[Andre Jute[_2_]]

On Dec 12, 3:41*am, "RichL" wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
RichL refers us to a piece by Mr Gerson evaluating the impact of
Climategate:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...09/12/10/AR200...



Mr Gerson makes some very fine points but he has missed the key
technical point. The problem with global warming is that it stands
like an upside down pyramid on the work of these men disgraced in
Climategate for lying about that every work. The problem is acute
because it is their work, and only their work, which by statistical
lies flattens the historically and interdisciplinarily absolutely
anchored Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age out of
existence so that the 1990s can look like an abnormally hot period.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period

The Medieval Warm Period was a time of warm weather between about AD
800-1300, during the European Medieval period. Initial research on the
MWP and the following Little Ice Age (LIA) was largely done in Europe,
where the phenomenon was most obvious and clearly documented. It was
initially believed that the temperature changes were global. However,
this view has been questioned; the 2001 IPCC report summarises this
research, saying ".current evidence does not support globally
synchronous periods of anomalous cold or warmth over this time frame,
and the conventional terms of 'Little Ice Age' and 'Medieval Warm
Period' appear to have limited utility in describing trends in
hemispheric or global mean temperature changes in past centuries".
Global temperature records taken from ice cores, tree rings, and lake
deposits, have shown that, taken globally, the Earth may have been
slightly cooler (by 0.03 degrees Celsius) during the 'Medieval Warm
Period' than in the early- and mid-20th century. *Crowley and Lowery
(2000) note that "there is insufficient documentation as to its
existence in the Southern hemisphere."

From the Wiki article:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ar_Temperature
_Comparison.png

It is obvious to all but a mindless Zombie, looking at the graph, that
inclusion of data from the Medieval warm period and the little ice age
do not significantly alter conclusions drawn from the post-1800 data in
comparison with the prior data.

I don't bother with tendentious amateur "science" on wikipedia. Here
are peer reviewed interdisciplinary papers showing that the Medieval
Warm Period Optimum and Litte Ice Age were global, and that the MWP
temperature was higher than our contemporary temperatures, in short
that we are still recovering from the LiA, no possibility of global
warming.

Many papers from around the world, given by geographic region:
http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm
Many sources from around the world combined into one graph of global
temperatu
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/in...rature-record/
And here's a discussion with simple graphs of what it all means:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/0...l-warm-period/
This last is lovely. It show the single tree in Siberia on whose tree
rings we have made world policy, and are making more policy costing
trillions.

All show that the temperature in the MWP was higher by far than it is
now. Proof that the hockey stick is a lie, too, if that matters any
more.

HTH you become less of a mindless zombie, dear Rich.

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

[Michael Press]

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."

Riddle me this?
Does the Schödinger equation have well defined solutions?
Have we observed physical systems that evolve exactly
as the Schödinger equation predicts?

--
Michael Press

[[email protected]]

On Dec 12, 3:03*am, Ben C wrote:
On 2009-12-12, wrote:

On Dec 11, 2:38*pm, Ben C wrote:
[...]
It may still be that nature is deterministic, just that we don't know
yet what determines the result of a measurement of a quantum state. I
think this is called the "hidden variables" interpretation. We have no
evidence for any such hidden variables, but also none that they don't
exist.

Could be. The question is if QM is essentially or ontologically
indeterminable, or if it is an epistemological problem. Einstein
thought that it was the second but that we didn't have the tools to
understand it. Thing is that as we learn more about QM, the more it
appears that small particles are ontologically indeterminable and not
that it is our tools and knowledge.

The weird thing though is that they only become indeterminable when you
try to measure them, and we still don't really understand what a
measurement is, or whether they happen if no-one's looking.

Hmm! true that non-commutable variables create the problem of
indeterminacy. However, there is the suggestion that the natural state
of electrons is indeterminate. Take spin, for example. We know, when
we observe electrons, they may be spin up or spin downs. However, we
can not predict the spin with certainty, only to a certain
probability. The question is if the electrons have a determinate or
indeterminate spin before being operated or measured. Some suggest
that the natural state of the electron may be indeterminate rather
than the opposite. The operation collapses the wave and we get a
determination. This goes to the heart of Einstein's dilemma, that is,
that the quantum world is determinate and we just can't see it because
the operations change particles and we only observe operators.
However, it could also be that quantum particles are ontologically
indeterminate. In other words they are both spin up and down.
Scientifically the essence of QM may not be significant. We can
measure things very accurately, use GPS, cell phones, etc w/o caring
if QM is essentially indeterminate or if its a feature of the
observations. However, philosophically it is a question that goes to
the heart of being. Is our essence indeterminate and probabilistic?

[Chalo]

Andre Jute wrote:

Chalo wrote:

Andre Jute wrote:

You're still labouring under the old myth that DDT
caused cancer. Not a single case was ever proven.

The same can be claimed for dioxins. *People get cancer, they die--
who's to say what caused it? *Correlation between exposure levels and
cancer rates proves nothing. *It doesn't matter that most
organochlorides feature the same statistical anomaly in this regard.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it, says the intransigent
polluter.

That's a marxist dialectic trick, declaring any data that refuses to
fit the preconception to be an "anomaly". It's never the theory of
ideologues that is wrong, always the data or the people who refuse to
conform to social engineering.

*whoosh*

[RichL]

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.

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.

[RichL]

Andre Jute wrote:
On Dec 12, 3:41 am, "RichL" wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
RichL refers us to a piece by Mr Gerson evaluating the impact of
Climategate:


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...09/12/10/AR200...



Mr Gerson makes some very fine points but he has missed the key
technical point. The problem with global warming is that it stands
like an upside down pyramid on the work of these men disgraced in
Climategate for lying about that every work. The problem is acute
because it is their work, and only their work, which by statistical
lies flattens the historically and interdisciplinarily absolutely
anchored Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age out of
existence so that the 1990s can look like an abnormally hot period.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period

The Medieval Warm Period was a time of warm weather between about AD
800-1300, during the European Medieval period. Initial research on
the MWP and the following Little Ice Age (LIA) was largely done in
Europe, where the phenomenon was most obvious and clearly
documented. It was initially believed that the temperature changes
were global. However, this view has been questioned; the 2001 IPCC
report summarises this research, saying ".current evidence does not
support globally synchronous periods of anomalous cold or warmth
over this time frame, and the conventional terms of 'Little Ice Age'
and 'Medieval Warm Period' appear to have limited utility in
describing trends in hemispheric or global mean temperature changes
in past centuries". Global temperature records taken from ice cores,
tree rings, and lake deposits, have shown that, taken globally, the
Earth may have been slightly cooler (by 0.03 degrees Celsius) during
the 'Medieval Warm Period' than in the early- and mid-20th century.
Crowley and Lowery (2000) note that "there is insufficient
documentation as to its existence in the Southern hemisphere."

From the Wiki article:


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ar_Temperature
_Comparison.png

It is obvious to all but a mindless Zombie, looking at the graph,
that inclusion of data from the Medieval warm period and the little
ice age do not significantly alter conclusions drawn from the
post-1800 data in comparison with the prior data.

I don't bother with tendentious amateur "science" on wikipedia. Here
are peer reviewed interdisciplinary papers showing that the Medieval
Warm Period Optimum and Litte Ice Age were global, and that the MWP
temperature was higher than our contemporary temperatures, in short
that we are still recovering from the LiA, no possibility of global
warming.

Many papers from around the world, given by geographic region:
http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm
Many sources from around the world combined into one graph of global
temperatu

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/in...rature-record/
And here's a discussion with simple graphs of what it all means:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/0...l-warm-period/
This last is lovely. It show the single tree in Siberia on whose tree
rings we have made world policy, and are making more policy costing
trillions.

All show that the temperature in the MWP was higher by far than it is
now. Proof that the hockey stick is a lie, too, if that matters any
more.

HTH you become less of a mindless zombie, dear Rich.

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

And not a refereed paper among the lot. Of course, that would have
been expecting too much, right?

You guys claim to represent real "science", yet you keep referring to
what, if I may put it mildly, are "advocacy" web sites. Daly?
Please... "Watts Up"? Good grief.

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.

[Les Cargill[_2_]]

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.




Hopefully, the EPA will show restraint as well.

--
Les Cargill

[Bill Sornson[_2_]]

Les Cargill wrote:

Hopefully, the EPA will show restraint as well.

ROTFL Good one! ROTFL

[Andre Jute[_2_]]

On Dec 12, 9:45*pm, Les Cargill wrote:
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.

Yup, let's all just let it slide, so the the IPCC can declare business
as usual, just as if nothing happened and all the lies are still true.
After all, they did it before, when no less august a body then the
National Academy of Science via two distinguished panels led by Drs
Wegman and North individually and collectively on oath before the
Senate of the United States Congress declared Mann incompetent, his
process crooked and his hockey stick unfounded. A dozen years later
and the IPCC and its outriders like Rich still stick to the hockey
stick like glue -- a very smelly kind of glue, by now.


Hopefully, the EPA will show restraint as well.

--
Les Cargill

Er, if you're looking for a well-paid if somewhat stressful job, Les,
a standup comedian of my acquaintance is looking for a scripwriter.
He's a bit depressing and very demanding but "We hope the EPA will
show restraint" is just the sort of line he's brilliant with, giving
it that doomladen pompous seriousness that stun yuppie audiences into
three seconds of silence before they laugh nervously, looking over
their shoulders to see that no one notices that they are being
politically incorrect. I imagine he's stolen your line already...

