Re: OT: Global Warming ? India rejects the lie.

At least he told the truth ! You might find this site interesting. A forecaster who consisently gets it right despite a £33m super-computer ( UK Met Office ) getting it regularly wrong. Of course he uses a different model.

Graham

-- due to the hugely increased level of spam please make the obvious adjustment to my email address

generally

marks

Nicely put Graham. I've saved that for future use e.g. Slowman, LOL

Cheers

Ian

nt/...

ht-

I wonder who John's got in mind? I'm a pretty good circuit designer - not that John would know, since he hasn't seen any of my circuit designs. And I do get amused from time to time - sometimes by John's more hilarious attempts to pontificate about stuff he knows very little about.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

t/...

t-

Nothing controversial about that - it has been independently replicated about ten times so far.

McIntyre did initiate a controversy about statistical techniques Mann used in creating the original hockey-stick curve, which I've acknowledged here from time to time - I used to take more seriously than I do now - but bascally the fuss about the hockey stick curve is a denialist storm in a propaganda tea-pot.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

...

right-

By the content of your own posts you had better look in a mirror.

I'm a pretty good circuit designer and I'm not grim. My age is something I can't help.

When's the last time you posted something fun?

John

...

right-

user-group

...

Didn't you notice that messing with you is fun?

--=20 Transmitted with recycled bits. Damnly my frank, I don't give a dear

----------

I suppose some people are easily amused, especially when they don't exert much effort to do things well.

Speaking of amused, done any interesting electronics lately? I've spent all weekend laying out a little pulse generator pcb. Works out to a bit over 3 hours per square inch.

John

ent/...

ght-

ions

It's rather difficult to quantify et al.

My guess would be that more is being spent on climate research than on denialist propaganda - climate research has been going on for decades in universities around the world. It's being done by university staff with tenure whose professional advancement depends on producing - and continuing to produce - good work in climate science which they can publish in the peer-reviewed journals.

Most denialist propaganda comes from retired "scientists" most of them lacking any kind of track record in climatology, who seem to be paid a free-lancers. There aren't that many people around who will trade their reputations for the comparatively small sums being paid, so Exxon-Mobil et al would find it difficult to outspend the univerisities. There are some pseudo-scientific propaganda organisations, mostly originally set up by the tobacco industry to tell lies about evidence against smoking, who have diversified into denying anthropogenic global warming, but they don't operate on the university scale either.

You might check out Sourcewatch for more detail.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

and

, last

ldn't

A point of view that's more understandable in the UK tha it is closer to the equator, where rather more people happen to live.

More CO2 results in better crop yields in greenhouses, where the grower makes sure that the plants get everything else that they need. In the real world, few plants are so well placed that they can exploit extra CO2, and the odds are that it will be weeds, rather than crops, that will be in a position to exploit the extra CO2.

r a

entire

s eh ?

t marks

being

ly

Graham, it is you who needs to give up spreading the tired denialist shit you are bing spoon-fed by Exxon-Mobil's crew of propagandists. Every now and again you get brave enough to quote one of their technical arguments, and we shoot you down, which makes you look pretty stupid, and you don't learn from this experience, which makes you look even stupider.

Do you recall telling us that the rising levels of CO2 in the atmosphere were a consequence, rather than a cause of global warming, which you wouldn't have done if you'd every learned anything about the Suess Effect?

Grow up.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

nd

last

ldn't

generally

entire

s eh ?

ust marks

py being

ally

tment to

One mindless idiot admires another's exhibition of mindless idiocy.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

...

American right-

user-group

to

Bill.

...

Much to my dismay not for many years. I really miss it. Odd things like a 10 X pulse amp that would do 50 V into 50 ohms both + and - within a few hundred ns. (3 ns edges is the best i could do, there was cooling issues as well)

marks

being

Bill, you keep churning out this phrase about Exxon-Mobil propagandists.

Exactly who are these people and where is the proof they are being paid by Exxon-Mobil?

Cheers

Ian

generally

marks

being

to

Still your normal charming self Bill.

Cheers

Ian

--- This from a man who posts that his arguments are based on non-controversial facts, and then goes on to prove his point with gems like:

"Why don't you find out what the IPCC actually believes, rather than quoting some straw man figures that some Exxon-Mobil lackey has dreamed up?"

Non-controversial fact???

I think not, it's a lot more like wishful thinking and baseless conjecture.

and:

"Lots of the electronics papers from India that I read when I was a graduate student were about one-transistor circuits; apparently few Indian universities could afford to buy two transistors back then."

A botched attempt at humor (or, more likely, derision) perhaps, but hardly a non-controversial fact.

and:

"In the real world, few plants are so well placed that they can exploit extra CO2, and the odds are that it will be weeds, rather than crops, that will be in a position to exploit the extra CO2."

"Odds are"???

That hardly sounds like non-controversial fact to me, it sounds like a drowning man grasping at straws.

I think much closer to fact than the utter fiction you posit is the scenario where if CO2 levels rise to the point where weeds become a problem, then we get rid of the weeds. That's what we do now, after all.

But, more interestingly, let's take a look at what you call: "non-controversial fact".

I think Joerg's mirth was brought about by your incorrect use of the term, which should have been "incontrovertible fact" instead of "non-controversial fact", if what you meant to say was that if any argument against what you were saying was factual it could only lead to the conclusion that what you were saying was, indeed, factual.

However, as I have shown above, your "facts" are nothing more than opinions, so your use of "incontrovertible fact" would have been wrong as well.

Now, reading through:

It appears as though what you were trying to say with: "non-controversial fact" was that since what you stated was factual, there could be no controversy over its being factual or not.

In reality, however, since what you were dealing with was unproved opinion, the controversy about its being true existed and still exists and _that's_ a fact.

If you don't understand, here's a little example that might clear it up for you:

Toward the end of WW2 we dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and because it brought the war to an end more quickly than had we not, we were morally justified in our actions.

The indisputable, incontrovertible, _fact_ is that we did drop the bombs; whether we were morally justified in doing it is controversial.

JF

right-

If I didn't do electronics, I might get all bored and crabby, like Sloman.

Odd things

Mosfets? They can often be pushed into the 3 ns range, datasheets be damned.

The weekend-wrecking one makes a (we hope) 120 ps FWHM gaussian pulse, adjustable for amplitude; for some laser people. I like to lay out a board myself once in a while to stave off management-droid-ness, especially critical low-level or picosecond stuff. I have two advantages over layout people: I have the whole circuit in my head, and I can change the design on-the-fly to make placement and routing easier.

Let's see if I can post a binary here... other people seem to be getting away with it.

John

Right. He intentionally published an erroneous curve, without any peer review, made from cheerry-picked data. and swindled almost half the population into falling for it.

Have you noticed that, while Al Gore is the pope of warmingism, his high priest, Henry Waxman, was the one who spearheaded antismokerism?

I've seen the documents that prove that, not only is there almost no correlation between smoking and cancer - he violated THE EPA'S OWN RULES just to show a CORRELATION, which if they had followed their own rules, would not have shown any correlation at all!

I also read the report that shows an almost 1:1 correlation between cancer and the Type A personality.

The guy's obviously a nut case - just look at him!

Cheers! Rich

There has been plenty of peer review, and plenty of negative review.

Mann's methodologies include some that failed such testing, but without negating existence of his "Hockey Stick". Mann's "Hockey Stick" with a straight handle merely becomes one whose handle has some curves for the MWP and the LIA, still having the distinct hockeystick blade.

Since not even Loehle can refute the blade of the hockey stick or show that the MWP got warmer than it is now, I would consider the swindle to be the one described by:

This appears to me to be making Sloman look good. I know enough people, smokers and otherwise, who got into old age to see the corelation.

I see plenty of reports associating type A personality with lifestyle choices that invite health problems, especially coronary heart disease.

The main thing I see here is posting one photo of Henry Waxman adjacent to one photo supposedly of "The Phantom of the Opera", where I find both likely to be cherrypicked on basis of my sense of history of such side-by-side photo publications.

I hope your argument against existence of AGW gets to be more on scientific/technical basis than that!

Likewise,

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

and

s, last

ouldn't

is generally

ar a

s.

s entire

is eh ?

just marks

appy being

ically

ustment to

Why would I want to charm you?

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen