[Lord Valve]

Andre Jute wrote:

On Dec 12, 11:36 pm, "RichL" wrote:

And not a refereed paper among the lot.

Andre Jute wrote:
Yeah, we've noticed how Mann, Jones and the other Climategate
paleoclimatological scum corrupted the peer review process to
establish and protect their lies. But let us play your transparent
little game a while longer. Which of these papers isn't refereed,
Rich? They show the MWP happening around the world:

Oh dear, Andre, you've got to do better than this.

Well, if you'll stop blowing smoke and consider the papers we'll find
out whether there is "not a refereed paper among the lot" as you're
trying to claim.

you're so clueless you didn't
even notice that a 1995 report from the dreaded IPCC was among the
papers you sited as "proof" that the IPCC is wrong!

Unlike you, Rich, I've actually read all the IPCC papers. Most of my
arguments are based on the gross discrepancies between the main body
of the text and the Summaries for Policy Makers. It is the lies in the
SPM, not backed by anything in the main report, that was the most
objectionable thing about the IPCC before the hockey stick fraud.

Nevertheless, let's proceed as if you're on the level. My patience will
allow me to comment on the first 10; at that point, the pattern becomes
clear.

Get to it then. Let's see you prove that there is "not a refereed
paper among the lot."

[1] Biondi F. et al., "July Temperature During the Second Millennium
Reconstructed from Idaho Tree Rings", Geophysical Research Letters, v.
26, no.10, p.1445, 1998

Yes, a legitimate citation to a legitimate refereed journal.

Er, aren't you the guy who claimed "not a refereed paper among the
lot"? So here we have one refereed paper already, first up on the
list.

[3] Cook et al., "Climatic Change over the Last Millennium in Tasmania
Reconstructed from Tree-Rings", The Holocene, 2.3 pp.205-217, 1992

Legitimate

Here's two refereed papers already, from the lips of the man who said
"not a refereed paper among the lot." Oh dear.

[6] deMenocal P. et al. "Coherent High- and Low-Latitude Climate
Variability During the Holocene Warm Period", Science, v.288, p.
2198-2202, Jun 23 2000.

Definitely refereed.

Oh dear. Another refereed paper, declared kosher by Rich Leavitt, who
previously claimed "not a refereed paper among the lot."

[8] Fligge & Solanki, "The Solar Spectral Irradiance since 1700",
Geophysical Research Letters, v.27, No.14, p.2157, July 15 2000

OK, this one's refereed,

Four and counting. Another refereed paper declared kosher by the clown
who said, only hours ago, "not a refereed paper among the lot." Don't
come again, RichL, until you can manage a more credible level of
accuracy.

....but it's simply a compendium of data on solar
spectra and doesn't take a position on global warming.

This is a reversion to the atmosphere of terror that the Climategate
Scum created in paleoclimatology where every researcher first had to
ask if his results would not contradict the Hockey Stick LIe and the
Global Warming Faith. Real science isn't done like that. That the
compilers of the data didn't "take a position on global warming" is
understandable in the atmosphere of fear surrounding global warming
"science" but that is no bar to others analyzing the data and coming
to a conclusion about what the data says about global warming.

[9] Hong Y. et al., "Response of Climate to Solar Forcing Recorded in
a 6000-year delta18O Time-Series of Chines Peat Cellulose", The
Holocene, v.10, p.1-7, 2000

Legitimate.

Ah, ****, this is getting embarrassing. What's this now, five or six
or seven refereed papers declared kosher by the clown Rich Leavitt who
only hours ago declared there was "not a refereed paper among the
lot."

[10] Houghton, J. et al. "Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate
Change", Cambridge Univ. Press, UK, 1995

This is the one that made me stop dead in my tracks. This is the 1995
IPCC report, you fool, and you're blindly citing it to prove a point
that contradicts its conclusions?

Another peer reviewed report, loudly declared kosher by Rich Leavitt,
who previously equally loudly scoffed that there was "not a refereed
paper among the lot."

As for being a fool to cite an IPCC assessment, you're clearly a
global warmie fundie, regarding the IPCC as a sort of Church. That's
your choice, Rich, but I regard the IPCC as a source of information,
each item to be judged on its merits like any other information from
any other source. Unlike you clowns (Asher and Weiner and Max Ott are
just the same) I don't get my information from television or street
corner chatter, I go to the source.

So out of 10 references (I didn't cherry pick them, I simply selected
the first 10 on "your" (chortle) list, we have *three* of them that are
from refereed scientific journals (Geophysical Research Letters,
Science, and The Holocene)

And you can't count either, Rich, which is quite in line with your
false declaration that "not a refereed paper among the lot" when in
the next breath you are forced to admit that many refered papers are
cited. Six of the papers on the list chosen by you from the references
I gave you have now been declared to be from refereed journals -- by
you, despite your blustering only hours ago that there is ""not a
refereed paper among the lot."

That's three out of ten, for those who are counting. That may be
satisfactory to you, but to me it's a BIG FAIL!

Yes, you count like a true global warmie. And next you'll refuse to
explain how you counted, and try to disappear my list on the grounds
that you have a confidentiality agreement with me, only you've lost
the agreement and can't remember the details, and anyway you've
trashed the data -- just like the other Climategate Scum.

...you've got to do a better job
of trying to keep up if you want this dialog to continue.

I don't have to do anything, Rich. You have to convince me, as the
Climategate Scum failed to do with their lying hockey sticks, that our
time isn't cooler than the medieval warm period. You're not doing too
well, sonny. Send someone to tell me to read your posts again when
you've learned how bring a case before your betters.

Andre Jute
Relentless rigour -- Gaius Germanicus Caesar

Don't argue with him, he's a phrenologist. Or a physicist, or something like
that.

After all - scientists wouldn't *lie* - would they? ;-)


Lord Valve
Globally Cool

[Les Cargill[_2_]]

Lord Valve wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
snip

Don't argue with him, he's a phrenologist. Or a physicist, or something like
that.


Yes, he is. He's also got a real job in a very difficult industry.

After all - scientists wouldn't *lie* - would they? ;-)


"Lie" is too simple a word. Depends on how you frame the questions. You
don't think it's all just binary out there, do you?

I just watched this:

http://www.booktv.org/Program/8614/C...l+Warming.aspx

It's a two year old book that does not take a religious position on
either side, but discusses AGW *in terms of cost*. One thing he brings
out is that for polar bears, we *shoot* about thirty times as many
every year than are lost because of habitat changes, including AGW.

Al Gore will apparently not debate the guy.

People may not like it, but here in the real world, we have
to do things based on measurable movement towards real goals,
not 1950s rubber monster horror movie scenarios.


Lord Valve
Globally Cool





--
Les Cargill

[Les Cargill[_2_]]

sam booka wrote:
"RichL" tapped the mic and amongst other things,
said, "Is this on?" m:

Andre Jute wrote:
On Dec 13, 12:02 am, landotter wrote:
On Dec 12, 3:43 pm, "RichL" wrote:
[snip]

worldclimatereport is quite a bit more credible, but the sad thing
is that you don't seem to know the difference that site and the
others, i.e., between legitimate scientific debate and nuttery.
worldclimatereport is an astroturf site funded by big coal (Western
Fuels Association).

It's indeed funny that the deniers have not a single credible source.
That's because they BELIEVE!

Hahaha!
You may well laugh, Maxine. That poor dumb **** Rich Leavitt, after
declaring that my sources included "not a refereed paper among the
lot" has now been forced to admit that among his own random choice
from my list were six refereed papers.
You're a fraud, Andre. Anyone interested in this tiresome argument can
see for themselves that my comment "not a refereed paper among the lot"
came BEFORE you posted the list from Daly's screed. It pertained only
to the list of three that you posted today (12/12/09) at 2:17 PM, and
*NONE* of those were refereed.

Keep lying, Andre, it'll really bolster your credibility and your
"case"
chortle




What about the case of underestimating the Arctic icecap by an area the
size of California, leaving it virtually unchanged since 1979? The sea
level dats doesn't even stand up to scrut9iny by experts in the field of
remote sensing or the history of the levels. Everything you mention as
defense turns out to be yet another lie based on this nucleus of
fraudulent fudging and pettiness at East Anglia.


So what can be done to stop all the back and forth and get the real
answer on everybody's plate? As a consumer of information, I don't
care about the debate part of it, I just want the answers.

The problem isn't the science or skepticism about the science. It's
packaging half-baked stuff as entertainment product that sends
people off on nonlinear tangents.

Any kid with a dialup knows the whole fzckin' thing is a fraud now.

No, they don't. There's no context here at all. You're doing the
equivalent of "Bush lied; people died." It's a massive
oversimplification.

However, investment in green technology will do far more for the
environment than the IPCC in all their shady dealings and carbon
shuffling to redistribute wealth to third world socialist tyrants so they
can fzck the planet even more using our money.

I put a link up of something I just found where a guy (Bjorn Lumborg)
actually puts *numbers* to all the various things in the mix here.

