OT: 1,700 UK scientists back climate science

You don't seem to have worked on any decent-sized projects.

One guy I knew who was rather weak at that went on to a brilliant career, as a senior manager in Scientific Generics (a Cambridge consulting firm).

So how come you haven't learned enough scepticism to recognise Climategate as a well-timed political trick designed to sow unjustified confusion just before the Copenhagen summit?

If they publish a paper that doesn't stand up, they can kiss their career goodbye. McIntyre has made a number of rather unpleasant accusations about Mann's publications, but they haven't convinced Mann's peers, who have gone on to replicate and confirm Mann's work, and the man himself has a good academic job.

The denialist propaganda machine can't afford to admit that Mann was right and McIntyre was wrong, so they have had to cook up a particularly mad conspiracy theory that claims that the climatology community are all lying to protect Mann, which means that every last one of them put their careers at risk for Mann back when he was a wet- behind-the-ears graduate student.

If you had a sceptical neurone in your brain, you'd have applied Occams Razor to the question, and cut out a lot of denialist rubbish.

Obviously, since most of the denialist rubbish you come up with has clearly been leached from denialist web-sites.

Only if you have faith in the rubbish that you are being spoon fed on denialist web sites.

Try looking at the dates on the papers you cite, and use google to find stuff that cross-references them in the following year or so. If you had any serious search skills - which seems unlikely - you'd have a slightly less biassed take on climate science.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

we all know what

XzORMlHNvYfE...

ago

statement

the wake of

g--

wpetition.htm

d often

duce

spin

corn.

ucks

I'm perfectly happy to discuss those aspects of electronics where I do have something to contribute. For instance, I wanted to use latching reed relays back in 1979 in an application whrer the thermocouple potentials between the iron-based reed material and the copper on the PCB was embarrassing. It made the boss nervous, so we didn't do it, and I never even got a latching relay to play with. This means that I haven't got anything useful to tell you, and I know it, which isn't quite the same as not knowing much about it.

You haven't been paying attention, have you.

To take part in a serious discussion of anthropogenic global warming, you need a Ph.D. in the subject, or at least to have done a comparable amount of work in the area. I haven't, but I do have enough of a scientific education to detect when you and James Arthur - amongst others - are peddling rubbish.

They don't actually carry the Exxon-Mobil logo - you have to go to Sourcewatch and check out where they get their funding to establish the connection. I've done that often enough, and posted the link.

You may think so, but if you go to

and read a bit of the history, you will find that it was a commonly held point of view until the science got into the nitty-gritty somewhere around the 1970's, and it has been recycled on may denialist web-sites, along with a lot of other antiquated misconceptions.

Not well. I'm in the process of getting a new aortic valve and the various preliminaries are getting in the way.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Once some of these web sites publish something that you agree with.

How do you react ?

Just watching an article about a green energy scheme being presented at Copenhagen.

Simply put a car going over a speed bump in the road will cause the speed bump to move and generate electricity.

Have any of these guys heard of conservation of energy? Why do they think this is a green scheme?

On a sunny day (Fri, 11 Dec 2009 16:24:58 -0800 (PST)) it happened Bill Sloman wrote in :

Then WTF are you complaining about all the time ? :-)

Sloman's perceptions and reasoning are overwhelmed by his emotions; that's obvious from his posts. That's one reason he can't design good electronics.

Most people trained (I won't say "educated") to be scientists are rotten electronics designers. That's because electronics design is sufficiently complex to transcend simple reasoning, but the scientist types can't get past rules-based thinking and are too impressed by precedent. There's a direct analogy to modeling climate systems: some people think simple computer models fed bad data can predict the behavior of chaotic systems, some know better.

John

Somebody else is seriously suggesting that piezos be attached to the outside of cars to recover energy from air turbulance.

Actually, as regards the speed bump, a car's shock absorber wastes energy as heat, so it could be recovered. Hydraulic recovery would make more sense than piezo, but neither really makes sense.

I once worked with a company that made tennis rackets that had piezos and resistors embedded inside, to absorb shock. They were idiots, of course. Story for another day.

John

and Integrity ...... :--\

More like anonymous, and they were all cloned from one pseudo- scientist from Scotland. (Who is actually a bagpipe player for a local pub)

Chinese abacus

An organization in Britain fashioned after ACORN

"No comment"

An entertaining observation.

John Larkin indulging in wish-fulfilment again.

Too true. I've got a couple of comments published in the Review of Scientific Instruments that say pretty much exactly that.

Actually, most bad electronic design by physicists reflects an imperfect assimilation of the rules, and unfamiliarity with relevant precedents (aka the state of the art), but John wants to construct an argument, and isn't going to let mere facts stand in his way.

Others of course recognise that while weather is chaotic, climate is rather more predictable, and construct climate models that aren't susceptible to the butterlfy effect.

As usual, John's analogy fails because it attempts to cover areas that he know little about - so little that he doesn't appreciate the extent of his ignorance.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Amazed.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

ut

al

Actually, Richard Doll is generally credited with producing the first solid evidence of the connection, back in 1950

Henry Waxman was eleven at the time.

Clearly they brain-washed you before letting you in the door. Not that there seems to have been a lot of brain to wash.

Harry Anslinger execised his influence rather earlier in the opinion- forming process than Henry Waxman could have (unless he was a particularly precocious eleven-year-old with strong links to the British Medical Research Council).

He does seem to be one of the authors of the Waxman-Markey Bill, which would make him a "major player" in AGW in the same way that Al Gore got to be the "inventor" of the Internet - at least for the under- informed.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

oman

own

sig=3D

sed=3D

ll =3D

The prospect of being flooded with stateless refugees, driven back to the nearest high ground as the sea-level rises.

In particular, I don't look forward to having you camped on my doorstep, telling me that I should have made it clearer to you that anthropogenic global warming was real and that we should have done something about it back when we had a chance of beating it, or a least keeping it within bounds.

Going by the 1995 evacuations - when the Rhine got threateningly high

- every Dutch person in the affected areas will expect to be accomodated by friends or acquaintances living on higher ground.

There won't be much of the Netherlands left on higher ground, so the refugees will be forced to exploit rather remote acquaintances ...

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

know

NvYfE...

nt

e of

on.htm

led.

This is an entertaining exercise in examining raw data. The author obviously didn't ask anybody why the Darwin temperature records might have needed to be adjusted, or why they seemed to be a bit odd in

Most Australians would have been able to explain why records don't look too good in 1941.

Had the author gone as far as running a Google search on "Darwin 1941" he would have found this item right at the top of the list.

Japanese bombs do happen to be a slightly more credible explanation than the one the author seems to fancy, but they don't happen to generate anything like the same number of conspiracy theory brownie points, so he didn't bother to search hard enough to find this tolerably salient explanation.

It does seem possible that this less-than-intrepid investigator missed a few other - more mundane - events. Darwin has got a lot bigger over the years, and the houses have acquired air-conditioners, so the phrase "urban heat island" might have showed up in a report by someone who was less deeply into conspiracy fantasies.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

And clear thought. :(

Bill, have a look at the video in the following link. You can download the data yourself, from what is supposed to be a most reputable source, and do your own analysis.

Doesn't this make a a light come on or are you still in the dark.

Bill, you got me there and it shows my ignorance of the science. Please explain the temporal mechanics.

Japanese bombs in 1942 following Pearl Harbor in December 1941 means a temperature correction is needed before the boming happened. And this bombing caused: "The temperature dropped over a six year period, from a high in 1936 to a low in 1941. The station did move in 1941 ? but what happened in the previous six years?"

Note the temperature measurment site moved in 1941, before the bombing, from the bombed Post Office to the airport.

SNIP

On a sunny day (Sat, 12 Dec 2009 19:11:28 -0800 (PST)) it happened Bill Sloman wrote in :

You are soooo unscientific, by the time the water is high enough to come over the dikes here, if ever, I will be long gone. Did you know humans have a limited lifespan>? Not any oil pipes connected to your heart will give you that much extra time to see the sea from your doorstep. It once again shows your unscientific scare mongering, stimulated in you by the climate weenies media.

I do not live anywhere near that river.

IIRC in a previous post you claimed The Netherlands would stay the way it is. You are still twisting and turning it seems.

Global Warming, I love it!

Actually, when it gets warmer, people need less heating, and so will produce less CO2. It is all self stabilising.

On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 21:20:26 +1100, "APR"

At last, some real climate science!

John