How the bastards do it

[Trevor Wilson]

On 6/15/2012 6:34 PM, atec77 wrote:

On 15/06/2012 5:27 PM, F Murtz wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 6/15/2012 3:20 PM, terryc wrote:
On 14/06/12 07:24, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 6/13/2012 11:27 PM, Yaputya wrote:
"Trevor Wilson"<trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:a3qe7cFqe3U1@mid.individual.net...
On 6/13/2012 11:18 AM, Roger wrote:
Climate skeptic instructor fired from Oregon State University
Posted on June 11, 2012 by Anthony Watts

Gordon Fulks sends this summary of the situation and asks that
it be
distributed. I’m happy to oblige. For some background on Dr.
Drapela’s
skeptical views, this slideshow “Global Warming Cracked Open” might
give some insight into OSU’s booting him out. – Anthony


**Do you have any evidence to support the claim that Drapela was
sacked because he has some anti-science beliefs?

Anti-science ?

**Yes. Anti-science. There is an overwhelming support from scientists,
that validate the theory of AGW.

That isn't anti-science. Science isn't determined by democratic vote.
Learn some science history and it will quicly become obvios that just
because "everyone" believes it to be so, doesn't make it so.

**You are aware of what the term: 'overwhelming support' means, don't
you? There is not a shred of doubt amongst climatologists that AGW is a
reality.


Also, keep in kind that looking for figures to support AGW has been the
prime focus of the scientific establishment for over thrity years.

**Wrong. The investigation has stretched over 150 years. The data is
irrefutable. The only hoildouts are politicians, talk-back radio hosts,
religious leaders and morons.


Wrong!! all the people you mentioned are not experts in the field and
they all get their information from experts who differ from your holy
grail the CSIRO etc
You notice he wont tell us what formal qualifications he himself has to
make such royal pontification on the matters

**I simply cite the science. I do not pretend to be a scientist. Those
who have decided that all the scientists are wrong, however, need to
present their evidence. Thus far, all I see are pitiful attempts at
insult. Kinda tells us all we need to know.

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 6/15/2012 7:03 PM, keithr wrote:

On 15/06/2012 6:34 PM, atec77 wrote:
On 15/06/2012 5:27 PM, F Murtz wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 6/15/2012 3:20 PM, terryc wrote:
On 14/06/12 07:24, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 6/13/2012 11:27 PM, Yaputya wrote:
"Trevor Wilson"<trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:a3qe7cFqe3U1@mid.individual.net...
On 6/13/2012 11:18 AM, Roger wrote:
Climate skeptic instructor fired from Oregon State University
Posted on June 11, 2012 by Anthony Watts

Gordon Fulks sends this summary of the situation and asks that
it be
distributed. I’m happy to oblige. For some background on Dr.
Drapela’s
skeptical views, this slideshow “Global Warming Cracked Open”
might
give some insight into OSU’s booting him out. – Anthony


**Do you have any evidence to support the claim that Drapela was
sacked because he has some anti-science beliefs?

Anti-science ?

**Yes. Anti-science. There is an overwhelming support from
scientists,
that validate the theory of AGW.

That isn't anti-science. Science isn't determined by democratic vote.
Learn some science history and it will quicly become obvios that just
because "everyone" believes it to be so, doesn't make it so.

**You are aware of what the term: 'overwhelming support' means, don't
you? There is not a shred of doubt amongst climatologists that AGW is a
reality.


Also, keep in kind that looking for figures to support AGW has been
the
prime focus of the scientific establishment for over thrity years.

**Wrong. The investigation has stretched over 150 years. The data is
irrefutable. The only hoildouts are politicians, talk-back radio hosts,
religious leaders and morons.


Wrong!! all the people you mentioned are not experts in the field and
they all get their information from experts who differ from your holy
grail the CSIRO etc
You notice he wont tell us what formal qualifications he himself has to
make such royal pontification on the matters

Lets face it nobody pontificating on climate change on Usenet, no matter
which side of the argument they are on, has any relevant qualifications
at all.

**Quite so, which is why it is important to listen to the people who
actually know what they're talking about. That excludes Alan Jones, Tony
Abbott, George Pell, Nick Minchin and the other idiots who think they
know more than the climatologists.

Most just believe what they want to believe and go looking for
"Evidence" to support their pre-conceived notions.

**Sadly, you are correct. Clutching at straws, comes to mind. They'll
believe any old snake oil, in the hope that the climatologists are all
wrong.


--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Gordon Levi]

atec77 <"atec77 "@hotmail.com> wrote:

You notice he wont tell us what formal qualifications he himself has to
make such royal pontification on the matters

How could TW's "formal qualifications" or those of anybody else who is
likely to post here affect their credibility on the subject of AGW?

 

[kreed]

On Friday, June 15, 2012 6:57:28 PM UTC+10, atec77 wrote:

On 15/06/2012 6:56 PM, Phil Allison wrote:
"atec77"
F Murtz wrote:

Wrong!! all the people you mentioned are not experts in the field and
they all get their information from experts who differ from your holy
grail the CSIRO etc

You notice he wont tell us what formal qualifications he himself has to
make such royal pontification on the matters


** TW's missus works ( or used to work) as a Scientific Officer for this
mob:

http://www.ips.gov.au/

Attached to the Bureau of Meteorology and popularly known as the "
Ionospheric Prediction Service ".

Much loved by radio hams et alia.



... Phil


Being a receptionist assistant does not a scientist make

--









X-No-Archive: Yes

Being directly or indirectly reliant on this AGW fraud continuing......

You can see the public reaction to the carbon tax, and the AGW scam generally.
Considering the public, and the unbelievably fast and deep destruction done to the ALP, (which I never thought I would see in my lifetime,)

A similar move could easily spring up to ditch the CSIRO or large parts of it, and could start a torrent of similar actions to other "science" institutions - particularly involved with government, or with any connection whatsoever to the AGW movement, particularly considering how many of these scumbags pretending to be scientists have sold out for money.

Personally, this would be a good thing, as to get correct results, everything has to be scrutinised by the public, and any deliberate fraud must be punished with a significant jail term and compensation to anyone affected by it.

If I was one of these frauds, I would be very concerned, and I cna understand why these people would push the AGW lies harder and harder, over and beyond the "emperor's new clothes" level (like we see on here) to keep the money coming into the household.

If you are one of these people, stop lying. You won't win, the public is angry at you, and will not tolerate this any more. You could end up in a world of trouble, if you continue. Do the right thing and tell the truth.

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 6/16/2012 12:44 AM, Gordon Levi wrote:

atec77<"atec77 "@hotmail.com> wrote:


You notice he wont tell us what formal qualifications he himself has to
make such royal pontification on the matters

How could TW's "formal qualifications" or those of anybody else who is
likely to post here affect their credibility on the subject of AGW?

**atec77 failed to complete any high school education. Such subtleties
are lost on him.

I note that none of the morons have challenged a single part of the
science relating to AGW. They, instead, prefer to insult and demean.

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 6/16/2012 12:11 AM, kreed wrote:

On Friday, June 15, 2012 6:57:28 PM UTC+10, atec77 wrote:
On 15/06/2012 6:56 PM, Phil Allison wrote:
"atec77"
F Murtz wrote:

Wrong!! all the people you mentioned are not experts in the field and
they all get their information from experts who differ from your holy
grail the CSIRO etc

You notice he wont tell us what formal qualifications he himself has to
make such royal pontification on the matters


** TW's missus works ( or used to work) as a Scientific Officer for this
mob:

http://www.ips.gov.au/

Attached to the Bureau of Meteorology and popularly known as the "
Ionospheric Prediction Service ".

Much loved by radio hams et alia.



... Phil


Being a receptionist assistant does not a scientist make

--









X-No-Archive: Yes

Being directly or indirectly reliant on this AGW fraud continuing......

