Ping Bil Slowman; The global warming hoax reveiled

n again about

Netherlands they now want to store the CO2

gh you

suffocated in your sleep,

have a chance :-)

ed

also

..

And the natural gas field that used to be there didn't survive an earthquake or two over the couple of hundred years it was hanging around waiting for ome Dutchman to drill that hole?

Even granting a slow leak through the pipe that they are now going to use to put CO2 into the gas-field, there is a couple of kilometres of water saturated geology between the gas-filed and the surface. You aren't going to get a Lake Nyos-style 300 foot geyser of CO2, just a bit more calcium and magnesium bicrabonate in the ground-water.

Sad, but not exactly a volcanic eruption. Since you have identified the city or found a URL to back up this story, I could wonder whether it was the sort of urban legend that the Prussians invent whenever they talk to people about the Bavarians.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Like, for instance, when it rains for 40 days and 40 nights?

I do concentrate on electronics... a lot. I have about 11 or so interesting projects at various stages of development, and a bunch more we're thinking about.

But why does being skeptical of some nonlinear/chaotic computer models constitute "menace"? The science must be very, very fragile if it can't bear my humble skepticism in an obscure newsgroup. I suppose that's another reason they hide their raw data and cook the peer reviews.

Well, the AGW fad has peaked. What anti-civilization paranoia will be next, do you think?

John

again about

Netherlands they now want to store the CO2

suffocated in your sleep,

a chance :-)

Not an earthquake that was able to rupture things down there. A drilled hole, very different thing. And yes, I did work in an oil field and went through the scare when the gas bubble siren wailed. Pretty much smack-dab in the middle of the North Sea, on an anchored semi-submersible. Definitely not a great place to be when a bubble wafts upwards. Luckily it hissed off and I am still here :-)

Trust us, we are the government, nothing bad will happen. Yeah :-)

Nope, it is very sad reality. Had to finish a client project and now that it is finished I looked but the more informative links are all in German:

Scroll down to "Der Fall Staufen"

A very brief summary in English (except that a lot more buildings are damaged by now):

Ahm, didn't he write "even if _we_ have to redefine what the peer-review literature is" ? Note the word "we" in there.

Yeah, the usual conspiracy theory. I think the notion of the whole AGW scheme being a gravy train has more credibility than that. At least that's what people around my neighborhood are thinking.

Climatology predicts history fine with a little bit of curve-fitting. Climatrology, like astrology (or maybe let's call it climatrollogy), looks into the future.

That's Mencken's game-- "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." --H.L. Mencken

Martin likes that quote too--wonder where he went.

-- Cheers, James Arthur

Don't you ever check anything? Here are a couple random e-mails off the top:

=3D=3D=3D=3D Exhibit #1 =3D=3D=3D=3D "From: Phil Jones To: mann@xxx Subject: Fwd: CCNet: PRESSURE GROWING ON CONTROVERSIAL RESEARCHER TO DISCLOSE SECRET DATA Date: Mon Feb 21 16:28:32 2005 Cc: =93raymond s. bradley=94 , =93Malcolm Hughes=94

Mike, Ray and Malcolm, The skeptics seem to be building up a head of steam here ! Maybe we can use this to our advantage to get the series updated ! Odd idea to update the proxies with satellite estimates of the lower troposphere rather than surface data !. Odder still that they don=92t realise that Moberg et al used the Jones and Moberg updated series ! Francis Zwiers is till onside. He said that PC1s produce hockey sticks. He stressed that the late 20th century is the warmest of the millennium, but Regaldo didn=92t bother with that. Also ignored Francis=92 comment about all the other series looking similar to MBH. The IPCC comes in for a lot of stick. Leave it to you to delete as appropriate ! Cheers Phil PS I=92m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don=92t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act !"

=3D=3D=3D=3D Exhibit #2 =3D=3D=3D=3D =91=94Options appear to be:

1. Send them the data
2. Send them a subset removing station data from some of the countries who made us pay in the normals papers of Hulme et al. (1990s) and also any number that David can remember. This should also omit some other countries like (Australia, NZ, Canada, Antarctica). Also could extract some of the sources that Anders added in (31-38 source codes in J&M

1. Send them the raw data as is, by reconstructing it from GHCN. How could this be done? Replace all stations where the WMO ID agrees with what is in GHCN. This would be the raw data, but it would annoy them.=94=91

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

Misdirection, shell games with multiple data sets, substituting data sets, suppressing / not disclosing embarrassing data.

Lovely, eh?

And now, a gift: having been penetrated, it'll be a lovely excuse for them to purge all those inconvenient truths, won't it?

-- Cheers, James Arthur

has

by

me

Weapons of mass desctruction - which have never been found - fit Menken's picture rather better than anthropogenic global warming, for which there is a raft of evidence (though it does take a smidgin of scientific education to make it comprehensible).

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

om...

her of

out

ature

st

With a lot of help from denialist propaganda. It is a bit odd that the denialist propaganda machine hasn't got reports of IPCC members driving around in Lamborginis while living in the lap of luxury. If they had traded their academic integrity for a mess of pottage you'd expect other academics in related fields to have noticed some change in their life-style.

Presumably this kind of evidence is a little too hard to fake.

Sourcewatch gets its data from Exxon-Mobil's published accounts, which provide rather better evidence than the kinds of conspiracy theories with which Ravinghorde regales us.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

That doesn't seem to have happened recently.

Your scepticism is nether humble nor yours. You pick up neatly packaged chunks of scepticism from your frieindly neighbourhood denialist propaganda machine and regurgitate them here.