It will not change the
climate one iota, even if $40 trillion is ripped off and laundered for
AK's and RPG's. In apologizing for that you have gone beyond being just
another self proclaimed "scientist" liberal socialist mo0nbat, now being
fully exposed as a power drunken kiddie death merchant like Dirt 'RAT,
interested in lining your own pockets off the blood and toil of others.


Don't go all foam at the mouth here - it's time to be coldly,
dispassionately rational about all this. And there needs to be
a dialogue.

It's all moot as the World Bank is going to hold the booty, and the IPCC
is cut off. Why do you think the G77 Tinpot Trifecta of Failure is
having such a cow?


--
Les Cargill

[Les Cargill[_2_]]

Michael Press wrote:
In article ,
"RichL" wrote:

Ben C wrote:

What I've yet to see is any of the people who defend the theory try to
show what remains of it when the influence of the Climategate clique
is subtracted.
That's certainly a legitimate question, but in my view it's one that's
far from being answered. To me, those who oppose climate-warming
research seem to be making a huge leap to a highly premature conclusion
by assuming (that is, if they're not being disingenuous) that somehow
the whole of the research effort rests on (as yet unconfirmed) frauds
perpetrated by a few.

I'd counsel patience by all at this point.

I am done with patience. The shenanigans have gone on long enough.
The theory of man made runaway global warming
has solid evidence against it; evidence that
was systematically ignored and suppressed. Now
the evidence is out. No more patience.


You don't get to make that call. When it's done, it's done. It's
not done yet.

See "Bjorn Lumborg" for a much less incisive view on the subject, and
chill out.

--
Les Cargill

[RichL]

Michael Press wrote:
In article ,
"RichL" wrote:

Michael Press wrote:
In article ,
"RichL" wrote:

Michael Press wrote:
In article . com,
Spender wrote:

On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 01:45:04 -0800, Michael Press
wrote:

In article
. com, Spender
wrote:

Yes, and it is quite humorous since he just couldn't bring
himself to accept the implications. Einstein's inability to
accept the implications of quantum mechanics had it's use
though. It forced others - most notably Niels Bohr - to refine
their own theories in an attempt to prove aspects of QM to
Einstein.

Einstein lost the argument with Bohr. He did not have facts
we have now, nor did Bohr. Einstein was a better physicist
than Bohr and his argument is ultimately better than Bohr's.

Einstein's argument is essentially determinism. He lost on that
count.

Did you read the quote on statistics?
It is important to distinguish between
statistical uncertainty and a physical
theory that throws up its hands and says
"Physical systems do not evolve according
to determinate laws."

You only throw up your hands if you insist on a "classical"
mindset. You're determined to learn more about physical systems
than the actual information that is available.

Riddle me this?
Does the Schödinger equation have well defined solutions?

Of course it does. The solutions just don't contain the same
information as solutions to classical equations of motions do.

Yes, solutions to Schrödinger's equation
contain more information than classical solutions.
Energy principle applies.
Newton's third law applies.
Newton's second law applies.

I do not see what information the classical equations
contain that is not contained in Schrödinger's equation.

Solutions to classical equations of motion contain information about
both the position and the momentum of objects at every moment in
time, which is impossible within the QM framework.

The wave function for an electron in an atom does not
describe a smeared-out electron with a smooth charge
density. The electron is either here, or there, or
somewhere else, but wherever it is it is a point charge.

According to *most* interpretations of QM, yes, that is correct, but in
practice that's meaningless because you can't measure its position to
arbitrary precision without significantly changing the wave function.

[RichL]

Michael Press wrote:
In article ,
"RichL" wrote:

Michael Press wrote:
In article ,
"RichL" wrote:

Michael Press wrote:
In article . com,
Spender wrote:

On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 01:45:04 -0800, Michael Press
wrote:

In article
. com, Spender
wrote:

Yes, and it is quite humorous since he just couldn't bring
himself to accept the implications. Einstein's inability to
accept the implications of quantum mechanics had it's use
though. It forced others - most notably Niels Bohr - to refine
their own theories in an attempt to prove aspects of QM to
Einstein.

Einstein lost the argument with Bohr. He did not have facts
we have now, nor did Bohr. Einstein was a better physicist
than Bohr and his argument is ultimately better than Bohr's.

Einstein's argument is essentially determinism. He lost on that
count.

Did you read the quote on statistics?
It is important to distinguish between
statistical uncertainty and a physical
theory that throws up its hands and says
"Physical systems do not evolve according
to determinate laws."

You only throw up your hands if you insist on a "classical"
mindset. You're determined to learn more about physical systems
than the actual information that is available.

Riddle me this?
Does the Schödinger equation have well defined solutions?

Of course it does. The solutions just don't contain the same
information as solutions to classical equations of motions do.

Yes, solutions to Schrödinger's equation
contain more information than classical solutions.
Energy principle applies.
Newton's third law applies.
Newton's second law applies.

I do not see what information the classical equations
contain that is not contained in Schrödinger's equation.

Solutions to classical equations of motion contain information about
both the position and the momentum of objects at every moment in
time, which is impossible within the QM framework.

Have we observed physical systems that evolve exactly
as the Schödinger equation predicts?

Durn betcha. In the millions by now. Christ, in my day job I
design semiconductor devices (mid-infrared semiconductor lasers)
using the Schrodinger equation, essentially. If it didn't work,
I'd be unemployed.

Then we have a deterministic description of
how physical systems evolve.

No, it's not "deterministic" in the classical sense.

Solutions to the Schrödinger equation are perfectly determined.

Yes they are, but that's not "deterministic" in the classical sense.

In lasers for example the timing of emission of light photons is a
totally statistical process. One can predict the *average* power of
all the photons emitted in a given time interval, but one *cannot*
predict precisely when a photon will be emitted.

You can only measure the time light is emitted by
building a measuring device. The measuring device
is composed of atoms. The atoms in the measuring
device are part of the system. You cannot measure
an atom in isolation.

In principle, yes to all the above. But...

To even speak of when an
atom emits a photon is an exercise in imagination.

You can use a photon counting apparatus, such as a photomultiplier tube,
to determine the distribution of arrival rates of photons being emitted
by an ensemble of atoms. In a situation where you have spontaneous
emission, the arrival rates are completely randomly distributed. If
there is stimulated emission, as in a laser, there is some *correlation*
between the various arrival rates of photons because stimulated emission
results in the atoms being "locked" to one another in some sense. In
any event, doing the experiment makes sense and has meaning, in fact
many have actually done the experiment on various physical systems.

In practice, it doesn't matter
so much in lasers because there are so many photons that
fluctuations in light intensity are (usually) negligible. Yet they
are there.

The fluctuations are caused by the lasing atoms being sunk
in a heat bath.

Utterly wrong. The fluctuations are caused by the statistical
distribution in time of photons being emitted from a physical system as
a result of the intrinsic nature of QM.

[landotter]

On Dec 13, 4:38*am, Michael Press wrote:
In article ,

*"RichL" wrote:
Ben C wrote:

What I've yet to see is any of the people who defend the theory try to
show what remains of it when the influence of the Climategate clique
is subtracted.

That's certainly a legitimate question, but in my view it's one that's
far from being answered. *To me, those who oppose climate-warming
research seem to be making a huge leap to a highly premature conclusion
by assuming (that is, if they're not being disingenuous) that somehow
the whole of the research effort rests on (as yet unconfirmed) frauds
perpetrated by a few.

I'd counsel patience by all at this point.

I am done with patience. The shenanigans have gone on long enough.
The theory of man made runaway global warming
has solid evidence against it;

Lie.

evidence that
was systematically ignored and suppressed.

Lie.

Now
the evidence is out.

Lie.



Ugh.

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 09:43:21 -0800 (PST), landotter
wrote:

On Dec 13, 4:38*am, Michael Press wrote:
In article ,

*"RichL" wrote:
Ben C wrote:

What I've yet to see is any of the people who defend the theory try to
show what remains of it when the influence of the Climategate clique
is subtracted.

That's certainly a legitimate question, but in my view it's one that's
far from being answered. *To me, those who oppose climate-warming
research seem to be making a huge leap to a highly premature conclusion
by assuming (that is, if they're not being disingenuous) that somehow
the whole of the research effort rests on (as yet unconfirmed) frauds
perpetrated by a few.

I'd counsel patience by all at this point.

I am done with patience. The shenanigans have gone on long enough.
The theory of man made runaway global warming
has solid evidence against it;

Lie.

evidence that
was systematically ignored and suppressed.

Lie.

Now
the evidence is out.

Lie.

If you say that for long enough, with your fingers in your ears, you
might even make yourself believe it.

d

[Andre Jute[_2_]]

On Dec 13, 5:01*am, "RichL" wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
On Dec 12, 11:36 pm, "RichL" wrote:

And not a refereed paper among the lot. *

Andre Jute wrote:
Yeah, we've noticed how Mann, Jones and
the other Climategate paleoclimatological scum corrupted the peer
review process to establish and protect their lies. But let us play
your transparent little game a while longer. Which of these papers
isn't refereed, Rich? They show the MWP happening around the world:

Oh dear, Andre, you've got to do better than this.