Andre Jute
Charisma is the art of infuriating the undeserving by merely existing
elegantly; welcome to the club, Les

[Ben C]

On 2009-12-12, wrote:
On Dec 12, 3:03*am, Ben C wrote:
On 2009-12-12, wrote:

On Dec 11, 2:38*pm, Ben C wrote:
[...]
It may still be that nature is deterministic, just that we don't know
yet what determines the result of a measurement of a quantum state. I
think this is called the "hidden variables" interpretation. We have no
evidence for any such hidden variables, but also none that they don't
exist.

Could be. The question is if QM is essentially or ontologically
indeterminable, or if it is an epistemological problem. Einstein
thought that it was the second but that we didn't have the tools to
understand it. Thing is that as we learn more about QM, the more it
appears that small particles are ontologically indeterminable and not
that it is our tools and knowledge.

The weird thing though is that they only become indeterminable when you
try to measure them, and we still don't really understand what a
measurement is, or whether they happen if no-one's looking.

Hmm! true that non-commutable variables create the problem of
indeterminacy. However, there is the suggestion that the natural state
of electrons is indeterminate. Take spin, for example. We know, when
we observe electrons, they may be spin up or spin downs. However, we
can not predict the spin with certainty, only to a certain
probability. The question is if the electrons have a determinate or
indeterminate spin before being operated or measured. Some suggest
that the natural state of the electron may be indeterminate rather
than the opposite.

The operation collapses the wave and we get a
determination. This goes to the heart of Einstein's dilemma, that is,
that the quantum world is determinate and we just can't see it because
the operations change particles and we only observe operators.
However, it could also be that quantum particles are ontologically
indeterminate. In other words they are both spin up and down.

That is how I picture them. But I don't think of that as
non-deterministic, even if in a sense it is indeterminate.

What I mean is, they seem to be in some kind of superposed state that's
difficult to imagine, but that isn't _random_ or anything like that. The
element of chance only comes into things when you do the measurement and
they snap to a nearby classical state.

Scientifically the essence of QM may not be significant. We can
measure things very accurately, use GPS, cell phones, etc w/o caring
if QM is essentially indeterminate or if its a feature of the
observations.

Indeed, but thinking about the philosophical problems might lead someone
to a better physical theory.

I think that helped Einstein come up with relativity-- he was making the
effort to resolve very paradoxical things intuitively instead of just
being defeatist about them.

However, philosophically it is a question that goes to the heart of
being. Is our essence indeterminate and probabilistic?

[Andre Jute[_2_]]

On Dec 12, 9:43*pm, "RichL" wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
On Dec 12, 3:41 am, "RichL" wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
RichL refers us to a piece by Mr Gerson evaluating the impact of
Climategate:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...09/12/10/AR200...





Mr Gerson makes some very fine points but he has missed the key
technical point. The problem with global warming is that it stands
like an upside down pyramid on the work of these men disgraced in
Climategate for lying about that every work. The problem is acute
because it is their work, and only their work, which by statistical
lies flattens the historically and interdisciplinarily absolutely
anchored Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age out of
existence so that the 1990s can look like an abnormally hot period.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period

The Medieval Warm Period was a time of warm weather between about AD
800-1300, during the European Medieval period. Initial research on
the MWP and the following Little Ice Age (LIA) was largely done in
Europe, where the phenomenon was most obvious and clearly
documented. It was initially believed that the temperature changes
were global. However, this view has been questioned; the 2001 IPCC
report summarises this research, saying ".current evidence does not
support globally synchronous periods of anomalous cold or warmth
over this time frame, and the conventional terms of 'Little Ice Age'
and 'Medieval Warm Period' appear to have limited utility in
describing trends in hemispheric or global mean temperature changes
in past centuries". Global temperature records taken from ice cores,
tree rings, and lake deposits, have shown that, taken globally, the
Earth may have been slightly cooler (by 0.03 degrees Celsius) during
the 'Medieval Warm Period' than in the early- and mid-20th century.
Crowley and Lowery (2000) note that "there is insufficient
documentation as to its existence in the Southern hemisphere."

From the Wiki article:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ar_Temperature



_Comparison.png

It is obvious to all but a mindless Zombie, looking at the graph,
that inclusion of data from the Medieval warm period and the little
ice age do not significantly alter conclusions drawn from the
post-1800 data in comparison with the prior data.

I don't bother with tendentious amateur "science" on wikipedia. Here
are peer reviewed interdisciplinary papers showing that the Medieval
Warm Period Optimum and Litte Ice Age were global, and that the MWP
temperature was higher than our contemporary temperatures, in short
that we are still recovering from the LiA, no possibility of global
warming.

