OT: 1,700 UK scientists back climate science

Why don't you join us and post something interesting about electronic design, John?

Note that this rejoinder shows that "interesting" is in the eye of the beholder. I'm a hobbyist and I want to see _education_, especially aka the way Winfield Hill would encourage cooperative and creative approaches on occasion here. You may have other interests. Others, still others.

Your quip also means nothing about when you are going to _demonstrate_ your interest in seeing climate discussions end here; that it wasn't just feigned clap-trap. For one, I'd be very glad to see ignorant climate comments from people who _should_ know better cease here.

Care to lead us to _your_ claimed promised land? Or will this group remain a vent for fascist political/climate discussion?

Jon

So *you* are presuming to educate *us*?

Hilarious.

"Fascist" is in the eye of the beholder.

Circuits, on the other hand, either work or don't. Perhaps that's too rigid a standard for some people.

John

The Earth's temperature has varied over a 1% range over the last

10,000 years, since the end of the last glacial period. Data from here:

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/greenland/summit/gisp2/isotopes/gisp2_temp_accum_alley2000.txt

This assumes The Greenland ice cores are representative of global temperatures.

My comment was informed not ignorant as you suggested. In fact the global temperature now is about the average for the holocene period. That allows for a 1.5C rise in Greenland since the last ice core sample of 1905.

If you look at the data the there was a temperature rise of about 1C per century 1200 years ago so even the recent rate of rise in temperature is not unique for the Christian era let alone the holocene.

I am afraid unlike you I don't have the time for detailed navel gazing over minor aspects of climate science. Reading this stuff is something I do for light relief after spending 6 days a week running a business and working as it's main engineer.

However as far as I am concerned the onus is on the alarmist community to actually demonstrate that CO2 is the main cause of temperature rise. Self consistent models don't do it. Various claims of positive feedback don't do it. And retrospective changes to the temperature record don't do it.

And it is far to say that the hockey stick is crap science as climategate and "hide the decline" have shown. If tree rings aren't a good proxy for temperature since 1960 as they don't agree with teh instrument record then they are not a good proxy for temperature in the pre instrument age.

It is not profound ignorance as you like to think but a considered rejection of the claim that "the science is settled". In the end the basics of climate science are not difficult to understand for an engineer. It is an affectation of alarmists that it is difficult.

If the "science" hadn't been captured by the socialists/greens as a means for increasing taxes, social control and social engineering then most of us wouldn't even be debating it.

Bottom line, I take it, is that you won't waste a split second educating yourself on the topic, but would rather remain ignorant and instead spout politics, religion, and ideology.

Well, that's about what's happened to the group. So you have your wish.

Jon

specs.

papers.

otopes/gisp2_temp_accum_alley2000.txt

Thank you. I wish i could present my position so well. It is politics,=20 not science.

I said I'd like _you_ to be good to your own word. I'm a hobbyist. I would actually like to see less of what you claim you also don't want to see and more of what I could enjoy learning about. I'd like to see more of what you _know_ about and a lot less of what you are so profoundly ignorant of. One has value. The other does not.

If you imagine it is hilarious to agree with you about where this group should focus, then have at it.

Lead, John. Lead. You write continually here on climate. You can't control anyone else, but you do control yourself. Or one might want to think so, anyway.

Jon

. d . y t I

As a number of us have been forced to think by your inept arguments and incompetent way with evidence

"Considered"? Ravinghorde doesn't know enough for his opinions to rate as "considered" - you can't "consider" what you don't understand. The word imples observing a subject, and thinking about what you have observed, and Ravinghorde doesn't observe the stuff he presents well enough to appreciate what it actually means, which means that he isn't in a positon to think about it in any useful way.

But obviously too difficult for Ravinghorde, since he makes a habit of getting its wrong.

A claim that might carry more weight if Ravinghorde showed more signs of understanding what he posts.

