Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #81   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
David Nebenzahl David Nebenzahl is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 237
Default Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration

On 2/19/2010 1:03 PM Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! spake thus:

On Feb 19, 2:59 pm, Jerry Peters wrote:

But if he doesn't, he can't control the discussion. I notice he
still hasn't explained the "hide the decline", except of course
with some rampant speculation on the cause of the observed
divergence.


I wonder what these two think of Darwin's theory.

After all, they're still collecting data on it.


A lot of which is also conflicting and not conclusive.

Science isn't a smooth, orderly march to a preordained state of
all-knowingness. It proceeds in fits and starts, and many theories are
discarded along the way. Some theories can never be proven, but they may
prove to be the most rational and logical way of looking at a problem.
(I place AGW in that category, as "unproven" as it may be. It's a hell
of a lot better than any alternative, the most prominent of which seems
to be "just bury your head in the sand--everything's just peachy!")


--
You were wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it.

- a Usenet "apology"
  #82   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
Circuitsmith Circuitsmith is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8
Default Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration

Do any of you remember what this thread was about??
So sad...

Tim Brown
  #83   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
MiNe 109 MiNe 109 is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,597
Default Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration

In article ,
Jerry Peters wrote:

In rec.audio.tech flipper wrote:
On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 20:05:29 -0600, MiNe 109
wrote:

In article ,
flipper wrote:

On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 07:06:18 -0600, MiNe 109
wrote:

In article ,
flipper wrote:

I'm not addressing that point.

How typical of AGW worshippers to 'not address the point'.

How typical of deniers to play meaningless word games.

'Addressing the point' is not a word game but what you just tried to
do is.

Yes, it was a simple substitution. However, there are terms for holding
someone responsible for arguments not made.


As I said earlier, you do not get to decide what *my* points are.

Stephen


But if he doesn't, he can't control the discussion. I notice he still
hasn't explained the "hide the decline", except of course with some
rampant speculation on the cause of the observed divergence.


Are you talking about me while replying to me? That's odd. I'm glad you
think I can control the discussion but not glad you're applying a
different standard to me than to Flipper.

I don't have to explain "hide the decline." Jones doesn't even remember
what he meant by it. However, one might speculate the 'decline' is in
the accuracy of the tree-ring data since 1960. The 'trick' is to add in
actual measured temperatures, assuming you're talking about Michael
Mann. I know you have no objection to using measured temperatures when
available.

Stephen
  #84   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
MiNe 109 MiNe 109 is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,597
Default Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration

In article ,
Jerry Peters wrote:

In rec.audio.tech MiNe 109 wrote:
In article ,
flipper wrote:

On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 20:15:13 -0600, MiNe 109
wrote:

In article ,
flipper wrote:

On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 07:15:16 -0600, MiNe 109
wrote:

In article ,
flipper wrote:

With your logic drug company testing would be to throw away all the
failed results, dead bodies, and placebo effects and declare the drug
'safe': we throw away data that doesn't work.

I explained the tree-ring thing in a reply to your wing man: it's
possible the tree-ring data has diverged due to anthropogenic CO2.

A "possibility" is not an "explanation" and the 'odds' are not
affected by you wishing it were so.

There's also higher UV-B.

More speculation. Have any idea whether it affects tree rings and, if
so, whether they get large or smaller, or what?


From what I've read, the tree rings aren't getting as big as expected.

'Possibilities' and speculations are not explanations.


I'm not 'wishing' BTW.

I was being generous when all indications are you're 'sure you know'
even with the lack of evidence.


I an not educated enough to second-guess the statistics involved. My
bias is in favor of the peer-review scientific process.


Which of course the CRU guys were subverting.
Which brings up yet another question: My understanding is that the
information that Jones & company lost their original data came because
*one* scientific journal would not publish his article *without*
seeing the original data. Now, what exactly were all the other "peer
reviewers" reviewing if they didn't have the data? Grammar and
punctuation? Spelling?