Many papers from around the world, given by geographic region:
http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm
Many sources from around the world combined into one graph of global
temperatu

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/02/11/a-2000-year-gl... And here's a discussion with simple graphs of what it all means:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/0...-medieval-warm...

This last is lovely. It show the single tree in Siberia on whose tree
rings we have made world policy, and are making more policy costing
trillions.

All show that the temperature in the MWP was higher by far than it is
now. Proof that the hockey stick is a lie, too, if that matters any
more.

HTH you become less of a mindless zombie, dear Rich.

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

And not a refereed paper among the lot. *Of course, that would have
been expecting too much, right?

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:

[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

[2] Cioccale M., "Climatic Fluctuations in the Central Region of
Argentina in the last 1000 Years", Quaternary International 62, p.
35-37, 1999 (as reported by the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide
and Global Change - http://www.co2science.org/ )

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

[4] Daly J., "The Surface Record: Global Mean Temperature and How it
is Determined at Surface Level" April 2000,
http://www.greeningearthsociety.org/...0/surface1.htm

[5] Daly J., "Testing the Waters: A Report on Sea Levels", June 2000
http://www.greeningearthsociety.org/...s/2000/sea.htm

[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

[7] Dullo, W. et al., "Stable Isotope Record from Holocene Reef
Corals, Western Indian Ocean", Journal of Conference Abstracts v.4 no.
1, Symposium B02, http://www.campublic.co.uk/science/p...Abs/4/164.html

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

[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

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

[11] IPCC, Third Assessment Report (draft), January 2000

[12] Keigwin L.D., "The Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period in the
Sargasso Sea", Science, v.274 pp.1504-1508, 1996

[13] Kuo-Yen Wei et al, "Documenting Past Environmental Changes in
Taiwan and Adjacent Areas", Department of Geology, National Taiwan
University, 1996. http://www.gcc.ntu.edu.tw/gcc/resear...ec3-4/3-4.html

[14] Lean J., "Evolution of the Sun's Spectral Irradiance Since the
Maunder Minimum", Geophysical Research Letters, v.27, no.16, p.2425,
August 15 2000

[15] Magnuson J. et al., "Historical Trends in Lake and River Ice
Cover in the Northern Hemisphere", Science, v.289, p.1743, 8 Sept 2000

[16] Mann M.E. et al, "Northern Hemisphere Temperatures During the
Past Millennium: Inferences, Uncertainties, and Limitations", AGU GRL,
v.3.1, 1999

[17] Mann M.E., Personal Website - http://www.people.virginia.edu/~mem6u

[18] National Academy of Science, "On being a Scientist: Responsible
Conduct in Research", National Academy Press, 1995

[19] National Assessment Synthesis Team (NAST), "Climate Change
Impacts on the United States: The Potential Consequences of Climate
Variability and Change" - Overview document, USGCRP, June 2000

[20] National Research Council, "Reconciling Observations of Global
Temperature Change", National Academy Press, 2000

[21] Nunez, M., "The Urban Heat Island: Some Aspects of the Phenomenon
in Hobart", University of Tasmania, ISBN 0-85901-121-6, 1979

[22] Orwell, George, "Nineteen Eighty-Four", Penguin Books, London.

[23] Peru ice core http://academic.emporia.edu/aberjame...c19/fig19d.htm

[24] Svensmark H., "Influence of Cosmic Rays on Earth's Climate",
Physical Review Letters, v.81, no.22, p.5027, 30 Nov 1998

[25] ---, "A 1000-year Record of Temperature and Precipitation in the
Sierra Nevada", Quaternary Research, v.39, p.249-255, 1993.

[26] Tagami, Y. Reconstruction of Climate in the Medieval Warm Period
http://edcgeo.edu.toyama-u.ac.jp/Geohome/IntN/Abs.htm

[27] Tyson, P.D. et al., "The Little Ice Age and Medieval Warming in
South Africa". South African Journal of Science, v96. p.121-126, 2000

[28] van de Plassche & van der Borg, "Sea level-climate correlation
during the past 1400 yr", Free University Amsterdam & Utrecht
University, http://www.fys.ruu.nl/~adejong/radio...orrelation.htm

[29] Verschuren D., "Rainfall and Drought in Equatorial East Africa
during the past 1,100 Years", Nature v.403(6768) pp.410-414, 27 Jan
2000

[30] Villalba, R., "Tree-ring and Glacial Evidence for the Medieval
Warm Epoch and the Little Ice Age in Southern South America". Climate
Change, 26: 183-197, 1994

[31] Wang Wen & Xie Zhiren, "Historical Sea Level Fluctuations in
China: Tidal Disaster Intensity and Sea Level Change", Nanjing
University, http://www.chinainfo.gov.cn/periodic...905/990509.htm

[32] Winter et al. "Caribbean Sea Surface Temperatures: Two-to-Three
Degrees Cooler than Present During the Little Ice Age", Geophysical
Research Letters, v.27, 20, p.3365, Oct 15 2000

[33] J T Houghton, G J Jenkins, J J Ephraums, Eds,, "Climate Change;
The IPCC Scientific Assessment". 1990 . Cambridge University Press, p.
202

You guys claim to represent real "science", yet you keep referring to
what, if I may put it mildly, are "advocacy" web sites. *Daly?
Please... *"Watts Up"? *Good grief.

Those guys were in the trenches exposing the global warming scam,
long, long before Climategate. Now they've been proved right beyond
any possibility of well-poisoning by the global warming faithful like
you, dear Rich.

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.

Name-calling by mindless zombies like you, darling Rich, won't obscure
the fact that there is no longer any basis for global warming
precisely because the hockey stick has been proven to be a fraud, and
admitted to be a fraud by its makers, the Climate criminals.

"Hide the decline," eh, Dr Jones.

***

You know, the minute you admit that your faith in global warming is a
religion, as a British court declared global warming to be a religion
a few weeks ago, and nothing to do with science, we stop riding you,
because as lovers of free speech we don't care how cookie your
religion is, as long as you don't ask us to pay for its excesses.

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

[Andre Jute[_2_]]

On Dec 12, 9:33*pm, Chalo wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:

Chalo *wrote:

Andre Jute wrote:

You're still labouring under the old myth that DDT
caused cancer. Not a single case was ever proven.

The same can be claimed for dioxins. *People get cancer, they die--
who's to say what caused it? *Correlation between exposure levels and
cancer rates proves nothing. *It doesn't matter that most
organochlorides feature the same statistical anomaly in this regard.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it, says the intransigent
polluter.

That's a marxist dialectic trick, declaring any data that refuses to
fit the preconception to be an "anomaly". It's never the theory of
ideologues that is wrong, always the data or the people who refuse to
conform to social engineering.

*whoosh*

Okay, Chalo, you don't have any scientific argument. But that's no
reason to be ****ed off at me for merely explicating the facts of how
the global warming fraud was constituted and maintained. It's a
question of truth and honesty in science v what is now clearly seen in
your posts, representing many on the left, as the religious conviction
of manmade global warming in the total absence of evidence. I've told
you repeatedly that if you would give up the pretense of science
backing manmade global warming and admit it is your religion, I
wouldn't say another word about it to you. You should have taken that
offer long before we got down and dirty about the self-evident facts
that you don't want to believe. I'm sorry about this but no one who
knows anything about me expects me to betray the truth because I like
someone who holds an untenable view.

Andre Jute
Reformed petrol head
Car-free since 1992
Greener than thou!

[Andre Jute[_2_]]

On Dec 12, 10:48*pm, Andre Jute wrote:
On Dec 12, 9:33*pm, Chalo wrote:





Andre Jute wrote:

Chalo *wrote:

Andre Jute wrote:

You're still labouring under the old myth that DDT
caused cancer. Not a single case was ever proven.

The same can be claimed for dioxins. *People get cancer, they die--
who's to say what caused it? *Correlation between exposure levels and
cancer rates proves nothing. *It doesn't matter that most
organochlorides feature the same statistical anomaly in this regard..
That's my story and I'm sticking to it, says the intransigent
polluter.

That's a marxist dialectic trick, declaring any data that refuses to
fit the preconception to be an "anomaly". It's never the theory of
ideologues that is wrong, always the data or the people who refuse to
conform to social engineering.

*whoosh*

Okay, Chalo, you don't have any scientific argument. But that's no
reason to be ****ed off at me for merely explicating the facts of how
the global warming fraud was constituted and maintained. It's a
question of truth and honesty in science v what is now clearly seen in
your posts, representing many on the left, as the religious conviction
of manmade global warming in the total absence of evidence. I've told
you repeatedly that if you would give up the pretense of science
backing manmade global warming and admit it is your religion, I
wouldn't say another word about it to you. You should *have taken that
offer long before we got down and dirty about the self-evident facts
that you don't want to believe. I'm sorry about this but no one who
knows anything about me expects me to betray the truth because I like
someone who holds an untenable view.

Andre Jute
Reformed petrol head
Car-free since 1992
Greener than thou!

[Michael Press]

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.

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.

--
Michael Press

[RichL]

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.

All you've done is copied and pasted the citations given in the Daly
link. Poor boy, you don't even realize that most of these references
don't even support your hypothesis, and 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!

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.

[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. I can't
access it from here, but if I remember, I'll give it a look on Monday
when I can.