Well, if you'll stop blowing smoke and consider the papers we'll find
out whether there is "not a refereed paper among the lot" as you're
trying to claim.

Your credibility is shot, Andre.

Well, let's see if this time round you make more sense than last time,
dear Rich.

I said there was "not a refereed paper among the lot" of the three
"references" you cited

Crap. You said " And not a refereed paper among the lot." And that is
everything you said. Now you're trying to add a qualification to cover
your slack ass.

in your post of 12/12/09 at 2:17 PM EDT, in my
post that immediately follows it. *

All those references were included in one of the three articles I
referred you to. If you claim to have read the articles then you saw
the list before you told your lie: "And not a refereed paper among the
lot." And you've admitted seeing the list of references:

You didn't even post the list that
we're discussing now until AFTER that. *You know damn well that my
comment didn't apply to your later list (which you copped mindlessly
from Daly) BECAUSE YOU HADN'T POSTED THAT LIST AT THE TIME I MADE THE
COMMENT! *Don't play cute with me, Andre.

The list was included in the articles I recommended to you. Indeed,
one of them was specifically *about* the list of references, a
literature overview. If you comment on articles without reading them,
don't whine to me when you get pie in the face, little Leavitt.

Nearly all of your response is based upon this fraud, Andre.

You're the one who told a lie: " And not a refereed paper among the
lot." -- Richard P Leavitt.

Consequently, it doesn't merit a reply. *I'd be careful about who I was
calling fraudulent if I were you.

You're the fraud, pal, trying to pretend the netsites and papers of
discraged Climategate scum, under investigation by their universities
and in at least one case by the DA's office, are the final arbiter of
what is science or isn't.

*you're so clueless you didn't
even notice that a 1995 report from the dreaded IPCC was among the
papers you sited as "proof" that the IPCC is wrong!

Unlike you, Rich, I've actually read all the IPCC papers.

That's nice. *Given your apparent lack of reading comprehension ability,
I don't put much stock in that.

Oh dear. Once more you fall flat on your face, Rich baby. Don't you
even know what I do for a living? I'm a writer, the author of dozens
of books, before that of advertising that formed all your tastes and
desires. I'm not the one here who has a problem with words but you
clearly fall over your own: " And not a refereed paper among the lot."
So how many refereed articles in the sample *you* chose, eh, sonny?


Most of my
arguments are based on the gross discrepancies between the main body
of the text and the Summaries for Policy Makers. It is the lies in the
SPM, not backed by anything in the main report, that was the most
objectionable thing about the IPCC before the hockey stick fraud.

I'm done with you, Andre. *You've demonstrated clearly within the span
of only two posts that you can't be trusted to be honest.

What I've demonstrated very clearly is that I'm not taken in by the
sort of bull**** the global warmies try on all time, that you tried on
here again: " And not a refereed paper among the lot." You sounded
just like that braindead actor on the chat show going, "All you need
to know is 'peer reviewed', that's all you need to know."

Let's see poor RichL's valedictory again:

I'm done with you, Andre.

You're clearly not up to polemics with someone outside your own Church
of the Global Warming Impressionables.

Run, rabbit, run.

Andre Jute
Loonies like Rich Leavitt will continue to shout 'Global Warming'
until they suddenly start shouting 'Global Cooling' as if they'd done
that from the beginning.

[Andre Jute[_2_]]

On Dec 13, 4:01*pm, Lord Valve wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
On Dec 12, 11:36 pm, "RichL" wrote:

And not a refereed paper among the lot.

Andre Jute wrote:
Yeah, we've noticed how Mann, Jones and the other Climategate
paleoclimatological scum corrupted the peer review process to
establish and protect their lies. But let us play your transparent
little game a while longer. Which of these papers isn't refereed,
Rich? They show the MWP happening around the world:

Oh dear, Andre, you've got to do better than this.

Well, if you'll stop blowing smoke and consider the papers we'll find
out whether there is "not a refereed paper among the lot" as you're
trying to claim.

*you're so clueless you didn't
even notice that a 1995 report from the dreaded IPCC was among the
papers you sited as "proof" that the IPCC is wrong!

Unlike you, Rich, I've actually read all the IPCC papers. Most of my
arguments are based on the gross discrepancies between the main body
of the text and the Summaries for Policy Makers. It is the lies in the
SPM, not backed by anything in the main report, that was the most
objectionable thing about the IPCC before the hockey stick fraud.

Nevertheless, let's proceed as if you're on the level. *My patience will
allow me to comment on the first 10; at that point, the pattern becomes
clear.

Get to it then. Let's see you prove that there is "not a refereed
paper among the lot."

[1] Biondi F. et al., "July Temperature During the Second Millennium
Reconstructed from Idaho Tree Rings", Geophysical Research Letters, v.
26, no.10, p.1445, 1998

Yes, a legitimate citation to a legitimate refereed journal.

Er, aren't you the guy who claimed "not a refereed paper among the
lot"? So here we have one refereed paper already, first up on the
list.

[3] Cook et al., "Climatic Change over the Last Millennium in Tasmania
Reconstructed from Tree-Rings", The Holocene, 2.3 pp.205-217, 1992

Legitimate

Here's two refereed papers already, from the lips of the man who said
"not a refereed paper among the lot." Oh dear.

[6] deMenocal P. et al. "Coherent High- and Low-Latitude Climate
Variability During the Holocene Warm Period", Science, v.288, p.
2198-2202, Jun 23 2000.

Definitely refereed.

Oh dear. Another refereed paper, declared kosher by Rich Leavitt, who
previously claimed "not a refereed paper among the lot."

[8] Fligge & Solanki, "The Solar Spectral Irradiance since 1700",
Geophysical Research Letters, v.27, No.14, p.2157, July 15 2000

OK, this one's refereed,

Four and counting. Another refereed paper declared kosher by the clown
who said, only hours ago, "not a refereed paper among the lot." Don't
come again, RichL, until you can manage a more credible level of
accuracy.

....but it's simply a compendium of data on solar
spectra and doesn't take a position on global warming.

This is a reversion to the atmosphere of terror that the Climategate
Scum created in paleoclimatology where every researcher first had to
ask if his results would not contradict the Hockey Stick LIe and the
Global Warming Faith. Real science isn't done like that. That the
compilers of the data didn't "take a position on global warming" is
understandable in the atmosphere of fear surrounding global warming
"science" but that is no bar to others analyzing the data and coming
to a conclusion about what the data says about global warming.

[9] Hong Y. et al., "Response of Climate to Solar Forcing Recorded in
a 6000-year delta18O Time-Series of Chines Peat Cellulose", The
Holocene, v.10, p.1-7, 2000

Legitimate.

Ah, ****, this is getting embarrassing. What's this now, five or six
or seven refereed papers declared kosher by the clown Rich Leavitt who
only hours ago declared there was "not a refereed paper among the
lot."

[10] Houghton, J. et al. "Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate
Change", Cambridge Univ. Press, UK, 1995

This is the one that made me stop dead in my tracks. *This is the 1995
IPCC report, you fool, and you're blindly citing it to prove a point
that contradicts its conclusions?

Another peer reviewed report, loudly declared kosher by Rich Leavitt,
who previously equally loudly scoffed that there was "not a refereed
paper among the lot."

As for being a fool to cite an IPCC assessment, you're clearly a
global warmie fundie, regarding the IPCC as a sort of Church. That's
your choice, Rich, but I regard the IPCC as a source of information,
each item to be judged on its merits like any other information from
any other source. Unlike you clowns (Asher and Weiner and Max Ott are
just the same) I don't get my information from television or street
corner chatter, I go to the source.

So out of 10 references (I didn't cherry pick them, I simply selected
the first 10 on "your" (chortle) list, we have *three* of them that are
from refereed scientific journals (Geophysical Research Letters,
Science, and The Holocene)

And you can't count either, Rich, which is quite in line with your
false declaration that "not a refereed paper among the lot" when in
the next breath you are forced to admit that many refered papers are
cited. Six of the papers on the list chosen by you from the references
I gave you have now been declared to be from refereed journals -- by
you, despite your blustering only hours ago that there is ""not a
refereed paper among the lot."

That's three out of ten, for those who are counting. *That may be
satisfactory to you, but to me it's a BIG FAIL!

Yes, you count like a true global warmie. And next you'll refuse to
explain how you counted, and try to disappear my list on the grounds
that you have a confidentiality agreement with me, only you've lost
the agreement and can't remember the details, and anyway you've
trashed the data -- just like the other Climategate Scum.

...you've got to do a better job
of trying to keep up if you want this dialog to continue.

I don't have to do anything, Rich. You have to convince me, as the
Climategate Scum failed to do with their lying hockey sticks, that our
time isn't cooler than the medieval warm period. You're not doing too
well, sonny. Send someone to tell me to read your posts again when
you've learned how bring a case before your betters.

Andre Jute
*Relentless rigour -- Gaius Germanicus Caesar

Don't argue with him, he's a phrenologist. *Or a physicist, or something like
that.

If poor RichL is a physicist, he can't be a very successful one if he
has to work in electronics to earn a living. More likely a
phrenologist: he should thank me for the extra bumps on his head I
gave him before he ran away.

