded 25,000, the petition was
deemed valid. If low or close, we grabbed another few more random
sheets and did it again. From experience, at least half the
signatures were bogus. On politically volatile issues, which tends to
invite fraud, we were lucky to get 20% of the signatures valid.

**For the most part, here in Australia, dead people don't get to vote.
They are removed from the electoral rolls.

So, using 20-50% valid, would 6,300 to 15,700 valid signatures be
sufficient?

**Dunno and I don't care. 30,000 people who have no experience of, nor
interest in climatology means squat.

And, just to reiterate: The total number of science degree holders on the
planet number in the MILLIONS. 39,000 is a pitiful number.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition
True. Quantity is not a great substitute for quality, but in this
case, I think it's sufficient to demonstrate that not everyone is a
true believer in the IPCC view of global warming.

**It is sufficient to prove that an ALLEGED 30,000 scientists (out of a
total of MILLIONS) have ALLEGEDLY signed a petition. That is all it
means. Nothing more, nothing less.

So, if I want to know about orthopaedics, I'll consult with someone like Dr
Apfleback. If I want to know about climate science, I'll consult the people
who specialise in that area.

Apparently, you haven't had much dealings with the medical profession.

**I've had a little.

My experiences have been that much of the medical profession leans
towards useless procedures, defensive medicine, and padding the bill.

**Then you have several issues:

1) A nonsensically expensive medical system, which is geared to provide
huge profits to large corporations (HMOs), that has almost no control by
government authorities.
2) No trustworthy local doctor.

Where I live, I am able to rely upon the same doctor I've used for the
last 30 years. He has never steered me wrong and has always provided
honest accurate and economical advice. Moreover, like many fair skinned
Aussies, the most serious problem I've had in my life, has been the
appearance of pre-cancerous skin problems. My doctor has a very keen eye
(gained by hard years of study and 40 years' of experience) and has
treated many of these growths by freezing or small surgical procedures.
A goodly number have been on my back. A hit with the liquid nitrogen or
the scalpal and I am back at work, losing a mere 40-odd minutes from my
day and, maybe $20.00 from my wallet. Can't complain about life-saving
procedures at that price. All your internet searches would be worth
diddly under such circumstances. The system we have here in Australia is
tightly regulated by the government and HMOs do not have the ability to
gouge consumers in the way they are in the US. Last time I looked,
Australia's health system cost the nation around 9% of GDP, whilst the
US system cost the US people around 13% of GDP. Even better, our system
is truly egalitarian. Some years ago, Australia's richest man (now
deceased) suffered a major heart attack and was rushed to hospital. The
surgeon who operated on the man was the best in the counbry. The very
next day, that same surgeon may well have operated on a homeless person,
or a plumber, electrician, whatever. Everyone in the nation has
(theoretically, at least) access to the best (life-saving) health care.
At low cost.

If I want to know something about medicine, I will ask the medical
profession for their opinion, do my own research, and then decide for
myself. Throwing oneself to the mercy of the medical profession is
suicide.

**Like I said: You have a serious problem with the medical system where
you live.

Same with climate experts. These are often the same people that can't
predict tomorrows weather successfully

**Points:

* No they're not, though SOME are.
* Weather prediction has reached quite a high standard of accuracy.
Somewhere around 90% for 24 hours. 80% for 48 hours and so on.


, but are expected to do the

same 100 years in the future.

**Not the same thing. Weather prediction is not the same as predicting
climate changes in 100 years.


Yes, I know that there's a difference

between weather prediction and climate research, but if you look
carefully, you'll see that almost everyone with weather experience is
now also considered an expert on climate (because that is where the
funding goes). Passing our economy and our lifestyle into the hands
of the climatologist is equally dangerous. Following their lead, we
may solve or delay global warming, but at what price?

**If you had taken the time to read IPCC AR4, you would already have the
answer to that question. The risk is that the cost of inaction may be
impossible to fund.

The real question is this: Why did you choose to bring up the long
discedited 'Oregon Petition'?

Please show me where it has been discredited?

**Sure: First off, here are the precise words that the alleged
scientists allegedly signed their names to:

"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon
dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the
foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere
and disruption of the Earth's climate."

Pretty 'rubbery' stuff. No outright claims that the climatologists are
wrong. Just a claim that "catastrophic heating" will not occur.

Here is another claim from the delightful liars at the Oregon Petition:

"Predictions of global warming are based on computer climate modeling, a
branch of science still in its infancy. The empirical evidence actual
measurements of Earth's temperature shows no man-made warming trend.
Indeed, over the past two decades, when CO2 levels have been at their
highest, global average temperatures have actually cooled slightly."

These words constitute an outright lie. And here is what Scientific
American found:

"Scientific American took a random sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories
claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were
able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with
the petition---one was an active climate researcher, two others had
relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation.
Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember
any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated
messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core
of about 200 climate researchers---a respectable number, though rather a
small fraction of the climatological community."




I did some digging and

all I could find was a bunch of unsubstantiated rubbish and word
games, such as:
http://debunking.pbworks.com/w/page/17102969/Oregon%20Petition
If you use the same criteria that the elections commission uses for
petitions, and samples the signatories, the petition would be anywhere
from 20-50% valid, which I consider good enough.

