How the bastards do it

[kreed]

On Wednesday, June 20, 2012 7:29:32 AM UTC+10, Trevor Wilson wrote:

On 6/20/2012 12:00 AM, kreed wrote:
On Saturday, June 16, 2012 5:17:59 PM UTC+10, 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 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.


Its all he has. There is nothing else he can say, Note the repetition.

**Indeed. ALL I have is the overwhelming and utterly irrefutable bulk of
good, solid science. You, OTOH, have all those politicians, talk-back
radio hosts and religious nutters. Those guys always tell the truth.

NOT!

Yikes!

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

I don't listen to Alan Jones, he is not broadcast where I live. We don't have a radio or TV at the workplace. If it really turns you on, I will try and download some of his stuff if possible and give an opinion.


Politicians, I think they are a crock of shit, especially Julia Gillard
I doubt very much that Im alone or in the minority in that opinion. I would not take them at their word, Gillard has proven this in spades to the public in the last 2 years.

I practially never watch TV (unless Im in someone else's place, or a public place where it is on and I cannot avoid it, I usually don't listen to radio unless under the circumstances above. These days I prefer silence, rather than listening to people trying to sell me crap I don't need, and music that seems such rubbish these days.

As for Abbott I can't stand the man, but am faced with little choice but to vote for him, as we need to be rid of this carbon tax, and Gillard especially if Australia is to get anywhere. For alternatives Labor and greens are out, and after seeing Oakshott, wilkie et al sell us out, and shit all over public opinion on carbon, I wouldnt trust independents, so who do I vote for ? Tell me that.


As for the papers, same. They are useless for real info



I do not listen to Pell, I would not know who he was even if I saw him on TV.

 

[terryc]

On 20/06/12 09:39, kreed wrote:

On Wednesday, June 20, 2012 7:29:32 AM UTC+10, Trevor Wilson didn't quite write:

**Indeed. ALL I have is the overwhelming and utterly irrefutable bulk of
good, solid science. Those guys always tell the truth. NOT!

Yikes!

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au


I don't listen to.... Trevor?

You are wasting your time responding to the bot who just sprounts
unscientific dogma.

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 6/20/2012 12:53 PM, terryc wrote:

On 20/06/12 09:39, kreed wrote:
On Wednesday, June 20, 2012 7:29:32 AM UTC+10, Trevor Wilson didn't
quite write:

**Indeed. ALL I have is the overwhelming and utterly irrefutable bulk of
good, solid science. Those guys always tell the truth. NOT!

Yikes!

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au


I don't listen to.... Trevor?

You are wasting your time responding to the bot who just sprounts
unscientific dogma.

**You're right. I shouldn't waste my time with you idiots. Even those
who dwell on typos, whilst committing their very own typos. Hypocritical
idiots.

How about presenting some science to back your claims, that the
following organisations are all wrong?

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

We're waiting.

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[terryc]

On 20/06/12 13:25, Trevor Wilson wrote:

We're waiting.

Really?

How many of you are there?

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 6/20/2012 2:58 PM, terryc wrote:

On 20/06/12 13:25, Trevor Wilson wrote:

We're waiting.

Really?

How many of you are there?

**Everyone reading this thread.

Let's see your science.

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[kreed]

On Wednesday, June 20, 2012 10:04:49 AM UTC+10, Trevor Wilson wrote:

On 6/20/2012 9:39 AM, kreed wrote:
On Wednesday, June 20, 2012 7:29:32 AM UTC+10, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 6/20/2012 12:00 AM, kreed wrote:
On Saturday, June 16, 2012 5:17:59 PM UTC+10, 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
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.


Its all he has. There is nothing else he can say, Note the
repetition.

**Indeed. ALL I have is the overwhelming and utterly irrefutable
bulk of good, solid science. You, OTOH, have all those politicians,
talk-back radio hosts and religious nutters. Those guys always tell
the truth.

NOT!

Yikes!

-- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au


I don't listen to Alan Jones, he is not broadcast where I live. We
don't have a radio or TV at the workplace. If it really turns you on,
I will try and download some of his stuff if possible and give an
opinion.

**You share his views. You, like him, reject good, solid science. Be
ashamed.



Politicians, I think they are a crock of shit, especially Julia
Gillard I doubt very much that Im alone or in the minority in that
opinion. I would not take them at their word, Gillard has proven
this in spades to the public in the last 2 years.

**Like I said: You listen to politicians. Politicians are not
scientists. They know nothing about climatology.


I practially never watch TV (unless Im in someone else's place, or a
public place where it is on and I cannot avoid it, I usually don't
listen to radio unless under the circumstances above. These days I
prefer silence, rather than listening to people trying to sell me
crap I don't need, and music that seems such rubbish these days.

