Ping Bil Slowman; The global warming hoax reveiled

Dutch too.

oman

One wonders why Jan thinks that. He clearly hasn't studied the data in any kind of detail, and he clearly has notstudied the sort of physics that would let him make much sense of what is ther to be studied, but he still comes across as having total confidence in his daft ideas.

It would seemt that he is the kind of over-confident twit who can "grasp things at glance" that the denialist propaganda is engineered to suck in.

To his credit, he doesn't like the emotionalised propaganda that Greenpeace spreads about, but that may reflect hs distaste for the content of the message, rather than the way they chose to sell it.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

I'm always pleased to note that I'm the highest standard for Slowman's disdain, but please don't feed the jerk. Let him die that most unpleasant of deaths... alone ;-)

-- ...Jim Thompson

| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at

If glaciers can go away in a certain time frame, doesn't it make sense that they could return in the same time frame?

Are you trying to be Slowman's replacement.

You will be trivial to take care of ;-) ...Jim Thompson

Please don't do that in any public role. Can get you into legal trouble even if something can't be found later, especially if they can't find out who dunnit.

It's gross, IMHO.

One has to approach this neutral and with only the law in mind. In America we are blessed with some excellent laws that truly empower the public, such as FOIA.

So, if this work and also the emails were done on the public nickel and FOIA grants the public rightful access to that, then nobdoy is entitled to take the standpoint "Oh, but I don't like that and I will find away to dodge this requirement". Nobody.

What should happen now is a solicitation of denied or shorted FOIA requests. Should be easy because the requesters will be eager to furnish such information. Then see what was delivered or not delivered. Then, find out whether there was something that should have and ask why it wasn't. If necessary under oath.

What I don't get is why they put this sort of stuff in emails, and under their work accounts. I mean, technically they could have used some hotmail account or whatever. Or the phone.

I'd assume the current administration would be busy exploring this if there was anything they suspected.

Why? Then you simply charge reasonable fees and if the requester still wants to go ahead I believe the budget crises, clerk layoffs and such in many districts would be solved :-)

Only for requesters with fat bank accounts. Remember, FOIA information is _not_ always free of charge. They can't charge $100 for a dozen pages but they can for a box full of pages.

I never said anything criminal has happened. But openly thinking about dodging a rule or law would be a good hint to probe further. Many people have been caught because they talked about their strategies.

It is. In case of doubt a court would need to decide.

I didn't accuse but said that there is a chance that it happened, not that it did happen or so-and-so did it. Of course there will now be many people who say it happened and the PR for the AGW folks will turn very ugly. Lots of opinions are formed at the neighorhood pub, after a few brewskys.

No, we aren't. However, the style in those emails is something I have never ever seen in business. It is a style that I do not like and that raises suspicion.

On a sunny day (Tue, 1 Dec 2009 07:03:08 -0800 (PST)) it happened Bill Sloman wrote in :

Look, even specialised scientists working years on that issue cannot agree it is above noise level. Only Bill Sloman thinks so, and some other AGW fanatics.

How many sigma do you have proof of? from non cooked data? Nobody knows right? But we *do* know ice ages came and went, without us helping. Ice ages will keep coming, and will keep going. We need the energy to cope with that.

My wife would scold me if I got another historical book. A few years ago I vowed to clean house so I don't occupy all the hallway closets with my business stuff :-)

Now would be time to market this to universities. I think that students wanting to head for chip design should read it. Although the era of the BJT is essentially over in many, many markets.

Now you know exactly why I am squarely against a carbon tax or anything of that sort. Taxing is what lots of AGW folks want and the public doesn't want.

That's the point, I hope there is going to be a jury. Or a judge.

An honest climate scientist should not be afraid of dirt.

Yep. And I hope those scientists have learned their lesson, that one does not write such stuff.

See? Same here. I've got to work to earn a living, then there needs to be family time, and volunteer work which I won't sacrifice to study reams of climate stuff because then I'd let people down. This is why we all must rely on other source we can trust for much of our opinion-building.

In a nutshell, this is the story of what happened (a lot of the more detailed write-ups are in German):

I can almost here some of the guys from East Anglia exclaim "Oh s..t! Why did they have to find this?" ;-)

But it is over the course of several hundred years:

Indeed! Though I already own a copy, I no longer do my own modeling... the foundries provide everything I need.

I haven't done a purely-BJT chip in probably 10 years. Now running about 30% BiCMOS and 70% pure CMOS.

Our real problem now is that the American lamestream media are NOT COVERING THIS.