**What "fraud" do you refer to?

Cite your peer-reviewed science that disproves everything the following
organisations have stated about AGW:

CSIRO
The Australian Academy of Science
BoM
NASA
The US EPA
The US National Academy of Sciences
American Meteorological Society
IPCC
The UK Met
The European Academy of Sciences and Arts
The Royal Society of New Zealand
The Royal Society of the UK
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Chemical Society
American Institute of Physics
American Physical Society
Australian Institute of Physics
European Physical Society
European Foundation
Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies

To claim that AGW is a fraud, requires some evidence. Thus far, you have
supplied nothing.


--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[F Murtz]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

On 6/16/2012 12:44 AM, Gordon Levi wrote:
atec77<"atec77 "@hotmail.com> wrote:


You notice he wont tell us what formal qualifications he himself has to
make such royal pontification on the matters

How could TW's "formal qualifications" or those of anybody else who is
likely to post here affect their credibility on the subject of AGW?

**atec77 failed to complete any high school education. Such subtleties
are lost on him.

I note that none of the morons have challenged a single part of the
science relating to AGW. They, instead, prefer to insult and demean.

why on earth would any one post a challenge here as it would be wrong if

it did not agree with the doctrine according to Trevor and the CSIRO

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 6/16/2012 10:04 AM, F Murtz wrote:

Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 6/16/2012 12:44 AM, Gordon Levi wrote:
atec77<"atec77 "@hotmail.com> wrote:


You notice he wont tell us what formal qualifications he himself has to
make such royal pontification on the matters

How could TW's "formal qualifications" or those of anybody else who is
likely to post here affect their credibility on the subject of AGW?

**atec77 failed to complete any high school education. Such subtleties
are lost on him.

I note that none of the morons have challenged a single part of the
science relating to AGW. They, instead, prefer to insult and demean.

why on earth would any one post a challenge here as it would be wrong if
it did not agree with the doctrine according to Trevor and the CSIRO

**Points:

* _I_ don't have a doctrine. I merely listen to scientists, not
talk-back radio hosts, politicians or religious leaders.
* The CSIRO backs it's claims with solid science.
* I cited the following organisations (not just CSIRO):
CSIRO
The Australian Academy of Science
BoM
NASA
The US EPA
The US National Academy of Sciences
American Meteorological Society
IPCC
The UK Met
The European Academy of Sciences and Arts
The Royal Society of New Zealand
The Royal Society of the UK
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Chemical Society
American Institute of Physics
American Physical Society
Australian Institute of Physics
European Physical Society
European Foundation
Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies

The real question is this:

Why do you steadfastly ignore the science and slavishly listen to the
likes of Alan Jones, Tony Abbott and George Pell?

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[atec77]

On 15/06/2012 7:14 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

On 6/15/2012 6:34 PM, atec77 wrote:
On 15/06/2012 5:27 PM, F Murtz wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 6/15/2012 3:20 PM, terryc wrote:
On 14/06/12 07:24, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 6/13/2012 11:27 PM, Yaputya wrote:
"Trevor Wilson"<trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:a3qe7cFqe3U1@mid.individual.net...
On 6/13/2012 11:18 AM, Roger wrote:
Climate skeptic instructor fired from Oregon State University
Posted on June 11, 2012 by Anthony Watts

Gordon Fulks sends this summary of the situation and asks that
it be
distributed. I’m happy to oblige. For some background on Dr.
Drapela’s
skeptical views, this slideshow “Global Warming Cracked Open”
might
give some insight into OSU’s booting him out. – Anthony


**Do you have any evidence to support the claim that Drapela was
sacked because he has some anti-science beliefs?

Anti-science ?

**Yes. Anti-science. There is an overwhelming support from
scientists,
that validate the theory of AGW.

That isn't anti-science. Science isn't determined by democratic vote.
Learn some science history and it will quicly become obvios that just
because "everyone" believes it to be so, doesn't make it so.

**You are aware of what the term: 'overwhelming support' means, don't
you? There is not a shred of doubt amongst climatologists that AGW is a
reality.


Also, keep in kind that looking for figures to support AGW has been
the
prime focus of the scientific establishment for over thrity years.

**Wrong. The investigation has stretched over 150 years. The data is
irrefutable. The only hoildouts are politicians, talk-back radio hosts,
religious leaders and morons.


Wrong!! all the people you mentioned are not experts in the field and
they all get their information from experts who differ from your holy
grail the CSIRO etc
You notice he wont tell us what formal qualifications he himself has to
make such royal pontification on the matters


**I simply cite the science.
No you cite populist lies with no underpinning foundation to do so

I do not pretend to be a scientist.
you try to imitate a person with a clue
another lie based on your lack of individual proof
Those

who have decided that all the scientists are wrong, however, need to
present their evidence.
wrong again done and dusted

Thus far, all I see are pitiful attempts at

insult. Kinda tells us all we need to know.
you have had a new one ripped many times and still you deny the reality

--









X-No-Archive: Yes

 

[atec77]

On 16/06/2012 8:24 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

On 6/16/2012 12:44 AM, Gordon Levi wrote:
atec77<"atec77 "@hotmail.com> wrote:


You notice he wont tell us what formal qualifications he himself has to
make such royal pontification on the matters

How could TW's "formal qualifications" or those of anybody else who is
likely to post here affect their credibility on the subject of AGW?

**atec77 failed to complete any high school education. Such subtleties
are lost on him.

show me your and I will show you mine

I note that none of the morons have challenged a single part of the
science relating to AGW. They, instead, prefer to insult and demean.

something you have tried to practise a long time without success

moving the goal posts still makes you wrong tweva you cockspank


--









X-No-Archive: Yes

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 6/16/2012 11:07 AM, atec77 wrote:

On 15/06/2012 7:14 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 6/15/2012 6:34 PM, atec77 wrote:
On 15/06/2012 5:27 PM, F Murtz wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 6/15/2012 3:20 PM, terryc wrote:
On 14/06/12 07:24, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 6/13/2012 11:27 PM, Yaputya wrote:
"Trevor Wilson"<trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:a3qe7cFqe3U1@mid.individual.net...
On 6/13/2012 11:18 AM, Roger wrote:
Climate skeptic instructor fired from Oregon State University
Posted on June 11, 2012 by Anthony Watts

Gordon Fulks sends this summary of the situation and asks that
it be
distributed. I’m happy to oblige. For some background on Dr.
Drapela’s
skeptical views, this slideshow “Global Warming Cracked Open”
might
give some insight into OSU’s booting him out. – Anthony


**Do you have any evidence to support the claim that Drapela was
sacked because he has some anti-science beliefs?

Anti-science ?

**Yes. Anti-science. There is an overwhelming support from
scientists,
that validate the theory of AGW.

That isn't anti-science. Science isn't determined by democratic vote.
Learn some science history and it will quicly become obvios that just
because "everyone" believes it to be so, doesn't make it so.

**You are aware of what the term: 'overwhelming support' means, don't
you? There is not a shred of doubt amongst climatologists that AGW
is a
reality.


Also, keep in kind that looking for figures to support AGW has been
the
prime focus of the scientific establishment for over thrity years.

**Wrong. The investigation has stretched over 150 years. The data is
irrefutable. The only hoildouts are politicians, talk-back radio
hosts,
religious leaders and morons.


Wrong!! all the people you mentioned are not experts in the field and
they all get their information from experts who differ from your holy
grail the CSIRO etc
You notice he wont tell us what formal qualifications he himself has to
make such royal pontification on the matters


**I simply cite the science.
No you cite populist lies with no underpinning foundation to do so

**"populist lies"? Are you insane? Or just stupid? I recognise that your
understanding of science is minimal, but now you are just displaying
extreme ignorance. However, I'll play your game. YOU explain why this
planet has undergone an exceptionally rapid warming (faster than at any
time in the past 600,000 years). You also need to explain how a 35%
increase in CO2, since the dawn of the industrial revolution, was not
responsible for the warming. You also need to explain how people like
Fourier, who predicted the warming more than 150 years ago, got it
wrong. Given your lack of education, you should understand that Fourier
gave us a branch of mathematics that is utterly pivotal to electronics.
Fourier was one smart dude. And one who was shown to be correct. You
also need to explain how these predictions:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/04/evaluating-a-1981-temperature-projection/

Got it so right.