**It may be, but it is still irrelevant, unreliable and nonsensical. As
I have stated, ad nauseum: It doesn't matter what a an orthopaedic
surgeon (allegedly) claims about global warming. That surgeon has not
published any credible science, relating to AGW anywhere that I can
find. Can you?

It's amazingly difficult to verify credentials and degrees.

**It is, yet you'll note that I managed one, chosen more or less at random,
with a Google search. I selected a slightly unusual name.

I have a calculator, with a substantial collection of known bugs. Duz
that make the calculator useless?

**ONE bug can make a calculator utterly useless. It depends on the bug.
I just selected a name that would be easy for me to research. No other
reason. The results I turned up were disturbing. Not conclusive. Just a
reminder that the Oregon Petition is just that: An informal petition of
dubious usefulness.

http://www.hpmuseum.org/cgi-sys/cgiwrap/hpmuseum/articles.cgi?read=735
Of course not. Even if half the buttons were broken, there would
still be enough functionality left to make the calculator usable. Same
with a petition. Even if half the signatures are bogus, the remainder
is sufficient to make the petition useful.

**The Oregon Petition has been very comprehensively debunked. Using it as an
example is putting your claims on very shakey ground.

Please show me where it has been discredited. Finding a few invalid
names does not magically discredit the entire petition.

**Indeed. What it does show is the lack of rigorous standards applied to
how the petition was conducted.

Since the head of the IPCC, Rajendra K.
Pachauri, is an economist, and shared the Nobel Peace Prize with Al
Gore, a professional politician, precisely what qualifications do you
believe are required in order to have an opinion on the subject?

**ANYONE may have an opinion. ANYONE may present the science. Science is
science. Although helpful, a science degree is not essential to present
solid evidence of a specific area of science. When a specialist in a
particular area of scientific research makes a claim, it makes perfect sense
to take careful notice of that claim. When a non-specialist makes a claim,
it makes perfect sense to dispense with that clima, unless there is some
compelling science to accompany it.

You avoided my question.

**No, I did not. By ANYONE, I mean ANYONE. Science degrees or not.


Precisely what qualifications do you believe

are required in order to have an opinion on the subject?

**None, whatsoever. I believe I already clearly stated that.


That doesn't

mean an uninformed opinion, but rather one that you would consider to
be authoritative?

**Appropriate education in some form of climate science is appropriate.
Something like atmospheric physics, for instance.



Do they need to have a degree? Experience in

writing papers? Well known in their specialty? Involved in weather
or climate in some manner?

Wisdom does not come from experts. It comes from those who question
the experts.

**Not always. Sometimes, idiots need to shut the fuck up and listen.

What is your problem with Spencer?

**I have serious problems with anyone that embraces 'Creation Science' as
part of their belief system. Creationism is the most debunked, discredited
and utterly banal religious belief system on the planet. Spence is a
religious loon, who embraces 'Creation Science'.

So, you only listen to those who completely agree with your values?

**Absolutely not. However, ANYONE that embraces Creationism has serious
problems with their ability to think critically. Critical thinking is
essential for any scientific discipline. Ever wondered why we no longer
see major scientific advances from societies mired in religious
fundamentalism?


If

I ran background checks on my favorite scientists, politicians, and
engineers, I would find a very mixed bag of religions, party
affiliations, philosophies, and mystical practices. The mistake
you're making is that you're judging the person, not the content.

**Partly, yes. Spencer, however, has been proven wrong many times.


Man

has fought many revolutions and wars in the name of freedom of speech,
thought, religion, philosophy, and economics.

**And I support a person's right to be an idiot. Spencer is an idiot. Or
do you, too, embrace Spencer's idiotic religious compulsions?


Now that almost anyone

has the right to an opinion, without risk of official retaliation, you
offer the principle that only those that are academically qualified,
politically correct, and follow the correct religions, are considered
authoritative.

**Of course. ANYONE who embraces Creationism is a fool and may be
summarily disregarded, as a serious scientist.

**Certainly. Trouble is, Spencer is a mover and a shaker in the denialist
camp. He is a big target.

I'm not sure what you mean by "target". Assassination is not a useful
method of argumentation.

**"Target", in the sense that he is easy to dispute, due to his
preference of religius belef over science.

Climatologists usually don't do their
own statistics

**Don't they?

Some do, most don't. One of the reasons you see a large number of
names as authors on global warming papers is that the effort usually
involves a team of specialists. Sometimes its in collaboration with
other climatologists, but usually some of the names are statisticians,
professional writers, proof readers, and editors.

and have minimal
involvement in actual contents of the report.

**I don't know if that is the case. Do you have any evidence to support that
claim?

Not directly. Try reading the book "Disconnect" by Devra Davis:
http://www.amazon.com/Disconnect-Radiation-Industry-HasDone-Protect/dp/0525951946
The author is an epidemiologist, and one of the authors of the IPCC
working group III (Mitigation) report.
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg3/index.php?idp=353
In her book, she details how some cell phone research reports were
allegedly edited to conform to the position of those paying the bills.
By the time the various reports were published, they had allegedly
been edited sufficiently that even the authors would have difficulty
recognizing their own work. In one case, the summary and conclusion
were changed to show a result different from what the data
demonstrated. These anecdotes were meant to alarm the readers, but is
really a fair description of how things are done in research.

**YOu would need to prove that the science presented in the IPCC reports
has been seriously altered from the original work, to make your claim stick.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au