Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
**In accept your inability to present your science.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.
**I understand that the CSIRO 'protein diet' has been shown to be aOn 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.
The first law of pollution is that what you do is less important thanOn 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.
**That would be the common-sense approach.On 18/06/2012 2:26 AM, terryc wrote:
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.
The first law of pollution is that what you do is less important than
the scale on which you do it.
Global warming is a fact and has been known about for years no matter
what the deniers want to believe. What the cause is and what the effect
will be is more open to question. The world has been this warm before in
recorded history and cooled again, will that repeat that pattern or keep
going up? I don't think that there is enough of a pattern in the data to
be able to predict the result, therefore the most sensible course of
action is to prepare for the worst.
**Then you need to provide proof of that claim. In your proof, you needOn Sunday, June 17, 2012 7:36:28 AM UTC+10, 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.
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
You don't, you quote paid off shill organisations, that will
manufacture whatever results their paymasters tell them too.
**Does it? How do you know what happened to Drapela? Do you havewho doesn't toe the line...... Well the first post in this thread
shows what happens to them
**The you need to explain why the guys at BoM and CSIRO were not sackedmany of them to sack them all.
**Here's an idea: Why don't you learn some science? Clearly, you have noEnjoy your emperor's new clothes. Thankfully there isn't webcam
functionality on Usenet.
Chuckle, so they have created new science following the storm ofOn 6/18/2012 12:27 PM, terryc wrote:
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.
**I understand that the CSIRO 'protein diet' has been shown to be a
valid weight loss regime.
warming" actually is/means.On 18/06/2012 2:26 AM, terryc wrote:
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.
The first law of pollution is that what you do is less important than
the scale on which you do it.
Global warming is a fact and has been known about for years no matter
what the deniers want to believe.
I think a lot of people on both sides don't actually know what "global
Exactly.What the cause is and what the effect
will be is more open to question. The world has been this warm before in
recorded history and cooled again, will that repeat that pattern or keep
going up? I don't think that there is enough of a pattern in the data to
be able to predict the result,
The problem here is that "courses of action" are all proposed by partiestherefore the most sensible course of
action is to prepare for the worst.
I hope your science is better than your grammar. but given your totl**In accept your inability to present your science.
**LOL! Your hideous spelling is duly noted, dickhead.On 18/06/12 12:44, Trevor Wilson wrote:
**In accept your inability to present your science.
I hope your science is better than your grammar. but given your totl
rabid regurigitation I doubt it. Bye.
You don't, you quote paid off shill organisations, that will manufacture whatever results their paymasters tell them too. Anyone who doesn't toe the line...... Well the first post in this thread shows what happens to them.....until the time comes that there are too many of them to sack them all.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
https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/575657_4175087660985_1358175659_n.jpg**Why? The science tells us that AGW is a problem. Religious leaders,
some politicians, talk-back radio hosts and morons claim the science is
wrong.
--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
just follow the loudest voice like a sheep.**Why? The science tells us that AGW is a problem. Religious leaders,
some politicians, talk-back radio hosts and morons claim the science is
wrong.
--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/575657_4175087660985_1358175659_n.jpg
Now there is an open minded approach. Don't bother thinking about it,
**Your point being? That unscientific morons can commission a web site?**Why? The science tells us that AGW is a problem. Religious leaders,
some politicians, talk-back radio hosts and morons claim the science is
wrong.
--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/575657_4175087660985_1358175659_n.jpg
Note the typical symbols of the AGW "skeptics". Can you explain why**Why? The science tells us that AGW is a problem. Religious leaders,
some politicians, talk-back radio hosts and morons claim the science is
wrong.
--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/575657_4175087660985_1358175659_n.jpg
**Turnbull isn't.kreed<kenreed1999@gmail.com> wrote:
**Why? The science tells us that AGW is a problem. Religious leaders,
some politicians, talk-back radio hosts and morons claim the science is
wrong.
--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/575657_4175087660985_1358175659_n.jpg
Note the typical symbols of the AGW "skeptics". Can you explain why
all climate conservatives are also right-wing political conservatives?
**Of course you have no idea of the site. It contains far too muchOn Monday, June 18, 2012 5:41:02 PM UTC+10, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 6/18/2012 3:00 PM, kreed wrote:
**Why? The science tells us that AGW is a problem. Religious
leaders, some politicians, talk-back radio hosts and morons
claim the science is wrong.
-- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/575657_4175087660985_1358175659_n.jpg
**Your point being? That unscientific morons can commission a web site?
That's nothing new.
Try reading this:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/contents.html
I understand Trevor, and thank you for showing us how rabid morons
can commission a web site. The IPPC is a perfect example of such a
site .
I understand Trevor, and thank you for showing us how rabid morons can commission a web site. The IPPC is a perfect example of such a site .On 6/18/2012 3:00 PM, kreed wrote:
**Why? The science tells us that AGW is a problem. Religious leaders,
some politicians, talk-back radio hosts and morons claim the science is
wrong.
--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/575657_4175087660985_1358175659_n.jpg
**Your point being? That unscientific morons can commission a web site?
That's nothing new.
Try reading this:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/contents.html
--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
**Fair enough.On Monday, June 18, 2012 2:52:37 PM UTC+10, terryc wrote:
On 18/06/12 12:53, keithr wrote:
On 18/06/2012 2:26 AM, terryc wrote:
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.
The first law of pollution is that what you do is less important
than the scale on which you do it.
Global warming is a fact and has been known about for years no
matter what the deniers want to believe.
I think a lot of people on both sides don't actually know what
"global warming" actually is/means.
As I see it, one definition of "Global Warming", is that that of
theoretically naturally occurring global warming and cooling cycles,
which to me is quite feasible, as things tend to never be static in
nature, but tend to move up and down over time. We see this during
every year with the seasons. If someone straight out denied this, I
would find that to be a bit suspicious.
**Not quite. SCIENTISTS (as opposed to politicians, talk-back radioThe other definition is of "man made global warming". (AKA "AGW").
supposedly caused by human activity - which is being pedalled as
fact.
**Sure. Lots of ignorant people claim all sorts of ignorant things. Whenrubbish,
**Sure. You can find all manner of geologists, osteopaths, dentists andhave put sensible thought and research of the situation who also
agree
**By the terminally ignorant.motivated. Those who believe in this AGW are often referred to as
warmists.
**How so? Be precise in your answer. After you've conconcted yourWhat the cause is and what the effect will be is more open to
question. The world has been this warm before in recorded history
and cooled again, will that repeat that pattern or keep going up?
I don't think that there is enough of a pattern in the data to be
able to predict the result,
Exactly.
therefore the most sensible course of action is to prepare for
the worst.
The problem here is that "courses of action" are all proposed by
parties seeking to maximise their power when the dust settles. "In
the Global Interest" is a very subjective opinion.
The problem also is these "courses of action" are incredibly
destructive to our society, and way of life.
**I take it that you are aware that by 2013 or 2014, solar PV power willthought seriously of the social and other ramifications of living in
a society without cheap energy available, really needs to wake up to
themselves.
**I take it, then, that you also object to Tony Abbott's silly taxBased on the theory
therefore the most sensible course of action is to prepare for
the worst.
Warmists as far as Im concerned are quite within their rights to make
whatever preparations, and change their lifestyle, at their own
expense, as much as they like. Where they cross the line, is where
they try to force others to do as they do, against their will.
As I see it, one definition of "Global Warming", is that that of theoretically naturally occurring global warming and cooling cycles, which to me is quite feasible, as things tend to never be static in nature, but tend to move up and down over time. We see this during every year with the seasons. If someone straight out denied this, I would find that to be a bit suspicious..On 18/06/12 12:53, keithr wrote:
On 18/06/2012 2:26 AM, terryc wrote:
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.
The first law of pollution is that what you do is less important than
the scale on which you do it.
Global warming is a fact and has been known about for years no matter
what the deniers want to believe.
I think a lot of people on both sides don't actually know what "global
warming" actually is/means.
What the cause is and what the effect
will be is more open to question. The world has been this warm before in
recorded history and cooled again, will that repeat that pattern or keep
going up? I don't think that there is enough of a pattern in the data to
be able to predict the result,
Exactly.
therefore the most sensible course of
action is to prepare for the worst.
The problem here is that "courses of action" are all proposed by parties
seeking to maximise their power when the dust settles. "In the Global
Interest" is a very subjective opinion.
Warmists as far as Im concerned are quite within their rights to make whatever preparations, and change their lifestyle, at their own expense, as much as they like. Where they cross the line, is where they try to force others to do as they do, against their will.therefore the most sensible course of
action is to prepare for the worst.
I did not claim that all political conservatives were climateOn 6/18/2012 6:22 PM, Gordon Levi wrote:
kreed<kenreed1999@gmail.com> wrote:
**Why? The science tells us that AGW is a problem. Religious leaders,
some politicians, talk-back radio hosts and morons claim the science is
wrong.
--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/575657_4175087660985_1358175659_n.jpg
Note the typical symbols of the AGW "skeptics". Can you explain why
all climate conservatives are also right-wing political conservatives?
**Turnbull isn't.
Can't think of any others.
Oh wait: Yes I can Margaret Thatcher. She has been known to call deniers
complete idiots.