Re: OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors - Page 5

Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary

Translate This Thread From English to

Threaded View
Re: OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
On Sun, 2 Oct 2011 15:23:10 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Only in seeming on the IPCC time reversed graphs.  Which when read
correctly shows CO2 follows temperature!!
Quoted text here. Click to load it

You need to study both the IPCC graph and the time orientation corrected
graphs (thanks Jeff) a lot more then.  The raw data in the IPCC graph is
increasing depth in the ice core, and thus farther back in time.  Do read
the labels carefully.   Temperture generally precedes CO2 rather
consistently (both increases and decreases).

:-))

Re: OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**I suggest you examine the graphs VERY carefully.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**I've been doing so for many years. I suggest you do likewise. It is
important that you understand the process, rather than just quickly looking
at the graphs. Incorrect assumptions can easily be made.

 The raw data in the
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Your words are almost correct. Temperature SOMETIMES precedes CO2 level
rise and SOMETIMES it lags.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



Re: OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
On Sat, 1 Oct 2011 17:30:35 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"

Quoted text here. Click to load it


You can't have it both ways.  Either warming causes a CO2 increase, or
CO2 causes a warming increase.  Since they track each other, it's
presumed that there's a cause and effect mechanism in operation.  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.
Temperature and CO2 would simply increase without any limit, causing
the planet to look like Venus.  We've survived 5 temperature cycles in
the last 500,000 years which demonstrates that it's NOT postive
feedback.

<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;

--
Jeff Liebermann     snipped-for-privacy@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**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
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Of both.

  Since they track each other, it's
Quoted text here. Click to load it

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

  If
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Correct.


Quoted text here. Click to load it

**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
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**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.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

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


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au






Re: OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
On Tue, 4 Oct 2011 07:33:23 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"

Quoted text here. Click to load it


Bottom line.  The direct line causal connections are just not there.
Moreover, all of your recent stuff points to at least one well known =
input
which can produce both increases.  Your case is breaking down.

?-)

Re: OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**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.


Quoted text here. Click to load it

**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.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



Re: OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
On Tue, 4 Oct 2011 15:31:17 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"

Quoted text here. Click to load it

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.

?-))))

Re: OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
On Tue, 4 Oct 2011 07:33:23 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Maybe.  If each factor causes an increase in the other, then their
respective values will increase until some other limit is reached.  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?

Quoted text here. Click to load it

We have plenty of frozen methane hydrate, might should suffice as a
suitable substitute.  Not all planets are created equal.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Agreed.  The problem is in the numbers, or rather the models.  My
confidence level in the models that demonstrate causality and
significance are not quite a certain as yours.

Incidentally, in your cited graphs at:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg
the Description under the above image reinforces my point if you
present the URL in a different form:
<http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg

Digging under the raw data at:
<http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vostok/vostok_data.html
I find:
<http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/vostokco2.html
   "Antarctic ice cores show that carbon dioxide concentrations
   increased by 80 to 100 parts per million by volume 600 +/- 400
   years after the warming of the last three deglaciations. Despite
   strongly decreasing temperatures, high carbon dioxide
   concentrations can be sustained for thousands of years during
   glaciations; the size of this phase lag is probably connected
   to the duration of the preceding warm period, which controls
   the change in land ice coverage and the buildup of the
   terrestrial biosphere."
Other articles, some by the original collectors of the data, show the
same conclusion.

The problem here is that the entire IPCC house of cards is based on
the single premise, that CO2 concentration causes global warming, and
not the other way around.  Were this to be properly substantiated, a
large number of the various CO2 reduction schemes could be considered
futile.  

If CO2 concentration were an important determining factor in producing
global warming, then the historical high temperatures at high
temperatures should have been maintained.  In other words, when CO2
stayed high, temperature should also have stayed high.  That didn't
happen, as CO2 stayed high for thousands of years while the
temperatures dropped.

