In Europe: The great CFL rip-off.

[terryc]

On Wed, 09 Sep 2009 14:25:52 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote:

**The first paragraph is a lie. In fact, the first 6 liinesd are flat
out wrong. Do I need to read the whole lot and inform you of every lie,
mistake and just plain bullshit I read? Really? Do you find the first 6
lines credible, when they are blatantly false? The IPCC SPECIFICALLY
mentions water vapour and it's effect as a GHG. Therefore, the very
first words are lies.

Technically you might be correct, but it is essentially how the IPCC is
being reported.

It is noted that the scientific community is DIVIDED on the cause of
global warming,

**No, it is not. The scientific community speaks with one voice on the
matter. There are a pitifully tiny number of religious nutters, morons
and fossil fuel apologists who question the climatologists. The division
is around 10:1, in favour of AGW. Hardly "divided".

Umm, it has ONE voice
but in the ratio 10:1
which isn't a divided voice?

We must be using different mathematics and logic to you.

 

[Ross Vumbaca]

Hi,

David L. Jones wrote:

Err, you fill them of course.
It ain't hard.
I used slightly thinner gyprock sheet cut into a circle just slightly
smaller than the hole and glued that onto another square backing piece of
gyprock a bit bigger than the hole. Then you have a nice plug you just drop
into the hole from the top and glue into place. You only then need a minimum
of gap filler putty instead of the large gap stuff which is much harder to
use. Let set and sand to a smooth finish, then paint.
Much easier than it sounds actually, I plugged dozens in a matter of hours.

Thanks for the tips guys, doesn't seem so hard. I was at the bottom in
Technics in high school and never recovered my confidence! .

My solution so far was to use LED down-light replacements, but these are
so expensive that their is no monetary benefit (for many years at
least), only an environmental one.

Regards,

Ross..

 

[Bob Larter]

KR wrote:

On Sep 6, 11:36 pm, "Phil Allison" <phi...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
"Dyna Soar"



I'm neither a moron nor scientifically illiterate nor religious (as a
nutter or otherwise) and have zilch to do with the fossil fuel industry,
other than (by necessity) purchasing its products as no doubt you also do.
Name calling based on nothing demonstrates your attitude and does you no
good. Except in the lack of abusive profanity that he uses, you're no
different than Allison.
** Fair suck of the sav - pal !!!

I have spent the last six or seven years attempting to expose

Mr Trevor Wilson of Rage Audio

as a rabid NUT CASE & MONSTROUS CHARLATAN

of the WORST bloody kind !!

Sorry the message did not get through YOUR pre-historic head !!!

Having a discussion with you is like belting one's head against a concrete
wall. Your constant making up and posting wrong conclusions about your
"opponent" based on no evidence as you've done with me shows your make-up.
** TW is now and has always been mentally defective for all his life.

That was fully confirmed to me with his comments in the Leo Simpson's
(SC mag) AGW editorial earlier this year.

Mate, when you find yourself agreeing with one of Philthy's rants, you
need to ask yourself whether maybe you're not quite on the right track.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

 

[keithr]

terryc wrote:

On Wed, 09 Sep 2009 14:25:52 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote:


**The first paragraph is a lie. In fact, the first 6 liinesd are flat
out wrong. Do I need to read the whole lot and inform you of every lie,
mistake and just plain bullshit I read? Really? Do you find the first 6
lines credible, when they are blatantly false? The IPCC SPECIFICALLY
mentions water vapour and it's effect as a GHG. Therefore, the very
first words are lies.

Technically you might be correct, but it is essentially how the IPCC is
being reported.

It is noted that the scientific community is DIVIDED on the cause of
global warming,
**No, it is not. The scientific community speaks with one voice on the
matter. There are a pitifully tiny number of religious nutters, morons
and fossil fuel apologists who question the climatologists. The division
is around 10:1, in favour of AGW. Hardly "divided".

Umm, it has ONE voice
but in the ratio 10:1
which isn't a divided voice?

We must be using different mathematics and logic to you.

