"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 11:57:39 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:


"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
. ..

Thirdly, the gobal warming signal seems to be gradually emerging from
the noise with time.

All the more reason to let significantly more time to pass in which to
allow
the signal to noise ratio to be clarified, in my book.


Time will pass anyhow before effective action can be taken. Time now
to start planning, not shooting oneself in he foot by over-reacting or
corrupting the science by political dogma.


And with that, we are squarely in the same camp. Perhaps just arriving there
from different trails.

Cessna 310 wrote:

Nope, it was a purely personal attack.


whatever you say

I lurked, I posted, I left shaking my head

On 30 Mar 2007 13:14:04 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 18:59:23 +0100, Goofball_star_dot_etal
said:

I have never claimed to be an expert on climate modelling or even a
scientist.

So just what was it that you intended to convey by:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal.../304248a0.html


Well let's do it and get an idea of what the areas of my expertise
are.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=...r=&btnG=Search


The spurious hits are mainly my late dad (p.f.).


Go find the rest of the papers with my name on them (Wareing)

I am caught between a rock and a hard place - either
totally ignorant or corrupted by funding.

There is of course a third possibility. You could conceivably be
knowledgeable and not the recipient of any potentially corrupting funding. I
take it you're eliminating that possibility.

The funding has increased but what really kills funding is scientific
dishonesty or even just one honest mistake.

Although this research adds to the jigsaw there is no yes/no to GW to
be had from it, so it is hard to see how it could possibly be
corrupted by public funding or any expectations of government. Why any
government would actually *want* a "yes" answer is beyond reason.

On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 12:18:08 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:


"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
.. .
On 30 Mar 2007 12:36:06 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 19:52:19 -0400, Jeff said:

I'm impressed.

If you're dying to know the diameter of a rod, and a fella shows up with a
micrometer and says he's an expert in using it, let him measure the rod.
But
don't let him bamboozle you into thinking that just because he knows how
to
use a micrometer he's an expert in figuring out how the rod got to be that
size.

I have never claimed to be an expert on climate modelling or even a
scientist. I am caught between a rock and a hard place - either
totally ignorant or corrupted by funding. I merely declared an
interest. I am in a postion to judge for myself the honesty and
integrity of some of the big players, who I know personally.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but did you not post a link to a scientific paper,
claiming (or implying) that your name appears in the list of authors? It
strikes me that you have been trying to claim a place among those who study
atmospheric change.

atmospheric *science*, yes. Temperature,ozone,water
vapour,aerosol,clouds,winds etc. etc.

quasi/pseudo/para...scientist/engineer/technician. They don't put your
name on papers for sweeping the floor.

"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
news
On 30 Mar 2007 13:14:04 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 18:59:23 +0100, Goofball_star_dot_etal
said:

I have never claimed to be an expert on climate modelling or even a
scientist.

So just what was it that you intended to convey by:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal.../304248a0.html


Well let's do it and get an idea of what the areas of my expertise
are.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=...r=&btnG=Search


The spurious hits are mainly my late dad (p.f.).


Go find the rest of the papers with my name on them (Wareing)

I am caught between a rock and a hard place - either
totally ignorant or corrupted by funding.

There is of course a third possibility. You could conceivably be
knowledgeable and not the recipient of any potentially corrupting funding.
I
take it you're eliminating that possibility.

The funding has increased but what really kills funding is scientific
dishonesty or even just one honest mistake.

Although this research adds to the jigsaw there is no yes/no to GW to
be had from it, so it is hard to see how it could possibly be
corrupted by public funding or any expectations of government. Why any
government would actually *want* a "yes" answer is beyond reason.


It's not like governments seek control over everything they can get their
hands on, or anything.

"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 12:18:08 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:


"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
. ..
On 30 Mar 2007 12:36:06 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 19:52:19 -0400, Jeff said:

I'm impressed.

If you're dying to know the diameter of a rod, and a fella shows up with
a
micrometer and says he's an expert in using it, let him measure the rod.
But
don't let him bamboozle you into thinking that just because he knows how
to
use a micrometer he's an expert in figuring out how the rod got to be
that
size.

I have never claimed to be an expert on climate modelling or even a
scientist. I am caught between a rock and a hard place - either
totally ignorant or corrupted by funding. I merely declared an
interest. I am in a postion to judge for myself the honesty and
integrity of some of the big players, who I know personally.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but did you not post a link to a scientific
paper,
claiming (or implying) that your name appears in the list of authors? It
strikes me that you have been trying to claim a place among those who
study
atmospheric change.

atmospheric *science*, yes. Temperature,ozone,water
vapour,aerosol,clouds,winds etc. etc.

quasi/pseudo/para...scientist/engineer/technician. They don't put your
name on papers for sweeping the floor.


So, as I suggested before, your position is along the lines of a "research
assistant."

* KLC Lewis wrote, On 3/30/2007 3:10 PM:
....

So, as I suggested before, your position is along the lines of a "research
assistant."


How Jaxian of you. I've often found that those who demand
identification and scoff at credentials are those that provide neither.

* Dave wrote, On 3/30/2007 12:55 PM:
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 11:09:46 -0400, Jeff said:

No. Do you have a peer-reviewed journal article that demonstrates
that?
A bit disingenuous, don't you think? Oh....you were trying to be cute.

An allegation was made that "most of the experts" would lose their
jobs if the theory were proved false. I've seen no evidence for that
at all. Ironically, there is evidence that the anti-Global Warming
forces offer "bounties" for anything critical of Global Warming:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/internatio...rc=rss&feed=11

The one thing that most of the pro-Global Warming research has in
common is that it is published in peer-reviewed journals, where the
editors are experts in the field, and the papers are reviewed by other
experts charged with looking for flaws in the methodology. Not a
perfect system, but it is a foundation of modern science, and having
been through the process I can assure you that scientists take it
seriously.

The one anti-Global Warming paper offered in this discussion (Beck's
180 years accurate CO2 Gas analysis) was published not by one of the
6000 ISI listed peer-reviewed journals, but a journal dedicated to
publishing articles that could not pass normal peer review.



While there are certainly some that have made a career from
global warming, I seriously doubt that most of the research is funded
by some "global warming conspiracy."

Has anyone claimed it has? That's what's called a straw man.

So how else does a academic research scientist lose his job? Research
grants have to come somewhere, they are either from relatively
unbiased sources searching for the truth, or they are from sources
with a special agenda. We know that big business, in particular big
oil, has funded anti-Global Warming research in the past, but who has
been funding pro-Global Warming research? Certainly not the Bush
administration!


Most of the scientists are simply academics doing whatever research
interests them, and what they can get grants for, and in this country,
the government has not been very eager to support GW research.

And of course the critical phrase is "what they can get grants for." Do you
not suppose it might be more difficult to get grants to investigate a
non-problem than to investigate a problem? Might that not predispose one
seeking grants to wish to come down on the side of there being a problem?

Not when the federal government has been insistent that there is no
problem. Actually, there's probably easier money to be made by taking
the "anti" position.


Oh no, of course not. Pure hearts.

Pure hearts, like the American Petroleum Institute, who partially
funded the paper by Baliunas and Soon which claimed that there has
been no climate change in 2000 years. This paper was refuted by the
13 scientists whose work was cited by it, and half of the editorial
board of the journal resigned in protest over the poor peer-review
process.

On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 13:10:48 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:

So, as I suggested before, your position is along the lines of a "research
assistant."


I think you addressed that question to another..

but very approximately so, yes. Why so rude about it?

"Jeff" wrote in message
. ..
* KLC Lewis wrote, On 3/30/2007 3:10 PM:
...

So, as I suggested before, your position is along the lines of a
"research assistant."

How Jaxian of you. I've often found that those who demand identification
and scoff at credentials are those that provide neither.

Not at all, just trying to clarify. The original presentation of the paper
was done in a way that made one think he was a scientist, without stating
that he was a research assistant. He then posted that he wasn't a scientist,
then posted again linking his name to several scientific papers without
mentioning his role in those papers, again leading one to believe that he
has bonafides which he really doesn't.

If I'm speaking with Carl Sagan or Stephen Hawking, I want to know it. If
I'm speaking with one of their students, it make a difference.

As for my own identification, I post here and everywhere else with my
name -- I hide behind no handles. I have no scientific credentials, merely a
keen interest in the world around me. I am, however, smarter than the
average bear. In point of fact, and not to brag, significantly so.