After all - scientists wouldn't *lie* - would they? *;-)

Oh, I think this ludicrous little man RichL mistook me for a soft
target. Typical of these global warming clowns not to do their
homework. Now his little feelings are hurt. Gee. Watch me weep.

Lord Valve
Globally Cool

Andre Jute
Bring back the global warming you promised me!

[Andre Jute[_2_]]

On Dec 13, 10:38*am, Michael Press wrote:
In article ,

*"RichL" wrote:
Ben C wrote:

What I've yet to see is any of the people who defend the theory try to
show what remains of it when the influence of the Climategate clique
is subtracted.

That's certainly a legitimate question, but in my view it's one that's
far from being answered. *To me, those who oppose climate-warming
research seem to be making a huge leap to a highly premature conclusion
by assuming (that is, if they're not being disingenuous) that somehow
the whole of the research effort rests on (as yet unconfirmed) frauds
perpetrated by a few.

I'd counsel patience by all at this point.

I am done with patience. The shenanigans have gone on long enough.
The theory of man made runaway global warming
has solid evidence against it; evidence that
was systematically ignored and suppressed. Now
the evidence is out. No more patience.

--
Michael Press

[Andre Jute[_2_]]

On Dec 13, 10:38*am, Michael Press wrote:
In article ,

*"RichL" wrote:
Ben C wrote:

What I've yet to see is any of the people who defend the theory try to
show what remains of it when the influence of the Climategate clique
is subtracted.

That's certainly a legitimate question, but in my view it's one that's
far from being answered. *To me, those who oppose climate-warming
research seem to be making a huge leap to a highly premature conclusion
by assuming (that is, if they're not being disingenuous) that somehow
the whole of the research effort rests on (as yet unconfirmed) frauds
perpetrated by a few.

I'd counsel patience by all at this point.

I am done with patience. The shenanigans have gone on long enough.
The theory of man made runaway global warming
has solid evidence against it; evidence that
was systematically ignored and suppressed. Now
the evidence is out. No more patience.

--
Michael Press

You've been patient amazingly long, Michael. My own patience ran out
in 1996, even before Michael Mann's lying hockey stick appeared. It
was already clear then that the politics was driving the science, not
the science the policy.

Anyway, there is no need for patience, as the confessed climate crooks
were in charge of the "science" on which everything else in manmade
global warming rests like an upside down pyramid. If you remove the
hockey stick, manmade global warming collapses like the fraud it is.

Andre Jute
The IPCC -- longest hand job in the history of mass hysteria -- has
now lasted twice as long as the Third Reich

[Stephen Cowell[_2_]]

"RichL" wrote
Les Cargill wrote:
Spender wrote:
That is what I was thinking of. QM computing has the possible
advantage of being able to use many more states, rather than the two
states of traditional binary computers.

That's not particularly an advantage....

The boys in the NSA lab down the road think it might be...FWIW.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_computer

It's not the 'many more states'... it's the
*superposition* that gets the advantage.
Trinary, Quatenary, etc computers could
have an advantage (*if* the states were done
with the same silicon area/complexity/etc)
but *nothing* like being able to put in
multiple entangled systems and get results.
We're talking going from a million years
to a few seconds for cracking big-key
crypto... things like that.
__
Steve
..

[Andre Jute[_2_]]

On Dec 13, 5:04*am, "RichL" wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
On Dec 13, 12:02 am, landotter wrote:
On Dec 12, 3:43 pm, "RichL" wrote:
[snip]

worldclimatereport is quite a bit more credible, but the sad thing
is that you don't seem to know the difference that site and the
others, i.e., between legitimate scientific debate and nuttery.

worldclimatereport is an astroturf site funded by big coal (Western
Fuels Association).

It's indeed funny that the deniers have not a single credible source.
That's because they BELIEVE!

Hahaha!

You may well laugh, Maxine. That poor dumb **** Rich Leavitt, after
declaring that my sources included "not a refereed paper among the
lot" has now been forced to admit that among his own random choice
from my list were six refereed papers.

You're a fraud, Andre. *Anyone interested in this tiresome argument can
see for themselves that my comment "not a refereed paper among the lot"
came BEFORE you posted the list from Daly's screed. *

"From Daly's screed", eh? But my list was included in "Daly's screed",
and therefore shown to you, as you keep admitting. I can't help it if
you're dumb enough to comment on papers you haven't read, Rich
Leavitt. You have to be stupendously dumb to engage in polemics with
me when you haven't even mastered the reading list I set.

It pertained only
to the list of three that you posted today (12/12/09) at 2:17 PM, and
*NONE* of those were refereed.

Well, that's what you say now. Science, which is what we're
discussing, is quite a bit more precise than that, dear Rich. You
should look up an article I wrote on the subject of scientific
precision for Nation Review (not peer reviewed, a national paper in
Australia) three or four decades ago. Oh, in that article I also put
down an earlier incarnation of apocalyptic panicker; his kick might
have been freak waves and my friend Don Dunstan, premier of the state,
went down to the beach on the appointed day to mock the idiot by
standing there with his hand held out flat to the little wavelets. No
difference between that foolish apocalyptic and you, except he was
better educated and thus had more class than you.

Keep lying, Andre, it'll really bolster your credibility and your "case"
chortle

I have truth on my side. The Climategate Scum you're trying to defend
are heading for jail, and their global warming scam with them. Michael
Mann, the inventor of the hockey stick, will be transferring from Penn
State to State Pen...

Run, rabbit, run.

Andre Jute
Global Warming is like Scientology, only with less science -- and I
said it long before the Climategate exposed those clowns as crooks

[RichL]

Andre Jute wrote:

snip output from random-nuttiness generator

I've made it perfectly clear from the outset that I was referring
specifically to the three links that you posted. You may continue to do
battle with your straw man. It may have been understandable at the
beginning that you misunderstood me, but to continue in this mode after
repeatedly clarifying my intent is sheer nuttery.

[RichL]

Andre Jute wrote:
On Dec 13, 4:01 pm, Lord Valve wrote:

Don't argue with him, he's a phrenologist. Or a physicist, or
something like that.

If poor RichL is a physicist, he can't be a very successful one if he
has to work in electronics to earn a living.

"Has to work in electronics"? Do tell, where did you get that
impression?

I don't "work in electronics". The last time I "worked in electronics"
was during a college summer job. If you somehow surmised that I "work
in electronics" from what I've posted in this thread and elsewhere, it's
simply more evidence of your increasing detachment from reality.

Is there something wrong with working in electronics, by the way? The
gentleman you're responding to works in electronics, in case you don't
know. You're bullet has hit the wrong guy.

The small start-up company that I work with, by the way, is comprised of
four physicists and two electronics engineers. We were recently
acquired by a larger company whose technical staff consists mainly of
physicists and chemists. It's called interdisciplinary research.

I worked for a DoD laboratory, *doing physics*, for 27 years before I
left government employment.

Which reminds me...what precisely are your qualifications in science and
technology?

More likely a
phrenologist: he should thank me for the extra bumps on his head I
gave him before he ran away.

"Before he ran away"? Precious!

After all - scientists wouldn't *lie* - would they? ;-)

Oh, I think this ludicrous little man RichL mistook me for a soft
target.

Nothing you have posted has changed my initial assessment of you.

Typical of these global warming clowns not to do their
homework. Now his little feelings are hurt. Gee. Watch me weep.

In your dreams, nutter.

[Les Cargill[_2_]]

Stephen Cowell wrote:
"RichL" wrote
Les Cargill wrote:
Spender wrote:
That is what I was thinking of. QM computing has the possible
advantage of being able to use many more states, rather than the two
states of traditional binary computers.
That's not particularly an advantage....
The boys in the NSA lab down the road think it might be...FWIW.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_computer

It's not the 'many more states'... it's the
*superposition* that gets the advantage.
Trinary, Quatenary, etc computers could
have an advantage (*if* the states were done
with the same silicon area/complexity/etc)
but *nothing* like being able to put in
multiple entangled systems and get results.
We're talking going from a million years
to a few seconds for cracking big-key
crypto... things like that.
__
Steve
.



Right. And then there's the Von Neumann Bottleneck.

--
Les Cargill

[Andre Jute[_2_]]

On Dec 13, 6:30*pm, "RichL" wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:

snip output from random-nuttiness generator

I've made it perfectly clear from the outset that I was referring
specifically to the three links that you posted. *

What you made perfectly clear from the outset was that you didn't read
the three links I posted before you commented on them. If you had read
them, you would have discovered one of them was a literature review of
the links I also posted separately, of which you ware forced to agree
a majority were referee -- after you were stupid enough to sneer "And
not a refereed paper among the lot."

You may continue to do
battle with your straw man. *

I'm just straightening out your lies, sonny. We're used to global
warmies lying like marxists, whom they resemble in so many respects.

It may have been understandable at the
beginning that you misunderstood me, but to continue in this mode after
repeatedly clarifying my intent is sheer nuttery.

