Mann Made Global Warming Takes An Arrow In The Knee From NASA - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 04, 2012, 03:37:50 am
content: Greetings EEVBees:--Al Gore's vision of the Statue of Liberty being over topped by rising water, appears to be hanging by a chad, as NASA finds that there has been no Global Warming for 15 years. And, that it had better resume pretty soon or the reputations of some scientists are in grave jeopardy. The Hockey Stick which made the Medieval Warming and the Little Ice Age disappear is beginning to develop some alarming bows in it. Frost Fairs on the Thames and the Hudson could be coming soon. Find links to articles below.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-warming--Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html--In the second article by John-Daily asks pointedly:"1) If the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than today, with no greenhouse gas contribution, what would be so unusual about modern times being warm also?2) If the variable sun caused both the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, would not the stronger solar activity of the 20th century account for most, if not all, of the claimed 20th century warmth?http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm--See the below link for an excerpt from "Domestic manners of the Americans" by Frances Milton Trollope in 1832. Most interesting is her observation about Natches Mississippi. Go to page 27:"Natches is the furthest point to the north at which oranges ripen in the open air, or endure winter without shelter"--As far as I know that is far north of anywhere oranges grow today. Michael Mann says that Historical evidence is merely anecdotal and cannot be trusted, unlike one or two hand selected tree rings.http://books.google.com/books?id=QFhLQZ0K67kC&pg=PA27&vq=%22would+have+great+attractions+to+new+settlers.+The+beautiful+contrast+that+its+bright+green+hill+forms+with+the+dismal+line%22&source=gbs_quotes_r&cad=7#v=onepage&q=%22would%20have%20great%20attractions%20to%20new%20settlers.%20The%20beautiful%20contrast%20that%20its%20bright%20green%20hill%20forms%20with%20the%20dismal%20line%22&f=false--The only reason I mention all this in EEVBLOG is because, real advances in Photovoltaic Power, Better Batteries, and other improvements, are being suffocated, because all of the air is being taken up by Grandiose Government Juggernauts hoping to bootstrap immature technologies and to slather taxpayer money on soon to be bankrupt companies."Business is never so healthy as when, like a chicken, it must do a certain amount of scratching around for what it gets."Henry Ford 1863 - 1947Best RegardsClear Ether

author: PeteInTexas
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 04, 2012, 05:10:06 am
content: Quote from: SgtRock on February 04, 2012, 03:37:50 amWell, whats the answer to these questions? Otherwise they do not disprove anything.Greenhouse gas contribution is not the only way to warm the planet. I don't know of anyone saying otherwise. AFAIK, the concern is they accelerate warming and prolong warm periods such that planet becomes inhospitable to life on earth.

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 04, 2012, 05:36:49 am
content: Dear PeteinTexas:--Thanks for your measured response. Answer to first question is "Nothing". Answer to second question is "Yes". You are correct that neither question proves or disproves anything, they merely offer an alternate possible interpretation of of the facts. I guess the main point is; Why would Michael Mann and the Hockey Stickers be so anxious to sweep these Global Climate events under the rug? Are these inconvenient truths?"I'll have the Alfalfa sandwich, and the smashed yeast"Woody Allen 1935 -Best RegardsClear Ether

author: PeteInTexas
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 04, 2012, 06:29:03 am
content: Quote from: SgtRock on February 04, 2012, 05:36:49 amI don't know about sweeping under rugs but obviously natural + man made > natural. Whether this means cooling or warming, it takes the planet out of the the so called Goldilocks zone enough to be "inconvenient". I believe that so much my next car will be a hybrid. Besides, why wouldn't you want to use less gas? If you can reduce your fuel cost, why not? Texas is a big place so my commutes are far.

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 04, 2012, 06:48:44 am
content: Dear PeteinTexas:--Hybrids interest me. Could you possibly estimate the time line to the break even point over a similar sized non-hybrid. With regard to using less, I find that, like many people, the fact that resources cost money, to be sufficient reason for conserving them. We could have bought a lot of gas with the money governments have spent trying to summon alternative energy sources into being, without regard for thermodynamic and fiscal reality.“World consumption of oil is still going up. If it were possible to keep it rising during the 1970s and 1980s by 5 percent a year as it has in the past, we could use up all the proven reserves of oil in the entire world by the end of the next decade.”James Earl Carter 1924 -Best RegardsClear Ether