I'd look he

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6936328.ece

Reviews would be on data adjusted in various ways "to take account of
variables in the way they were collected." It might be possible to
reverse the adjustment, but there would be no way to check.

I wonder what irreplaceable treasures I lost when I threw out my floppy
disc collection.

Stephen
  #85   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
MiNe 109 MiNe 109 is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,597
Default Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration

In article ,
Jerry Peters wrote:

Me:
Those looking for conspiracies would do better to look at the funding
behind certain of the AWG detractors.


I wondered how long it would be before you brought that up. Quoting
you:
There's a term for people who believe others are secretly allied.


How much funding are the CRU, Mann, & the IPCC getting? Now how much
funding do you think any of them would be getting without their
predictions of catastrophe? Certainly a lot less.


More or less than the $16 million ExxonMobil poured into denier
organizations?

Speaking of the IPCC, I wonder how many other pieces of enviro-group
fundraising propaganda will now be discovered in its reports?


Maybe this one:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/24/sc...deny.html?_r=1


  #86   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
MiNe 109 MiNe 109 is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,597
Default Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration

In article
,
Circuitsmith wrote:

Do any of you remember what this thread was about??
So sad...


The thread was fine until someone took a chisel to it.

Have you been on Usenet before? You don't seem familiar with normal
thread drift.

Stephen
  #87   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
David Nebenzahl David Nebenzahl is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 237
Default Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration

On 2/19/2010 7:40 PM MiNe 109 spake thus:

In article
,
Circuitsmith wrote:

Do any of you remember what this thread was about??
So sad...


The thread was fine until someone took a chisel to it.


"Hijacked" seems closer to the mark.


--
You were wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it.

- a Usenet "apology"
  #88   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration

"Circuitsmith" wrote in message

Do any of you remember what this thread was about??
So sad...


+1.

It was about refurbing a classic preamp.

Check the title line.

I see that you have some refugees from the smoldering refuse of RAO
repeating history on yet another newsgroup.


  #89   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
bcoombes bcoombes is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11
Default Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration

MiNe 109 wrote:
In article
,
Circuitsmith wrote:

Do any of you remember what this thread was about??
So sad...


The thread was fine until someone took a chisel to it.

Have you been on Usenet before? You don't seem familiar with normal
thread drift.


Cut the engines change the sail.

--
Bill Coombes
  #90   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
Jerry Peters Jerry Peters is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 60
Default Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration

In rec.audio.tech MiNe 109 wrote:
In article ,
Jerry Peters wrote:

In rec.audio.tech flipper wrote:
On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 20:05:29 -0600, MiNe 109
wrote:

In article ,
flipper wrote:

On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 07:06:18 -0600, MiNe 109
wrote:

In article ,
flipper wrote:

I'm not addressing that point.

How typical of AGW worshippers to 'not address the point'.

How typical of deniers to play meaningless word games.

'Addressing the point' is not a word game but what you just tried to
do is.

Yes, it was a simple substitution. However, there are terms for holding
someone responsible for arguments not made.

As I said earlier, you do not get to decide what *my* points are.

Stephen


But if he doesn't, he can't control the discussion. I notice he still
hasn't explained the "hide the decline", except of course with some
rampant speculation on the cause of the observed divergence.


Are you talking about me while replying to me? That's odd. I'm glad you
think I can control the discussion but not glad you're applying a
different standard to me than to Flipper.

I don't have to explain "hide the decline." Jones doesn't even remember
what he meant by it. However, one might speculate the 'decline' is in
the accuracy of the tree-ring data since 1960. The 'trick' is to add in
actual measured temperatures, assuming you're talking about Michael
Mann. I know you have no objection to using measured temperatures when
available.

Stephen


Yes I was commenting on your reply.

As to "hide the decline", the *proper* way would have been to document
what he was doing by, for example, changing to a different type or
color graph line and then noting in the key what that meant.