Who cares about your intent? What you said, which was everything we
had to go on, was "And not a refereed paper among the lot." There were
no qualifications, no delimitation, as you now dishonestly try to
claim, just those bare words which, after being bitchslapped for being
stupid, you're now trying to reinterpret. And on that meretricious
reinterpretation you dare to call me dishonest?

You're lying scum, Richard P Leavitt. Your weaseling would be
disgusting if it weren't so funny. You look like the puppy-dog which
ate the master's slipper and has now crawled under the bed from where
it whines that the slipper looked like beef jerky.

Andre Jute
Charisma is the art of infuriating the undeserving by merely existing
elegantly

[RichL]

Andre Jute wrote:
On Dec 13, 5:04 am, "RichL" wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
On Dec 13, 12:02 am, landotter wrote:
On Dec 12, 3:43 pm, "RichL" wrote:
[snip]

worldclimatereport is quite a bit more credible, but the sad thing
is that you don't seem to know the difference that site and the
others, i.e., between legitimate scientific debate and nuttery.

worldclimatereport is an astroturf site funded by big coal (Western
Fuels Association).

It's indeed funny that the deniers have not a single credible
source. That's because they BELIEVE!

Hahaha!

You may well laugh, Maxine. That poor dumb **** Rich Leavitt, after
declaring that my sources included "not a refereed paper among the
lot" has now been forced to admit that among his own random choice
from my list were six refereed papers.

You're a fraud, Andre. Anyone interested in this tiresome argument
can see for themselves that my comment "not a refereed paper among
the lot" came BEFORE you posted the list from Daly's screed.

"From Daly's screed", eh? But my list was included in "Daly's screed",
and therefore shown to you, as you keep admitting.

That's nice.
However, it has nothing to do with the fact that none of the three links
that you posted, including the one to Daly's screed, were refereed
papers, which was my *only* point!

I can't help it if
you're dumb enough to comment on papers you haven't read, Rich
Leavitt. You have to be stupendously dumb to engage in polemics with
me when you haven't even mastered the reading list I set.

Physician, heal thyself!

It pertained only
to the list of three that you posted today (12/12/09) at 2:17 PM, and
*NONE* of those were refereed.

Well, that's what you say now.

That's what I've said all along. Somehow you missed that.

Science, which is what we're
discussing, is quite a bit more precise than that, dear Rich. You
should look up an article I wrote on the subject of scientific
precision for Nation Review (not peer reviewed, a national paper in
Australia) three or four decades ago.

Somehow that doesn't surprise me. Another defunct outlet, one that
catered to trendy but short-lived political whims and the
wine-and-cheese set, hardly a medium for discussing serious scientific
issues (let alone that it's not peer-reviewed).

Oh, in that article I also put
down an earlier incarnation of apocalyptic panicker; his kick might
have been freak waves and my friend Don Dunstan, premier of the state,
went down to the beach on the appointed day to mock the idiot by
standing there with his hand held out flat to the little wavelets.

Great "science" there!

No
difference between that foolish apocalyptic and you, except he was
better educated and thus had more class than you.

Perhaps, perhaps not. Yet for some unfathomable reason I'm not
impressed in the slightest by your glee at "counting coup" and dodging
the issue that was raised, just as you're doing here.

Keep lying, Andre, it'll really bolster your credibility and your
"case" chortle

I have truth on my side. The Climategate Scum you're trying to defend
are heading for jail, and their global warming scam with them. Michael
Mann, the inventor of the hockey stick, will be transferring from Penn
State to State Pen...

That's nice, however I don't recall "defending" any of the individuals
you mention in the slightest. Tell you what though, if any of the
aforementioned individuals winds up in jail (referring now to the East
Anglia crew and/or Mann), I will grant you victory.

I shall not, however, hold my breath. There are many well-known cases
of scientific fraud in which *evidence* of fraudulent intent was much
more clear-cut than in the present situation, and even then none of the
participants wound up in jail.

[RichL]

Andre Jute wrote:

Who cares about your intent? What you said, which was everything we
had to go on, was "And not a refereed paper among the lot."

Clearly the lot of three links that you posted, you fool. But do
continue ranting, it's obvious that you're a master of persuasion. g

[Andre Jute[_2_]]

On Dec 13, 6:21*pm, Anonymous wrote:
RichL wrote:
Your credibility is shot, Andre.

On the contrary, it's you who has taken that hit. You've lost, but
your mindless puppy-with-a-favorite-sock attachment to the global
warming farce has you flailing about desperately trying to come up
with ANYTHING that might just smell like something substantial to
prop up your failed treehugger nonsense. You're even willing to
make a complete fool of yourself by screeching "PEER REVIEW" when
most of the work you're being bitchslapped with has been, and in a
delicious twist of irony your own global warming pseudo-science
isn't only an open misrepresentation of the stuff that SHOULD be
peer reviewed, the materials necessary FOR that sort of review have
been destroyed.

Do you have any idea at all how utterly ridiculous you look right
about now? Any clue at all?

*chuckling*

Well, I'd generally try to drag out the public wiping of an
irrationalist like Rich Leavitt to a year or two, instead of just
"bitchslapping" him off the face of the argument all at once -- for
instance google RAT where I drew out the demise of the Magnequest
Scum for seven years and earned a seven-figure sum out of it -- but
poor Rich isn't my target here, it is the local (RBT) gang of
trendies, who ****ed me off two years ago when I arrived, whom I put
on the backburner till now because I was busy with a very big project
from my prize literary protege.

Poor Rich, really not the sharpest knife in the drawer. One has to
wonder what hubris persuaded him he has the equipment to go one-on-one
with professional polemicist, never mind with me.

Andre Jute
Visit Jute on Amps at
http://www.audio-talk.co.uk/fiultra/
"wonderfully well written and reasoned information for the tube audio
constructor"
John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare
"an unbelievably comprehensive web site containing vital gems of
wisdom"
Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review

[Bill Sornson[_2_]]

Michael Press wrote:

I am done with patience. The shenanigans have gone on long enough.
The theory of man made runaway global warming
has solid evidence against it; evidence that
was systematically ignored and suppressed. Now
the evidence is out. No more patience.

Damn, Skippy, when you're right you're right.

So where is the Press (no pun intended) yelling (printing, broadcasting)
this from the rooftops?!?

BS (critical levels)

[Lord Valve]

Andre Jute wrote:

I'm just straightening out your lies, sonny. We're used to global
warmies lying like marxists, whom they resemble in so many respects.

Resemble, hell...

They *are* marxists. Where do you think all those
commies went when the Soviet Union bit the dust?
They're all greenies (OK, warmies, whatever) now.
If their policies don't equal centralized control of
resources (and consequently economies and
individual liberties) then I don't know what does.
This is not a useful argument; we've had a truckload
of **** dumped upon us, and here we sit - arguing
about what kind of asshole the **** came out of.

We're going to have to fight them sooner or later.
They've already started killing us on a breathtaking
scale (your DDT thread has 'em dead to rights)
and if we continue to cede power to them every
time they start bleating about "compassion" for
****ing polar bears or MINNOWS, for Christ's
sake, there won't be enough of us left to fight
them. *EVERY* time socialism rears its ugly
head, people die. It's never worked, it never
*will* work, and only dumb****s, criminals
and murderers champion it. **** 'em...try to
kill me, I'll kill you back. If that makes me a kook,
fine - I'm a kook.

The Three Laws of Socialim:

1) You can't win
2) You can't break even
3) You have to fight a ****ing WAR to get out of the game


http://www.bikepainter.com/hopey-changey.jpg


Lord Valve
Cheerfully posted from the People's Republic of Obamastan
(Occupied United States of God Damn America)
BaaaaaarrrrrRRRRAAAACCCCCCKKK!! Safety!!

O ne
B ig
A ss
M istake,
A merica!

http://tinyurl.com/cv4mbm

Don't forget to nark this fishy post to !

http://www.bikepainter.com/fsoty.jpg

[Andre Jute[_2_]]

Do you have anything technical to contribute to this thread, Rich? We
don't care about your CV or the fact that you invented Napalm for the
DoD (well, the important people here don't care; the trendies might
hate you for it). -- AJ

On Dec 13, 6:39*pm, "RichL" wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
On Dec 13, 4:01 pm, Lord Valve wrote:
Don't argue with him, he's a phrenologist. Or a physicist, or
something like that.

If poor RichL is a physicist, he can't be a very successful one if he
has to work in electronics to earn a living.

"Has to work in electronics"? *Do tell, where did you get that
impression?

I don't "work in electronics". *The last time I "worked in electronics"
was during a college summer job. *If you somehow surmised that I "work
in electronics" from what I've posted in this thread and elsewhere, it's
simply more evidence of your increasing detachment from reality.

Is there something wrong with working in electronics, by the way? *The
gentleman you're responding to works in electronics, in case you don't
know. *You're bullet has hit the wrong guy.

The small start-up company that I work with, by the way, is comprised of
four physicists and two electronics engineers. *We were recently
acquired by a larger company whose technical staff consists mainly of
physicists and chemists. *It's called interdisciplinary research.

I worked for a DoD laboratory, *doing physics*, for 27 years before I
left government employment.

Which reminds me...what precisely are your qualifications in science and
technology?

*More likely a
phrenologist: he should thank me for the extra bumps on his head I
gave him before he ran away.

"Before he ran away"? *Precious!



After all - scientists wouldn't *lie* - would they? ;-)

Oh, I think this ludicrous little man RichL mistook me for a soft
target.

Nothing you have posted has changed my initial assessment of you.

Typical of these global warming clowns not to do their
homework. Now his little feelings are hurt. Gee. Watch me weep.

In your dreams, nutter.

[Andre Jute[_2_]]

On Dec 13, 6:56*pm, "RichL" wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
Who cares about your intent? What you said, which was everything we
had to go on, was "And not a refereed paper among the lot."

Clearly the lot of three links that you posted, you fool. *But do
continue ranting, it's obvious that you're a master of persuasion. *g

Clearly, as you've since several times admitted, one of my links
contained all the referenced articles, of which no fewer than six out
of the first ten (chosen by you, not by me) were clearly refereed,
contrary to your claim of "And not a refereed paper among the lot."
Why do you lie so, Rich?

[Andre Jute[_2_]]

On Dec 13, 6:51*pm, "RichL" wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
On Dec 13, 5:04 am, "RichL" wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
On Dec 13, 12:02 am, landotter wrote:
On Dec 12, 3:43 pm, "RichL" wrote:
[snip]

worldclimatereport is quite a bit more credible, but the sad thing
is that you don't seem to know the difference that site and the
others, i.e., between legitimate scientific debate and nuttery.

worldclimatereport is an astroturf site funded by big coal (Western
Fuels Association).

It's indeed funny that the deniers have not a single credible
source. That's because they BELIEVE!

Hahaha!

You may well laugh, Maxine. That poor dumb **** Rich Leavitt, after
declaring that my sources included "not a refereed paper among the
lot" has now been forced to admit that among his own random choice
from my list were six refereed papers.

You're a fraud, Andre. Anyone interested in this tiresome argument
can see for themselves that my comment "not a refereed paper among
the lot" came BEFORE you posted the list from Daly's screed.

"From Daly's screed", eh? But my list was included in "Daly's screed",
and therefore shown to you, as you keep admitting.

That's nice.
However, it has nothing to do with the fact that none of the three links
that you posted, including the one to Daly's screed, were refereed
papers, which was my *only* point!

You're still trying to claim you said something that you didn't say,
sonny. We're not mind readers, we don't know what your "*only* point"
is. What you said was, "Not a refereed paper among the lot" -- but
then you were forced to admit that more than half the papers in the
Daly references were refereed. Doesn't do your credibility any good to
be that far wrong, Rich, and does your credibility even less good to
whine on and on as you try to weasel out of your own stupidity.

I can't help it if
you're dumb enough to comment on papers you haven't read, Rich
Leavitt. You have to be stupendously dumb to engage in polemics with
me when you haven't even mastered the reading list I set.

Physician, heal thyself!

Oh dear, how childish: You're just as bad as I am, says little Richie
Spoiled-Bratte.

It pertained only
to the list of three that you posted today (12/12/09) at 2:17 PM, and
*NONE* of those were refereed.

Well, that's what you say now.

That's what I've said all along. *Somehow you missed that.

"Not a refereed paper among the lot." That's what you said at first,
and then tried to deny that it means what it says. Difficult to miss
such obvious weaseling and twisting and turning.

Science, which is what we're
discussing, is quite a bit more precise than that, dear Rich. You
should look up an article I wrote on the subject of scientific
precision for Nation Review (not peer reviewed, a national paper in
Australia) three or four decades ago.

Somehow that doesn't surprise me. *Another defunct outlet, one that
catered to trendy but short-lived political whims and the
wine-and-cheese set, hardly a medium for discussing serious scientific
issues (let alone that it's not peer-reviewed).

You can sneer all you like, sonny -- but you should know I told the
anecdote as an invitation for you to sneer -- and thereby expose the
stupidity of your "peer review" mantra. Thanks, Rich; with a clown
like you falling over his own feet every two minutes, putting down the
global warmies is getting so easy, soon it will be boring.

*Oh, in that article I also put
down an earlier incarnation of apocalyptic panicker; his kick might
have been freak waves and my friend Don Dunstan, premier of the state,
went down to the beach on the appointed day to mock the idiot by
standing there with his hand held out flat to the little wavelets.

Great "science" there!

That's the point of telling you the story, that there was no science
in it, that it was a big lie, just as there is no science in manmade
global warming, just as manmade global warming is a big lie.

No
difference between that foolish apocalyptic and you, except he was
better educated and thus had more class than you.

Perhaps, perhaps not. *Yet for some unfathomable reason I'm not
impressed in the slightest by your glee at "counting coup" and dodging
the issue that was raised, just as you're doing here.

The issue of the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age being
global in all regions and near-simultaneous? That one's won. All we're
discussing now is the smoke you tried to blow over it with your lie
that the conclusion is based on unrefereed papers. And you're making a
public meal of your own reputation in the process.

Keep lying, Andre, it'll really bolster your credibility and your
"case" chortle

"Not a refereed paper among the lot" -- Richard P Leavitt, who only
hours later was forced to admit that six out of ten randomly selected
papers from the many were indeed refereed. Looks like you're the one
telling deliberate lies, just like your climatologist heroes, dear
Rich.

I have truth on my side. The Climategate Scum you're trying to defend
are heading for jail, and their global warming scam with them. Michael
Mann, the inventor of the hockey stick, will be transferring from Penn
State to State Pen...

That's nice, however I don't recall "defending" any of the individuals
you mention in the slightest. *

Tsch! What do you take us for, idiots? Of course your counsel of
"patience" is an attempt to defend them by letting their crimes slide,
as Mann's incompetence, as it was then generally thought of, was let
slide so that the hockey stick kept reappearing in IPCC reports long
after everyone knew it is fraudulent.

I repeat. The hockey stick is fraudulent. Without the hockey stick
there can be no global warming. Without global warming there is no CO2
scapegoat. Without global warming there is also no reason for the
continued existence of the expensive IPCC and its corruption of the
previously harmless, unimportant scientific backwater of
paleoclimatology.

Andre Jute
“We must get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.” -- Jonathan Overpeck,
climate "scientist", IPCC writer

[Tim McNamara]

In article ,
Anonymous wrote:

RichL wrote:

Your credibility is shot, Andre.

On the contrary, it's you who has taken that hit. You've lost, but
your mindless puppy-with-a-favorite-sock attachment to the global
warming farce has you flailing about desperately trying to come up
with ANYTHING that might just smell like something substantial to
prop up your failed treehugger nonsense. You're even willing to make
a complete fool of yourself by screeching "PEER REVIEW" when most of
the work you're being bitchslapped with has been, and in a delicious
twist of irony your own global warming pseudo-science isn't only an
open misrepresentation of the stuff that SHOULD be peer reviewed, the
materials necessary FOR that sort of review have been destroyed.

Do you have any idea at all how utterly ridiculous you look right
about now? Any clue at all?

*chuckling*

Yo, anonymous coward, neither you nor Andre come off as being
particularly bright in these exchanges. Just sayin'.

Andre obviously needs to get a job. Too bad the Irish economic paper
tiger tanked.

[[email protected]]

On Dec 13, 11:51*am, Andre Jute wrote:
On Dec 13, 6:30*pm, "RichL" wrote:

Andre Jute wrote:

snip output from random-nuttiness generator

I've made it perfectly clear from the outset that I was referring
specifically to the three links that you posted. *

What you made perfectly clear from the outset was that you didn't read
the three links I posted before you commented on them. If you had read
them, you would have discovered one of them was a literature review of
the links I also posted separately, of which you ware forced to agree
a majority were referee -- after you were stupid enough to sneer "And
not a refereed paper among the lot."

You may continue to do
battle with your straw man. *

I'm just straightening out your lies, sonny. We're used to global
warmies lying like marxists, whom they resemble in so many respects.

It may have been understandable at the
beginning that you misunderstood me, but to continue in this mode after
repeatedly clarifying my intent is sheer nuttery.

Who cares about your intent? What you said, which was everything we
had to go on, was "And not a refereed paper among the lot." There were
no qualifications, no delimitation, as you now dishonestly try to
claim, just those bare words which, after being bitchslapped for being
stupid, you're now trying to reinterpret. And on that meretricious
reinterpretation you dare to call me dishonest?

You're lying scum, Richard P Leavitt. Your weaseling would be
disgusting if it weren't so funny. You look like the puppy-dog which
ate the master's slipper and has now crawled under the bed from where
it whines that the slipper looked like beef jerky.

Andre Jute
*Charisma is the art of infuriating the undeserving by merely existing
elegantly

An article or literature review could potentially have hundreds of
references. The references don't make the article. The author of the
article could pick a small piece of each of his/her references to
construct whatever argument he/she wants. Hence the peer review
process ensures that the author makes a logical argument consistent
with the references. It is not the references but where its published
and how it got published that ensures validity, credibility. Famous
article with 200 plus references is one by Allan Sokal which became
known as Sokal's hoax. The article itself was called "Transgressing
the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum
Gravity". Sokal, an NYU physics professor wrote the article in an
attempt to discredit the journal Social Text, a non peer reviewed
journal edited by Stanley Aronowitz. Without getting into a debate
about the merits of Sokal's arguments, it is clear that a non peer
reviewed article, regardless of the number of citations doesn't have
standing validity in the scientific community on its own. This is
beyond what our feelings may be about the scientific community an the
desire to create alternative paradigms, forms of expression and
knowledge dissemination.

[Les Cargill[_2_]]

Spender wrote:
On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 01:37:38 -0500, Les Cargill
wrote:

Spender wrote:
It is an incredible advantage. The power of a quantum CPU would be
exponentially faster for many problems. Factoring large numbers for
starters. Cracking many ciphers is considered nearly impossible with
today's computers. A quantum computer could do it in seconds using Shor's
algorithm.
So all it really does is make crypto all but impossible. That's at
least the gist I've gathered from reading about it in the past.

At least to my eye, nobody's ever really made a case for the
exponential effect to be an improvement on binary representation
for ordinary computation not related to codebreaking. But it's
doubtless early in the game.

I think the improvement lies in the fact that while bits are either on or
off, allowing you to act only on one state, qubits have many more possible
states and you can theoretically act on all states simultaneously. A
single qubit could act as a parallel processor on its own.

Classical computing algorithms fed into a quantum computer might not show
much of an advantage since a quantum computer would be solving them in
much the same way that computers today do (though they will be much faster
pound for pound since atoms can change energy states much faster than
transistors can).

Quantum algorithms that lend themselves to parallel computing will be the
new paradigm and current computers have no hope of competing with that.


The vast majority of present day practitioners in the art don't even
know how semaphores work. Simple mutex escapes *most* of them.

You still have to get the data *out* of the quantum computer. Into
another quantum computer? Then into what?

We're not short of flops. We're short of peripheral bandwidth.

Do all the technology you want; the culture will not be ready for it.

--
Les Cargill

[RichL]

Andre Jute wrote:
On Dec 13, 6:51 pm, "RichL" wrote:

That's nice, however I don't recall "defending" any of the
individuals you mention in the slightest.

Tsch! What do you take us for, idiots? Of course your counsel of
"patience" is an attempt to defend them by letting their crimes slide

I'll ignore the rest of your nuttery, because it's become clear that
you're just repeating yourself over and over in a vain attempt to
legitimatize your attempt to paint my clearly valid assessment, namely
that none of the links that you posted in your initial post is a
refereed paper, as something other than the simple and clear conclusion
that it is.

But you're reaching here, Andre, as much as you have elsewhere.
Counseling patience is counseling patience. Unlike you, who appears to
have grand delusions about being able to control the outcome of any
investigations, I have no influence in this whatsoever. I can merely
*watch* the events unfold, which if you were honest with yourself (let
alone with the people reading these newsgroups), you'd realize is the
position that you are in as well.

Or perhaps you can stage another performance-art piece, as you admit to
having done previously, in which you are filmed entering your home from
the freezing cold, shivering, and getting yet another oddball netrag to
publish the video as "evidence" that global warming is a fraud, or
perhaps post it yourself on YouTube, slapping yourself on the back as
you continue proselytizing.

And the new Messiah! Here's a video you can use as your theme song:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqsauoDmgDo

[Andre Jute[_2_]]

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Poor Rich, having lost the argument about the Medieval Warm Period
being global, which effective puts paid to any claim of global
warming, and having sent five messages claiming he meant something
other than what he said in order to blow smoke over his loss of the
main argument, now descends to straightforward personal attacks,
typical global warmie behaviour:

And the new Messiah! Here's a video you can use as your theme song:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqsauoDmgDo

Rich's full post is below for students of juvenile tantrums.

Andre Jute
Global Warming is like Scientology, only with less science


On Dec 14, 1:51*am, "RichL" wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
On Dec 13, 6:51 pm, "RichL" wrote:
That's nice, however I don't recall "defending" any of the
individuals you mention in the slightest.

Tsch! What do you take us for, idiots? Of course your counsel of
"patience" is an attempt to defend them by letting their crimes slide

I'll ignore the rest of your nuttery, because it's become clear that
you're just repeating yourself over and over in a vain attempt to
legitimatize your attempt to paint my clearly valid assessment, namely
that none of the links that you posted in your initial post is a
refereed paper, as something other than the simple and clear conclusion
that it is.

But you're reaching here, Andre, as much as you have elsewhere.
Counseling patience is counseling patience. *Unlike you, who appears to
have grand delusions about being able to control the outcome of any
investigations, I have no influence in this whatsoever. *I can merely
*watch* the events unfold, which if you were honest with yourself (let
alone with the people reading these newsgroups), you'd realize is the
position that you are in as well.

Or perhaps you can stage another performance-art piece, as you admit to
having done previously, in which you are filmed entering your home from
the freezing cold, shivering, and getting yet another oddball netrag to
publish the video as "evidence" that global warming is a fraud, or
perhaps post it yourself on YouTube, slapping yourself on the back as
you continue proselytizing.

And the new Messiah! *Here's a video you can use as your theme song:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqsauoDmgDo

[Michael Press]

In article ,
"RichL" wrote:

Michael Press wrote:
In article ,
"RichL" wrote:

Michael Press wrote:
In article ,
"RichL" wrote:

Michael Press wrote:
In article . com,
Spender wrote:

On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 01:45:04 -0800, Michael Press
wrote:

In article
. com, Spender
wrote:

Yes, and it is quite humorous since he just couldn't bring
himself to accept the implications. Einstein's inability to
accept the implications of quantum mechanics had it's use
though. It forced others - most notably Niels Bohr - to refine
their own theories in an attempt to prove aspects of QM to
Einstein.

Einstein lost the argument with Bohr. He did not have facts
we have now, nor did Bohr. Einstein was a better physicist
than Bohr and his argument is ultimately better than Bohr's.

Einstein's argument is essentially determinism. He lost on that
count.

Did you read the quote on statistics?
It is important to distinguish between
statistical uncertainty and a physical
theory that throws up its hands and says
"Physical systems do not evolve according
to determinate laws."

You only throw up your hands if you insist on a "classical"
mindset. You're determined to learn more about physical systems
than the actual information that is available.

Riddle me this?
Does the Schödinger equation have well defined solutions?

Of course it does. The solutions just don't contain the same
information as solutions to classical equations of motions do.

Yes, solutions to Schrödinger's equation
contain more information than classical solutions.
Energy principle applies.
Newton's third law applies.
Newton's second law applies.

I do not see what information the classical equations
contain that is not contained in Schrödinger's equation.

Solutions to classical equations of motion contain information about
both the position and the momentum of objects at every moment in
time, which is impossible within the QM framework.

Have we observed physical systems that evolve exactly
as the Schödinger equation predicts?

Durn betcha. In the millions by now. Christ, in my day job I
design semiconductor devices (mid-infrared semiconductor lasers)
using the Schrodinger equation, essentially. If it didn't work,
I'd be unemployed.

Then we have a deterministic description of
how physical systems evolve.

No, it's not "deterministic" in the classical sense.

Solutions to the Schrödinger equation are perfectly determined.

Yes they are, but that's not "deterministic" in the classical sense.

In lasers for example the timing of emission of light photons is a
totally statistical process. One can predict the *average* power of
all the photons emitted in a given time interval, but one *cannot*
predict precisely when a photon will be emitted.

You can only measure the time light is emitted by
building a measuring device. The measuring device
is composed of atoms. The atoms in the measuring
device are part of the system. You cannot measure
an atom in isolation.

In principle, yes to all the above. But...

To even speak of when an
atom emits a photon is an exercise in imagination.

You can use a photon counting apparatus, such as a photomultiplier tube,
to determine the distribution of arrival rates of photons being emitted
by an ensemble of atoms.

The photomultiplier tube is composed of atoms.
Many of those atoms are deliberately put in a
state where they are tuned to resonate with the
atom being observed. You pay lip service to the
notion that observation changes the observable
than ignore it.

--
Michael Press

[Michael Press]

In article
,
Andre Jute wrote:

On Dec 13, 10:38Â*am, Michael Press wrote:
In article ,

Â*"RichL" wrote:
Ben C wrote:

What I've yet to see is any of the people who defend the theory try to
show what remains of it when the influence of the Climategate clique
is subtracted.

That's certainly a legitimate question, but in my view it's one that's
far from being answered. Â*To me, those who oppose climate-warming
research seem to be making a huge leap to a highly premature conclusion
by assuming (that is, if they're not being disingenuous) that somehow
the whole of the research effort rests on (as yet unconfirmed) frauds
perpetrated by a few.

I'd counsel patience by all at this point.

I am done with patience. The shenanigans have gone on long enough.
The theory of man made runaway global warming
has solid evidence against it; evidence that
was systematically ignored and suppressed. Now
the evidence is out. No more patience.

--
Michael Press

You've been patient amazingly long, Michael. My own patience ran out
in 1996, even before Michael Mann's lying hockey stick appeared. It
was already clear then that the politics was driving the science, not
the science the policy.

Anyway, there is no need for patience, as the confessed climate crooks
were in charge of the "science" on which everything else in manmade
global warming rests like an upside down pyramid. If you remove the
hockey stick, manmade global warming collapses like the fraud it is.

Andre Jute
The IPCC -- longest hand job in the history of mass hysteria -- has
now lasted twice as long as the Third Reich

Third Reich was 1933-1945 by my accounting.

--
Michael Press

[Michael Press]

In article ,
Les Cargill wrote:

sam booka wrote:
"RichL" tapped the mic and amongst other things,
said, "Is this on?" m:

Andre Jute wrote:
On Dec 13, 12:02 am, landotter wrote:
On Dec 12, 3:43 pm, "RichL" wrote:
[snip]

worldclimatereport is quite a bit more credible, but the sad thing
is that you don't seem to know the difference that site and the
others, i.e., between legitimate scientific debate and nuttery.
worldclimatereport is an astroturf site funded by big coal (Western
Fuels Association).

It's indeed funny that the deniers have not a single credible source.
That's because they BELIEVE!

Hahaha!
You may well laugh, Maxine. That poor dumb **** Rich Leavitt, after
declaring that my sources included "not a refereed paper among the
lot" has now been forced to admit that among his own random choice
from my list were six refereed papers.
You're a fraud, Andre. Anyone interested in this tiresome argument can
see for themselves that my comment "not a refereed paper among the lot"
came BEFORE you posted the list from Daly's screed. It pertained only
to the list of three that you posted today (12/12/09) at 2:17 PM, and
*NONE* of those were refereed.

Keep lying, Andre, it'll really bolster your credibility and your
"case"
chortle




What about the case of underestimating the Arctic icecap by an area the
size of California, leaving it virtually unchanged since 1979? The sea
level dats doesn't even stand up to scrut9iny by experts in the field of
remote sensing or the history of the levels. Everything you mention as
defense turns out to be yet another lie based on this nucleus of
fraudulent fudging and pettiness at East Anglia.


So what can be done to stop all the back and forth and get the real
answer on everybody's plate? As a consumer of information, I don't
care about the debate part of it, I just want the answers.

The problem isn't the science or skepticism about the science. It's
packaging half-baked stuff as entertainment product that sends
people off on nonlinear tangents.

Any kid with a dialup knows the whole fzckin' thing is a fraud now.

No, they don't. There's no context here at all. You're doing the
equivalent of "Bush lied; people died." It's a massive
oversimplification.

However, investment in green technology will do far more for the
environment than the IPCC in all their shady dealings and carbon
shuffling to redistribute wealth to third world socialist tyrants so they
can fzck the planet even more using our money.

I put a link up of something I just found where a guy (Bjorn Lumborg)
actually puts *numbers* to all the various things in the mix here.

It will not change the
climate one iota, even if $40 trillion is ripped off and laundered for
AK's and RPG's. In apologizing for that you have gone beyond being just
another self proclaimed "scientist" liberal socialist mo0nbat, now being
fully exposed as a power drunken kiddie death merchant like Dirt 'RAT,
interested in lining your own pockets off the blood and toil of others.


Don't go all foam at the mouth here - it's time to be coldly,
dispassionately rational about all this. And there needs to be
a dialogue.

What dialogue do you anticipate with those who deliberately obfuscate
data, withhold data, erase data, and corrupt the scientific peer
review system?

--
Michael Press

[Michael Press]

In article ,
Les Cargill wrote:

Lord Valve wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
snip

Don't argue with him, he's a phrenologist. Or a physicist, or something like
that.


Yes, he is. He's also got a real job in a very difficult industry.

After all - scientists wouldn't *lie* - would they? ;-)


"Lie" is too simple a word. Depends on how you frame the questions. You
don't think it's all just binary out there, do you?

I just watched this:

http://www.booktv.org/Program/8614/C...l+Warming.aspx

It's a two year old book that does not take a religious position on
either side, but discusses AGW *in terms of cost*. One thing he brings
out is that for polar bears, we *shoot* about thirty times as many
every year than are lost because of habitat changes, including AGW.

Al Gore will apparently not debate the guy.

People may not like it, but here in the real world, we have
to do things based on measurable movement towards real goals,
not 1950s rubber monster horror movie scenarios.

Les, I have a mad on, and do not plan to shelve it for a while.
Before any of it was _fashion_ I have been conservative and
frugal; slow to acquire, slow to abandon. Cognizant where goods
come from and where they go; the chemistry of production and
disposal; all this time lectured by half-smart jackasses with
electric loud hailers who do not know one tenth of what I know.
Now that the grift is exposed I will not forget,
and will not let anybody forget that I am not forgetting.

--
Michael Press

[Chalo]

Spender wrote:

Les Cargill wrote:

We're not short of flops. We're short of peripheral bandwidth.

Do all the technology you want; the culture will not be ready for it.

The culture is never ready for new paradigms. Physists can be past their
prime and not accepting of a new paradigm also. Yet look at what QM itself
has done for civilization.

What, the Superconducting Supercollider in Waxahachie? That was
awesome.

Chalo

[Les Cargill[_2_]]

Michael Press wrote:
In article ,
snip
Don't go all foam at the mouth here - it's time to be coldly,
dispassionately rational about all this. And there needs to be
a dialogue.

What dialogue do you anticipate with those who deliberately obfuscate
data, withhold data, erase data, and corrupt the scientific peer
review system?


I'm not convinced any of that actually happened. It will
take time for the full story to come out.

--
Les Cargill

[Ben C]

On 2009-12-14, Les Cargill wrote:
Michael Press wrote:
In article ,
snip
Don't go all foam at the mouth here - it's time to be coldly,
dispassionately rational about all this. And there needs to be
a dialogue.

What dialogue do you anticipate with those who deliberately obfuscate
data, withhold data, erase data, and corrupt the scientific peer
review system?


I'm not convinced any of that actually happened. It will
take time for the full story to come out.

You're better to read the emails and make up your own mind. The full
story will be a two-sided affair of whitewash vs. indignant accusations.
There will be no final definitive answer because there never is.

But keep an eye out for further analysis of the code and data by the
likes of McIntyre.

Another benefit of the leak is it's making people also have a closer
look at a whole lot of data from other sources.

If there's a clear lesson from all this for both sides it's don't just
trust the "consensus" but actually look at the evidence and the basis
for the claims yourself.

IMO you don't have to do that for very long to see that the AGW case is
much weaker than most people imagine.

[Andre Jute[_2_]]

On Dec 14, 7:11*pm, Les Cargill wrote:
Michael Press wrote:
In article ,
snip
Don't go all foam at the mouth here - it's time to be coldly,
dispassionately rational about all this. And there needs to be
a dialogue.

What dialogue do you anticipate with those who deliberately obfuscate
data, withhold data, erase data, and corrupt the scientific peer
review system?

I'm not convinced any of that actually happened. It will
take time for the full story to come out.

Hell, some of that was clear in 2003 when Steve McIntyre and Ross
McKitric story of trying to get the data and algorithms from Mann
first hit the headlines, and the rest of it was confirmed in 2006 by
the Wegman Report to the Senate, when Wegman also named the 43 of the
people involved as a corrupt "clique". That's nearly four years ago.

How long do you want to make up your mind that the IPCC and all its
works are fraudulent, another twenty-odd years?

Andre Jute
“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea
that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine
and the like would fit the bill.” -- Club of Rome, The First Global
Revolution

[Andre Jute[_2_]]

On Dec 14, 5:47*am, Michael Press wrote:
In article ,
*Les Cargill wrote:





Lord Valve wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
snip

Don't argue with him, he's a phrenologist. *Or a physicist, or something like
that.

Yes, he is. He's also got a real job in a very difficult industry.

After all - scientists wouldn't *lie* - would they? *;-)

"Lie" is too simple a word. Depends on how you frame the questions. You
don't think it's all just binary out there, do you?

I just watched this:

http://www.booktv.org/Program/8614/C...l+Environmenta...

It's a two year old book that does not take a religious position on
either side, but discusses AGW *in terms of cost*. One thing he brings
out is that for polar bears, we *shoot* about thirty times as many
every year than are lost because of habitat changes, including AGW.

Al Gore will apparently not debate the guy.

People may not like it, but here in the real world, we have
to do things based on measurable movement towards real goals,
not 1950s rubber monster horror movie scenarios.

Les, I have a mad on, and do not plan to shelve it for a while.
Before any of it was _fashion_ I have been conservative and
frugal; slow to acquire, slow to abandon. Cognizant where goods
come from and where they go; the chemistry of production and
disposal; all this time lectured by half-smart jackasses with
electric loud hailers who do not know one tenth of what I know.
Now that the grift is exposed I will not forget,
and will not let anybody forget that I am not forgetting.

--
Michael Press

I'm amazed that you waited so long to speak out.

Don't get mad, get even.

Better still, get your retaliation in first.

Andre Jute
Survivor