**And you don't read science. That much we all know.


As for Abbott I can't stand the man, but am faced with little choice
but to vote for him, as we need to be rid of this carbon tax, and
Gillard especially if Australia is to get anywhere. For alternatives
Labor and greens are out, and after seeing Oakshott, wilkie et al
sell us out, and shit all over public opinion on carbon, I wouldnt
trust independents, so who do I vote for ? Tell me that.

**This is not about voting. This is about you continued display of
scientific ignorance. Something you share with Alan Jones, George Pell,
talk-back radio hosts and politicians.



As for the papers, same. They are useless for real info

**And, it seems, scientific literature. You've neglected to add that you
don't read it either.




I do not listen to Pell, I would not know who he was even if I saw
him on TV.

**Like I said: You share his views on science. Feel proud?

I don't listen to paid off and or discredited people even if "experts",
That is the point. Government bodies would be the last people I would
trust, particularly when power and money is at stake like in this case.

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

Tirelessly working to repair your innane and badly formatted posts. Fix
your fucking newsreader.

???????????

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 6/16/2012 4:16 PM, terryc wrote:

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.

**Incorrect. Experimental data conclusively proves the link.

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[terryc]

On 21/06/12 13:19, Trevor Wilson wrote:

The data is irrefutable.

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


**Incorrect. Experimental data conclusively proves the link.

ROFL. Sums your religious scientific diatribe up beautifully. There is
scientific data and then there is dammed scientific data and "throw that
one away it doesn't match the data we need" data.

Hint in the 101 class. Look up "scientific management"

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 6/21/2012 4:11 PM, terryc wrote:

On 21/06/12 13:19, Trevor Wilson wrote:

The data is irrefutable.

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


**Incorrect. Experimental data conclusively proves the link.

ROFL. Sums your religious scientific diatribe up beautifully.

**It's not religion. That's for idiots who undestand nothing about
science. OTOH, here are some experiments I located in about 5 minutes:

http://www.espere.net/Unitedkingdom/water/uk_watexpgreenhouse.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPRd5GT0v0I

http://mythbustersresults.com/young-scientists-special




There is

scientific data and then there is dammed scientific data and "throw that
one away it doesn't match the data we need" data.

**Sure. And yet, despite my continued references to real science, you
have managed to present nothing, except a typo (whilst, I might add,
inserting your own typo in the same post!).

Hint in the 101 class. Look up "scientific management"

**Thus far, you've demonstrated ZERO abilty to comprehend science. You
present no science to back your religious claims. Nothing. Not a single
shred of evidence. Why should anyone pay attention to you?


--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Jasen Betts]

On 2012-06-18, kreed <kenreed1999@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tuesday, June 19, 2012 8:10:55 AM UTC+10, terryc wrote:
On 18/06/12 20:23, Trevor Wilson wrote:


**I take it that you are aware that by 2013 or 2014, solar PV power will
be cheaper than coal generated power?

ROFL.


When they get it to produce power at night, it might make a difference

china builds world largest UPS http://tinyurl.com/7u9s9w5
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-01/china-builds-worlds-largest-battery-36-megawatt-hour-behemoth

--
⚂⚃ 100% natural

--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to news@netfront.net ---

 

[terryc]

On 21/06/12 17:09, Trevor Wilson wrote:

**Thus far, you've demonstrated ZERO abilty to comprehend science.

Lol, Science is a method, not facts.

 

[Yaputya]

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message news:a4fvm9F687U1@mid.individual.net...

On 6/21/2012 4:11 PM, terryc wrote:
On 21/06/12 13:19, Trevor Wilson wrote:

The data is irrefutable.

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


**Incorrect. Experimental data conclusively proves the link.

ROFL. Sums your religious scientific diatribe up beautifully.

**It's not religion. That's for idiots who undestand nothing about science. OTOH, here are some experiments I located in about 5
minutes:

http://www.espere.net/Unitedkingdom/water/uk_watexpgreenhouse.htm

Quote from above link "
C1 The left hand side glass vessel is filled with pure carbon dioxide.
C2 The right hand side vessel is filled with normal air containing only about 0,037% of carbon dioxide. Therefore the absorbing
effect of CO2 is by far stronger in the left vessel and the capability to act as greenhouse gas can be estimated through this
experimental setup. "

Now how can you get any sensible result when comparing C1 and C2 when the difference in CO2 concentration is 2,702 ????
What relevance does that have to the projected changes in CO2 in the atmosphere ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPRd5GT0v0I

http://mythbustersresults.com/young-scientists-special

These two links are about the same 'experiment' done by mythbusters.
The first question is what were the actual levels of CO2 and methane ????
It is not mentioned in the video, only that they could measure accurately.

The second link also contains this criticism of the experiment:

"HoosierHawk says:
The greenhouse experiment was very poorly designed, it was similiar to the "greenhouse in a bottle" experiments, two important
controls are missing. 1st the glass used must be be transparent to all wavelengths of radiated light (IR) to avoid heating the
glass, which leads conductive heating of the interior (heavy gases are more effective at conductive transfer). 2nd and more
important, the containers can't be sealed, there needs to be a pressure relief valve to maintain constant pressure. Because CO2 and
methane are much heavier than air, the same temp will result in a higher pressure within the vessel. The higher pressure results in
compression heating via the ideal gas law PV=nrT. The increase in temp is primarily due to the pressure rather than the IR
absorbtion of the gases. That said, CO2 and Methane do absorb IR, but the experiment drastically distorts the effect."

All of the CO2-in-a-bottle type experiments are so divorced from reality that they are useless.

 

[Jasen Betts]

On 2012-06-18, terryc <newsninespam-spam@woa.com.au> wrote:

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.

Every spelling flame...


--
⚂⚃ 100% natural

--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to news@netfront.net ---

 

[Jasen Betts]

On 2012-06-18, Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

scientific advisors rather than accusing them of being part of a
global socialist conspiracy. On the other hand, I have never come
across a climate conservative that was not a political conservative.
They also tend to come from the right-wing of the conservatives.

**Quite so. Sorry for my mis-reading of your words. I wonder why so many
conservatives understand so little about science?

follow the money.

--
⚂⚃ 100% natural

--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to news@netfront.net ---

 

[kreed]

On Thursday, June 21, 2012 5:09:38 PM UTC+10, Trevor Wilson wrote:

On 6/21/2012 4:11 PM, terryc wrote:
On 21/06/12 13:19, Trevor Wilson wrote:

The data is irrefutable.

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


**Incorrect. Experimental data conclusively proves the link.

ROFL. Sums your religious scientific diatribe up beautifully.

**It's not religion. That's for idiots who undestand nothing about
science. OTOH, here are some experiments I located in about 5 minutes:

http://www.espere.net/Unitedkingdom/water/uk_watexpgreenhouse.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPRd5GT0v0I

http://mythbustersresults.com/young-scientists-special




There is
scientific data and then there is dammed scientific data and "throw that
one away it doesn't match the data we need" data.

**Sure. And yet, despite my continued references to real science, you
have managed to present nothing, except a typo (whilst, I might add,
inserting your own typo in the same post!).


Hint in the 101 class. Look up "scientific management"

**Thus far, you've demonstrated ZERO abilty to comprehend science. You
present no science to back your religious claims. Nothing. Not a single
shred of evidence. Why should anyone pay attention to you?


--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

You don't and never have provided any real proof. You also don't listen

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 6/21/2012 5:35 PM, Jasen Betts wrote:

On 2012-06-18, Trevor Wilson<trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

scientific advisors rather than accusing them of being part of a
global socialist conspiracy. On the other hand, I have never come
across a climate conservative that was not a political conservative.
They also tend to come from the right-wing of the conservatives.

**Quite so. Sorry for my mis-reading of your words. I wonder why so many
conservatives understand so little about science?


follow the money.

**Turnbull is rich. Turnbull seems to understand science.

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 6/21/2012 5:16 PM, Jasen Betts wrote:

On 2012-06-18, terryc<newsninespam-spam@woa.com.au> wrote:
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.

Every spelling flame...

**Yeah, the irony. I thought I pick every post he made a blunder in, but
then I realised it was all of them. I'll let him wallow in his own
hypocrisy.

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[terryc]

On 21/06/12 17:16, Jasen Betts wrote:

Every spelling flame...

It's traditional.

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 6/22/2012 5:28 PM, terryc wrote:

On 21/06/12 17:16, Jasen Betts wrote:

Every spelling flame...

It's traditional.

**No. It's pedantic hypocrisy.

BTW: I will cease reminding you of your hypocrisy as soon as you
acknowledge it.

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[kreed]

On Friday, June 22, 2012 4:54:33 PM UTC+10, Trevor Wilson wrote:

On 6/21/2012 5:35 PM, Jasen Betts wrote:
On 2012-06-18, Trevor Wilson<trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

scientific advisors rather than accusing them of being part of a
global socialist conspiracy. On the other hand, I have never come
across a climate conservative that was not a political conservative.
They also tend to come from the right-wing of the conservatives.

**Quite so. Sorry for my mis-reading of your words. I wonder why so many
conservatives understand so little about science?


follow the money.


**Turnbull is rich. Turnbull seems to understand science.

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

Turnbull is also associated with big banks - the ones who are right into AGW, and stand to profit enormously from it.