Jerry


  #91   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
Jerry Peters Jerry Peters is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 60
Default Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration

In rec.audio.tech MiNe 109 wrote:
In article ,
Jerry Peters wrote:

In rec.audio.tech MiNe 109 wrote:
In article ,
flipper wrote:

On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 20:15:13 -0600, MiNe 109
wrote:

In article ,
flipper wrote:

On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 07:15:16 -0600, MiNe 109
wrote:

In article ,
flipper wrote:

With your logic drug company testing would be to throw away all the
failed results, dead bodies, and placebo effects and declare the drug
'safe': we throw away data that doesn't work.

I explained the tree-ring thing in a reply to your wing man: it's
possible the tree-ring data has diverged due to anthropogenic CO2.

A "possibility" is not an "explanation" and the 'odds' are not
affected by you wishing it were so.

There's also higher UV-B.

More speculation. Have any idea whether it affects tree rings and, if
so, whether they get large or smaller, or what?

From what I've read, the tree rings aren't getting as big as expected.

'Possibilities' and speculations are not explanations.

I'm not 'wishing' BTW.

I was being generous when all indications are you're 'sure you know'
even with the lack of evidence.

I an not educated enough to second-guess the statistics involved. My
bias is in favor of the peer-review scientific process.


Which of course the CRU guys were subverting.
Which brings up yet another question: My understanding is that the
information that Jones & company lost their original data came because
*one* scientific journal would not publish his article *without*
seeing the original data. Now, what exactly were all the other "peer
reviewers" reviewing if they didn't have the data? Grammar and
punctuation? Spelling?


I'd look he

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6936328.ece

Reviews would be on data adjusted in various ways "to take account of
variables in the way they were collected." It might be possible to
reverse the adjustment, but there would be no way to check.

I wonder what irreplaceable treasures I lost when I threw out my floppy
disc collection.

Stephen


The ability for *independent* researchers to reproduce the results is
one of the bedrock principles of *real* science. Without the original
data, and without access to his methodology, how is anyone else to
reproduce the results?

Jerry
  #92   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
Jerry Peters Jerry Peters is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 60
Default Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration

In rec.audio.tech MiNe 109 wrote:
In article ,
Jerry Peters wrote:

Me:
Those looking for conspiracies would do better to look at the funding
behind certain of the AWG detractors.


I wondered how long it would be before you brought that up. Quoting
you:
There's a term for people who believe others are secretly allied.


How much funding are the CRU, Mann, & the IPCC getting? Now how much
funding do you think any of them would be getting without their
predictions of catastrophe? Certainly a lot less.


More or less than the $16 million ExxonMobil poured into denier
organizations?

Speaking of the IPCC, I wonder how many other pieces of enviro-group
fundraising propaganda will now be discovered in its reports?


Maybe this one:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/24/sc...deny.html?_r=1


There you go again using loaded terminology. Many people don't share
your AGW True Religion, get over it.

Let's see, the budgets for CRU, Mann, NOAA, NASA-GISS, and of course
let's not forget the IPCC, are I'm sure, much more than a paltry $16
million.

I'd call that a red herring to try to distract people from where the
real money is.

Jerry
  #93   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
Circuitsmith Circuitsmith is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8
Default Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration

On Feb 20, 11:11*am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

Check the title line.


Um...I don't really need to do that,since I started this thread.
That was really helpful Arny. Ever heard of such a thing as a
rhetorical question??

Tim Brown
  #94   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
MiNe 109 MiNe 109 is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,597
Default Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration

In article ,
Jerry Peters wrote:

Yes I was commenting on your reply.


As to "hide the decline", the *proper* way would have been to document
what he was doing by, for example, changing to a different type or
color graph line and then noting in the key what that meant.


Sounds reasonable. I didn't see the papers to which the email refers.

