How the bastards do it

[atec77]

On 17/06/2012 7:36 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

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.
lie

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.
no need , you material is based on a flawed model , and that's all it

is flawed

--









X-No-Archive: Yes

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 6/17/2012 9:54 AM, atec77 wrote:

On 17/06/2012 7:36 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
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.
lie

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.
no need , you material is based on a flawed model , and that's all it is
flawed

**In what way/s is the model flawed?

Cite your peer-reviewed science that shows the alleged flaws in the model.

Cite your peer-reviewed science that proves Fourier and all the
scientists at CSIRO, NASA, BoM, The UK Met and all the others are wrong.


--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[atec77]

On 17/06/2012 10:02 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

On 6/17/2012 9:54 AM, atec77 wrote:
On 17/06/2012 7:36 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
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.
lie

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.
no need , you material is based on a flawed model , and that's all it is
flawed

**In what way/s is the model flawed?

Cite your peer-reviewed science that shows the alleged flaws in the model.

Cite your peer-reviewed science that proves Fourier and all the
scientists at CSIRO, NASA, BoM, The UK Met and all the others are wrong.


The reality is tweva you don't get to set the rules or demand anything ,

there is copies amounts of proof that much of the "evidence" you promote
is very flawed and by admission of the authors publicaly so
Now we have established you have little understanding of whats
actually happening so do you intend presenting you nether regions for a
sound rogering or will you slope off and high your face in shame as you
should

Oh and this is rhetorical fyi

--









X-No-Archive: Yes

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 6/17/2012 11:34 AM, atec77 wrote:

On 17/06/2012 10:02 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 6/17/2012 9:54 AM, atec77 wrote:
On 17/06/2012 7:36 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
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.
lie

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.
no need , you material is based on a flawed model , and that's all it is
flawed

**In what way/s is the model flawed?

Cite your peer-reviewed science that shows the alleged flaws in the
model.

Cite your peer-reviewed science that proves Fourier and all the
scientists at CSIRO, NASA, BoM, The UK Met and all the others are wrong.


The reality is tweva you don't get to set the rules or demand anything ,

**Correct. I do not. Science does. Science demands evidence. Religion
relies on belief. You are failing to supply evidence. You are demanding
that we listen to your religious beleifs. Sorry. That is not good enough
for logial, rational humans, who have more than your pitiful educational
standards.

there is copies amounts of proof that much of the "evidence" you promote
is very flawed and by admission of the authors publicaly so

**Would you care to have someone translate that mess into English please?

Now we have established you have little understanding of whats actually
happening

**You have establishing nothing. To so so, requires that you present
some peer-reviewed evidence. Thus far, you've presented nothing.

so do you intend presenting you nether regions for a sound

rogering or will you slope off and high your face in shame as you should

Oh and this is rhetorical fyi

**No. As usual, you are simply exposing your extraordinary ignorance.

Present your evidence.



--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[terryc]

On 17/06/12 10:02, Trevor Wilson wrote:

no need , you material is based on a flawed model , and that's all it is
flawed

**In what way/s is the model flawed?

Very basic, their model of the atmosphere is just a guess and is very
unsound. IOt is like knowing all about the human body by readings taken
only at the skin. They astill can not see inside it, nor do they
understand it. Understanding is very vague and of wide inaccuracy.

 

[terryc]

On 17/06/12 12:00, Trevor Wilson wrote:

**Correct. I do not. Science does. Science demands evidence.

And the "evidence" that AGW is presenting is a manufactured evidence
endorsed by a beaucratic body.

