Re: OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors

ame

ade

re

t

ns of

the

its

of

in

iew

to

s

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

This article tends to reinforce what you said about Choice.

h a test.

g

n be

to

g a

Not quite millions.

31,487 Scientists who have their doubts.

The breakdown is:

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"

On the other foot, the IPCC AR4 had about 2500 contributors, including

800 listed as authors. The rest seem to be mostly reviewers:

Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change

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?

"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."

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.

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.

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

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!

Try this:

Note that Judith Curry is chair of atmospheric physics at GA Tech.

You should be, since you are one.

Jerry

(...)

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.

Can I have your test equipment?

-- # Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060 # 831-336-2558 #

snipped-for-privacy@cruzio.com # AE6KS

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

=20

also=20

solidly=20

levels=20

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.

?-))))

a

=20

'normal'=20

The explaining power of the model is worthless then.

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

Congratulations. Do they look like this?

Sniff...

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

**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.

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'?

**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

**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.

**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. **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

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

Climatologists usually don't do their

**Don't they?

, don't deal with economic impacts,

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

and have minimal

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

Climatologists and

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

**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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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?

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:

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

Not directly. Try reading the book "Disconnect" by Devra Davis:

The author is an epidemiologist, and one of the authors of the IPCC working group III (Mitigation) report.

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.

**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.

**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

**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. **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

**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. **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?

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

-- Trevor Wilson

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

**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. **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 **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

**For the most part, here in Australia, dead people don't get to vote. They are removed from the electoral rolls. **Dunno and I don't care. 30,000 people who have no experience of, nor interest in climatology means squat. **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. **I've had a little. **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.

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

**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

**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. **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

**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? **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. **Indeed. What it does show is the lack of rigorous standards applied to how the petition was conducted. **No, I did not. By ANYONE, I mean ANYONE. Science degrees or not.

Precisely what qualifications do you believe

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

That doesn't

**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

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

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

Man

**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

**Of course. ANYONE who embraces Creationism is a fool and may be summarily disregarded, as a serious scientist. **"Target", in the sense that he is easy to dispute, due to his preference of religius belef over science. **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