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 04, 2012, 07:09:43 am
content: Quote from: SgtRock on February 04, 2012, 06:48:44 amAs someone who worked in the oil survey industry for almost 10 years, I can tell you that it is getting increasingly harder to find oil, and the stuff they are finding is getting increasingly more difficult to extract. And the techniques to extract more from existing wells are getting ever more desperate. We haven't got many years left, and the next oil panic won't be pretty. The days of cheap oil are over, and it is indeed incredibly cheap, take your international holidays now while you can still afford too...Dave.

author: PeteInTexas
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 04, 2012, 07:15:56 am
content: Quote from: SgtRock on February 04, 2012, 06:48:44 amMy fiscal reality is such that less $$ on gas per week means more eating out at better restaurants which I'd rather do. The "premium" of a hybrid is financed, so it does not impact the weekly budget much (interest rates are awesome for me). But yeah, it generally comes out costing more.But you know, if you wanna talk dollars and cents, you should also figure in the cost of a standing army and wars they fight to keep the oil flowing. Add in all the clean-up (that recent BP spill hit close; spoiled our yearly trip to the coast) and other "external" cost. Most people will agree hybrids come out ahead in that spread sheet. Unless of course, you are one of those "socialize the cost, privatize the benefits".More and more people are taking it upon themselves to privatize the cost in the form of a price premium. Which is great. It can only mean that premium will get smaller and smaller. By the time my grand kids are old enough to drive, they are in a completely better world. I'll pay extra for that.

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 04, 2012, 08:13:00 am
content: Dear PeteinTexas:--When you spoke about "reducing fuel costs", I misunderstood the nature of your assertion, I thought you were saying something about saving money. If you had said "I do not care if it is more expensive, I am trying to help things by buying a hybrid" I would have had no problem with that, what so ever. Certainly, though, the financial calculus would be improved by not counting the monthly payment.Dear Dave:--Certainly you are correct about the easy to get, conventional light sweet crude becoming harder to obtain. More than likely, though, the next petroleum shock will be an artificial one, like the last one. If Iran closes, even temporarily, the Straits of Hormuz, no doubt, panic will ensue. Barring those kinds of events or sudden Global Cooling, I would look for a gradual price rise to confirm your estimate. In such a market situation, one would expect the value of all other sources of energy to increase. This may be happening already, but disguised by the recent cornucopia from tar sands, hydraulic fracturing, horizontal drilling and the like. There is an old rule of thumb for mined commodities that says; "When the price doubles, exploitable deposits increase10 fold". There are a literal host of technologies waiting in the wings, to come on stage if oil begins to increase in price in real (dollars, drachmas, rubles). We will not know which ones will be the winners till we get there.--Eventually the problem may be somewhat ameliorated by declining population. Look for World population to start declining sometime in the next 40 years. Here in the US, our population would have already crashed, but for immigration. Russia's population is headed precipitously downward, insofar as few people wish to move there at the moment. After the US goes through its "Greek" downfall, possibly no one will want to move here either."It is no good to try to stop knowledge from going forward. Ignorance is never better than knowledge. "Enrico Fermi 1901 1954Best RegardsClear Ether

author: RCMR
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 04, 2012, 08:23:09 am
content: I've taken to walking the 5kms to and 5kms from my workshop each day.It makes me fitter, reduces my costs and helps save the planet (yeah, right!).There is no doubt that the climate is changing -- just as it always has.Is this change due to mankind's carbon emissions?Possibly -- but I think to a much lesser extent than the carbon-traders and politicians would have us believe.Yes, we are contributing to the recent bout of climate change but let's face it, things such as the sun's output have *far* more effect than anything we have done.Ought we reduce our emissions?Hell yes -- but let's not be fooled into thinking that doing so will make one jot of difference to the climate -- even the climate-change proponents acknowledge that.Remember -- if there's a new tax in the offing -- politicians will back whatever bit of quackery is required to justify it.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 04, 2012, 08:36:34 am
content: Quote from: SgtRock on February 04, 2012, 08:13:00 amThe winners are obvious. Fusion, and renewables. To bet on anything else is pure folly.QuoteLast time I looked, the population clock showed no sign of stopping, let alone going backward. It'll go a lot forward before we reach complete saturation unfortunately.We have our cleverness, stupidity, selfishness, and short-sightedness to thank for that.Dave.

