Ping Bil Slowman; The global warming hoax reveiled

...

r of

ut

ure

There are "peer-reviewed" journals around whose editors have been known to publish denialist propaganda of zero academic merit without sending it out for review.

As long as there wasn't money to be made out of publishing pseudo- academic articles, the scientific community could afford to be pretty relaxed about what constituted a peer-reviewed journal. Exxon-Mobil and similar organisations with a large financial interest in denying anthrpogenic global warming have created a situation where tighter definitions are desirable.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

m...

er of

out

ture

The science is clear enough, but the data that is required to verify the likeliest explanation - changes in heat distribution due to the North Atlantic and Pacific Multidecadal Oscillations - depends on a bunch of data-collecting robots that haven't been out there for long enough yet.

There's your travesty. I've told you about this before - it is a pity you are too ill-informed to be able to process and absorb the information.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

ne...

Spencer

esearch

aterial

ew...

...

r of

ut

ure

Successful scieintists have to be good advocates for their own ideas.

No they are objective, open-minded, passionate seekers of the truth, and particularly of those aspects of the truth that can be written up in attention-getting papers.

Most scientists have a heavy investment in the model that is currently popular in their field, but they all know that if they can come up with a better model they can wipe the floor with the competition.

Very few are silly enough to try to mould Nature to produce the kind of publication they need - it does happen, and it makes the front pages when they get caught.

And they do get caught, because science is all about consilience. Everybody's results have to make sense when they are compared with everybody else's results and those that don't get a lot of attention.

Says James Arthur, in a remarkable implausible claim of authority.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

artne...

id. Spencer

f research

t material

lenew...

h in

es

by

eir

re

com...

as

to

ther of

m out

rature

Astronomy has had to struggle with exactly the same problem. I presume you also are going to rip down all the observatories and insist that the sun really does go around the earth.

"Infinite"?

You must be thinking of Roy Spencer

"One widely reported satellite temperature record, developed by Roy Spencer and John Christy at the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH), is currently version 5.2 which corrects previous errors in their analysis for orbital drift and other factors. The record comes from a succession of different satellites and problems with inter- calibration between the satellites are important, especially NOAA-9, which accounts for most of the difference between the RSS and UAH analyses [15]. NOAA-11 played a significant role in a 2005 study by Mears et al. identifying an error in the diurnal correction that leads to the 40% jump in Spencer and Christy's trend from version 5.1 to 5.2. [16]"

It comes a lot closer now that Roy Spencer finally got around to correcting the data for which he was responsible.

It would be wrong, if it were true. In fact the evidence for anthropogenic global warming has been convincing since the ice core data became available in the 1990's and is irrefutable now. The denialists don't seem to have noticed, but Exxon-Mobil and similar interested parties might be less generous with their support if the denialist propaganda machine confined itself to verifiable facts.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

At last, a clear voice amongst all the noise :-).

If the work is publicly funded, then it should be available to any interested party. Apparently not though, which begs the question, why ?. What are they trying to hide ?.

Otoh, just suppose that some western governments wanted to reduce dependence on fossil fuel for strategic / national security reasons. What scam could they come up with to justify the tremendous sacrifices required from the voters ?. It's a win win situation as well. When the earth doesn't turn to toast, they can say they were right, the sacrifices were worth it and everyone will be thankfull and praise various graven images :-)......

Regards,

Chris

I've answered this question before. Researchers publish their data in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. They do a lot of work on the raw data to make it accessible and understandable. If a third party wants access to the raw data, the researchers have to a do a lot more work to provide a user-friendly interface that lets these third parties make sense of the raw data, and in the process they make it easier for other scientists to take advantage of the pick and shovel work that they have done to build up their position in their area.

All of this means that researchers aren't trying to hide their raw data - they are just trying to avoid having to put in a lot of work that won't advance them in their field, and will allow others to advance themselves at their expense.

They'd have had to have started early. Anthropogenic global warming was first hypothesised around a century ago.

Unfortunately the eath is already turning to - rather soggy - toast. Where do you think the remarkably heavy rain that has been falling in the Lake District came from? How come it can suddenly knock over five bridges that had survived a couple of hundred years of British weather?

We've only had 0.74 =B1 0.18 =B0C (1.33 =B1 0.32 =B0F) of warming so far,

but there's no way we can avoid this getting up to 2=B0C over the next century, beyond which we have to start worrying about methane clathrates coming apart, which could offer us a chance to enjoy an re- run of the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum

Some human beings might survive such an excursion, but our current civilisation would be toast, and there'd be a pretty spectacular population crash.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

On a sunny day (Sun, 22 Nov 2009 15:36:28 -0800 (PST)) it happened Bill Sloman wrote in :

Climate warming ice age:

As Joerg pointed out:

Idiot.

In , Bill Sloman wrote in large part:

I thought someone mentioned in a previous thread an answer to this, often already done:

Publish the raw data with some time delay, such as a year, after what it was used for was published.

- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)

So now you are using local weather events as proof of climate change. So what do you make of the recent record-setting cold snaps across the USA?

Geez, I'm sure glad you don't design electronics. Stick to obsessing about climate; that will keep you from doing much real harm.

John

Heaven forbid you "scientists" actually contributed to society, rather than selfishly floating only your own boat?

Yet taking research "dole" from the government.

Scumbags!

The sky ?:-)

Same as ours in the US... even without rain... poor or no maintenance. Over there in Brit-stony-land I'd guess they'd never ever been re-grouted.

Sno-o-o-o-ort ;-) ...Jim Thompson

about

Netherlands they now want to store the CO2

suffocated in your sleep,

chance :-)

And then h*mo sapiens began poking holes into it using drilling rigs. Very closely guarded, of course. This sort of guarding is unlikely to continue once the financial interest is gone. IOW after the revenue from gas is exhausted.

Another classic example is a small city in southern Germany. Forgot the name but it even made the press over here. They had this wonderful idea to install geothermal heat in the city hall. A few months later lots of houses showed structural cracks. They found that they had drilled through a gypsum layer and now water was ozzing up, letting that gypsum layer swell. Looks like that city may be toast soon, pretty much all of it. Whoops ...

Astronomy is easily confirmed, repeatably, to high accuracy, by multiple observers around the world.

Climatrology can't predict a decade-long cooling trend even once it's begun, nor can it explain it.

If your model contradicts Nature, your model is wrong.

-- Cheers, James Arthur

Climatology can't "predict" history, yet some idiots want to use it to control everyone. Politicians (are) like that.

Wrong is often useful (see above).

No, I was thinking of NASA-Goddard, the Hadley wing of the UK's meteorological service, and the e-mails we've just seen wherein they discuss how they've withheld embarrassing raw data.

-- Cheers, James Arthur

oman

Good. You should now understand what was going on during the Ice Ages

And as I pointed out, a deep lake full of water saturated with CO2 is unstable, and there is a obvious mechanism by which it can escape.

The CO2 that is going to be injected into the exhausted natural-gas field several kilometres below Barendrecht doesn't have the same same options, and should remain locked up as securely as the natural gas that ti is intended to replace, which stayed put for a couple of hundred millions years.

It is pretty idiotic to equate Lake Nyos with the situation Barendrecht will be in after Sheel has been pumping CO2 into the gas field for a few years.

Why not concentrate your attention on a disaster which is merely highly unlikely to happen - a tsunami in the North Sea, or the kind of extraordinary rainfall that has flooded the UK's Lake District?

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Some aspects of it are.

In the context of global warming, the climatologists don't have to predict or explain it - it's just low-level short-term noise.

And in fact there is a plausible explanation - the North Atlantic and Pacific Multidecadal Oscillations. Unfortunately, the Argo project - which will eventually collect the data to validate or falsify this particular hypothesis - has only been running for a few years, which isn't long enough to yield immediate answers when you are looking at a multidecadal oscillation.

The climatologists models don't contradict nature, they just don't model it with perfect fidelity. The whole point about modelling is to look at simple approximations to a more complicated reality - something that is simple enough that you can run the simulations faster than they world they are modelling evolves in real time.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Nobody wants to "control everybody". As long as you can power your air- conditioner from a sustainable power source, nobody is going to give a damn which power source you choose.

Burning more fossil carbon - so that your air-conditioner, as well as everybody elses, is going to have to work harder - isn't going to be a socially acceptable choice.

Unfortunately for you, and Exxon-Mobil, the model isn't wrong, just not optimised for short term weather prediction.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

I don't think that you can validate that claim. Raw data is - in any event - uninterpretable without a lot of processing, so your claim is a non sequiteur.

Not just libel, but fatuous libel.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

?.

One of the regular predictions of the effects of global warming is a higher frequency of extreme weather. The logic is that global warming means more water vapour in the atmosphere, and the engine that drives weather is the energy released when water vapour condenses.

Extreme weather can be hot or cold, wet or dry, which does put proponents of anthropogenic global warming in the catbird seat when some extreme weather shows up.

And if you concentrated on electronics, which you do know something about, rather than potificating about climate change, where you ignorance makes you a total sucker for the most fatuaous denialist rubbish, you'd be less of a menance.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen