Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#81
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration
On 2/19/2010 1:03 PM Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! spake thus:
On Feb 19, 2:59 pm, Jerry Peters wrote: But if he doesn't, he can't control the discussion. I notice he still hasn't explained the "hide the decline", except of course with some rampant speculation on the cause of the observed divergence. I wonder what these two think of Darwin's theory. After all, they're still collecting data on it. A lot of which is also conflicting and not conclusive. Science isn't a smooth, orderly march to a preordained state of all-knowingness. It proceeds in fits and starts, and many theories are discarded along the way. Some theories can never be proven, but they may prove to be the most rational and logical way of looking at a problem. (I place AGW in that category, as "unproven" as it may be. It's a hell of a lot better than any alternative, the most prominent of which seems to be "just bury your head in the sand--everything's just peachy!") -- You were wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it. - a Usenet "apology" |
#82
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration
Do any of you remember what this thread was about??
So sad... Tim Brown |
#83
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration
In article ,
Jerry Peters wrote: In rec.audio.tech flipper wrote: On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 20:05:29 -0600, MiNe 109 wrote: In article , flipper wrote: On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 07:06:18 -0600, MiNe 109 wrote: In article , flipper wrote: I'm not addressing that point. How typical of AGW worshippers to 'not address the point'. How typical of deniers to play meaningless word games. 'Addressing the point' is not a word game but what you just tried to do is. Yes, it was a simple substitution. However, there are terms for holding someone responsible for arguments not made. As I said earlier, you do not get to decide what *my* points are. Stephen But if he doesn't, he can't control the discussion. I notice he still hasn't explained the "hide the decline", except of course with some rampant speculation on the cause of the observed divergence. Are you talking about me while replying to me? That's odd. I'm glad you think I can control the discussion but not glad you're applying a different standard to me than to Flipper. I don't have to explain "hide the decline." Jones doesn't even remember what he meant by it. However, one might speculate the 'decline' is in the accuracy of the tree-ring data since 1960. The 'trick' is to add in actual measured temperatures, assuming you're talking about Michael Mann. I know you have no objection to using measured temperatures when available. Stephen |
#84
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration
In article ,
Jerry Peters wrote: In rec.audio.tech MiNe 109 wrote: In article , flipper wrote: On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 20:15:13 -0600, MiNe 109 wrote: In article , flipper wrote: On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 07:15:16 -0600, MiNe 109 wrote: In article , flipper wrote: With your logic drug company testing would be to throw away all the failed results, dead bodies, and placebo effects and declare the drug 'safe': we throw away data that doesn't work. I explained the tree-ring thing in a reply to your wing man: it's possible the tree-ring data has diverged due to anthropogenic CO2. A "possibility" is not an "explanation" and the 'odds' are not affected by you wishing it were so. There's also higher UV-B. More speculation. Have any idea whether it affects tree rings and, if so, whether they get large or smaller, or what? From what I've read, the tree rings aren't getting as big as expected. 'Possibilities' and speculations are not explanations. I'm not 'wishing' BTW. I was being generous when all indications are you're 'sure you know' even with the lack of evidence. I an not educated enough to second-guess the statistics involved. My bias is in favor of the peer-review scientific process. Which of course the CRU guys were subverting. Which brings up yet another question: My understanding is that the information that Jones & company lost their original data came because *one* scientific journal would not publish his article *without* seeing the original data. Now, what exactly were all the other "peer reviewers" reviewing if they didn't have the data? Grammar and punctuation? Spelling? I'd look he http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6936328.ece Reviews would be on data adjusted in various ways "to take account of variables in the way they were collected." It might be possible to reverse the adjustment, but there would be no way to check. I wonder what irreplaceable treasures I lost when I threw out my floppy disc collection. Stephen |
#85
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration
In article ,
Jerry Peters wrote: Me: Those looking for conspiracies would do better to look at the funding behind certain of the AWG detractors. I wondered how long it would be before you brought that up. Quoting you: There's a term for people who believe others are secretly allied. How much funding are the CRU, Mann, & the IPCC getting? Now how much funding do you think any of them would be getting without their predictions of catastrophe? Certainly a lot less. More or less than the $16 million ExxonMobil poured into denier organizations? Speaking of the IPCC, I wonder how many other pieces of enviro-group fundraising propaganda will now be discovered in its reports? Maybe this one: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/24/sc...deny.html?_r=1 |
#86
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration
In article
, Circuitsmith wrote: Do any of you remember what this thread was about?? So sad... The thread was fine until someone took a chisel to it. Have you been on Usenet before? You don't seem familiar with normal thread drift. Stephen |
#87
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration
On 2/19/2010 7:40 PM MiNe 109 spake thus:
In article , Circuitsmith wrote: Do any of you remember what this thread was about?? So sad... The thread was fine until someone took a chisel to it. "Hijacked" seems closer to the mark. -- You were wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it. - a Usenet "apology" |
#88
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration
"Circuitsmith" wrote in message
Do any of you remember what this thread was about?? So sad... +1. It was about refurbing a classic preamp. Check the title line. I see that you have some refugees from the smoldering refuse of RAO repeating history on yet another newsgroup. |
#89
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration
MiNe 109 wrote:
In article , Circuitsmith wrote: Do any of you remember what this thread was about?? So sad... The thread was fine until someone took a chisel to it. Have you been on Usenet before? You don't seem familiar with normal thread drift. Cut the engines change the sail. -- Bill Coombes |
#90
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration
In rec.audio.tech MiNe 109 wrote:
In article , Jerry Peters wrote: In rec.audio.tech flipper wrote: On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 20:05:29 -0600, MiNe 109 wrote: In article , flipper wrote: On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 07:06:18 -0600, MiNe 109 wrote: In article , flipper wrote: I'm not addressing that point. How typical of AGW worshippers to 'not address the point'. How typical of deniers to play meaningless word games. 'Addressing the point' is not a word game but what you just tried to do is. Yes, it was a simple substitution. However, there are terms for holding someone responsible for arguments not made. As I said earlier, you do not get to decide what *my* points are. Stephen But if he doesn't, he can't control the discussion. I notice he still hasn't explained the "hide the decline", except of course with some rampant speculation on the cause of the observed divergence. Are you talking about me while replying to me? That's odd. I'm glad you think I can control the discussion but not glad you're applying a different standard to me than to Flipper. I don't have to explain "hide the decline." Jones doesn't even remember what he meant by it. However, one might speculate the 'decline' is in the accuracy of the tree-ring data since 1960. The 'trick' is to add in actual measured temperatures, assuming you're talking about Michael Mann. I know you have no objection to using measured temperatures when available. Stephen Yes I was commenting on your reply. As to "hide the decline", the *proper* way would have been to document what he was doing by, for example, changing to a different type or color graph line and then noting in the key what that meant. Jerry |
#91
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration
In rec.audio.tech MiNe 109 wrote:
In article , Jerry Peters wrote: In rec.audio.tech MiNe 109 wrote: In article , flipper wrote: On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 20:15:13 -0600, MiNe 109 wrote: In article , flipper wrote: On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 07:15:16 -0600, MiNe 109 wrote: In article , flipper wrote: With your logic drug company testing would be to throw away all the failed results, dead bodies, and placebo effects and declare the drug 'safe': we throw away data that doesn't work. I explained the tree-ring thing in a reply to your wing man: it's possible the tree-ring data has diverged due to anthropogenic CO2. A "possibility" is not an "explanation" and the 'odds' are not affected by you wishing it were so. There's also higher UV-B. More speculation. Have any idea whether it affects tree rings and, if so, whether they get large or smaller, or what? From what I've read, the tree rings aren't getting as big as expected. 'Possibilities' and speculations are not explanations. I'm not 'wishing' BTW. I was being generous when all indications are you're 'sure you know' even with the lack of evidence. I an not educated enough to second-guess the statistics involved. My bias is in favor of the peer-review scientific process. Which of course the CRU guys were subverting. Which brings up yet another question: My understanding is that the information that Jones & company lost their original data came because *one* scientific journal would not publish his article *without* seeing the original data. Now, what exactly were all the other "peer reviewers" reviewing if they didn't have the data? Grammar and punctuation? Spelling? I'd look he http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6936328.ece Reviews would be on data adjusted in various ways "to take account of variables in the way they were collected." It might be possible to reverse the adjustment, but there would be no way to check. I wonder what irreplaceable treasures I lost when I threw out my floppy disc collection. Stephen The ability for *independent* researchers to reproduce the results is one of the bedrock principles of *real* science. Without the original data, and without access to his methodology, how is anyone else to reproduce the results? Jerry |
#92
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration
In rec.audio.tech MiNe 109 wrote:
In article , Jerry Peters wrote: Me: Those looking for conspiracies would do better to look at the funding behind certain of the AWG detractors. I wondered how long it would be before you brought that up. Quoting you: There's a term for people who believe others are secretly allied. How much funding are the CRU, Mann, & the IPCC getting? Now how much funding do you think any of them would be getting without their predictions of catastrophe? Certainly a lot less. More or less than the $16 million ExxonMobil poured into denier organizations? Speaking of the IPCC, I wonder how many other pieces of enviro-group fundraising propaganda will now be discovered in its reports? Maybe this one: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/24/sc...deny.html?_r=1 There you go again using loaded terminology. Many people don't share your AGW True Religion, get over it. Let's see, the budgets for CRU, Mann, NOAA, NASA-GISS, and of course let's not forget the IPCC, are I'm sure, much more than a paltry $16 million. I'd call that a red herring to try to distract people from where the real money is. Jerry |
#93
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration
On Feb 20, 11:11*am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
Check the title line. Um...I don't really need to do that,since I started this thread. That was really helpful Arny. Ever heard of such a thing as a rhetorical question?? Tim Brown |
#94
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration
In article ,
Jerry Peters wrote: Yes I was commenting on your reply. As to "hide the decline", the *proper* way would have been to document what he was doing by, for example, changing to a different type or color graph line and then noting in the key what that meant. Sounds reasonable. I didn't see the papers to which the email refers. Stephen |
#95
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration
In article ,
Jerry Peters wrote: Which brings up yet another question: My understanding is that the information that Jones & company lost their original data came because *one* scientific journal would not publish his article *without* seeing the original data. Now, what exactly were all the other "peer reviewers" reviewing if they didn't have the data? Grammar and punctuation? Spelling? I'd look he http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6936328.ece Reviews would be on data adjusted in various ways "to take account of variables in the way they were collected." It might be possible to reverse the adjustment, but there would be no way to check. I wonder what irreplaceable treasures I lost when I threw out my floppy disc collection. Stephen The ability for *independent* researchers to reproduce the results is one of the bedrock principles of *real* science. Without the original data, and without access to his methodology, how is anyone else to reproduce the results? It's a problem for all researchers. In this case, new sources of measurements will have to be explored. Stephen |
#96
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration
In article ,
Jerry Peters wrote: In rec.audio.tech MiNe 109 wrote: In article , Jerry Peters wrote: Me: Those looking for conspiracies would do better to look at the funding behind certain of the AWG detractors. I wondered how long it would be before you brought that up. Quoting you: There's a term for people who believe others are secretly allied. How much funding are the CRU, Mann, & the IPCC getting? Now how much funding do you think any of them would be getting without their predictions of catastrophe? Certainly a lot less. More or less than the $16 million ExxonMobil poured into denier organizations? Speaking of the IPCC, I wonder how many other pieces of enviro-group fundraising propaganda will now be discovered in its reports? Maybe this one: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/24/sc...deny.html?_r=1 There you go again using loaded terminology. Many people don't share your AGW True Religion, get over it. Just a URL. Do you consider "enviro-group fundraising propaganda" or "AGW True Religion" to be loaded terminology? Let's see, the budgets for CRU, Mann, NOAA, NASA-GISS, and of course let's not forget the IPCC, are I'm sure, much more than a paltry $16 million. I'd call that a red herring to try to distract people from where the real money is. It's the easy money that's the problem. Stephen |
#97
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration
In article ,
MiNe 109 wrote: In article , Jerry Peters wrote: Yes I was commenting on your reply. As to "hide the decline", the *proper* way would have been to document what he was doing by, for example, changing to a different type or color graph line and then noting in the key what that meant. Sounds reasonable. I didn't see the papers to which the email refers. Here's a report: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...1/20/AR2009112 004093.html Mann said the "trick" Jones referred to was placing a chart of proxy temperature records, which ended in 1980, next to a line showing the temperature record collected by instruments from that time onward. "It's hardly anything you would call a trick," Mann said, adding that both charts were differentiated and clearly marked. -- Stephen |
#98
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration
|
#99
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Conrad Johnson Premier Two: restoration
On Mar 19, 2:09*pm, "James Smith" wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote : Do any of you remember what this thread was about?? So sad... +1. It was about refurbing a classic preamp. Check the title line. I see that you have some refugees from the smoldering refuse of RAO repeating history on yet another newsgroup. +1. It took you a month to come up with "+1"? |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
fs conrad johnson premier 1 amp | Marketplace | |||
FS: conrad-johnson Premier 11a Amp | Marketplace | |||
WTB Conrad Johnson Premier 12 Monoblocks | Marketplace |