author: bullet308
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 04, 2012, 01:07:48 pm
content: There is a phrase that is tossed about, and I think it is very applicable to the question at-hand: "Out of an abundance of caution..."And, really, I can think of nothing more fitting to apply that to than the global climate.A question that is asked too-rarely...what put all of that carbon in the ground to begin with? From what I gather, it was largely the product of past extinction events. As in, there was lots and lots of carbon in the air and in the resultant biomass, and then something went sideways and everything pretty much died at once. And now, we are digging that shit up and pumping it back into the air. Hm. "Out of an abundance of caution", perhaps we should consider not doing that so much. As a species, we may or may not be able to survive something like global thermohaline collapse, but as a civilization we definitely only get one shot at getting this right.Personally, I don't think we are going to be able to get away from fission of some sort. What we may prefer in this regard may not be relevant. I think its just going to happen.

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 04, 2012, 02:57:30 pm
content: Dear Dave:--With regard to eventual population decline, indeed you could be right, and I might well be wrong. Please see at the bottom of this post a link to; "World population from 1800 to 2100, based on UN 2004 projections (red, orange, green) and US Census Bureau historical estimates (black)." Look closely at the green line. So you see, I might well be wrong, but I am not flat out bonkers (I hope).--You said "We have our cleverness, stupidity, selfishness, and short-sightedness to thank for that." In the Democracies and in large cities everywhere (when allowed) women have made the decision to have fewer children. Hence (as I hinted at previously) in those countries and cities, population increase is driven by immigration not births. The thinking goes something like this, increasing urbanization and access to modern medicine will greatly increase the number of women deciding to have smaller families, an thereby affect population.--Even immigrants (with certain notable exceptions) to the Western Democracies, tend towards having smaller families, soon after arriving. In short, the roots of population increase would seem to lie in the Third World, not the First, unless you consider the stupid, selfish, short-sighted advances in medicine and food production. There is one spot of hope in all this. One tiny country seems to be doing rather well at controlling its population and consumption of resources. You can find it on the northern part of the Korean Peninsula.--One short Nuclear Exchange, which takes out most of the World's petroleum refining capacity, could reverse this alarming population trend, rather quickly. The Bomb is potentially the radical environmentalists best friend."I am no poet, but if you think for yourselves, as I proceed, the facts will form a poem in your minds." Michael Faraday 1791 1867Best RegardsClear Ether

author: djsb
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 04, 2012, 07:10:05 pm
content: I believe we should all take some personal responsibility to reduce our consumption of oil and energy WHEREVER POSIBLE.Think globally, but act locally is a useful principle. For instance I cycle to work at least 3 times a week (6 miles each way) and use a bus for the remainder of my journey. I ride a small 125cc motorcycle when my legs and ankles get sore. I've fitted 3 x 9 watt led spotlights in my room at home to save energy. I'm still working on changing my diet so that I eat less and more healthily (and lose some weight as well). Of course it's all about balance and not getting too obsessed as well.We can all do our bit.David

author: PeteInTexas
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 05, 2012, 07:34:29 am
content: Quote from: SgtRock on February 04, 2012, 08:13:00 amNo, the monthly payment is included in calculating the total cost of ownership. Its generally higher for a hybrid but the higher the price at the pump, the better deal it becomes compared to a gas guzzler. Because the cost of the vehicle is financed, its weekly impact on the budget is not as big as decreases in the weekly "gas money" especially when the price at the pump is increasing.What is never reflected in the "financial calculus" is the public and environmental value of using less gas. This is conveniently ignored by alternative fuel critics and fossil fuel defenders alike. Just because it is very difficult to express this value in dollars and cents at an individual basis does not mean we can take it to be zero. It most certainly not zero. For example, by using less gas we pollute the air less. Everyone will agree that's valuable but its very difficult to have that choice reflected in the TCO to compare with TCO for a gas guzzler choice.I think more and more people are recognizing this value in one way or another as evidence by brisk sales of the Prius and even the GM Volt.

author: saturation
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 05, 2012, 02:17:32 pm
content: If man does something to intervene to reduce contributing factors to global warming, and it turns out climate changeisn'tdue to something man made, at worse, we lose money. Since the consequences are flood, famine and death, it seems trading money for life is a good bet. If it is a natural event, intervening still would be a good idea to reverse or control a natural catastrophe, as best possible.One way to encourage everyone, is to make alternatives more attractive than problematic causes, such as tax breaks for hybrids or upgrading to efficient appliances. Then global warming aside, true or false, you see immediate benefits to your daily life.For example, I recently installed efficient heat pumps that has reduced my heating bills by 60%. Using a killawatt, I've found and eliminated phantom power drains from wall warts and similar. Replacing incandescent with CFL reduced my power consumption by 50%. Not of these changes impact my life style.When I go shop, I travel when the crowds arent' there, reducing gas consumption from traffic jams, and hassle. For example, I do my grocery shopping late at night, there are no lines at the counter, few cars on the road and I can do in 20-30 min what normally takes 1-2 hours during peak time.