Might I suggest that everyone cancel their newspaper subscriptions? Tell them, as I did, "I don't PAY to be fed leftist weenie pablum". ...Jim Thompson

This is a problem for designers like me when we need space-rated stuff. Slim pickens these days, you can have chicken with noodles, noodles with chicken or chicken on top of noodles, that's pretty much it :-(

time.

That's why there is the Internet :-)

And AFAIR Rush covered it, like usual with gusto.

The only reason why we still have our rather left-leaning local paper is that there ain't anything else. There is a small one that's much more to my political likings but a bit provincial for my taste.

When semi-retiring some day I'll probably drop it (if it hasn't gone under by then anyway) and subscribe to the Wall Street Journal instead.

Isn't that startling! I didn't expect the WSJ to leave the cheering section so quickly. ...Jim Thompson

Do you mean "prove"? When I proof it, I find that it's spelled correctly. ;-)

But don't take JT too seriously - he's still a rabid Bushist, and even though he's an old f***ss that wears Fred Mertz pants, he has an ego as big as Al Gore's. ;-)

CHeers! Rich

Does putting it "in context" make it any less criminal?

Thanks, Rich

an a

er

I can't explain your mistake, nor do I care. I don't remember saying climate models diverge after a fortnight, nor can I imagine saying that because I know it isn't true. If I did make such a mistake, it'd be all over the internet in archives and on hard drives everywhere. Have at it.

I make no attempt to stay abreast of the latest modeling, there's no need, any more than I need to follow and understand every nuanced detail of divining rod construction or voodoo-doll design. They don't matter.

I know from my own understanding that today's modeling can't possibly predict over the timespans climastrologists claim, and I have, independently, the word of a worker in the field to confirm it.

As far as I'm concerned, I won't bother taking long-term forecasts from models (or divining rods) seriously until they prove themselves.

to

ot

es,

id

nd

ut

I don't claim to be current on this, any more than I keep pace with Tom Cruise's progress to the next level of Thetan-hood. But, above you've just offered a story, not a theory, not an explanation, not something quantified, tested, or proved.

Even so, if the NAMDO--which affects temperatures and weather and clouds--isn't understood, as you concede, how did those climate models accurately project and integrate the effects of those clouds over all that simulated time? If the GCM doesn't know how many, how reflective, and how widespread the clouds are, how can it compute and integrate the solar input to calculate total warming? It can't.

It's bogus.

-- Cheers, James Arthur

Everybody knows Garbage In, Garbage Out.

Therefore, garbage into a garbage "model" yields Garbage Squared. ;-)

Cheers! Rich

You skipped the introductory sentence: "When these gases are ranked by their contribution to the greenhouse effect, the most important are:"

So, you've made a useless distinction. In IPCC-ian cant, "forcing" means yet something else to what it meant in common language.

The upshot is still that--whatever the term-of-art be in your particular cult--the heat inputs from those sources are not accurately quantified, and their uncertainty dwarfs the heating thought to be from manmade CO2.

I read it, but I don't get your point. The alleged contribution of these GHGs to Earth-warming in Earth-atmosphere is what matters, nothing else.

It's not a mystery, it's a planet, with a well-known atmospheric composition. So the correct measure of GHG-warming potential would be of each gas' contribution in the mix as naturally occurs on Earth, or dF/dConcentration in close approximations of that mix, or some such, obviously.

If they don't know that exactly, they don't know anything.

If you want to insist the mix varies widely, having large effects, then you have to show that your model accurately predicts how much water vapor and so forth appears everywhere on the planet, at all levels of the atmosphere, and integrates that correctly over time.

You can't meet that burden.

And still you should be able to supply one overall measure of each gas' influence, to a precision better than the AGW you're asserting for CO2. Just integrate the contribution, per volume, over the atmosphere.

That gives a number, per gas, that could be listed in that table. And, to be of any use, it'd better be an accurate number.

=B2.

Despite your protestations: 4:1 bounds on a 95% confidence interval. That's a joke, of course.

-- Cheers, James Arthur

That's one reason long-term predictions from global climate models don't and can't work. Your explanation of that failing doesn't make it go away.

Without clouds, you're not modeling life. They cool the days, and warm the nights, in case you hadn't noticed.

GCMs perforce have to integrate those heat inputs; if they don't, they don't work. It's that simple.

s.

You can't draw any such conclusion. It's entirely possible we'll have more clouds, or more reflective clouds, and the whole thing will balance out. Or it could all be horribly worse. The models just can't say.

It seems entirely likely we'll be warmer in 100 years than now--we've been warming ever since the last ice age (during this interglacial thereof, technically). Not long ago elephants had fur. Now they don't.

-- Cheers, James Arthur