Sorry to break in to the argument, but this article makes quite
interesting reading on the subject.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/09/climate_change_not_warmer/

Seems like keithr's first law of nature is holding up:-

"The world is a much more complex thing than most people give it credit
for" (and that includes both sides of the climate argument)

 

[Trevor Wilson]

terryc wrote:

On Wed, 09 Sep 2009 14:25:52 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote:


**The first paragraph is a lie. In fact, the first 6 liinesd are flat
out wrong. Do I need to read the whole lot and inform you of every lie,
mistake and just plain bullshit I read? Really? Do you find the first 6
lines credible, when they are blatantly false? The IPCC SPECIFICALLY
mentions water vapour and it's effect as a GHG. Therefore, the very
first words are lies.

Technically you might be correct, but it is essentially how the IPCC is
being reported.

**Technically correct = correct. Good. I'm pleased we agree that the
site referenced is complete bollocks.

It is noted that the scientific community is DIVIDED on the cause of
global warming,
**No, it is not. The scientific community speaks with one voice on the
matter. There are a pitifully tiny number of religious nutters, morons
and fossil fuel apologists who question the climatologists. The division
is around 10:1, in favour of AGW. Hardly "divided".

Umm, it has ONE voice
but in the ratio 10:1
which isn't a divided voice?

**It's actually considerably more than 10:1. However, divided suggests
an approximate 50:50 split. It is far from that. A very tiny minority of
climatologists subscribe to non-AGW.

We must be using different mathematics and logic to you.

**It would seem so.

Trevor Wilson

 

[Trevor Wilson]

keithr wrote:

terryc wrote:
On Wed, 09 Sep 2009 14:25:52 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote:


**The first paragraph is a lie. In fact, the first 6 liinesd are flat
out wrong. Do I need to read the whole lot and inform you of every lie,
mistake and just plain bullshit I read? Really? Do you find the first 6
lines credible, when they are blatantly false? The IPCC SPECIFICALLY
mentions water vapour and it's effect as a GHG. Therefore, the very
first words are lies.

Technically you might be correct, but it is essentially how the IPCC
is being reported.

It is noted that the scientific community is DIVIDED on the cause of
global warming,
**No, it is not. The scientific community speaks with one voice on the
matter. There are a pitifully tiny number of religious nutters, morons
and fossil fuel apologists who question the climatologists. The division
is around 10:1, in favour of AGW. Hardly "divided".

Umm, it has ONE voice
but in the ratio 10:1
which isn't a divided voice?

We must be using different mathematics and logic to you.

Sorry to break in to the argument, but this article makes quite
interesting reading on the subject.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/09/climate_change_not_warmer/

Seems like keithr's first law of nature is holding up:-

"The world is a much more complex thing than most people give it credit
for" (and that includes both sides of the climate argument)

**You should read the referenced New Scientist article, BEFORE dancing
in the street. After which, I suggest you read up on the North Atlantic
Oscillation. Our understanding of such natural events is quite
imperfect, but there is cause for great concern that the warming in the
Arctic circle may fundamentally alter the NAO, which is thougth to
affect the climate of the entire planet.

Trevor Wilson

 

[Trevor Wilson]

terryc wrote:

On Wed, 09 Sep 2009 12:11:42 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote:


Those scientists who are employed by organisations such as the CSIRO,
The Commercial Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation?
**Nope. The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research
Organisation.

Where do you think they get their funds from?
**The government (taxpayer).

You seriously think all the funds for the CSIRO come from the taxpayer?

**Snippage duly noted. You managed to snip all my questions and comments
and yet you expect me to answer your questions. You are a dishonest
shit. I accept your admission that you cannot answer my questions, nor
respond honestly to my comments.

Now, on to your question:

The CSIRO would not exist without government funds. The CSIRO scientists
would move overseas or gain employment elsewhere.

As for the "wonderful, highly paid carreers" of scientists in the CSIRO
(or anywhere else in climate research), I can tell you that my partner,
who is a scientist employed by the Bureau of Meteorology, earns about as
much as a typical Phd scientist at CSIRO (she is on the same government
pay scale). I can also confirm that she earns considerably less than any
executive at BHP, Exxon, Shell Oil or even Prof. Lindzen, who is paid
US$2,500.00 day to lie for fossil fuel interests. Hell, she makes less
than the average GP, dentist, lawyer, electrician or plumber.

So much for your claim of "wonderful, highly paid carrers" in climate
research. You really bung it on, don't you?

Are you going to continue snipping everything you can't answer? Or will
you man up and be honest about the stuff you clearly have no idea about?