It's science. Something you have no understanding of. Sadly.

I do not pretend to be a scientist.
you try to imitate a person with a clue
another lie based on your lack of individual proof
Those
who have decided that all the scientists are wrong, however, need to
present their evidence.
wrong again done and dusted

Thus far, all I see are pitiful attempts at
insult. Kinda tells us all we need to know.
you have had a new one ripped many times and still you deny the reality

**What "reality" would that be?

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 6/16/2012 11:10 AM, atec77 wrote:

On 16/06/2012 8:24 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 6/16/2012 12:44 AM, Gordon Levi wrote:
atec77<"atec77 "@hotmail.com> wrote:


You notice he wont tell us what formal qualifications he himself has to
make such royal pontification on the matters

How could TW's "formal qualifications" or those of anybody else who is
likely to post here affect their credibility on the subject of AGW?

**atec77 failed to complete any high school education. Such subtleties
are lost on him.

show me your and I will show you mine

**Points:

* You have nothing to show. You are a complete moron.
* You would not understand anything I could show you.

I note that none of the morons have challenged a single part of the
science relating to AGW. They, instead, prefer to insult and demean.

something you have tried to practise a long time without success
moving the goal posts still makes you wrong tweva you cockspank

**Still no science, I note.

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 6/16/2012 12:22 PM, kreed wrote:

On Saturday, June 16, 2012 11:38:29 AM UTC+10, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 6/16/2012 11:07 AM, atec77 wrote:
On 15/06/2012 7:14 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 6/15/2012 6:34 PM, atec77 wrote:
On 15/06/2012 5:27 PM, F Murtz wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 6/15/2012 3:20 PM, terryc wrote:
On 14/06/12 07:24, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 6/13/2012 11:27 PM, Yaputya wrote:
"Trevor Wilson"<trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:a3qe7cFqe3U1@mid.individual.net...
On 6/13/2012 11:18 AM, Roger wrote:
Climate skeptic instructor fired from Oregon State University
Posted on June 11, 2012 by Anthony Watts

Gordon Fulks sends this summary of the situation and asks that
it be
distributed. I’m happy to oblige. For some background on Dr.
Drapela’s
skeptical views, this slideshow “Global Warming Cracked Open”
might
give some insight into OSU’s booting him out. – Anthony


**Do you have any evidence to support the claim that Drapela was
sacked because he has some anti-science beliefs?

Anti-science ?

**Yes. Anti-science. There is an overwhelming support from
scientists,
that validate the theory of AGW.

That isn't anti-science. Science isn't determined by democratic vote.
Learn some science history and it will quicly become obvios that just
because "everyone" believes it to be so, doesn't make it so.

**You are aware of what the term: 'overwhelming support' means, don't
you? There is not a shred of doubt amongst climatologists that AGW
is a
reality.


Also, keep in kind that looking for figures to support AGW has been
the
prime focus of the scientific establishment for over thrity years.

**Wrong. The investigation has stretched over 150 years. The data is
irrefutable. The only hoildouts are politicians, talk-back radio
hosts,
religious leaders and morons.


