Ping Bil Slowman; The global warming hoax reveiled

Precipitation hasn't dramatically increased since 1948 up there. So if more of that would fall as snow instead of rain that doesn't exactly support a warming trend.

I like summers more. While I don't get cold easily and wear T-shirts in December at times I prefer it warm. Never had an issue with 35C summer temps right here in the office. To my surprise none of the lab equipment minds either.

Heck, I want my global warming :-)

I've read just a view. But what was said made my toe nails curl.

Yep, I guess it does. However, if this sort of stuff were leaked from emails of a holder of public office the guy would either resign or "be resigned". Happened many times. All it takes is an open microphone :-)

I'd have to find them back, might be deleted, I don't keep everything. After marrying I stopped being a packrat ;-)

Also, I don't like to publish stuff without consent of the writer and he sure wouldn't give that.

So do I.

But raw input data is. That's what it was about.

Why is it that one would only give out data if using "their methods"? That's exactly what I'd not want to do. In my case all I wanted to look at is where exactly sea levels were rising and by how much. After finding lots of data from places where it didn't happen I was brushed off with the remark "Well, the ocean is not a bathtub". Here, I would have expected a set of data that shows that I am wrong. But ... nada. Great.

Don't remember the link but a quick search turned up some of them in an article. Tell me this isn't true:

Suggesting that it may be best to destroy some data in case a FOIA request comes in ... I mean, can it get any more gross than that? In some countries that is considered a criminal act (when you actually delete it) and AFAIR a probe into this has been contemplated by two US congressmen. And I think they are darn right to demand one now.

If data really has been deleted in this sense I guess some folks better look for a nice place somewhere where they have no extradition. Maybe Brazil?

True. Sometimes I simply point them to "The Art of Electronics" :-)

Yes, and I have to forgive them if they do something bad since the bible says so. But it doesn't say I have to trust them anymore ;-)

What I mean is making data accessible, even to critics. Has nothing to do with me or the work I put into the matter. In a nutshell, ethics.

But body politicus might sock it to us and impose a carbon tax anyhow. Because it's a gravy train for them, like almost all taxes are.

First we need to solve safety issues. Some have already been, as you mentioned earlier. Then we need to figure out the disposal issue. But without research it ain't going to happen. If we build a humongous carbon tax bureaucracy instead that is not going to solve a thing.

Oh, my lack of movie-going now shows. Haven't even heard of the movie ...

True. But the ads never worked with me. Haven't been there in a decade.

There is one excellent countermeasure for those scientists: Keep your ethical edge, at all cost, at all times. Be polite, humble and modest in your demeanor. Goes a very, very long way.

That's ok. But so many? And with such damning behavior outlined in there?

I'd rather see some honest debate among scientists. Instead, I see stone-walling, blocking, shouts, accusation. And yes, also on the non-AGW side, unfortunately. It's become too contentious. I have seen similar skirmishes on a much smaller scale on my turf, the medical field. Very ugly. For some reason I've never seen that among engineers in public.

Ok.

Then, please, tell me the emails in the link I posted above are bogus.

there

that

Then I might use your own words: You need to bone up on this stuff. History is very important, and quite well documented because the Romans were sort of perfectionists in this area. Archaeologists always came across as honest and modest folks, at let to me. So when they find evidence I usually believe them. And they did find evidence here, big time.

Ok.

And I enjoy yours.

Yes. However, raw data has been fairly easy to attain, my experience. Very much _unlike_ raw data in the clinical/medical field where _everyone_ seems to consider it highly proprietary.

Mind telling me what raw data you asked for?

I didn't say "using their methods," Joerg. I said that I understood them, or tried to. In some cases, I frankly didn't fully apprehend what they did and they simply helped me to understand them and then still gave me access. In any case, I wasn't saying that was a "gate keeper" as you seem to have imagined. If you read my writing with understanding, you've have gleened that I was suggesting that they want to know if I am semi-serious or just some random gadfly.