Trevor Wilson

 

[keithr]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

keithr wrote:

Sorry to break in to the argument, but this article makes quite
interesting reading on the subject.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/09/climate_change_not_warmer/

Seems like keithr's first law of nature is holding up:-

"The world is a much more complex thing than most people give it
credit for" (and that includes both sides of the climate argument)


**You should read the referenced New Scientist article, BEFORE dancing
in the street. After which, I suggest you read up on the North Atlantic
Oscillation. Our understanding of such natural events is quite
imperfect, but there is cause for great concern that the warming in the
Arctic circle may fundamentally alter the NAO, which is thougth to
affect the climate of the entire planet.

Trevor Wilson

Dancing in the street? I am not seeking to push an extreme view either way.

By the "North Atlantic Oscillation" do you mean the North Atlantic
Conveyor? The danger to this has been known for years, possibly halting
the Gulf Stream and bringing a big freeze to Europe and possibly the
north east of America. This article is a good explanation

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2004/05mar_arctic.htm

The problem is that, as you say, the understanding of world climate is
far from perfect, the dataset only covers 150 years of the millions of
years that the world has existed and making extrapolations on such a
small subset of the data is fraught. In fact you can make it show
anything that you want, which is precisely what is happening in the
climate change argument. Theories are being cobbled together and the
data manipulated to fit. If both sides of the argument were honest, they
would admit that they don't really have a clue what will happen.

 

[KR]

On Sep 9, 9:40 pm, Bob Larter <bobbylar...@gmail.com> wrote:

KR wrote:
On Sep 6, 11:36 pm, "Phil Allison" <phi...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
"Dyna Soar"

I'm neither a moron nor scientifically illiterate nor religious (as a
nutter or otherwise) and have zilch to do with the fossil fuel industry,
other than (by necessity) purchasing its products as no doubt you also do.
Name calling based on nothing demonstrates your attitude and does you no
good. Except in the lack of abusive profanity that he uses, you're no
different than Allison.
**  Fair suck of the sav   -  pal  !!!

I have spent the last six or seven years attempting to expose

Mr  Trevor Wilson  of  Rage Audio

as a rabid  NUT CASE   &  MONSTROUS   CHARLATAN

of  the WORST  bloody kind  !!

Sorry the message did not get through YOUR  pre-historic head   !!!

Having a discussion with you is like belting one's head against a concrete
wall.  Your constant making up and posting wrong conclusions about your
"opponent" based on no evidence as you've done with me shows your make-up.
** TW is now and has always been mentally defective for all his life.

That was fully confirmed to me with his comments in the  Leo Simpson's
(SC mag)  AGW editorial earlier this year.

Mate, when you find yourself agreeing with one of Philthy's rants, you
need to ask yourself whether maybe you're not quite on the right track.

--
    W
  . | ,. w ,   "Some people are alive only because
   \|/  \|/     it is illegal to kill them."    Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

Maybe I am, maybe Im not ?

No, I dont necessarily agree with everything he says or does, and I
don't personally know him, just pointing out there there are worse and
more
dangerous people around (on here) than Philthy, and for many it seems
to take years to wake up to them sometimes.

In my life experience, the most dangerous and truly evil people it has
been my misfortune to encounter were NEVER upfront rude,
abusive etc like Phil. They were usually "nice" on the surface, with
a disgusting slime trail behind them whereever they went that most
people didnt see or chose not to notice.
..
In this case, he claims to have woken up to this nut some years back,
whereas I didn't until recently, and in this case I believe he is
quite correct in his assesment.

Admittedly I had not paid a lot of attention to his posts unless it
was on some topic of interest to me.

 

[terryc]

On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 07:03:48 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote:

However, divided suggests an approximate 50:50 split.

Err, nope it just means more than one.
It doesn't imply divided into two halves
<just to use a reviled expression by swmbo>

 

[terryc]

On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 07:10:45 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote:

Our understanding of such natural events is quite imperfect,

This is why the IPCC data is being questioned time and time again. If the
temperature in Great Britain is mainly decided by the North Atlantic
Oscillation, implying global warming from temperature readings taken
there is very suspect.

 

[terryc]

On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 07:22:43 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote:

terryc wrote:
On Wed, 09 Sep 2009 12:11:42 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote:


Those scientists who are employed by organisations such as the
CSIRO,
The Commercial Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation?
**Nope. The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research
Organisation.