Wrong!! all the people you mentioned are not experts in the field and
they all get their information from experts who differ from your holy
grail the CSIRO etc
You notice he wont tell us what formal qualifications he himself has to
make such royal pontification on the matters


**I simply cite the science.
No you cite populist lies with no underpinning foundation to do so

**"populist lies"? Are you insane? Or just stupid? I recognise that your
understanding of science is minimal, but now you are just displaying
extreme ignorance. However, I'll play your game. YOU explain why this
planet has undergone an exceptionally rapid warming (faster than at any
time in the past 600,000 years). You also need to explain how a 35%
increase in CO2, since the dawn of the industrial revolution, was not
responsible for the warming. You also need to explain how people like
Fourier, who predicted the warming more than 150 years ago, got it
wrong. Given your lack of education, you should understand that Fourier
gave us a branch of mathematics that is utterly pivotal to electronics.
Fourier was one smart dude. And one who was shown to be correct. You
also need to explain how these predictions:


While I think we all agree that mathematics is a true science, and an excellent
and important foundation of our lives we also need to look at how mathematics has been abused over time to commit all sorts of financial and other fraud, the holy grail of which would be central banking.

In the hands of a crook, or corrupt person (such as a paid off "climate scientist") it can be used to do great evil.

**Fourier was not "paid off" by anyone. In fact, Fourier is on record as
claiming that AGW would be beneficial for mankind, as a temperature rise
for Europe would be a good thing.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/04/evaluating-a-1981-temperature-projection/

Got it so right.

It's science. Something you have no understanding of. Sadly.


I do not pretend to be a scientist.
you try to imitate a person with a clue
another lie based on your lack of individual proof
Those
who have decided that all the scientists are wrong, however, need to
present their evidence.
wrong again done and dusted

Thus far, all I see are pitiful attempts at
insult. Kinda tells us all we need to know.
you have had a new one ripped many times and still you deny the reality

**What "reality" would that be?

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

**I am STILL waiting for you to present your peer-reviewed science to
support your nonsensical religious views.


--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 6/16/2012 12:14 PM, kreed wrote:

On Saturday, June 16, 2012 8:24:12 AM UTC+10, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 6/16/2012 12:44 AM, Gordon Levi wrote:
atec77<"atec77 "@hotmail.com> wrote:


You notice he wont tell us what formal qualifications he himself has to
make such royal pontification on the matters

How could TW's "formal qualifications" or those of anybody else who is
likely to post here affect their credibility on the subject of AGW?

**atec77 failed to complete any high school education. Such subtleties
are lost on him.



LOL - it would be very interesting to compare how well he had done in life
to those with higher education. You know, finances, family, business and
ability to look after them. I would bet he would have done better than average than the "educated idiot"

**Irrelevant to the present discussion. atec77 is a moron. That much is
obvious to all of us. Yet he becomes involved in discussions that he
cannot possibly comprehend. You appear to be in a similar position. You
fail to supply any peer-reveiwed evidence to support your claims.

I note that none of the morons have challenged a single part of the
science relating to AGW. They, instead, prefer to insult and demean.

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[kreed]

On Saturday, June 16, 2012 8:24:12 AM UTC+10, Trevor Wilson wrote:

On 6/16/2012 12:44 AM, Gordon Levi wrote:
atec77<"atec77 "@hotmail.com> wrote:


You notice he wont tell us what formal qualifications he himself has to
make such royal pontification on the matters

How could TW's "formal qualifications" or those of anybody else who is
likely to post here affect their credibility on the subject of AGW?

**atec77 failed to complete any high school education. Such subtleties
are lost on him.

LOL - it would be very interesting to compare how well he had done in life
to those with higher education. You know, finances, family, business and
ability to look after them. I would bet he would have done better than average than the "educated idiot"

I note that none of the morons have challenged a single part of the
science relating to AGW. They, instead, prefer to insult and demean.