I sure would NOT want to get jerked around by every nut and, if I refused, to then get tarred and feathered by you because I decided I didn't feel up to it.

Basically, I treat them respectfully as I'd want to be treated by someone else asking _me_ for a favor. Do that and you get a long ways, my experience.

I really hate that link -- bastard ads. I need to disable the things, someday.

Okay. Before I commment, let's be a little more precise about it, Joerg.

The quote your web site provides is, "Think I?ve managed to persuade UEA to ignore all further FOIA requests if the people have anything to do with Climate Audit." I used the word "destroy" and searched your web site for a quote that includes that word and didn't find it. So I'm going to ask you to point out where they quote a climate scientist saying they'd destroy data if an FOIA request arrives, on your web site. Also, take note that they are talking about dealing with what really _is_ a gadfly -- Climate Audit. I'd like you to point out, on this site, where a climate scientist is quoted saying this about any other requestor (your statement above doesn't identify Climate Audit and I consider that an error in presenting the problem, Joerg.)

r.

We don't know. When the Argo buoys have collected some more data, we may be able to do better.

shows a roughly flat spot from 1940 to 1980. Some of that may have been real cooling caused by SO2 emissions, which were being cleaned up from about 1975, and we are pushing up the CO2 level rather faster now, but that's the most recent extended pause.

It isn't a theory, but a collection of facts. Nobody is alleging a conspiracy. Exxon-Mobil went out and sub-contracted for some anti- anthropogenic global warming propaganda from the usual sources, and the sub-contractors go to work. Exxon-Mobil recorded the payments to these sub-contractors in their published accounts, and these accounts form part of the record. The sub-contractors don't make any boomes about what thye are doing, though some of them are a but coy about the people who are supporting them.

This is like calling a historian's description of Obama's election campaign a "conspiracy theory".

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

You can curve-fit random noise pretty well, too. The higher the order, the better the fit, and the less predictive it will be.

John

The solenoid was entirely your idea. A clamp-on meter - which is what I was talking about - isn't a solenoid, but a toroidal transformer core which can be opened and closed. The output power - such as it is

- is extracted from a second wiinding wrapped around part of that core.

This creates a perfectly conventional transformer with a single-turn primary - one of the power companies active lines runs inside the toroid, and the rest run outside, forming a rather loosely wound single turn.

You didn't understand this and got excited and ran your "experiment" with a solenoid and a bunch of wires - a configuration that has nothing to do with clamp-on meters

If I thought that you had enough sense to realise this, I'd say that you were the fraud, but in fact you are merely a loud-mouthed and persistent fool.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen.

that

ng

My cardiologist claims that my aortic valve isn't opening wide enough, which means that my heart has to develop a blood pressure of 220/60 to produce the 120/60 that one sees on the other side of the valve.

High, and the cardiologist plans on having something done about it in the next few months, but a long way short of of any incipient risk of detonation. I even went to field-hockey practice earlier this evening, though I didn't do a lot of running around.

As for being "maxed out", my wife complains that I'm being much too blas=E9 about the whole business.

My younger brother in Sydney recently had the kind of experience that gets you closer to maxing out - chest pains on Monday, cine- angiography on Thursday and a quadruple by-pass on the following Monday, but he's now well into recuperation.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

ul

that

ing

Aortic valve disease has nothing to do with stress - and my blood pressure has been 120/60 for years now (give or take the usual noise on the measurments).

Designing the stuff is fun, but getting it built involves a lot of detail work, and people do tend to pester you while you are getting it to work.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

hat

The classic bipolar Baxandall Class-D oscillator doesn't have any capacitance in the base-drive. The example that squegged (until I stripped a third of the turns from the inductor) had one film capacitor in the tank circuit and an electrolytic across the supply rail - there was no RC bias network.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Quote, in the first email on that page: "If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I?ll delete the file rather than send to anyone."

Quote, further down: "A couple of things ? don?t pass on either?

1. You can delete this attachment if you want. Keep this quiet also, but this is the person who is putting in FOI requests for all emails Keith and Tim have written and received re Ch 6 of AR4. We think we?ve found a way around this."

Looking for a way around FOIA is illegal, at least in America. I don't know about the legal consequences in the UK.

No. FOIA is FOIA. If a data source falls under that law the holder of the data does not have the right to decide on his own to disobey such law. Unless national security is affected, of course, but then he'd have the obligation to notify authorities about that.

Also note that I wrote "_If_ data really has been deleted ...". Meaning I do not accuse them. But I would really want someone to investigate because they are influencing public policy.

Hope I did above :-)

Unless you or someone else proves that these emails were faked or pulled out of some hat then this is very serious. And I hope the two congressmen who want to have this investigated prevail with their efforts. The people of this world have a right to get to the ground of this.

Sea level data. A FTP link would have sufficed.

But if the scientist took the time to write a few sentences, why not just send a link to a web site with the data? It doesn't have to be exhaustive, just some place from where one can probe further and, most of all, something from official sources (such as NOAA or other countries' agencies).

That's what I always do. In requests as in replies.

I did not want an education, just a hint as to where underlying data might be. I don't think that's asking too much.

Looks like it's going back down:

No, you said "fudged data". Now where did they?

oman

r *=3D

You and Rich Grise do seem to be agreed about this. As Arthur C. Clark said, "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic".

Sloman's corollary is that "any sufficiently ignorant individual won't be able to tell science from religion".

y will more target

You seem to be referring to the HardTalk BBC interview on the 5th August 2009, where the retiring head of Greenpeace admitted to "emotionalising" the issues.

This doesn't exactly come as a surprise to me - I don't contribute to Greenpeace precisely because they simplify issue in a way that I find offensive. They have been doing it for many years.

This doesn't actually make them religious fanatics.

The claim about the "greenies" wanting us to move into unheated grass shacks came from you. I can't remember seeing any such policy in any of the Greenpeace literature that my wife used to get, and I'm begiining to get the impression that you invented it.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Indeed! I like to also point to a book (upon which I'm now quoted on the backside proving his lack of good taste!) --

Ian Getreu's "Modeling the Bipolar Transistor"

-- which is now finally again available as a Lulu reprint.

You are tarring a lot of people with one very big brush, Joerg. I think in your heart you know there is something wrong with that. But I'll leave it there.

I think one has every right to conserve their own time. However, I think all _serious_ and _informed_ criticism should be encouraged with vigor. In many cases, the data is publicly funded and should be simply available for a nominal or zero fee. And probably is.

I think the FOIA requests were NOT about raw data, Joerg. You will need to clearly demonstrate that it was, for me to get as worried as you seem to be. Internal work product is something I'm not nearly as concerned over. They can withhold that and I probably would not care.

I _hate_ this "fact of life," Joerg. I think it is disgusting and vile. And I think you are right. Bastards, all. But there it is.

(Frankly, I think the public _could_ at least give some fair consideration to the idea _if_ the funds were returned to them in a manner that was appropriate and fairly handled and didn't wind up instead paying down some debt they'd forced down our throats at a different time or lining someone's already deep pockets. The public understands the idea of fairness well and also is quite properly very incensed and angered by unfair treatment. I not only agree, I'd get angry, too.)

I have had personal experiences with a 1987 memo between the NRC and INPO that I've discussed in public forums. You can look these up, as they are in this group as well as others. It's more than just disposal. There really needs to be other changes, as well. As it stands, things really are not set up in law properly. I'll leave it there. If you want four or five paragraphs of summary posted again, I'll do it. Otherwise, you can look it up on google using NRC and INPO and my name.

Oh, well. If you watched it, you'd know what I meant.

Joerg, you aren't normal. Neither am I. Neither is my wife. And there lies the problem.

Sometimes, my wife argues something telling me that others would do "such and such" because that's what she'd do. Then I simply say, "You are NOT normal and you know that, darned well! Don't imagine that ANYONE else thinks like you do." Actually, she is the most creative person I've ever encountered. She's unique, that way. And she knows it. And yet she still "projects" her attitudes and behaviors on others. She knows better and needs reminding, once in a while.

You do, too, I think.

The ads work, perfectly. And you know it.

I think so, too.

Well, you need to take me by the nose and drag me through it. I've asked you in an earlier post. Answer it, in detail. Show me you have the full context and are not overstating your case. We'll deal with it, then.

Cripes, Joerg. There is plenty of that. Sit in on just about any lunch meeting. It's brutally honest. Almost scary, at times.

Try presenting a novel idea of yours in front of a group of physicists, Joerg. They will slice and dice you like a tomato. And then afterwards, often ask you out to talk more about the idea and help you work through it so that it gets better, next time. Their focus is to see if your idea can survive the most brutal attacks possible. If it does, it's probably a good one worth a little more time. If not, best to kill it now and get it over with. It's not fun when you are the one up there. But you learn to appreciate it and seek it out. So does everyone.

Yeah, there are back-stabbers everywhere. Scientists, too. But in general I find the heat and vigor of the process very much honest -- too honest, at times. Sometimes, my ego needs a little softer landing.

But it's such a wonderful feeling when something you've said actually makes it through the gauntlet.

At whom, exactly? Climate Audit? If so, doesn't bother me in the slightest. I completely understand. I wish they maintained a better outward appearance. But I do understand. I spent years debating in personal, 1:1 email, with one of those at Climate Audit. I'm fine with ignoring them. I finally had to admit that years of his disrespectful yelling at me was at an end and stopped responding to him. So I personally understand.

Oh come on, Joerg!

Closed issue between us, I take it. Which is fine.

First, they don't represent the entire activity. You need to admit that fact. Second, I skimmed over the same web page you read and am still wondering about the details which appear to me to be not entirely congruent with the words you chose to use to describe it -- I gather you will discuss that more fully, when you get a chance. So let's hold off a moment on this.

No, I don't. If you want to inform me more fully because it is important _to you_ that I know about it, that's fine. The mere fact that I'm ignorant really means that I don't know everything there is to know. But I already knew that. Oh, well.

I think you are making too much out of far too little. But I don't know what you see and perhaps you will be able to walk me through your path so that I get it and agree with you. I already said a couple of things bother me about the released letters and I've just today admitted one of the general areas of that. None of it changes what the knowledge I've gained in specific areas where I've spent my time. Not in the least.

hehe. Okay.

:)

Jon

te:

happenedBill Sloman

o media, no energy=3D

ansport goods, the=3D

er, some paper man=3D

, all these

doesn't know

k scientists?

ople who

they quite

ic field

ductor?

that.

on, you

_proved_

r anyone

her.

The deceit is yours. You say that I claimed that one could

" extract energy from a varying magnetic field surrounding a conductor by wrapping a solenoid around the conductor? "

but this was - in fact - your misunderstanding of what I actually said

" Wrapping a clamp-on meter around one line means that there is current circulating around the clamp - the current that goes through the selected line in one direction is matched by equal and opposite current flowi g through the other lines in the other direction. The coupling coefficient is unlikely to be good, but it is finite."

The clamp-on meter is in fact an openable toroidal core, which lets you thread one of the power comapnies wires through the centre of the core without breaking the wire, creating a one-turn primary.

You extract power from the primary winding by winding a secondary around part of the toroidal core, in the usual way.

The solenoid is entirely your invention.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

It seems that data can also conveniently get lost:

Have they ever heard of offsite data storage? Oh man ...

eak Dutch too.

Oddly enough, they didn't test me on that - it was a test of my comptetence in Dutch.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

That isn't raw data, Joerg. It's digested and developed from several methods applied to a range of data sets taken in a variety of ways from sites all over the world, each of which have their unique characteristics that need to be understood and applied to develop a sense of 'global sea level'.... all of which goes through refinements and changes, from time to time. Assuming, of course, that you meant to have "global sea level data" when you wrote "sea level data."

It would have helped you a lot had you known what you were looking for.

Have you ever sat down and actually _read_ a report on these kinds of subjects? I mean, really just one of them? Or the IPCC AR4 discussion, even? If you had, you'd know that "sea level data" isn't "raw data" without my saying so.

Here, take a look at this one from this year:

Since you were discussing mountain glaciers earlier, you have given me a segue. It's really a very simple paper that illustrates the issues involved when trying to see if there is a way to develop an improved understanding by joining datasets from different sources and means.

Now, I think you can understand the reaction if you were writing to some scientist about glaciers and asking for "glacier levels." They wouldn't really know what you meant if you were asking for the raw data. Which raw data?

Suppose I asked you about the getting access to "capacitor values?" You might wonder, "Um... which types of capacitors? What values, exactly? Do they need to know about temperature or voltage effects? What application is this for?" Etc. And then you'd begin to wonder if the questioner had any clue, at all, asking like that.

I would.

This is why I said it helps if you inform yourself by actually doing some serious, sit-down reading of the material. Get familiar with the issues of the day. Learn a little, first. By then, you can refine your questions to something they can make good sense of and place it into a context they understand.

I mean, how many times have you seem people writing in about electronics and asking some bizarrely phrased question that makes it patently obvious they have no clue, at all? And you know, before even thinking about answering, that anything you say will only make it worse? "There is too much current for my radio to work right. How can I lower the current?" Stuff like that where you not only know they have no clue, you know there is NO CHANCE that you can give a short, directed answer that helps, either.

It really does help a lot to do some reading on your own before going around asking questions.

I don't mean to be flip or abrupt, Joerg. Your question is the kind of question that non-specialists really might have to help them think about things. But you also have to understand this from the side of someone who is deep into the details (like you are, here.) Consider how you might have to respond in similar circumstances.

The data you asked for isn't 'raw data.'

Because it doesn't exist? Sometimes, the data is developed as an output of specific methods applied to a range of datasets coming from a variety of sources of varying pedigree/provenance and there are a host of error bounds and other assumptions, known about and unknown, applied in order to generate an internal result that is then summarized. The interim data is internal and, frankly, doesn't really matter. They've disclosed the methodology and sources in the paper and they very well may not wish to send you the internal work product.

Doesn't bother me in the least, if so. I've had to replicate results by following procedures. In fact, it's good for you to have to work for it, like that. Helps you understand things better when you have to do it, yourself, too.

May not be there. However, the raw data (like tree ring counts from some Scottish researcher looking at a certain set of preserved trees at a particular museum) is often available. Now, if you want that tree ring data from yet another researcher looking at fossilized trees from Tibet, 10 years earlier, then you might need to contact someone else. And if you want that fused together in some kind of new data set, you might need to contact someone else... if that fused data is the explicit OUTPUT of a paper.

Just like in electronics. You get to know the signal inputs, conditions, and drive requirements... up to a point. And you get to know the outputs... up to a point. As far as the internals go? Maybe. Maybe not. If you are informed, you can probably "work it out" on your own. You don't need them to disclose everything. It's not entirely different, except that scientists disclose a LOT more I think and take a less-proprietary approach. So even better, in my opinion. But you really don't _need_ the internal work product. You can access the raw data inputs because they are usually the explicit outputs of someone else's work. You can use the outputs, too. But you don't have a right to dig into the internal stuff.... if you want it, you really need to ask VERY NICELY and you need to let them know a lot more about you and what you intend to do with it.

I'd want the same thing. Otherwise, I might spend the next 10 years of my life having to either teach that person step by step or else have them paste my name all over the internet, saying that they have all this data directly from me all the while completely and totally misinterpreting it to everyone else... but looking like they know stuff because __I__ gave them the data and I cannot deny that fact.

It's good practice. I wish I followed it as well as you do.

Maybe you are. Maybe you aren't. But "sea level data" doesn't cut it unless you are more specific.

Jon