 

[atec77]

On 17/06/2012 12:00 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

so do you intend presenting you nether regions for a sound
rogering or will you slope off and high your face in shame as you should

Oh and this is rhetorical fyi

**No. As usual, you are simply exposing your extraordinary ignorance.
like said you dickhead , rhetorical

Present your evidence.

show me yours when not based on flawed and falsified proof
and do tell us about your education in the area or rather the lack
there of

--









X-No-Archive: Yes

 

[atec77]

On 17/06/2012 1:35 PM, terryc wrote:

On 17/06/12 12:00, Trevor Wilson wrote:

**Correct. I do not. Science does. Science demands evidence.

And the "evidence" that AGW is presenting is a manufactured evidence
endorsed by a beaucratic body.
typically "Oh look money , make things fit the outcome we were given"

--









X-No-Archive: Yes

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 6/17/2012 1:35 PM, terryc wrote:

On 17/06/12 12:00, Trevor Wilson wrote:

**Correct. I do not. Science does. Science demands evidence.

And the "evidence" that AGW is presenting is a manufactured evidence
endorsed by a beaucratic body.

**Is that so? Which beaucratic body instructed Fourier to first advance
the theory?

Which beaucratic body told NASA, the EPA, The US Academy of Sciences to
manufacture data to the AGW denying government of George W Bush (who
paid their salaries)?

Which beaucratic body told CSIRO, BoM and the Australian Academy of
Science to manufacture data to the AGW denying government of John Howard
and Tony Abbott (who paid their salaries)?


Scientists, in the main, simply report the facts. Regardless of the
consequences and who pays their wages.

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[F Murtz]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

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.

Not in this case, as I explained, I do not "slavishly listen" to the
above mentioned, so that statement 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.

**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.

 

[keithr]

On 17/06/2012 1:34 PM, terryc wrote:

On 17/06/12 10:02, Trevor Wilson wrote:

no need , you material is based on a flawed model , and that's all it is
flawed

**In what way/s is the model flawed?

Very basic, their model of the atmosphere is just a guess and is very
unsound. IOt is like knowing all about the human body by readings taken
only at the skin. They astill can not see inside it, nor do they
understand it. Understanding is very vague and of wide inaccuracy.

There is evidence for this?

The problem with this "Debate" is that people on all sides have made up
their minds and no amount of evidence is going to change that point of
view. That applies equally to you, TW, and all the rest.

 

[terryc]

On 17/06/12 13:53, atec77 wrote:

On 17/06/2012 1:35 PM, terryc wrote:
On 17/06/12 12:00, Trevor Wilson wrote:

**Correct. I do not. Science does. Science demands evidence.

And the "evidence" that AGW is presenting is a manufactured evidence
endorsed by a beaucratic body.
typically "Oh look money , make things fit the outcome we were given"

Basically you have to say you were lookng for the effect on global
warming to get the money ad that started in the 1980's.

 

[terryc]

On 17/06/12 14:32, Trevor Wilson wrote:

On 6/17/2012 1:35 PM, terryc wrote:
On 17/06/12 12:00, Trevor Wilson wrote:

**Correct. I do not. Science does. Science demands evidence.

And the "evidence" that AGW is presenting is a manufactured evidence
endorsed by a beaucratic body.

**Is that so? Which beaucratic body instructed Fourier to first advance
the theory?
tic>Probably the same one that instructed Cupernicus to say the sun

revolved around the earth,/tic>

Scientists, in the main, simply report the facts. Regardless of the
consequences and who pays their wages.

What a naieve little bunny you are.
Forgotten the CSIRO Meat diet?
>

 

[terryc]

On 17/06/12 21:45, keithr wrote:

On 17/06/2012 1:34 PM, terryc wrote:
On 17/06/12 10:02, Trevor Wilson wrote:

no need , you material is based on a flawed model , and that's all
it is
flawed

**In what way/s is the model flawed?

Very basic, their model of the atmosphere is just a guess and is very
unsound. IOt is like knowing all about the human body by readings taken
only at the skin. They astill can not see inside it, nor do they
understand it. Understanding is very vague and of wide inaccuracy.

There is evidence for this?

The problem with this "Debate" is that people on all sides have made up
their minds and no amount of evidence is going to change that point of
view. That applies equally to you, TW, and all the rest.

For me, nope. I'm justtrying to find the evidence to follow the trail,
but all I can find is summations by people/organisations that I don't
trust. As I've said before "correlation is not causality" and until the
AGW apologists start to show causality, then I'm strictly on the fence,
sans a bit of fishing/trolling. Frankly, with a world population of 6
billion and rising, it stands to rason that humans mst be having some
effect/affect.

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 6/17/2012 5:49 PM, F Murtz wrote:

Trevor Wilson wrote:
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.

Not in this case, as I explained, I do not "slavishly listen" to the
above mentioned, so that statement is not fact.

**Well, you're not listening to science, logic and reason. You're
certainly listening to the same idiots that Abbott, Pell and Jones
listen to. And they're not scientists.


--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 6/17/2012 9:45 PM, keithr wrote:

On 17/06/2012 1:34 PM, terryc wrote:
On 17/06/12 10:02, Trevor Wilson wrote:

no need , you material is based on a flawed model , and that's all
it is
flawed

**In what way/s is the model flawed?

Very basic, their model of the atmosphere is just a guess and is very
unsound. IOt is like knowing all about the human body by readings taken
only at the skin. They astill can not see inside it, nor do they
understand it. Understanding is very vague and of wide inaccuracy.

There is evidence for this?

The problem with this "Debate" is that people on all sides have made up
their minds and no amount of evidence is going to change that point of
view. That applies equally to you, TW, and all the rest.

**Bullshit. I ONLY listen to the evidence. And the evidence is
overwhelming.

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 6/17/2012 1:34 PM, terryc wrote:

On 17/06/12 10:02, Trevor Wilson wrote:

no need , you material is based on a flawed model , and that's all it is
flawed

**In what way/s is the model flawed?

Very basic, their model of the atmosphere is just a guess and is very
unsound. IOt is like knowing all about the human body by readings taken
only at the skin. They astill can not see inside it, nor do they
understand it. Understanding is very vague and of wide inaccuracy.

**Cite your science that shows how the model is flawed.

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 6/18/2012 2:21 AM, terryc wrote:

On 17/06/12 14:32, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 6/17/2012 1:35 PM, terryc wrote:
On 17/06/12 12:00, Trevor Wilson wrote:

**Correct. I do not. Science does. Science demands evidence.

And the "evidence" that AGW is presenting is a manufactured evidence
endorsed by a beaucratic body.

**Is that so? Which beaucratic body instructed Fourier to first advance
the theory?
tic>Probably the same one that instructed Cupernicus to say the sun
revolved around the earth,/tic


Scientists, in the main, simply report the facts. Regardless of the
consequences and who pays their wages.

What a naieve little bunny you are.
Forgotten the CSIRO Meat diet?

**Nope. And I have not forgotten these things either:

http://www.csiro.au/Outcomes/Safeguarding-Australia/Emergency-detection-and-response/Achievements.aspx

http://www.csiro.au/Outcomes/ICT-and-Services/People-and-businesses/wireless-LANs.aspx

Along with the thousands of significant developments from a bunch of
very smart guys.


--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[terryc]

On 18/06/12 06:43, Trevor Wilson wrote:

On 6/18/2012 2:21 AM, terryc wrote:
On 17/06/12 14:32, Trevor Wilson wrote:

Scientists, in the main, simply report the facts. Regardless of the
consequences and who pays their wages.

What a naieve little bunny you are.
Forgotten the CSIRO Meat diet?

I take it from your response that mentioning their meat diet(created to
order and not from science) was a total WHOOSH then.

 

[terryc]

On 18/06/12 06:38, Trevor Wilson wrote:

On 6/17/2012 1:34 PM, terryc wrote:
On 17/06/12 10:02, Trevor Wilson wrote:

no need , you material is based on a flawed model , and that's all
it is
flawed

**In what way/s is the model flawed?

Very basic, their model of the atmosphere is just a guess and is very
unsound. IOt is like knowing all about the human body by readings taken
only at the skin. They astill can not see inside it, nor do they
understand it. Understanding is very vague and of wide inaccuracy.

**Cite your science that shows how the model is flawed.

I am not about to start educating you in basic science, let alone
modelling fluid dynamics.