Where do you think they get their funds from?
**The government (taxpayer).

You seriously think all the funds for the CSIRO come from the taxpayer?

At this point do I write that your failure to answer my point means that
you accept it as true?

Now, on to your question:

The CSIRO would not exist without government funds. The CSIRO scientists
would move overseas or gain employment elsewhere.

It already has. Look at the financial part of the last report. About 30%
is hire out of CSIRO people and equipment for other work. you were
lauding the very person who made sure of this.

Are you going to continue snipping everything you can't answer? Or will
you man up and be honest about the stuff you clearly have no idea about?

I could ask you the same. Hint, look at the financial part of the last
report. About 30% is hire out of CSIRO people and equipment for other
work.

I will point out that that reply is typical of why you are having trouble
understanding "global warming". You simply look at the surface with out
looking at the structure underneath.

As for the "wonderful, highly paid carreers" of scientists in the CSIRO
(or anywhere else in climate research)

How do they compare to the "average wage"? The "average wage" that most
Australians are way way below?

Are you going to continue snipping everything you can't answer? Or will
you man up and be honest about the stuff you clearly have no idea about?

Of course I've snipped your comments about your wife's wage.

Did I ever say I had complete answers to everything?
Unlike you, I look at the structure underneath such as how the data was
derived, etc, etc. That has lead me to question the IPCC report and I am
simply seeking answers, which you obviously are not equipped to supply.

 

[keithr]

terryc wrote:

On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 07:10:45 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote:


Our understanding of such natural events is quite imperfect,

This is why the IPCC data is being questioned time and time again. If the
temperature in Great Britain is mainly decided by the North Atlantic
Oscillation, implying global warming from temperature readings taken
there is very suspect.

Only an idiot would use figures taken from just one place. AFAIK the
figures are averaged from all over the world which is one reason that
the dataset is so incomplete. There are accurate observations going back
much further in Europe than say Africa or South America.

 

[Trevor Wilson]

keithr wrote:

Trevor Wilson wrote:
keithr wrote:

Sorry to break in to the argument, but this article makes quite
interesting reading on the subject.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/09/climate_change_not_warmer/

Seems like keithr's first law of nature is holding up:-

"The world is a much more complex thing than most people give it
credit for" (and that includes both sides of the climate argument)


**You should read the referenced New Scientist article, BEFORE dancing
in the street. After which, I suggest you read up on the North
Atlantic Oscillation. Our understanding of such natural events is
quite imperfect, but there is cause for great concern that the warming
in the Arctic circle may fundamentally alter the NAO, which is thougth
to affect the climate of the entire planet.

Trevor Wilson

Dancing in the street? I am not seeking to push an extreme view either way.

**Really? I've not seen you reference the IPCC reports. Why would you
not reference the original New Scientist article? Here are the words of
the writer:

"One of the world's top climate modellers said Thursday we *COULD* be
about to enter one or even two decades during which temperatures cool."

[MY emphasis added]

Why would you not reference the UK Met Office?
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2008/pr20080923c.html

The thing about the warming TREND we are experiencing, is that it is a
TREND. Some years will be higher than prior years and some lower. The
long term TREND is very clear. The planet is warming.

By the "North Atlantic Oscillation" do you mean the North Atlantic
Conveyor?

**I said the North Atlantic Oscillation. That is the name referenced in
the New Scientist article you provided.


The danger to this has been known for years, possibly halting

the Gulf Stream and bringing a big freeze to Europe and possibly the
north east of America. This article is a good explanation

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2004/05mar_arctic.htm

The problem is that, as you say, the understanding of world climate is
far from perfect, the dataset only covers 150 years of the millions of
years that the world has existed and making extrapolations on such a
small subset of the data is fraught.

**Actually, that is not entirely true. We have, from examination of ice
core data, a very accurate representation of past temperatures and CO2
levels, back to around 600,000 years ago. Chinese scientists are
presently aiming to extend that knowledge to around 1 million years ago.
What we don't know is the precise reasons why temperatures and CO2
levels fluctuated in the past. What we do know, however, is what is
occuring right now. CO2 levels have risen faster than at any time in the
last 600,000 years. Temperature levels have risen faster than at any
time in the last 600,000 years. We also know that CO2 levels and
temperatures are closely linked. When one rises, so does the other.