Since they "hide" their raw data because it is incomprehensible and "cook" their peer reviews - to the limited extent that they can influence editors - by preferentially citing the work of people known to produce constructive reviews, this is just another piece of evidence that you know very little about the way science works. You may sell remarkable scientific measuring instruments to scientific research laboratories, but you clearly don't often get to drink coffee with the people who use your gear.

The enthusiasm of Exxon-Mobil and similar fossil-carbon extraction companies for filling the media with anti-scientific propaganda aimed at blocking the changes to our civilisation that will be needed to prevent it's collapse (and the consequent population implosion) does imply that there are a lot of rich people around exhibiting a rather dangerous form pf psychopathic short-term self-interest.

One might hope that they might grow out of it, but Jahred Diamond's book "Collapse" makes it pretty clear that the leaders of a failing society will have their attention firmly fixed on maintaining their status within that society - in your case, your status as a successful businessman - right up to the point where it starts collapsing around their ears.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

SNIP

It's not just the emails.

This comment is in a few of the source files:

;****** APPLIES A VERY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION FOR DECLINE*********

/quote

I would assume that more interesting issues will be found in the files, and that a useful debate about the degree of politicization of climate science will emerge. A conclusion could be that the principle, according to which data must be made public, so that also adversaries may check the analysis, must be really enforced. Another conclusion could be that scientists like Mike Mann, Phil Jones and others should no longer participate in the peer-review process or in assessment activities like IPCC.

/end quote

And some rats are trying to sacrifice Phil Jones to save AGW

/quote

Worse still, some of the emails suggest efforts to prevent the publication of work by climate sceptics(5,6), or to keep it out of a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(7). I believe that the head of the unit, Phil Jones, should now resign. Some of the data discussed in the emails should be re-analysed.

/end quote

On a sunny day (Mon, 23 Nov 2009 15:59:10 -0800 (PST)) it happened Bill Sloman wrote in :

Climate cycles will happen, I have always stated that we should have the energy sources to cope with that. If *if* you did read the other link's material, then you would understand that Europe (and the world for that matter) will look very different thousands of years from now, as it did thousands of years in the past. Mass migration will happen, property will change value, and _no_silly_CO2_storage_plan_ will change that in any significant way, except to more endanger people NOW, and make money for the climate nut cases, so they can add some more climate taxes, like taxes on energy and what not, taxes on kilometres driven, anything, using this fairy tale that we have control over the climate to tax us even more. Driving the prices up, basically a greenies plot to kill humanity and give the land to the birds.

I mentioned earth quakes in Groningen, if you had read the news, you would know that Groningen, Friesland, and Drenthe have been selected as 'good places to store CO2 underground'. I do not live in Barendrecht, and if they want to commit suicide there by pumping CO2 under it, well so be it. But I do not want it under my house.

Or you posting more global warming crap? I was putting my attention to that, very likely, event. hehe

On a sunny day (Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:02:34 -0800 (PST)) it happened Bill Sloman wrote in :

Well, you could have googled:

And, that is not the only case that exists. There was a more recent one IIRC.

The only urban legend here is that you think you can change climate cycles by posting less about global warming. Or was it more? I think less, because that saves energy, CO2, so get on with it!

On a sunny day (Tue, 24 Nov 2009 00:43:51 -0800 (PST)) it happened Bill Sloman wrote in :

Hey, if it was not for Exxon-Mobil and the other energy companies, there would be no media, no energy, and no way to spread the ideas originating from your overheated globe.

;-)

Spencer

research

material

e has

ed by

by

sume

at

Last line, above, corrected.

-- Cheers, James Arthur

me

Oooo, "climastrology"--even better.

-- Cheers, James Arthur

That's a keeper.

John

from your overheated globe.

I think the big energy companies do a superb job. They do real, difficult work that makes the world better, unlike some whiners I could name.

George is, as usual, dead on target here:

He's the best public thinker I know of.

John

Even better, from Hans Von Storch: "Also mails from/to Eduardo Zorita and myself are included; also we have been subject of frequent mentioning, usually not in a flattering manner. Interesting exchanges, and evidences, are contained about efforts to destroy "Climate Research"; that we in the heydays of the hockeystick debate shared our ECHO-G data with our adversaries; and that Mike Mann was successful to exclude me from a review-type meeting on historical reconstructions in Wengen (demonstrating again his problematic but powerful role of acting as a gatekeeper.)" --ibid

All you have to do is examine the models themselves to see they're loaded with Finnegan's Finagling Factors.[1]

A number of obvious negative feedbacks are omitted[2], they're laced with assumptions of convenience that are wrong on their face--e.g. assuming vegetation and ice sheets that never change--arbitrary constants, and cloud models that don't reproduce reality.

As a second measure of global climate models (GCM), we know from actual life how poorly the models predict El Nino, or hurricanes, or other near-term phenomena that depend on accurate understanding of real temperature, deep ocean currents, or other quantities critical to long-term projections (if those are even possible), but which are not known well enough to make even short-term predictions.

As a 3rd measure of GCM, before you graced s.e.d. with your inquiries, I related that I got that same info (above) from one of the persons

None of this proves or disproves the basic contention--that CO2 is warming the earth. But we're constantly sold AGW as fact based on arguments of authority from people who do not know--no one understands the global climate well enough to predict it--and on the authority of these global climate models that were never meant to be so abused.

IOW, pseudo-science, politics, and pro-/e- motion.

Bahh.

-- Cheers, James Arthur