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[kreed]

On Saturday, June 16, 2012 11:38:29 AM UTC+10, Trevor Wilson wrote:

On 6/16/2012 11:07 AM, atec77 wrote:
On 15/06/2012 7:14 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 6/15/2012 6:34 PM, atec77 wrote:
On 15/06/2012 5:27 PM, F Murtz wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 6/15/2012 3:20 PM, terryc wrote:
On 14/06/12 07:24, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 6/13/2012 11:27 PM, Yaputya wrote:
"Trevor Wilson"<trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:a3qe7cFqe3U1@mid.individual.net...
On 6/13/2012 11:18 AM, Roger wrote:
Climate skeptic instructor fired from Oregon State University
Posted on June 11, 2012 by Anthony Watts

Gordon Fulks sends this summary of the situation and asks that
it be
distributed. I’m happy to oblige. For some background on Dr.
Drapela’s
skeptical views, this slideshow “Global Warming Cracked Open”
might
give some insight into OSU’s booting him out. – Anthony


**Do you have any evidence to support the claim that Drapela was
sacked because he has some anti-science beliefs?

Anti-science ?

**Yes. Anti-science. There is an overwhelming support from
scientists,
that validate the theory of AGW.

That isn't anti-science. Science isn't determined by democratic vote.
Learn some science history and it will quicly become obvios that just
because "everyone" believes it to be so, doesn't make it so.

**You are aware of what the term: 'overwhelming support' means, don't
you? There is not a shred of doubt amongst climatologists that AGW
is a
reality.


Also, keep in kind that looking for figures to support AGW has been
the
prime focus of the scientific establishment for over thrity years.

**Wrong. The investigation has stretched over 150 years. The data is
irrefutable. The only hoildouts are politicians, talk-back radio
hosts,
religious leaders and morons.


Wrong!! all the people you mentioned are not experts in the field and
they all get their information from experts who differ from your holy
grail the CSIRO etc
You notice he wont tell us what formal qualifications he himself has to
make such royal pontification on the matters


**I simply cite the science.
No you cite populist lies with no underpinning foundation to do so

**"populist lies"? Are you insane? Or just stupid? I recognise that your
understanding of science is minimal, but now you are just displaying
extreme ignorance. However, I'll play your game. YOU explain why this
planet has undergone an exceptionally rapid warming (faster than at any
time in the past 600,000 years). You also need to explain how a 35%
increase in CO2, since the dawn of the industrial revolution, was not
responsible for the warming. You also need to explain how people like
Fourier, who predicted the warming more than 150 years ago, got it
wrong. Given your lack of education, you should understand that Fourier
gave us a branch of mathematics that is utterly pivotal to electronics.
Fourier was one smart dude. And one who was shown to be correct. You
also need to explain how these predictions:

While I think we all agree that mathematics is a true science, and an excellent
and important foundation of our lives we also need to look at how mathematics has been abused over time to commit all sorts of financial and other fraud, the holy grail of which would be central banking.

In the hands of a crook, or corrupt person (such as a paid off "climate scientist") it can be used to do great evil.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/04/evaluating-a-1981-temperature-projection/

Got it so right.

It's science. Something you have no understanding of. Sadly.


I do not pretend to be a scientist.
you try to imitate a person with a clue
another lie based on your lack of individual proof
Those
who have decided that all the scientists are wrong, however, need to
present their evidence.
wrong again done and dusted

Thus far, all I see are pitiful attempts at
insult. Kinda tells us all we need to know.
you have had a new one ripped many times and still you deny the reality

**What "reality" would that be?

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[terryc]

On 15/06/12 15:44, Trevor Wilson wrote:

**You are aware of what the term: 'overwhelming support' means, don't
you?

Yep, it means a lot of people think maccy Ds sell food.

There is not a shred of doubt amongst climatologists that AGW is a
reality.


Also, keep in kind that looking for figures to support AGW has been the
prime focus of the scientific establishment for over thrity years.

**Wrong. The investigation has stretched over 150 years.

Nope. The data analised might go back that far, but the data collection
them was simply about learning to record and work out what was going on
in a general sense.

The data is irrefutable.

The data is very refrutable. It is correlation based, rather than
causality based.

 

[terryc]

On 15/06/12 15:28, Trevor Wilson wrote:

On 6/15/2012 3:22 PM, terryc wrote:
On 14/06/12 13:52, Trevor Wilson wrote:

**Not at all. I am always interested in examining the SCIENCE as it
pertains to AGW.

Too narrow. you need a wider focus.

**Why? The science tells us that AGW is a problem.
Nope, they say that "global warming"" is occurring and correlate it to a

few readings relating to human activity.

Personally i think global warming with disasters everywhere will be a
great thing to wash out the crud out of "the systems", etc, bliss ninny
vlah, burble, wingle, wangkle, etc. <VBG>.

Religious leaders,
some politicians, talk-back radio hosts and morons claim the science is
wrong.

I don't know as I'm nonw of them.

 

[F Murtz]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

On 6/16/2012 10:04 AM, F Murtz wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 6/16/2012 12:44 AM, Gordon Levi wrote:
atec77<"atec77 "@hotmail.com> wrote:


You notice he wont tell us what formal qualifications he himself
has to
make such royal pontification on the matters

How could TW's "formal qualifications" or those of anybody else who is
likely to post here affect their credibility on the subject of AGW?

**atec77 failed to complete any high school education. Such subtleties
are lost on him.

I note that none of the morons have challenged a single part of the
science relating to AGW. They, instead, prefer to insult and demean.

why on earth would any one post a challenge here as it would be wrong if
it did not agree with the doctrine according to Trevor and the CSIRO

**Points:

* _I_ don't have a doctrine. I merely listen to scientists, not
talk-back radio hosts, politicians or religious leaders.
* The CSIRO backs it's claims with solid science.
* I cited the following organisations (not just CSIRO):
CSIRO
The Australian Academy of Science
BoM
NASA
The US EPA
The US National Academy of Sciences
American Meteorological Society
IPCC
The UK Met
The European Academy of Sciences and Arts
The Royal Society of New Zealand
The Royal Society of the UK
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Chemical Society
American Institute of Physics
American Physical Society
Australian Institute of Physics
European Physical Society
European Foundation
Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies

The real question is this:

Why do you steadfastly ignore the science and slavishly listen to the
likes of Alan Jones, Tony Abbott and George Pell?

Why do you persist in stating as fact that which is not fact.

I never listen to Jones and pell (don't like Jones can not be bothered
with pell whoever he is) and only hear Abbot in news grabs.

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 6/16/2012 5:17 PM, F Murtz wrote:

Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 6/16/2012 10:04 AM, F Murtz wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 6/16/2012 12:44 AM, Gordon Levi wrote:
atec77<"atec77 "@hotmail.com> wrote:


You notice he wont tell us what formal qualifications he himself
has to
make such royal pontification on the matters

How could TW's "formal qualifications" or those of anybody else who is
likely to post here affect their credibility on the subject of AGW?

**atec77 failed to complete any high school education. Such subtleties
are lost on him.

I note that none of the morons have challenged a single part of the
science relating to AGW. They, instead, prefer to insult and demean.

why on earth would any one post a challenge here as it would be wrong if
it did not agree with the doctrine according to Trevor and the CSIRO

**Points:

* _I_ don't have a doctrine. I merely listen to scientists, not
talk-back radio hosts, politicians or religious leaders.
* The CSIRO backs it's claims with solid science.
* I cited the following organisations (not just CSIRO):
CSIRO
The Australian Academy of Science
BoM
NASA
The US EPA
The US National Academy of Sciences
American Meteorological Society
IPCC
The UK Met
The European Academy of Sciences and Arts
The Royal Society of New Zealand
The Royal Society of the UK
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Chemical Society
American Institute of Physics
American Physical Society
Australian Institute of Physics
European Physical Society
European Foundation
Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies

The real question is this:

Why do you steadfastly ignore the science and slavishly listen to the
likes of Alan Jones, Tony Abbott and George Pell?

Why do you persist in stating as fact that which is not fact.

**I only state fact.

I never listen to Jones and pell (don't like Jones can not be bothered
with pell whoever he is) and only hear Abbot in news grabs.

**Then supply your peer-reviewed science that refutes the AGW
information supplied by the above organisations. You either accept
science, or you are a religious loon. There's not much in between. The
science is clear and unequivocal.


--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au