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 05, 2012, 03:34:47 pm
content: Dear PeteinTexas:--You will notice, in speaking about the Prius I did not make an argument regarding air pollution. I merely inquired about your opinion as to an estimated break even point. Now, if it turns out that AGW is a hoax, it will make no sense to count CO2 an a pollutant. But even if you do count CO2 as pollutant, you must count it at the smokestack as well as the tail pipe. You will also have to consider efficiency losses in the transmission wires, and in the charger, when you plug in. So the electrical part of the Prius is clearly not a winner with regard to air pollution. Though is does provide an opportunity for quality time with the family when it is plugged in, and cannot be driven. Also do not forget that electricity prices can and do go up as well. Hence the statement by the then democratic presidential candidate in 2008 that "Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket,"--So, you see the electric part of the Prius, is not a winner. And by the way for your information, the Chevy Volts are not selling like hot cakes. This year car companies are offering a number of conventional vehicles that get 40 mpg. Now that we have disposed of the "Air Pollution" argument, before you give yourself credit for saving the planet, would it not make sense to establish just how much of just what you are saving. A typical family drives on average at least 100 miles per day. So their Prius battery will be out of warranty in just five years. A new $2500 dollar battery is going to put a dent in the savings on gas. If you like the Prius, drive one, you are probably not causing too much additional damage to the planet."The problem with socialism is, eventually you run out of other peoples money."Margaret Thatcher 1925 -Best RegardsClear Ether

author: Rufus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 05, 2012, 04:54:51 pm
content: Quote from: saturation on February 05, 2012, 02:17:32 pmWho says the consequences are flood, famine and death? Who decided the optimum temperature for the planet is what it is now or was 100 years ago? Go back 20k years (which in the life of the planet isn't even a blink of the eye) and see how you like living on top of 1km of ice. Go back millions of years and atmospheric CO2 concentrations were 20 times higher than today.Being mostly stupid and driven by fear no one cares to hear good news, all you will hear is bad news, only research that produces bad news gets funded. The reality is consequences will be mixed and I don't know that on balance a couple of degrees warmer won't be better.

author: kaz911
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 05, 2012, 05:17:23 pm
content: I think the biggest problem with "Global Warming" debate is that even the best scientists does NOT know how things work. (nobody really knows)The EE analogy is:The scientists have like a huge blackbox with 1 million wires sticking out. They have only mapped out 1000 of them - cant agree on another 1000 and the rest are unknowns.Based n the 1000 wires they know - and the 1000 wires they disagree on - they have all sorts of claims - from "This is natural" to "this is man made"Unfortunately Planet Earth did not come with a Datasheet.

author: PeteInTexas
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 06, 2012, 04:50:10 am
content: Quote from: SgtRock on February 05, 2012, 03:34:47 pmAll in due course Sgt. One thing at a time, every time. It would be a mistake to NOT DO ANYTHING because ALL ISSUES cannot be resolved ALL AT ONCE. As a democratic president I'm sure you are familiar with is fond of saying: "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good [enough for now]".QuoteNo one is claiming hybrids and all-electrics are the only way to reduce gas consumption. If a 40+ mpg combustible comes to the market I would welcome it. Its a step in the right direction. But of course we can do better though I'm not sure what the theoretical maximum is for the internal combustion engine.And BTW, this kind of efficiency has been around awhile and only thanks to the success of vehicles like the Prius are auto makers prodded into taking them to market seriously.The Volt has stumbled somewhat but from what I hear it has not deterred those already resolved on buying a hybrid. We have yet to see how well their Super Bowl ad will be received. I was not turned off by it.

author: PeteInTexas
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 06, 2012, 05:00:51 am
content: Quote from: SgtRock on February 05, 2012, 03:34:47 pmAre you sure? Bear in mind most families have TWO cars yet you apply it as though they only have one. In any case, what matters is individual circumstance in terms of commute type (highway vs street), driving habits, financial terms, and gas prices. For me, its worth it, betting on rising gas prices which as you know is a reliably good bet. I'm gonna have to do away with my lead foot though. That will be hard.

author: djsb
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 06, 2012, 11:49:23 am
content: What's the public transport like in Texas? I suppose we are lucky here in the UK as it's a much smaller country (the UK would fit in the state of Texas) so everything is much nearer. I also don't drive because I don't have a car license. I also tend to choose where I live/work based on if I can cycle or use the bus each day.How is the provision of charging points in the USA. Is it left up to private companies to provide them or does local government get involved. I suspect that hybrids are the only realistic option in the USA for interstate journeys as the range of pure electric vehicles is at present insufficient.Anyway thats all for now.David.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 06, 2012, 12:58:38 pm
content: The big problem with reducing our use of enery (which is what this all comes down to) is that people are ignorant, lazy and don't care for any but themselves. It is possible to reduce energy consumtion but it is not fashionable and does not make you look good. i get some very good milleges out of my car and everyone moans I go to slow, I don't, I drive fast but where it is appropriate and efficient, I don't pull out of work and get up to 35mph and do 25 instead because it is just a waste of fuel as after a few metres i have to stop at the juntion. But when I get to the main road it pisses me off that idiots are doing 40 uphill and that forces me into 4th gear instead of 5th at 50 mph.Hybrids are a waste of money and resource. Just look at them. You have the same size petrol engine, you have a big alternator to make extra current (extra fuel use) to store in heavy batteries to power an electrioc motor that runs for a very short amount of time mostly. By the time you have used more petrol to inneficiently generate that electricity (about 20% if that) and carry all that extra weight around you could just ditch it, use a smaller engine and save the fuel there and then. I have also found that it is the weight that determines a cars fuel consumption, NOT engine size, but you need a bigger engine for a heavier car.Show me tiny hybrids and I might take the idea seriously, but let me guess they are all 4 wheel drives but just cos it's a hybrid you can think your doing the planet good: that takes you back to my original point ! it has to be "fashionable" and i'm afraid that saving energy just is not fashionable - until of course we ALL do it of our own free will but are too selfish to do !

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 06, 2012, 01:33:30 pm
content: Convenient how the Daily Mail does not cite a source so people can read the ACTUAL article in question not some propaganda.The best I could find was this:http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2011/2012-global-temperature-forecastwhich clearly shows the prediction is for an increased temperature.Predictions like this aren't impossible. They are difficult, and there are many variables to account for (some which are very difficult, or even impossible to measure (such as random gas behaviour)), hence the large range of 0.34 - 0.62 C.--I think the idea behind a hybrid is that it's more efficient to operate a 1.2 - 1.4 litre petrol engine at its maximum power point to charge a battery and then run a motor, than to have a big 2 litre engine which is operating at a variety of different power levels all with different efficiency levels (and mostly outside of its most efficient band of operation.) An electric motor has a more-or-less flat power curve, in that it can deliver a high output power at almost all RPMs, and its efficiency is also generally quite flat. Also, it's potentially more efficent in stop-and-go traffic (i.e. city driving) as an electric motor does not need to idle like an ICE.A simple test would be which uses less fuel on certain trips, in general a hybrid uses less BUT remember that mpg is non-linear so going from 10 mpg to 20 mpg saves far more fuel than going from 30 mpg to 60 mpg.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 06, 2012, 06:17:48 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on February 06, 2012, 01:33:30 pmThe last I read about hybrids was that they were no better, they just sound nice. I'm willing to bet that most hybrids are larger cars so basically just an excuse for people to get big cars.As for the daily mail if they are connected with the mail online they should have their balls ripped off and then shot ! I read an online article who's title said that high winds had raised questions about wind turbines. The majority of the article was about other effects of the high winds and not about wind turbines. They showed a photo of a turbine in flames (that i doubt) and then showed a photo of a small wind turbine that was blown down (the smaller type that are typically set up privately on farms). the article claimed that this caused the closure of a road and evacuation of houses: BOLLOCKS the rungs up the sides and relatively large size of the distribution box at the base gave away it's small size but they clearly wanted people to believe it was a big 90+m turbine. The newspapers are thieving lying bastards just out to make a quick buck on lies and exaggerations and roll in the power they have to sway public opinion. If papers were made to back themselves up and stand up to sanctions for lies (however small) we may get truer reporting. If the paper was fined for false and/or misleading articles in the measure of the amount of money that article makes (say twice the price of that article based on it's size in the paper and position - front page ect) they would pack it in ! but the government let them get away with it because they want their income tax having made deals with them already !

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 06, 2012, 07:13:00 pm
content: Dear Simon:--Thanks for your post, but next time do not hold back. Your are certainly correct that one should never assume any newspaper (or television) article is true, with out verification and multiple sources. In the US, New York Times reporter Walter Duranty received the Pulitzer Prize for his articles covering up Stalin's genocide. And BBC had its Gilligan affair where a Minister who had been promised anonymity, committed suicide after being outed in the contretemps following an article, later proven to be false.--I chose this particular article because I thought it pulled together all of the relevant facts, and because the facts presented are in agreement with multiple other sources. The article does source its information to the Met office and to NASA, not very good things to lie about, as these sources are easily checked.--Please see below for a link a Forbes Magazine article on this topic.http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html--This Forbes Magazine article is a summary of a paper in the Peer Reviewed Science Journal "Remote Sensing". The Forbes article summarizes the "Remote Sensing" article as saying:"The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.""Study co-author Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA's Aqua satellite, reports that real-world data from NASA's Terra satellite contradict multiple assumptions fed into alarmist computer models."--The article also contains a link where you may download the entire, scientifically rigorous, original paper from "Remote Sensing"."There are two possible outcomes: If the result confirms the hypothesis, then you've made a measurement. If the result is contrary to the hypothesis, then you've made a discovery." Enrico Fermi 1901 1954Best RegardsClear Ether

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 06, 2012, 10:32:19 pm
content: I'm sure we are not as accurate at predicting future climate as we'd like to be. I did not read the original link you posted but was replying to the discussion in general, I am highly practical, I'll see through any bullshit that most people fall for (although that probably does not include most people here as we are all practical thinkers but unlike most i have no "angle" other than preserving my future and being happy).There are so many PR solutions. for example the British government stopped funding to solar stations and ploughed the money into home solar systems while admitting that they knew that the home solar systems are less coist effective (and i bet it cost them millions in experts to tell them about the obvious overheads in instalation and maintenance that home systems add versus the more practical dedicated solar station), this made a lot of people happy because all they saw was the government giving them free solar systems !