--
Jeff Liebermann     snipped-for-privacy@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Maybe. Maybe not. We are entering uncharted territory. This giant
experiment has no definitively known outcome.

  If
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**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.


Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Indeed. It is unlikely that this planet's atmosphere could reach the 94%
CO2 saturation that exists on Venus.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Fair enough. However, I should rmind you at this point that neither of us
is a climatologist. I place my faith in the climatologists to tell me about
the climate.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Clearly, you have not read IPCC AR4. The IPCC very clearly states that
rising CO2 levels increase temperature and that increasing temperatures
causes higher levels of CO2.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Not necessarily. You are ignoring the possibility of some other influence
on the system. Massive volcanoes, asteriod strikes, etc. These events can
cause massive climate shifts.

  In other words, when CO2
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**In SOME cases, yes.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



Re: OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors


Quoted text here. Click to load it


Yeah, I know. I'm getting dragged in again here ...    So, if that is the
case, why do all the doom-mongers seek to convince us otherwise ?


Quoted text here. Click to load it


But as there is "no idea" and that is "precisely the problem", then the
alternative could just as easily be true, except it doesn't carry quite the
gravity of the "catastrophic" proposal ...


Quoted text here. Click to load it


But as was pointed out to you the other day, with good reference material
from Jeff L , there is a groundswell of increasing opinion now from other
climatologists, that what the first ones are telling us, is not quite so
clear cut and unchallengeable, as they would have us believe. Why should
what these alternative theorists are saying, be any less valid ? Why should
anyone who listens to them with a degree of credibility, automatically be
denounced as 'deniers', stupid, or fools, as you are so fond of calling them
? As you rightly point out, none of us on here is a qualified climatologist,
so we have to rely on what others tell us, and like everything in life, a
degree of judgment has to be applied, as to how reliable the information
that is being given, is. The main thing that causes me a problem on this
front, is the evangelical fervour with which the doom-mongers state their
case. You will recall that I threw in a tongue-in-cheek reference to JWs
last week. They are exactly the same as the green mist brigade. A distant
relation of mine and her husband were both JWs for many years. It was
impossible to have any kind of meaningful debate with them on the subject,
because no matter what angle you approached from, they had a pat
counter-argument, backed up by red-underlined passages in their bibles.
Worst of all, they were smug about the fact that you *could not* debate with
them, because they were always right, and no matter what differing view you
had, it only made you someone to be pitied, and converted to the faith.

And that's the way the proponents of man-made global warming come across,
which is precisely what makes me doubt their case. I know that you feel that
you are right, but it's the way that you preach the subject that wins you no
friends. Do you not wonder why, when there are many intelligent people on
here, there doesn't seem to be a single one that backs you on it ? Does that
make us all stupid or fools ? I guess from your point of view, it does ...



<snip>

Quoted text here. Click to load it


You see, here we go again. The case is proven beyond all reasonable doubt
(what is it now, 3% ?) except that when there's a bit of a fly in the
ointment, suddenly it's not, and we can apparently fling in another random
statement that makes it all ok again ...


Quoted text here. Click to load it

Ah, so that's ok then. Case re-proven. Status quo restored.


Quoted text here. Click to load it

Arfa


Re: OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**They're not. They are saying precisely that. They are saying (to
paraphrase):

There is a high probability (95%) that temperatures will rise to
catastophically high levels in the future.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Indeed. There is a chance that CO2 levels may not reach catastrophic
levels. Just as I could drive from Sydney to Melbourne at 200kph and, maybe,
I might not be involved in an accident, or be picked up by the police along
the way. Anything is possible. I would estimate that there is a 95%
probability that I would be either involved in an accident, or picked up by
the police.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**No, there is not any kind of "groundswell" that you speak of. There are a
handful of people who are, like Spencer, religious nutters and/or are
employed by the fossil fuel lobby, that dispute the vast majority of
climatologists data.

 that what the first ones are telling
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**I have ALWAYS been quite clear in stating that science tells us that AGW
is the most likely explanation for the warming we are experiencing and that
the confidence level is around 95%. That tells us that there is a 5%
uncertainty in the facts. Therefore, it is open to challenge.

 Why should what these alternative theorists are saying,
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Because none have been able to explain the warming and the rapidity of
that warming. None have been able to discredit the IPCC AR4. PARTS of AR4
(around 4 pages out of 1,600-odd) have been open to criticism. That's it.
And, to the enormous credit of the IPCC, faults have been rectified when
found.

 Why should anyone who listens to them with a
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**People who have failed to read the IPCC AR4 and want to become involved in
the discussion, deserve to be called whatever is deemed appropriate. It is
intellectually bankrupt to argue against a theory, without first
understanding that theory. THAT is just logical.

 As you rightly
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Precisely. The guys at the IPCC are the best climatologists on the planet.
They are not influenced by religion or the fossil fuel industry. They are
independent.

 The main thing that causes me a
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Incorrect. It is quite easy to point out the logical inconsistencies with
their belief system. I've done so many times.

 Worst of all, they were
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Again, not in my experience. Most go away, whimpering. One went away,
promising to think about my words. ALL lack a decent education. And that is
no different to AGW theory. Without an education (IOW: without first reading
IPCC AR4) then it is pointless trying to discuss things.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**What makes you doubt the case, is the fact that you have not taken the
time to educate yourself in the facts.

 I know
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**No. The IPCC is within 95% of being right.

 but it's the way that you preach
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**I don't give a shit. This is serious. I have argued with friends about
AGW. Some share my viewpoint and others do not. NONE of those that do not
share my view have taken the time to read AR4. Most parrot the usual bunch
of scurrilous and nonsensical claims made by the deniers.

 Do you not wonder why, when
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**That means nothing. And you know it.

 Does that make us all stupid or
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**No. What mystifies me is how people who are clearly intelligent, refuse to
read the most important document relating to AGW theory and yet argue
against the very thing they have failed to read. Weird.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**95%.


 except that when there's a bit of a fly
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Taking words out of context is rather shabby. However, I will take the
time to explain the issue. We are discussing why CO2 levels (and
temperatures) did not skyrocket during past warming events. The reasons may
or may not be related to today.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Take the time to read AR4.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



Re: OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
<snip>

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

Arfa

Re: OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors

Quoted text here. Click to load it


   Take two kill filters and call me in the morning. :)


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

Re: OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors


Quoted text here. Click to load it
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.

Arfa


Re: OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**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,
Quoted text here. Click to load it

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

 and they
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**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.

 Even the sacred
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**So?


 and still
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**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.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



Re: OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors

Quoted text here. Click to load it


   Yawn.  Grow a brain, and get a life.


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

Re: OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
On Fri, 7 Oct 2011 19:49:49 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"

Quoted text here. Click to load it

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

Quoted text here. Click to load it

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?

Quoted text here. Click to load it

<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."

Quoted text here. Click to load it

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.  

Quoted text here. Click to load it

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.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

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


--
Jeff Liebermann     snipped-for-privacy@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**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'?



Quoted text here. Click to load it
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
Quoted text here. Click to load it
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change#Contributors
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**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
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**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.
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**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.


Quoted text here. Click to load it

**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
Quoted text here. Click to load it

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


Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Of course.


  Climatologists usually don't do their
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Don't they?

, don't deal with economic impacts,

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

 and have minimal
Quoted text here. Click to load it

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


  Climatologists and
Quoted text here. Click to load it

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


Quoted text here. Click to load it

**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



Re: OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors


Quoted text here. Click to load it
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
Quoted text here. Click to load it
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change#Contributors
Quoted text here. Click to load it

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


Re: OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
Quoted text here. Click to load it
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
Quoted text here. Click to load it
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change#Contributors
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**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.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**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
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**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.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**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
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**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.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**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?

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**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


Site Timeline