The same kind of social control that banned chlorofluorocarbons to stop the ozone hole getting any bigger, and got sulphur-scrubbers installed in the smoke stacks of power stations to put an end to acid rain?

An anathema to more rabid right-wingers, no matter how sensible in practice.

Grow up. Too much CO2 in the atmosphere is a problem that we are going to have to deal with. The solution is going to be more expensive than getting rid of chloroflurocarbons and SO2 emissions, but nowhere near expensive enough to disrupt society or require more government control than we have at the moment.

cs,

More wishful thinking. Ravinghorde's position is that he is allowing his political opinions to dictate what "scientific" advice he will listen to. He doesn't know enough about the science involved to distinguish between nonsense that he sees as supporting his preferred understanding and the coherent body of peer-reviewed work that doesn't, and when he does get hold of respectable peer-reviewed work, he's inclined to quote bits of it out of context for support, when the work as a whole contradicts what he wants to claim.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

I do not. You and Sloman are the climate floggers here. I occasionally poke fun at people who are obscessed about climate and apparently know little about electronics. They need to rant about something they can't be called on, and use climate as an excuse to insult other people and proclaim their superiority. If they said anything serious about electronics they'd be subject to reality.

You can't

Of course I control other people. I don't want to, but sometimes I have to.

John

I spend a lot of my spare time reading on climate. And I read the 2 papers you suggested.

Unfortunately you take the alarmist position that failure to believe that CO2 is the major cause of temperature change is ignorance and lack of willingness to understand. Rather it is a case of where is the evidence?

It is strange of course that no one seems to have published a paper demonstrating that CO2 is the major driver of temperature. Deconstructing such a paper would be educational.

Unfortunately you come across as a self important arrogant prick rather than a genuine inquiring mind.

ecs.

ich

and

ing

ers.

ome

ing

ing

it

way

ng

in

n

ut

ust

he

e

that

k_ I

s,

=A0I

That's certainly not my impression. You do intersperse your climate rants with better-informed electronics rants, so you can't be claimed to write continuously on the climate, but scarcley a day goes past without you ventilating one of your crass misapprehensions about anthropogenic global warming.

We merely respond to the nonsense posted by you and your various fellow Exxon-Mobil dupes.

continually

Since you reliably claim that anybody who disagrees with you knows little about electronics, this isn't quite the non sequiture it appears to be. It does say something about your rather shallow self- preception.

In the same way that you rant about climate wihtout being able to back up your absurd and blatantly second-nhand opinions, obviously culled from some denialist web-site, probably by some incompetent science reporter working for the "The Register".

This isn't entirely accurate. We do jeer at your misapprehensions from a position of knowing more about the subject, which you do experience as an insulting proclamation of superiority, but our motivation is basic error detection and correction - nobody expects to score brownie points for correcting the obvious errors of the ill-informed. You only acquire prestige by correcting the subtle errors of people who should know better.

So my opinion on the uses of ferrite beads is in some sense inferior to yours in today's thread "When are ferrite beads the most appropriate component to use?". I managed to mention their low parallel capacitance, and warned that they aren't always lossy enough. You did explicitly emphasise their utility at keeping RF out of op amps, which I took as read.

But you can't control anybody else in this group and you can't control your own tendency to pontificate about stuff you know very little about, and should - by now - know that you know very little about.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Or rather where is the evidnece that you can understand?

You may have to go back a bit to find such a paper. The idea has been around for quite some time. Check out

Fourier seems to have been the first to come up with the idea in the

1820's so you may have trouble getting hold of a copy of his paper to deconstruct. I hope you can read the scientific French of the period - as an undergraduate in chemistry I was expected to read the Nouveau Traite de Chimie Minerale for the properties of inorganic chemicals, and it wasn't always that easy to follow. The German Beilstein Handbuch for organic chemicals was easier

Your widely shared misconceptions aren't all that interesting to enquiring minds - except perhaps to those studying the psychology of commercially procured mass delusion.

If you persist in coming forward with half-baked ideas you have to expect progressively curter and more dismissive responses.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

A theory is not evidence.

The idea of perpetual motion has been around for some time. But there is no evidence for it. So has phlogiston theory.

Another daft comment. If it is only available in French it is hardly part of the current "climate consensus".

SNIP

Excellent. But you post, literally, around 1% electronics, 99% climate bilge. And your bilge posts almost always contain fatheaded insults. Hell of a way to live.

Why don't you do some interesting electronic experiments and post the results. Everybody would be happier, especially you.

How's the weather where you are? It's snowing here, nice and steady, fluffy flakes coming straight down. And the sun is shining.

ftp://jjlarkin.lmi.net/Snow_and_sun.jpg

What a beautiful planet we are priviliged to live on.

John

What's happened to the group is electronic wannabees and has-beens posting a lot of off-topic crap and pretending to be experts on things they are not and can't be called on.

I've done a little reading up on radiosondes... I used to buy surplus ones when I was a kid, so they interest me. There's some interesting stuff about the IR absorption of the "white" thermistor capsules that are generally used these days. They tend to - surprise, surprise - read high.

John

What's clear is that you like to pretend to take a high road and, in fact, don't. A pronounced case of feet of clay.

Bull. You need only look in the mirror or look at eeyore or a few others here. What a load of crap you try to foist, with this comment. As though anyone would fail to see that you are merely projecting your own behavior onto others.

None of us have any control over you. That's your problem to solve. But if you were sincere, and I now know you aren't, you could at least cease your own ignorant banter on the subject of climate. Perhaps it is because you have a serious self-confidence problem and being a "big man" in a small pond suits your ego better. I don't know. But one thing I do know. You like to pretend some kind of piousness about your own behavior, when almost every day you put to shame your own pretences. So I don't buy any of your misdirection and pointing elsewhere.

Look to yourself, John.

I used to post on the subject, not because I felt it was appropriate here but because I saw __others__ posting out of ignorance that reached a level of willfulness that shocked me, given my prior sense of respect for those posting here. Actually, if you go back, you will see that I'm respectful at first. I suggested some study and provided sources. You folks did your own damage to yourselves, quite frankly. Climate wasn't something I felt belonged here.

I don't fault Sloman, at all. Cripes, look at the willful ignorance he's dealing with and the inability of others to cease their own posturing on climate issues about which they know little or nothing.

I have one and only one focus when it comes to climate discussion here

-- to encourage you and others to __work__ for their opinions. This is because I value hard-earned _knowledge_, not an exposition of ignorance. This is a sci.* group, after all. It would be nice if the tenor of posters held to that. As I sometimes put it, "An equal right to an opinion is not a right to an equal opinion."

What I see instead is blind ideological discussion and claims that others are the ones being ideological when it's really just the reverse -- a matter of sad projection and denial on your part and the part of others posting like you here. You aren't informed on the subject. You write out of ideology. You claim it isn't because of that. But it is, because you simply are NOT informed about the subject and cannot be speaking from a position of comprehensive knowledge here. The use of politics and ideology damns your own statements for what they are -- ideological, not informed. It clouds everything.

If this group is going to be trashed by you and others posting on climate like you, I'd like to see at least some serious engagement showing a willingness to _WORK_ for your opinion on climate. I grant you've worked for an opinion in electronics design. So? That doesn't qualify you to speak on climate. Especially when you've spent zero serious effort studying published results or going out into the field to do practical, real-world work in the area.

An equal right to an opinion is not a right to an equal opinion. You want to have an equal opinion on climate? Work for it. Show that you have. You'd expect that from electronics designers. I expect it from you and others posting on this subject. And being an engineer does NOT qualify you to pontificate on science, though certainly your field depends upon good science for its practical, mental approximations.

You do what makes you feel good to do. So? What else is new.

I expect better in a sci.* group than "feel good" commentary about subjects you know very little about.