[2] Cioccale M., "Climatic Fluctuations in the Central Region of
Argentina in the last 1000 Years", Quaternary International 62, p.
35-37, 1999 (as reported by the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide
and Global Change - http://www.co2science.org/ )

Nutter web site. Not refereed

[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; however, Daly leaps to conclusions not warranted by the data
in the paper, as would be obvious if you actually read the Daly link.

[4] Daly J., "The Surface Record: Global Mean Temperature and How it
is Determined at Surface Level" April 2000,
http://www.greeningearthsociety.org/...0/surface1.htm

[5] Daly J., "Testing the Waters: A Report on Sea Levels", June 2000
http://www.greeningearthsociety.org/...s/2000/sea.htm

Two consecutive papers posted to a web site that is now defunct.
Refereed? I doubt it.

[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.

Will check this one out, too. Definitely refereed. Not having access
to the paper at present, I can't tell whether the citation by Daly is
out of context.

[7] Dullo, W. et al., "Stable Isotope Record from Holocene Reef
Corals, Western Indian Ocean", Journal of Conference Abstracts v.4 no.
1, Symposium B02,
http://www.campublic.co.uk/science/p...Abs/4/164.html

Defunct web site.

[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, but it's simply a compendium of data on solar
spectra and doesn't take a position on global warming. Daly uses it to
suggest (without proof) that solar effects *could* mimic the effects of
CO2 in warming the atmosphere.

[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. I'll give it a look when I can.

[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? Daly cited it to *criticize* it!

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) that *may* or *may not* support Daly's views,
and *two* that are a real stretch in my view insofar as whether they
represent supporting evidence.

Then we have *three* links to web sites that no longer exist, one to
what's clearly an "advocacy" site (and that's putting it mildly), and
one to the dreaded IPCC report.

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!

Nevertheless, I'll look at the three, but you've got to do a better job
of trying to keep up if you want this dialog to continue.

[RichL]

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.

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. 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.

[RichL]

Spender wrote:
On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 16:35:29 -0500, "RichL"
wrote:

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.

I'm sure you'll know this... what is that problem that computer
processor manufacturers will face in the relatively near future when
it comes to sandwiching layers in a processor chip? I don't know
offhand what the closest measurements are. But apparently they are
getting about as close as they can before it will be impossible to
determine what path an electron will take.

Yeah, you're right. It's pretty close (don't know the exact number off
the top of my head), but soon we'll reach a point where semiconductor
electronic devices won't be able to be scaled down any further in size
and still function the same way. However, you shouldn't think of that
as a *hard* limit; there's a lot of research underway on quantum effects
in electronic devices, in which the aim is to develop devices that take
advantage of the implications of QM, rather than view them as
limitations.

[landotter]

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!

[landotter]

On Dec 12, 3:33*pm, Chalo wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:

Chalo *wrote:

Andre Jute wrote:

You're still labouring under the old myth that DDT
caused cancer. Not a single case was ever proven.

The same can be claimed for dioxins. *People get cancer, they die--
who's to say what caused it? *Correlation between exposure levels and
cancer rates proves nothing. *It doesn't matter that most
organochlorides feature the same statistical anomaly in this regard.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it, says the intransigent
polluter.

That's a marxist dialectic trick, declaring any data that refuses to
fit the preconception to be an "anomaly". It's never the theory of
ideologues that is wrong, always the data or the people who refuse to
conform to social engineering.

*whoosh*

Oh yeah, the hilarity is palpable! :-D

FWIW, the big case against DDT is the devastation it can cause to the
ecosystem when sprayed willy nilly,not necessarily cancer. It's murder
on crustaceans and egg shells.

[Andre Jute[_2_]]

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

[Andre Jute[_2_]]

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.

But you know, my sources have always been the original data (when the
Climategate Scum didn't hide or trash it) and the IPCC reports
themselves. It is only you little people, who don't know any better,
who get your global warming information from TV; that is also why
those of us with the brains to go to the source are so much better
informed. For instance, that clown Asher didn't even know until I told
him what transpired in the Senate when they investigated Mann and his
Hockey Stick and the NAS Panel under oath condemned poor Mann. Asher,
because he got his information from the media, though they vindicated
Mann! And he pretends to be a scientist!

Andre Jute
Laughing all the way to the bank (knowledge is money)

[Andre Jute[_2_]]

Maxine von Ott-Bott aka landotter wrote:

Andre Jute wrote:

You're still labouring under the old myth that DDT
caused cancer. Not a single case was ever proven.

FWIW, the big case against DDT is the devastation it can cause to the
ecosystem when sprayed willy nilly,not necessarily cancer. It's murder
on crustaceans and egg shells.