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 23, 2012, 09:34:26 pm
content: Greetings EEVBees:--These were originally posted over at another thread -https://www.eevblog.com/forum/general-chat/electric-vehicle-bunkum-fraud-and-waste/- I repeat them here because PIT has posted here and this is where they belong. You are cordially invited to view both threads.--PeteInTexas has posted:"Read and decide for yourself:http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2012/02/leaked-docs-heartland-institute-think-tank-pays-climate-contrarians-very-well.arsBasically, its about "institutes" funded by monied donors to pay climate change contrarians. The authenticity of some documents are in dispute."--PeteInTexas has also posted:"Here's a follow-uphttp://arstechnica.com/science/news/2012/02/environment-researcher-admits-leaking-climate-docs-claims-theyre-genuine.ars?comments=1#comments-barWhat I get out of this is, though it is unfortunate unethical means were used to obtains documents, what is clear is there is at least one well funded "institute" in the role of climate change denial attack machine; not to address scientific findings by scientific means but to misdirect and subvert the conversation away from actual facts (like confusing the issue with political or social engineering motivations real or imagined).--I have posted this response in this the global warming thread, with an additional post over at the Electric Car thread -https://www.eevblog.com/forum/general-chat/electric-vehicle-bunkum-fraud-and-waste/90/- I had asked PeteInTexas to repost over here but apparently he would rather not. Below you will see links to a number of articles refuting this hoax, with a few teaser quotes.--What I get out of this is that Peter Gleick has decided to join:Gary Sic Reagan begged the Iranians to keep the Embassy Hostages until he took office. And Reagan even went so far as to have his VP pilot a Top Secret mission in an SR71 to talk to the Iranians. You see by personally piloting an SR71 to Paris, George Bush Sr. could have just made it to Paris and back, without being missed at official functions.Congressional hearings (run by Democrats) found no evidence to support any of these viscous hate filled lies.Dan Rather George W. Bush tried to get out of Viet Nam service (although he volunteered for service in Viet Nam, something Rather never mentioned), by joining the Texas National Guard, in order to get an extremely dangerous job flying the unstable F108. But the 30 year old documents were proven to have been typed in Word Perfect on a Windows machine, "Fake but Accurate" was then the cry.Michael Moore George W. Bush released the Bin Ladin family, at a time when all airports were closed, because of the close ties between the Bin Ladin and Bush Families and their dealings in Oil. Bush knew 911 was coming, but did nothing to stop it. Even the NY Slimes and Washington Compost would not put this crap in their papers.Al Gore: Who said he wanted every vote counted in Florida, while at the same time filing suit to prevent Military Absentee Ballots from being counted. Al Gore subsequently made the "Documentary" "An Inconvenient Truth", replete with falsehoods, oversimplifications and outright attempts to deceive.Michael Mann Constructs the "Hockey Stick" to sweep the Medieval Warming Period, and the Little Ice Age, under the rug. When asked for his data, he refuses to provide it. Indeed it is customary for Scientists to provide their data so that it can be checked. When asked again it turns out, most of it has been inadvertently destroyed. His motto: "Hide the decline"--Now there you have, me harties, a motley crew, Arrrg.--See the below link with excerpts for an expanded understanding of the Peter Gleick hoax:http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/02/global-warming-alarmists-resort-to-hoax.php"Many commentators have critiqued Gleick’s actions, and in particular, addressed the question whether at least one of the documents he published–the only significant one, really–was forged by him."http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/climate-scientist-admits-duping-skeptic-group-to-obtain-documents/2012/02/21/gIQAr7aGRR_story.html"He said he used someone a false name to obtain internal documents from Heartland after receiving an anonymous memo containing information about its funders and about its “apparent efforts to muddy public understanding about climate science and policy.”--Oh he did, did he? Well, we have his word for it. Or maybe he obtained additional documents in order to make his hoax document look more plausible. We will never know because he was interrupted en flagrante delicto.http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100138560/peter-gleick-the-johann-hari-of-climate-science/"So now we know the identity of the Fakegate fake. His name is Peter Gleick, he has a PhD from Berkeley, he's the winner of a MacArthur genius award, he's a member of the National Academy of Sciences, and he runs a Californian research organization called the Pacific Institute which advises, inter alia, on "integrity" in science....The Pacific Institute’s Integrity of Science Initiative responds to and counters the assault on science and scientific integrity in the public policy arena, especially on issues related to water, climate change, and security."http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/02/21/gleick_admits_to_heartland_hack/"Gleick's crime was a serious one. The documents he admits stealing contained personal information about Heartland staff members, donors, and allies, the release of which has violated their privacy and endangered their personal safety.""Gleick also claims he did not write the forged memo, but only stole the documents to confirm the content of the memo he received from an anonymous source. This too is unbelievable. Many independent commentators already have concluded the memo was most likely written by Gleick."--Fake but accurate. I suppose. Any questions?"Great fleas have little fleas upon their backs to bite 'em,And little fleas have lesser fleas, and so ad infinitum."Augustus De Morgan 1806 -1871Best RegardsClear Ether

author: PeteInTexas
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 23, 2012, 11:03:50 pm
content: Quote from: SgtRock on February 23, 2012, 09:34:26 pmWhy would Heartland respond to a memo they claim is a fake? Do they just hand out documents with sensitive information to any request? Somebody at Heartland thought the content and substance of the allegedly fake memo was reasonable enough to respond to with more documents containing sensitive information. Its not like the allegedly fake memo only had one or two words changed.

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 23, 2012, 11:26:32 pm
content: Dear PeteInTexas:--Please at least, pay enough attention, to get those facts which are not in dispute, correct. We only have Gleick's word for any of this but as of yesterday, Gleick states that he requested documents under an assumed name, not that the documents were sent to him in a response to an allegation. So far as I know, no one, repeat no one, is alleging that documents were sent to anyone to refute any allegations by anyone.--If indeed Gleick was mailed any documents, we do not know what fake name was used, it is impossible to say for sure, but it seems likely that he used the name of someone who was trusted by the person he was requesting the documents from.--I hope someone gets a handle on this before some poor dupe commits suicide, as happened the the Andrew Gilligan BBC scandal, where BBC was forced to retract the accusation that the Blair government had falsified intelligence about Saddam Hussein, after a government minister who had been promised anonymity, was subsequently outed and took his own life.--Now, Gleick has already put the lives of people and their families in jeopardy, and has admitted he lied about some things, why should grant him any credibility or good intentions whatsoever."He was born ignorant, and has been losing ground ever since."Fred Allen 1894 1956Best RegardsClear Ether