No, John. YOU are the one taking the superior position. My gosh, what balderdash you spout! That you cannot see yourself, so blind to your own pathetic behavior this way, and cast this onto others just goes to show the remarkable power of projection in human psychology.

What a load you dump out.

Another change of subject. You can't control anyone else _here_. You knew that I meant that. Felt like disagreeing just to disagree and for no other reason.

I'm sure you enjoy the banter. You said as much earlier. So I will just chalk this up to that. But it is meaningless. My point remains. You can't control anyone else here. But you can control yourself. If you truly want to see climate discussions here dwindle, make the choice to change your own behavior and work to do what you say you want to do.

Of course, you won't. Because you were lying about that. You want to continue an ideological debate, project your own faults on others because it makes you feel superior to do so, and will never work for your opinion on it, either.

Jon

I take a hobbyist position about a field of science where I do not have a comprehensive view. In other words, I follow the science -- I don't presume to know better. Nothing to be shocked about.

So select the topic you are willing to be comprehensive about and for which you'd supply some serious work, and I may join your effort and see where that takes us. And yes, it would be educational. However, no ad hominem. It must be thorough-going and sincere.

That's obvious projection on your part. I value informed opinion. You think that's self-important. I think it's just valuing informed opinions and not valuing ignorant ones. Nothing to be shocked about.

Jon

en

According to

Kaplan, Lewis D. (1952). "On the Pressure Dependence of Radiative Heat Transfer in the Atmosphere." J. Meteorology 9: 1-12.

nailed down that more CO2 will heat the atmosphere, while

Keeling, Charles D. (1960). "The Concentration and Isotopic Abundances of Carbon Dioxide in the Atmosphere." Tellus 12: 200-203.

made it clear that the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere was going up, and that a substantial proportion of the CO2 being generated by burning fossil carbon was ending up in the atmosphere and not being absorbed in the oceans.

Both of these are evidence-based papers, and provide crucial support for Fourier's theory.

Perhaps not, but anthropogenic global warming is a rather different case. The idea of perpetual motion has failed every experimental test, and phlogiston theory has been superseded by a better theory, while anthropogenic global warming is supported by a large and coherent mass of experimental evidence. We take you to it from time to time, but we don't seem to be able to get you to absorb any of it - an interesting example of neigh-saying.

Since it is the original source of the current climate concensus, as the American Institute of Physics web-site makes clear to those with the capacity to read, it is rather silly to claim that it isn't a part of it.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

False. I am a hobbyist (not a wannabee) and would very much enjoy seeing ignorant climate discussions quite simply disappear forever from here. And I'd _love_ to see some experts here discuss what they know and constructively educate others who don't know as much.

What's so funny about your reply here is that while you are complaining about others who don't know as much as you want to say you know about electronics, you are at the very same time insisting on posting your own quite ignorant, ideological opinions about climate science. __YOU__ are the wannabee, here. Projection seems to be your principal trait.

And this "little reading" makes you an expert on climate science, does it? It may qualify you as "hobbyist." Just as my "little reading" on electronics qualifies me as a hobbyist here. At least I have some practice behind me, as well, on this subject.

To return to the point, I'd like to see informed discussion in a sci.* group -- most especially electronics here -- and I'd love to less pretentiousness from you about your "high road" when you really are one of the key people egging along exactly what you say you don't want. Put in the serious work needed to have a comprehensively informed opinion on any facet of climate science and I'll gladly read it ... even here.

I don't think a sci.electronics group _must_ only discuss electronics. But I do think it should focus on scientifically informed opinion. Obviously you disagree, since you continually post ignorant opinions on the subject of climate. I think it is reasonable in a sci.* group to ask people to work for their opinions. Obviously you disagree, since you refuse to work for yours on climate.

My position is simple and pristine. I value informed opinion and don't value ignorant opinion. That's why _I_ am here.

Jon

From a climate wannabee who posts a lot of off-topic crap and wants to pretend that a small inaccuracy in the outptus of some radio-sondes undermines the case for anthropogenic global warming.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen