Ping Bil Slowman; The global warming hoax reveiled

The last ice age ended about 11,000 years ago. I don't think that anybody could be expected to remember it.

Jan was encouraging me to understand the Earth's natural cycles, which demands a little more involvement than merely remembering them, and is

- in any event - somewhat ironic, since the current understanding of the causes of the ice ages leads directly to the conclusion that there aren't going to be any more "natural" climate cycles to understand, because anthropogenic effects have overwhelmed th natural driving forces.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

That's an emotional comment and probably wishful thinking, not a certain promise to act. I might write something like that if I felt harassed.

Yes, it may be pretty stupid to say.

Okay. Let's pop up the mail and post the whole thing, Joerg:

Now that you can read the whole thing, tell me exactly what you think these emails are about and why you imagine they are trying to find a way around having to disclose them. I can think of a lot of reasons. There is a great deal of frank conversations that proceed in arguments about which side of the bread the butter should go. And sometimes, the heated discussions that led up to a final draft really were expected, by those participating, to be (and should be) kept private. An shotgun FOI request, made in the hope of finding anything and something to create confusion out of would indeed be fought hard against.

Of course, if I _presumed_ at the outset that they were evil and sinister... then some of my thoughts might simply go in the direction of supporting that assumption. But open your mind enough to allow the idea of presuming they aren't evil liars, but faced with someone putting in FOI requests just to hassle them and hopefully find something they can misquote and use in the public venue without context. (Hmm. Maybe like this letter.) If you don't start with the 'evil' assumption, you might find there are other ways to read this.

By the way, I'd love to see the 10 million emails "lost" by the last Bush administration. I _do_ imagine there is a lot that would interest the public. And legitimately, too; not just some prurient interest.

No. Looking for a way around FOI requests in the US is often considered 'standard practice.' If you are so naive as to think otherwise, you really need to get out more. There are good reasons and bad. Some good reasons might be that responding fully to the FOI might create a new precedent or be considered excessive. An FOI request, for example, for ALL FEDERAL AND STATE DISTRICT AND CIRCUIT COURT RECORDS GOING BACK TO 1781 might be such a nasty beast. Perfectly horrible in terms of scope. And responding to it might set a precedent that even crazy-minded requests like that must be equally met.

Regardless, looking for an out is NOT illegal. What would be trouble would be having a court order specific compliance with the request and then to refuse even that much. Scoping the lay of the land about it, or 'wanting' to find a way to avoid a response, isn't in and of itself illegal. It's just normal.

If only it were that clear.

Okay. So we can set aside the accusation of deleting climate data.

Maybe. ;) We'll see.

Oh, I think the emails are real. Though I can't say for sure, of course. Could be doctored. But what I've read through 'looks real' to me. So I tentatively conclude they are.

Some of them bother me. But I realize that these people are real humans who have genuine emotions. I take the good with the bad, as I said before. None of us are perfect.

Jon

I didn't read the web site, but you reminded me. When the USS Vincennes fired upon and destroyed an Iranian airliner with about 300 people aboard, the data tapes were ordered by the Reagan Administration to be shipped to Washington DC for analysis. I was working on ISAR at the time and knew a little about the equipment aboard and capabilities -- technical and personnel-wise. There was no need to ship the tapes (because all of the needed capability for analysis was present aboard the ship, itself.)

So I remember telling a co-worker at Lockheed that "The article said the original tapes are being sent. I bet no duplicates will be found and the original tapes will be 'lost' tomorrow."

Sure enough, sure as the sun will rise in the morning, the very next day the news announced that somehow the tapes were completely lost and that there was no duplicates made nor any other way to recover the data.

Gee. I wonder why.

Actually, I know why.

Jon

Got a schematic?

John

In article , Joerg wrote in part:

It has since been updated a bit, and that downturn is starting to look like a dip rather than a downturn - expected since 2008 was cooled by a major La Nina.

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

hehe. Now if the two people in the world who may care would just buy a copy!

I'll give you more examples. I had to drive from here, in Oregon, to Chicago. When I reached Michigan and especially Illinois there were all these toll booths. Seemed like every 2 or 3 miles. Supposedly, to pay for the roads. Which is patently false. They had been paid for decades before. And they were collecting a LOT MORE than the maintenence costs were, after. These were INTERSTATE HIGHWAYS paid for by FEDERAL TAXES!! My money. Your money. These were not some local drag, either.

That was sheer crap.

Out here, in the Portland metro area (1.5 million people big) there was a bridge built across the Columbia river as part of I5. When it went in, they added tolls. I paid 25 cents to cross the bridge, 'back in the day.' They said that when the bridge was paid for, the tolls would come out. Sure enough, when the capital costs were paid, they pulled the tolls and it's now free to travel across.. these last decades.

Back east, if a toll goes in... it stays forever. So I'm told by those living there, anyway.

Wrong-minded and liars besides. At least here, our politicians did the right thing. It does happen.

Okay.

Okay. Granted and accepted, etc.

It affects nothing I've learned, so far. Some of what I read I didn't like. But that's because I'm an honesty-always sort who like to wear myself on my sleeve and gets into trouble for it, sometimes. Including nearly having my daughter taken away from me forcefully by police. Being honest, being true to principles, can sometimes be treated VERY CRUELLY be people who don't care and are willing to step on anyone and everyone. Long story there. Point is, there is the way you would wish you should be if others weren't so viscious and cruel and there is slightly less honest way you find out the hard way you have to be sometimes because of it.

I've enjoyed every second of my experiences like that, after I got over my first shock of being torn to shreds in front of a lot of people and made into a complete fool (I thought, at the time.) I seek these experiences, now, though I rarely feel like I ever am worthy of them.

As I wrote in another email, I don't know if "looking for a way out" is actually illegal. And you've admitted that "destroying data" is more your suggesting than an explicit admission you uncovered. So think the jury is still out. And yes, if Climate Audit gave me an FOI request, I'd probably assume it wasn't because they were serious about applying informed analysis to see if there was a real error (because there is a place and time for that they can already use) but instead because they are "looking for dirt" to use in smearing people.

As you admit earlier here, the McDonald's approach _works_. Just paint an emotion and people are driven like sheep by it. And this technical stuff is beyond their ken, anyway. Or they don't have the time because they have a life, too. So a good smear compaign works wonders. Always has. Always will. And reading through emails is a great way to find some really nice 'sizzle.' The public won't care about the meat, anyway.

:)

No, I'm just saying I don't know anything about "Schnidljoch." Never even heard of it until I read your words. It does happen to be true that I live a limited life.

Well, I suppose I need you to inform me about all this. ;)

Jon

have

create a

people who

consensus.

for

dumb

to

current

axis

know

when

always had

Even with the tiny pittance that i have managed to contribute i vote for bill slowman to go. I think that the total value of his posts here is negative.

have

create a

people who

consensus.

for

dumb

to

And believe it or not i like and respect John Fields, Jim Thompson, Michael Terrell, Vladimir Vassilevsk, Jeorg, Jan P., Don K., James Arthur, Spehro, Martin Brown, Nico Cosel, Phil Hobbs, Frank Buss, Dimiter Popov, and many more.

than a

The last FORTRAN i worked with at all (F77 many years ago) did not seem very spaghetti code friendly. It did not seem particularly structured code friendly either. (not that i knew that back then.)

Please send me a file or two of FORTRAN spaghetti code, i am curious about what it looks like.

to

Communication glitch. I was applying Squat Out of Luck to the AGW models being worthwhile. For much the same reasons you cite.

So you have demonstrated what Bill is to your satisfaction. Well and good.

Could you now just ignore him, even you are getting frustrated with the way his evasions waste everybody's time.

What is it JT says? Something like "Let him die, alone and forgotten".

John Fields is easily satisfied.

In his "solenoid" rant, he has invented a statement that he thinks I made - in the relevant thread I never even posted the word "solenoid"

- and congratulates himself for carrying out a perfectly useless "experiment" to prove that the statement that he had invented isn't actually true. I didn't take him seriously at the time, and if you hadn't shown signs of taking him seriously I'd have continued to confine myself to jeering at him.

If you feel the need to waste your time on this non-issue, check out the thread "Batteryless current clamps?" which started on November 17

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

On a sunny day (Mon, 30 Nov 2009 17:42:42 -0800 (PST)) it happened Bill Sloman wrote in :

The general impression greenies leave is this: Save the birds, the bugs, the fish, anything except humans. Stop all energy production and industrialisation. Live like a bird in nature but grass shack will do, but be careful not to step on the grass.

Did not you notice?

On a sunny day (Mon, 30 Nov 2009 18:45:10 -0800 (PST)) it happened Bill Sloman wrote in :

Bull, your data A is in th@ noise!

On a sunny day (Mon, 30 Nov 2009 19:22:25 -0800) it happened Jon Kirwan wrote in :

Yes, and data can be created at will, like weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. This is how governments control you, the masses. And the governments are controlled by the 'captains of industry'. And those need to make max profits. And the shareholders push them for max profits. And you buy the shares, and are shareholder. Positive feedback loop. Instability, wars, cyclic.

Joerg schrieb:

Hello,

it is not possible that the ice volume a shrinking glacier lost in several decades is replaced in several years again.

Bye

Jim Thompson schrieb:

Hello,

are you able to proof the "uninformed" in any way?

Bye

I did. I asked for the local water level _readings_. Before that request I had already found quite a few data sets on my own. When that data did not corroborate what they had published I asked for more of that data. To be able to understand where their conclusions came from.

I often deal with this when writing module specs. Since I can never assume how well versed the readers will be there is a lot of underlying data and explanations. A regular engineer like you and I won't read those but they are still provided.

If the AGW folks want to make a case they better do the same, be open. Especially now since the trust of the public has been thoroughly shaken.

But I would not brush them off.

Then I ask questions. Like "What is it that you don't like with the sound of your radio?"

It may not be called that and I only used that expression here for brevity. What I asked for was sea level data from stations. Can't be that hard.

Then I would have appreciated a link to that paper.

All I wanted was the input and it's got to be there. Measurements, averages, from the stations.

Nope, I would not refuse. One can give out the data plus a link to teaching material. I often point email requesters that are more in the league of your example "my radio uses too much of the wrong current" to web sites thta teach the basics. In this day and age there is an abundance, and learning is essentially free. When I began answering requests in the late 80's and early 90's that was not the case at all, lots more work. Yet I always answered them (they had my address from publications).

Well, I got some of it on my own and told them, so they knew exactly what I was after. I just wanted some more (that I couldn't find), from areas which corroborate their claims. But anyhow, it's history, I am not interested in that particular data anymore.