The banning of DDT murdered 220,000,000 poor people by slow starvation
and the grim disease of malaria. Before they died of trauma or hunger,
many suffered amputations without anaesthetic. And you justify killing
220 million defenseless people on the grounds that a few bottom-
feeders and smelly eagles were (maybe) saved?

No wonder poor people everywhere hate Americans. You really are a VERY
ugly American, Max.

Unsigned out of contempt.

[Michael Press]

In article . com,
Spender wrote:

On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 17:48:37 -0800, Michael Press
wrote:

I no longer regard this [statistical] interpretation as
a finally satisfactory one, even if it proves useful in
practice. To me it seems to mean a renunciation, much
too fundamental in principle, of all attempt to
understand the individual process.
--Erwin Schrödinger

That seems to be a flat out wish for a refutation of Heisenberg's
uncertainty principle.

I would like to see you try to prove that.

--
Michael Press

[Les Cargill[_2_]]

Spender wrote:
On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 19:01:15 -0500, "RichL" wrote:

Spender wrote:
I'm sure you'll know this... what is that problem that computer
processor manufacturers will face in the relatively near future when
it comes to sandwiching layers in a processor chip? I don't know
offhand what the closest measurements are. But apparently they are
getting about as close as they can before it will be impossible to
determine what path an electron will take.
Yeah, you're right. It's pretty close (don't know the exact number off
the top of my head), but soon we'll reach a point where semiconductor
electronic devices won't be able to be scaled down any further in size
and still function the same way. However, you shouldn't think of that
as a *hard* limit; there's a lot of research underway on quantum effects
in electronic devices, in which the aim is to develop devices that take
advantage of the implications of QM, rather than view them as
limitations.

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....

--
Les Cargill

[RichL]

Les Cargill wrote:
Spender wrote:
On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 19:01:15 -0500, "RichL"
wrote:

Spender wrote:
I'm sure you'll know this... what is that problem that computer
processor manufacturers will face in the relatively near future
when it comes to sandwiching layers in a processor chip? I don't
know offhand what the closest measurements are. But apparently
they are getting about as close as they can before it will be
impossible to determine what path an electron will take.
Yeah, you're right. It's pretty close (don't know the exact number
off the top of my head), but soon we'll reach a point where
semiconductor electronic devices won't be able to be scaled down
any further in size and still function the same way. However, you
shouldn't think of that as a *hard* limit; there's a lot of
research underway on quantum effects in electronic devices, in
which the aim is to develop devices that take advantage of the
implications of QM, rather than view them as limitations.

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

This brings us back to that Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen experiment that was
discussed several posts back. Quantum entanglement -- what a concept!

[RichL]

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.
I said there was "not a refereed paper among the lot" of the three
"references" you cited in your post of 12/12/09 at 2:17 PM EDT, in my
post that immediately follows it. 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.

Nearly all of your response is based upon this fraud, Andre.
Consequently, it doesn't merit a reply. I'd be careful about who I was
calling fraudulent if I were you.

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.

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.

Which has nothing to do with the fact that you posted a reference to it
with the statement " Which of these papers isn't refereed, Rich? They
show the MWP happening around the world:"

Very few of the papers that you listed "show the MWP happening around
the world". Only half of the first 10 were refereed and most of those
have nothing to do with the MWP, despite your implication that they all
do.

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.

As for me, I'll read a couple of the refereed papers when I have time,
if only because I insist on keeping an open mind on the subject,
something that you've shown you're incapable of.

[RichL]

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).

OK, thanks for the info, I didn't realize that.

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

Hahaha!

[RichL]

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

[Les Cargill[_2_]]

RichL wrote:
Les Cargill wrote:
Spender wrote:
On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 19:01:15 -0500, "RichL"
wrote:

Spender wrote:
I'm sure you'll know this... what is that problem that computer
processor manufacturers will face in the relatively near future
when it comes to sandwiching layers in a processor chip? I don't
know offhand what the closest measurements are. But apparently
they are getting about as close as they can before it will be
impossible to determine what path an electron will take.
Yeah, you're right. It's pretty close (don't know the exact number
off the top of my head), but soon we'll reach a point where
semiconductor electronic devices won't be able to be scaled down
any further in size and still function the same way. However, you
shouldn't think of that as a *hard* limit; there's a lot of
research underway on quantum effects in electronic devices, in
which the aim is to develop devices that take advantage of the
implications of QM, rather than view them as limitations.
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


Heh. Well, I never developed a fetish for fast
factorization myself... crypto in general puts
me *absolutely* asleep.

This brings us back to that Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen experiment that was
discussed several posts back. Quantum entanglement -- what a concept!



It's another one of those things that you more get used to than
understand...

--
Les Cargill

[Les Cargill[_2_]]

Spender wrote:
On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 23:32:28 -0500, 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....