Trevor Wilson


In fact you can make it show

anything that you want, which is precisely what is happening in the
climate change argument. Theories are being cobbled together and the
data manipulated to fit. If both sides of the argument were honest, they
would admit that they don't really have a clue what will happen.

 

[Trevor Wilson]

terryc wrote:

On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 07:22:43 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote:

terryc wrote:
On Wed, 09 Sep 2009 12:11:42 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote:


Those scientists who are employed by organisations such as the
CSIRO,
The Commercial Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation?
**Nope. The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research
Organisation.

Where do you think they get their funds from?
**The government (taxpayer).
You seriously think all the funds for the CSIRO come from the taxpayer?

At this point do I write that your failure to answer my point means that
you accept it as true?

**Except that I DID answer your question. Precisely and accurately. YOU
are the one who continually fails to answer my questions. SOP.

Now, on to your question:

The CSIRO would not exist without government funds. The CSIRO scientists
would move overseas or gain employment elsewhere.

It already has. Look at the financial part of the last report. About 30%
is hire out of CSIRO people and equipment for other work. you were
lauding the very person who made sure of this.

**Read my response. The CSIRO would not exist without government funds.
It is a taxpayer funded organisation. Like the ABC, it derives SOME of
it's funding from private sources. Nonetheless, it's existence is owed
to the taxpayer and the government of the day. Most critically, during
the criminal John Howard regime, where AGW was considered to be bunk,
the CSIRO was at the forefront of research into AGW and pulished many
papers that supported the fact.

Are you going to continue snipping everything you can't answer? Or will
you man up and be honest about the stuff you clearly have no idea about?

I could ask you the same.

**You could, but you'd be wrong. I have not snipped your questions and
comments. I have answered your questions. You avoid mine.


Hint, look at the financial part of the last

report. About 30% is hire out of CSIRO people and equipment for other
work.

**The CSIRO would not exist without government funding.

I will point out that that reply is typical of why you are having trouble
understanding "global warming". You simply look at the surface with out
looking at the structure underneath.

**On the contrary, I reference AGW to more than 600,000 years' of data
and the information supplied by the vast majority of climatologists. You
base your position on religious belief and fossil fuel apologist lies.

As for the "wonderful, highly paid carreers" of scientists in the CSIRO
(or anywhere else in climate research)

How do they compare to the "average wage"? The "average wage" that most
Australians are way way below?

**The average income of CSIRO scientists should be compared to other
scientists in related fields. Or their incomes could be compared to
others who have similar educational standards. Doctors, lawyers, et al.
Then you can rapidly see that they hardly have "wonderful, highly paid
careers". They earn similar levels of pay that other government
scientists earn.

Are you going to continue snipping everything you can't answer? Or will
you man up and be honest about the stuff you clearly have no idea about?

Of course I've snipped your comments about your wife's wage.

**Lack of response duly noted. I expected you to fail to answer. After
all, you fail to answer most of the other questions too.

Did I ever say I had complete answers to everything?

**Then admit it, when I ask the question. Don't just snip it and pretend
that the question never existed.

Unlike you, I look at the structure underneath such as how the data was
derived, etc, etc. That has lead me to question the IPCC report and I am
simply seeking answers, which you obviously are not equipped to supply.

**Bollocks. You are NOT seeking answers. You have a denialist stance.
You have not read the IPCC reports. You have only read a few denialist
sites, where SOME of the IPCC information has (rightly or wrongly) been
called into question. The IPCC reports are not perfect. They are not
perfectly accurate. They are, OTOH, an amazingly comprehensive set of
reports, which shed light on an enormously complex issue.

Trevor Wilson

 

[Trevor Wilson]

"terryc" <newsninespam-spam@woa.com.au> wrote in message
news:h8c5rl$qe1$4@news.eternal-september.org...

On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 08:08:40 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote:

keithr wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:
keithr wrote:

Sorry to break in to the argument, but this article makes quite
interesting reading on the subject.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/09/climate_change_not_warmer/

Seems like keithr's first law of nature is holding up:-

"The world is a much more complex thing than most people give it
credit for" (and that includes both sides of the climate argument)


**Really? I've not seen you reference the IPCC reports.

Lol, you really are a pox brain Trev.
He posted the Register article for people to read and follow the links if
they want to.

**Indeed. What I find odd, is that he cited only something which appears to
support some kind of global cooling. He failed to cite the considerable
science behind the IPCC reports. As, I might add, do you. You prefer to
throw your weight behind religion, morons and fossil fuel apologists. All
the while claiming that CSIRO scientists are well paid, compared to people
like Lindzen, who is on record as being paid US$2,500.00 per day by fossil
fuel interests. Find me a CSIRO scientist who is paid that much for climate
research.

"One of the world's top climate modellers said Thursday we *COULD* be
about to enter one or even two decades during which temperatures cool."

Correct. He is correctly reporting the data he has collected and what its
traditional impact has been.

**That's right. The planet MIGHT cool over the next 20 years. Or, more
likely, not.

The thing about the warming TREND we are experiencing, is that it is a
TREND. Some years will be higher than prior years and some lower. The
long term TREND is very clear. The planet is warming.

The question as clearly shown on the graph is whether the IPCC view of
temperatures every going upwards is going to be correct or weather the
normal temperature rise (base + cyclic effect) will continue.

**Of course it will continue the trend. There will be variations along the
trend line.

The non-religious people here do not need to continually refer to our
IPCC bible to know whether this is correct or not. BTW, which version.
I've noticed they keep changing the contents.

**You have it arse about. Religious people reject the clear and obvious
science. The science tells us that the planet is undergoing a warming trend.
Only religious nutters, morons and fossil fuel apologists claim otherwise.
Of course, if you wish to pit your skill against the climatologists in the
CSIRO, be my guest. For my part, I'll trust the guys who know their
business, not those who profit from more CO2 emissions, or the religious
nutters.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[terryc]

On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 08:08:40 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote:

keithr wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:
keithr wrote:

Sorry to break in to the argument, but this article makes quite
interesting reading on the subject.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/09/climate_change_not_warmer/

Seems like keithr's first law of nature is holding up:-

"The world is a much more complex thing than most people give it
credit for" (and that includes both sides of the climate argument)


**Really? I've not seen you reference the IPCC reports.

Lol, you really are a pox brain Trev.
He posted the Register article for people to read and follow the links if
they want to.

"One of the world's top climate modellers said Thursday we *COULD* be
about to enter one or even two decades during which temperatures cool."

Correct. He is correctly reporting the data he has collected and what its
traditional impact has been.

The thing about the warming TREND we are experiencing, is that it is a
TREND. Some years will be higher than prior years and some lower. The
long term TREND is very clear. The planet is warming.

The question as clearly shown on the graph is whether the IPCC view of
temperatures every going upwards is going to be correct or weather the
normal temperature rise (base + cyclic effect) will continue.

The non-religious people here do not need to continually refer to our
IPCC bible to know whether this is correct or not. BTW, which version.
I've noticed they keep changing the contents.
..

 

[terryc]

On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 08:23:50 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote:

terryc wrote:
On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 07:22:43 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote:

terryc wrote:
On Wed, 09 Sep 2009 12:11:42 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote:


Those scientists who are employed by organisations such as the
CSIRO,
The Commercial Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation?
**Nope. The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research
Organisation.

Where do you think they get their funds from?
**The government (taxpayer).
You seriously think all the funds for the CSIRO come from the
taxpayer?

At this point do I write that your failure to answer my point means
that you accept it as true?

**Except that I DID answer your question. Precisely and accurately. YOU
are the one who continually fails to answer my questions. SOP.


Now, on to your question:

The CSIRO would not exist without government funds. The CSIRO
scientists would move overseas or gain employment elsewhere.

It already has. Look at the financial part of the last report. About
30% is hire out of CSIRO people and equipment for other work. you were
lauding the very person who made sure of this.

**Read my response. The CSIRO would not exist without government funds.
It is a taxpayer funded organisation. Like the ABC, it derives SOME of
it's funding from private sources.

Correct and that was my point. Just like doctors who get junkets from
drug companies, this money compromises the research.

Hint, look at the financial part of the last
report. About 30% is hire out of CSIRO people and equipment for other
work.

**The CSIRO would not exist without government funding.

Not the question. It is about where people behind reports get their
funds. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

I will point out that that reply is typical of why you are having
trouble understanding "global warming". You simply look at the surface
with out looking at the structure underneath.

**On the contrary, I reference AGW to more than 600,000 years' of data
and the information supplied by the vast majority of climatologists.

Hmm, so your science is decided by a majority vote. Very interesting.
Pope what-his-name would be behind you 100%.

Unlike you, I look at the structure underneath such as how the data was
derived, etc, etc. That has lead me to question the IPCC report and I
am simply seeking answers, which you obviously are not equipped to
supply.

**Bollocks. You are NOT seeking answers. You have a denialist stance.

Lol, Is this the George Bush approach; if you aint 100% with us, then
your agin us?

You have not read the IPCC reports. You have only read a few denialist
sites, where SOME of the IPCC information has (rightly or wrongly) been
called into question. The IPCC reports are not perfect. They are not
perfectly accurate. They are, OTOH, an amazingly comprehensive set of
reports, which shed light on an enormously complex issue.

Lol, the IPCC shed no new light. I started reading science papers in high
school and haven't stopped. As I've already pointed out, I've been
employed on a "global warming" research grant.

The IPCC looked at the available data and selected data to support a
fashionable scare. As Al Gore and others have been saying to business,
"Don't be frighten, get on board and learn some new ways to make money".
Nuff said, but it doesn't stop me checking out the spruiker just in case.

 

[David L. Jones]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

"David L. Jones" <altzone@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9Glpm.151428$8B7.67160@newsfe20.iad...
Trevor Wilson wrote:


I've been thinking about giving that one a go.
I can't imagine it being anywhere near as good as Richard Dawkin's
superb The God Delusion though. I recommend the audio book version
spoken by Dawkins himself.


**I'll loan you my copy, if you wish. It's a short, easy read. In it,
Plimer really hammers the crap out of AiG and justifiably so. They
are first rate con-men. Mine is floppy cover, of course. If you want
it, I should be able to locate it pretty quickly.

That's ok, thanks for the offer.
I'll just pick it up on a future library run. Still got plenty of other
books to get through first.

I haven't read Dawkin's tome. Maybe it's time to do so. Why the audio
book?

Because it's actually read by Dawkin's, and he is an excellent speaker and
very nice to listen too.
When audio books are spoken by the actual author you tend to pick up on all
the subtle inflections that (I think) make the book more interesting and
entertaining. Some are better than others though, but Dawkins's one is an
excellent example of the art.

Dave.

--
================================================
Check out my Electronics Engineering Video Blog & Podcast:
http://www.eevblog.com

 

[terryc]

On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 10:55:53 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote:

**Really? I've not seen you reference the IPCC reports.

Lol, you really are a pox brain Trev. He posted the Register article
for people to read and follow the links if they want to.

**Indeed. What I find odd, is that he cited only something which appears
to support some kind of global cooling.

nope

He failed to cite the considerable science behind the IPCC reports.

You really are an absolutely clueless moron. This report is one of the
reports that any future IPCC might need to consider. It is new data. AIUI
being resented at a scientific conference where it can expect peer
comment. It is being presented as part of the increase of scientific
knowledge.

As, I might add, do you.

I understand the scientific method and what scientific knowledge really
means.

All the while claiming that CSIRO scientists are well paid,
compared to people like Lindzen,

Nope, you made that claim.

"One of the world's top climate modellers said Thursday we *COULD* be
about to enter one or even two decades during which temperatures
cool."

Correct. He is correctly reporting the data he has collected and what
its traditional impact has been.

**That's right. The planet MIGHT cool over the next 20 years. Or, more
likely, not.

AIRI, The IPCC didn't say anything about cooling, unless you read the
fine print.

**Of course it will continue the trend. There will be variations along
the trend line.

Err, not in the IPCC report anywhere. Is the IPCC moving their goal now?
Can you show me the graph where they show a cooling period?

The science tells us that the planet is undergoing a warming trend.

We are not arguing about that. Just the specific warming that the IPCC
says is going to happen. Big difference.

For my part, I'll trust the guys who know their business,
not those who profit from more CO2 emissions,

That is what these guys are planning on profiting from; CO2 emmissions
and they want you to pay. They are pushing dodgy science. It has all the
credibility of "trust me this scheme can not fail to make money".