Stephen
  #95   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
MiNe 109 MiNe 109 is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,597
Default Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration

In article ,
Jerry Peters wrote:

Which brings up yet another question: My understanding is that the
information that Jones & company lost their original data came because
*one* scientific journal would not publish his article *without*
seeing the original data. Now, what exactly were all the other "peer
reviewers" reviewing if they didn't have the data? Grammar and
punctuation? Spelling?


I'd look he

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6936328.ece

Reviews would be on data adjusted in various ways "to take account of
variables in the way they were collected." It might be possible to
reverse the adjustment, but there would be no way to check.

I wonder what irreplaceable treasures I lost when I threw out my floppy
disc collection.

Stephen


The ability for *independent* researchers to reproduce the results is
one of the bedrock principles of *real* science. Without the original
data, and without access to his methodology, how is anyone else to
reproduce the results?


It's a problem for all researchers. In this case, new sources of
measurements will have to be explored.

Stephen


  #96   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
MiNe 109 MiNe 109 is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,597
Default Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration

In article ,
Jerry Peters wrote:

In rec.audio.tech MiNe 109 wrote:
In article ,
Jerry Peters wrote:

Me:
Those looking for conspiracies would do better to look at the funding
behind certain of the AWG detractors.


I wondered how long it would be before you brought that up. Quoting
you:
There's a term for people who believe others are secretly allied.

How much funding are the CRU, Mann, & the IPCC getting? Now how much
funding do you think any of them would be getting without their
predictions of catastrophe? Certainly a lot less.


More or less than the $16 million ExxonMobil poured into denier
organizations?

Speaking of the IPCC, I wonder how many other pieces of enviro-group
fundraising propaganda will now be discovered in its reports?


Maybe this one:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/24/sc...deny.html?_r=1


There you go again using loaded terminology. Many people don't share
your AGW True Religion, get over it.


Just a URL. Do you consider "enviro-group fundraising propaganda" or
"AGW True Religion" to be loaded terminology?

Let's see, the budgets for CRU, Mann, NOAA, NASA-GISS, and of course
let's not forget the IPCC, are I'm sure, much more than a paltry $16
million.

I'd call that a red herring to try to distract people from where the
real money is.


It's the easy money that's the problem.

Stephen
  #97   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
MiNe 109 MiNe 109 is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,597
Default Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration

In article ,
MiNe 109 wrote:

In article ,
Jerry Peters wrote:

Yes I was commenting on your reply.


As to "hide the decline", the *proper* way would have been to document
what he was doing by, for example, changing to a different type or
color graph line and then noting in the key what that meant.


Sounds reasonable. I didn't see the papers to which the email refers.


Here's a report:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...1/20/AR2009112
004093.html

Mann said the "trick" Jones referred to was placing a chart of proxy
temperature records, which ended in 1980, next to a line showing the
temperature record collected by instruments from that time onward. "It's
hardly anything you would call a trick," Mann said, adding that both
charts were differentiated and clearly marked.

--

Stephen
  #98   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
James Smith James Smith is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 108
Default Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration

"Arny Krueger" wrote :

Do any of you remember what this thread was about??
So sad...


+1.

It was about refurbing a classic preamp.

Check the title line.

I see that you have some refugees from the smoldering refuse of RAO
repeating history on yet another newsgroup.



+1.

--


Jim Smith



  #99   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
Boon[_2_] Boon[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,425
Default Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration

On Mar 19, 2:09*pm, "James Smith" wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote :

Do any of you remember what this thread was about??
So sad...


+1.


It was about refurbing a classic preamp.


Check the title line.


I see that you have some refugees from the smoldering refuse of RAO
repeating history on yet another newsgroup.


+1.


It took you a month to come up with "+1"?
Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
fs conrad johnson premier 1 amp Crossovertome53 Marketplace 2 June 22nd 04 12:53 AM
FS: conrad-johnson Premier 11a Amp Gary Marketplace 0 July 24th 03 03:58 AM
WTB Conrad Johnson Premier 12 Monoblocks robert2003 Marketplace 0 July 4th 03 12:18 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:01 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"