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.

--
Les Cargill

[Michael Press]

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.

--
Michael Press

[Michael Press]

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.

I am?

--
Michael Press

[Michael Press]

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.


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


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.

--
Michael Press

[Michael Press]

In article . com,
Spender wrote:

On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 20:21:00 -0800, Michael Press
wrote:

In article . com,
Spender wrote:

On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 17:48:37 -0800, Michael Press
wrote:

I no longer regard this [statistical] interpretation as
a finally satisfactory one, even if it proves useful in
practice. To me it seems to mean a renunciation, much
too fundamental in principle, of all attempt to
understand the individual process.
--Erwin Schrödinger

That seems to be a flat out wish for a refutation of Heisenberg's
uncertainty principle.

I would like to see you try to prove that.

That is a tall order, what with Erwin's waveform being permanently
collapsed and all.

You do not actually know any of the physics;
but rather construct sentences with phrases
that appear in popular accounts.

--
Michael Press

[Michael Press]

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

[sam booka]

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

I don't bother with tendentious amateur "science" on wikipedia. Here
are peer reviewed interdisciplinary papers showing that the Medieval
Warm Period Optimum and Litte Ice Age were global, and that the MWP
temperature was higher than our contemporary temperatures, in short
that we are still recovering from the LiA, no possibility of global
warming.

Many papers from around the world, given by geographic region:
http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm
Many sources from around the world combined into one graph of global
temperatu

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/in...2000-year-glob
al-temperature-record/
And here's a discussion with simple graphs of what it all means:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/0...edieval-warm-p
eriod/
This last is lovely. It show the single tree in Siberia on whose tree
rings we have made world policy, and are making more policy costing
trillions.

All show that the temperature in the MWP was higher by far than it is
now. Proof that the hockey stick is a lie, too, if that matters any
more.

HTH you become less of a mindless zombie, dear Rich.

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

And not a refereed paper among the lot. Of course, that would have
been expecting too much, right?

Ummm... have you been paying attention? That is exactly what the fraud
has been all about: silencing and discrediting critics like their own
initial head scientist, Dr. Richard Lindzen, another Doc RichL. However,
if you are the same guy, you could also add nzckin' futz to that
criticism.

--
All the perplexities, confusion, and distress in America arise,
not from defects in their Constitution or confederation, not
from want of honor or virtue, so much as from downright ignorance
of the nature of coin, credit, and circulation,
John Adams

[sam booka]

"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.

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

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?

--
All the perplexities, confusion, and distress in America arise,
not from defects in their Constitution or confederation, not
from want of honor or virtue, so much as from downright ignorance
of the nature of coin, credit, and circulation,
John Adams

[sam booka]

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

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.

Better counsel the World Bank, because the IPCC and UN are cut off as of
last week if the Danish Leak gets ratified by the G8.

Don't get me wrong Doc... Green makes good sense, but there is nothing
green coming out of East Anglia and the flawed pseudoscience dolloped out
by demented Gorons. Green is coming out of The Pentagon (DARPA), Arizona
State, Ohio State, and MIT. Brown is coming out of these politically
motivated shztholes in massive quantities.
--
All the perplexities, confusion, and distress in America arise,
not from defects in their Constitution or confederation, not
from want of honor or virtue, so much as from downright ignorance
of the nature of coin, credit, and circulation,
John Adams

[sam booka]

Michael Press tapped the mic and amongst other
things, said, "Is this on?" news:rubrum-088542.02381413122009
@news.albasani.net:

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.


No it doesn't. The scant evidence it had in contradiction to the vast
majority of real scientists has been found to have been cooked up. The
first leaders of the IPCC even said so back in the beginning when the
IPCC was caught rewriting their papers, and they resigned in disgust.

--
All the perplexities, confusion, and distress in America arise,
not from defects in their Constitution or confederation, not
from want of honor or virtue, so much as from downright ignorance
of the nature of coin, credit, and circulation,
John Adams

[sam booka]

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

You're assuming such information is knowable. It's not. The
Heisenberg
principle is pretty firmly established; it's a necessary consequence of
the duality between particle and wave behavior.

I wonder if any of us will be alive when they figure it out...

Most physicists consider it "figured out" already.


Now we move to the Heidelberg Uncertainty Principle, which is where a
bunch of drunk Europeon and wannabe Euro navel gazing mo0nbats in Denmark
bemoan the loss of their careers and credibility for being so stupid as
to get caught ignoring the mountains of contrary evidence to their AGW
fiasco.

--
All the perplexities, confusion, and distress in America arise,
not from defects in their Constitution or confederation, not
from want of honor or virtue, so much as from downright ignorance
of the nature of coin, credit, and circulation,
John Adams