Ping Bil Slowman; The global warming hoax reveiled

Because they respect the scientific method? Because they honor truth?

I thought they were obliged to publish their actual measured results, not cherry-picked or outright fudged data.

Apparently not.

John

Interesting summary of issues here:

e.g

/quotes

Mann sends calibration residuals for MBH99 to Osborn. Says they are pretty red, and that they shouldn't be passed on to others, this being the kind of dirty laundry they don't want in the hands of those who might distort it.(1059664704)

# Reaction to McIntyre's 2005 paper in GRL. Mann has challenged GRL editor-in-chief over the publication. Mann is concerned about the connections of the paper's editor James Saiers with U Virginia [does he mean Pat Michaels?]. Tom Wigley says that if Saiers is a sceptic they should go through official GRL channels to get him ousted. (1106322460) [Note to readers - Saiers was subsequently ousted]

# Later on Mann refers to the leak at GRL being plugged.(1132094873)

/end quotes

On a sunny day (Sat, 21 Nov 2009 14:41:58 -0800) it happened Joerg wrote in :

in your sleep,

chance :-)

Yes, after I wrote that, I realised the copter and the car would not start... no oxygen. Then the only way would be a helium balloon in the attic, with big flaps that open in the roof, so it can take of vertically, and then, when in fresh air, have the wind blow you elsewhere. Hot air balloon will not work either, no oxygen for the burners, and hydrogen is dangerous, but could perhaps be used. Like that balloon that real scientist makes in the movie 'Waterworld' (recommended movie), the one he saves everybody with.

Yup.

On a sunny day (Sat, 21 Nov 2009 17:44:10 -0800 (PST)) it happened Bill Sloman wrote in :

Well, think Groningen (a place in The Netherlands where natural gas is pumped up), many an small earthquake has happened there because of the ground caving in, I could feel some of those here. Of course once you start filling up those cavities with _millions_of_tons_ of CO2, more instability will happen. You only need a cloud pushed up of 2 meters high for more then five minutes to kill all lifeforms in the area. I do not see you climb a tree when half conscious snapping for air.

So it is an idiotic idea, does not do any good for anybody, and an other folly you seem to support, just like global warming. I would state it this way: If we asked all politicians that voted for it, to accept the death penalty if anything went wrong, would they still vote for it? I think there would be very few votes in favour.

loman

ag=3D

eth=3D

h y=3D

oV

uff=3D

hav=3D

so

mped up),

in,

The ground above the gas field can move up and down, but whatever sealed the gas field for a few hundred million years has to have survived a lot of similar perturbations.

_ of CO2,

Less, actually, since you are replacing the original natural gas and restoring the status quo that had been in place for a feww hundred million years.

es

Sure. But you have to have some realistic idea of how the CO2 would percolate up through more than a mile of geology to form that 2 metre thick layer. In Lake Victoria, the CO2 rich layer of water in the depths of the lake turned itself into a kind of geyser to get up to the surface. I presume that your unfettered imagination is postulating a similar kind of never-before-seen pseudo-volcanic event under Barendrecht. Learn a bit more about the subject and you will rapidly feel less anxious.

Since there weren't any volcanic outbursts of natural gas in the hudreds of milion years that the natural gas field soent waitng under Barendrecht, you have a very good chance of dying of old age long before - several hundred millions years before - you might want to climb a tree to get away from any CO2 that escaped. Your denial of anthropogenic global warming - if widely shared - would see you clambering up the same tree to get above the waters of the expanded North Sea in a rather shorter time.

The idiotic ideas and the folly are all yours. You are getting excited about a totally improbable potential disaster, and ignoring the real problem.

y if anything

But your proposition - that we ignore anthropogenic global warming because you can't be bothered to get your head around the scientific evidence - has a finite possibility of condemning the whole human race to death in a global extinction, which hasn't stopped you voting for it.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

tne...

pencer

earch

erial

Seems reasonable, considering what you do with evidence that directly contradicts your propositions.

Since being a climate sceptic requires that you don't understand the evidence, it is usually a symptom of scientific incompetence, which is a perfectly valid reason for getting rid of an editor.

In your capacity as a climate sceptic who doesn't understand the scientific evidence you may not be susceptible to this argument, but that doesn't invalidate it.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

...

pencer

earch

erial

...

of

There's no contradiction between emotional involvement and respecting the scientific method.

They are. Adjusting papers to persuade editors to select constructive referees is primarily a matter of choosing the right papers to cite in the introduction of the paper and and in the discusion of the conclusions.

For preferred referees you cite papers for which they are first authors and you try to avoid citing non-preferred referees or a least confine yourself to papers where they aren't first authors. Careful choice of synonyms can also be useful in in directing an editor's thoughts towards the righ referee.

Wrong. Cherry-picking and fudging data is a career-wrecking crime, and since such data doesn't replicate when somebody else does the experiment, you have to be an idiot as well as a psychopath to try it.

The denialists have been claiming that Mann fudged his data for years, despite the fact that some dozen subsequent independent studies have confirmed his results - the latest replication come from lake botton samples from long-lived lakes in northern Canada, where they have been slicing the cores into slivers half a millimetre thick and extracting climate data. The Proceedings of the (US) National Academy of Science got quite excited about it.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

...

pencer

earch

erial

...

of

What the e-mails reveal more than anything is that these aren't scientists, but advocates.

They're not objective, open-minded, dispassionate seekers of the truth. They're heavily invested in preconceived models, which they're determined to mold Nature to fit.

Doesn't mean they're wrong, of course. But it does make them unreliable as "authorities."

-- Cheers, James Arthur

On a sunny day (Sun, 22 Nov 2009 06:20:23 -0800 (PST)) it happened Bill Sloman wrote in :

Is that your evidence? Clearly for scientist 'to stand on the shoulders of giants' does not make them great. Those are merely dwarfs standing on the shoulders of giants, and that looks a lot like you. A *real* scientist is capable of analytical thinking and unbiased observation. That is how the real giants came about. I have to say that our education system mostly creates parrots, and does not put a lot, if any, weight on making students think for themselves. You seem to be the victim of such a system. My condolences, the hardwiring of your brain at your age cannot be corrected, that wiring is formed at a very young age, perhaps before or during the first 4 years. People like Al Gore are deforming the younger generation's brains with their 'poor polar bear dies of global warming' crap. A generation lost. Now let's build some nuclear plants, have nice clean energy, and, just like France, pollute all of the Netherlands with fresh plutonium... See, I think *I* am the realists here. But, with a bit of care we *can* have nice safe clean nuclear power. And no more coal mine victims.

Spencer

But climate is not subject to experiment. Historically, science has tended to be erratic, faddish, and usually wrong until corrected by experiment.

John

tne...

. Spencer

research

material

new...

in

m...

er of

out

ture

These guys want to replace confirmation by experiment with proof by correlation. Which they're in a unique position to ensure.

They're the ones with infinite government funding, they're the official interface to and gate-keepers of the raw data, and they're not letting other people have it. Why? Because the data do not support their model.

That's wrong.

-- Cheers, James Arthur

Spencer

research

material

Or proof by simulation. Simulation of extremely nonlinear chaotic systems whose dynamics and forcing inputs are largely unknown.

Wrong morally and most likely wrong in fact.

John

about

Netherlands they now want to store the CO2

suffocated in your sleep,

chance :-)

Oh yeah?

suffocated in your sleep,

chance :-)

no oxygen.

open in the roof,

you elsewhere.

is dangerous,

(recommended movie),

Probably your only chance would be an oxygen pack for each family member and a corresponding number of electric mopeds. I guess you guys couldn't call the bromfietsen then :-)

Plus a LOUD CO2 alarm.

Did you really read John's quote? Quote of quote: "K and I will keep them out somehow ? even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is ! "

If this was truly said then I have lost all respect for those guys. Any and all. But they have already lost much of it a long time ago, at least in this neighborhood (which is full of engineers).

inaccessible

Denialist rubbish

Highlights stuff that denialists do seem to have gotten excited about, mainly by imputing implausible evil significance to the tolerably innocuous content.

The reading problem seems to be yours.

different data > and vision.

There's no evidence of data being manipulated - just the usual discussion of preliminary data that doesn't make sense - and equally no evidence of scientific fraud.

Other scientists are certainly criticised - much more openly than would be usual in a document intended to be published - but there's no defamation that I can see, and while the people being criticised may be "real" scientists in the sense of have written papers that have been published in peer-reviewed journals and cited in other peer- reviewed publications, I recognised a couple of the names being criticised and understood exactly why they might not be popular with more mainstream figures.

Private e-mails hacked from a web-site suddenly constitute scientific evidence? Try the American Institute of Physics web page for a rather more coherent story.

great.

Since Newton's comment was in fact a rather unsubtle dig at Hooke, who was very short, it represents historical evidence that even great scieintists can be remarkably petty.

lot like you.

Your opinion on scientific matters isn't either well-informed or interesting.

"Real giants" had the good luck to be working in the right place at the right time. They did have to be capable of analytical thinkig and unbiased observation, but these skills are rather more wide-spread than you seem to think, and well-represented in the IPCC.

It clearly failed you. I can name a number of people who had better luck.

You may like to think so, but I didn't get a Ph.D. in physical chemistry by regurgitating what I'd been fed by my lecturers, and their lectures were even less relevant to my subsequent career as an electronic engineer.

This is a very out-dated idea. One's brain remains plastic as long as you keep on learning new stuff - London taxi-drivers develop a demonstrably larger hippocampus as they learn their way around the city.

Not as much as the denialist nitwits who claim that adding CO2 to the atmosphere doesn't add to the greenhouse effect.

Perhaps not. anything that gets them interested in science - as opposed to beleidswettenschap (aka business studies) - has to be a step in the right direction.

France,

The French haven't yet had their nuclear accident - the nuclear pollution in the Netherlands is basically what we got from Chernobyl.

A "realist" who is frightened of CO2 getting out of an exhausted natural gas field that managed to retain natural gas for a couple of hundred million years?

Providing that "bit of care" is going to be more difficult than you seem to think. Read the the reports of what went wrong at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, and think about how many safety systems the operators managed to by-pass to create their particular disasters.

Apart from the ones who die due to freak weather conditions that have become more common at the earth warms up. In that sense the British policeman who just died when a bridge washed away under him in today's floods is a "coal mine victimn".

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

I like this one:

/quote

The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't.

/end quote

But the science is settled:(

Awaits a follow up from a George Soros shill.

again about

therlands they now want to store the CO2

you

ffocated in your sleep,

ave a chance :-)

so

Lake Nyos is a deep lake and the water was saturated with CO2 from the bottom up. The pressure at the bottom of the lake is a lot higher than at the surface, so the CO2 concentration at the bottom of the lake was a lot higher than that at the top.

This is an unstable situation, and once a part of the deeper water started moving towards the surface, the CO2 started coming out of solution, making that volume of water and CO2 less dense, so that it rose more rapidly.

As your web-site says a "300-foot (91 m) fountain of water and foam formed at the surface of the lake".

The CO2 to be stored a couple of kilometres under Barendrecht, in an exhausted natural gas field, would have a rather tougher time getting out. The natural gas field held the the natural gas under Barendrecht without letting it out since Barendrecht started keeping written records, and most likely for a few hundred million years before that, so the two situations don't seem to be entirely comparable.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

tne...

. Spencer

research

material

new...

in

m...

er of

out

ture

Darwin's Theory of Evolution wasn't based on experiment. Neither is modern astronomy. Would you like to detail the errati, faddish and incorrect parts of these areas of science?

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen