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.
"Trevor Wilson is a LIAR "
**Cite please. I read about a UK reactor's de-commissioning costs which
started out at 46 BILLION Pounds, but have blown out to 73 Billion and are
expected to rise still further.
** Proves the TW lying charlatan get all his FALSE info from web forums.
Hint:
The real figures are in millions, not billions.
..... Phil
I did and I pointed that out in my other post, the cost is clearly for all"David L. Jones"
KR wrote:
On Sep 4, 3:43 pm, "Phil Allison"
"Trevor Wilson"
**Cite please. I read about a UK reactor's de-commissioning costs
which started out at 46 BILLION Pounds, but have blown out to 73
Billion and are expected to rise still further.
** Proves the TW lying charlatan get all his FALSE info from web
forums.
Hint:
The real figures are in millions, not billions.
That is typical of Trev. Plenty of bull, ignorance.
No, his figure is correct.
** Like FUCKING HELL it is.
To de-commission all the current nuclear reactors in the UK will cost
** LEARN TO READ YOU FUCKING MORON !!!!!!!!!!!
" I read about a UK reactor's... "
Foaming at the mouth isn't going to make your claim about it costingOne reactor !!!!!!!!!
FUCK HEAD !!!!!!!!!!!!
real scientist."Trevor Wilson is a FUCKING LIAR "
That is typical of Trev. Plenty of bull, ignorance.
Believing in the man made "carbon pollution" scam proves his lunacy
**It's not my "belief".
** The TW charlatan is a mental defective.
But that is no excuse in law for his many CRIMES.
It the fucking science, you idiot.
** TW would not recognise real " science " if it BIT him on the end of his
tiny dick.
Wilson is a NOTORIOUS CRIMINAL LIAR.
The DIRECT BLOODY OPPOSITE of any of his demented claims is far more
likely to be true.
.... Phil
He is off again. Any scientist that does not agree with Trev is not a
"Trevor Wilson "
**Cite please. I read about a UK reactor's de-commissioning costs
which started out at 46 BILLION Pounds, but have blown out to 73
Billion and are expected to rise still further.
** Proves the TW lying charlatan get all his FALSE info from web
forums.
Hint:
The real figures are in millions, not billions.
That is typical of Trev. Plenty of bull, ignorance.
No, his figure is correct.
To de-commission all the current nuclear reactors in the UK will cost...
**Nope. Any scientist who disputes the SCIENCE, is not a scientist.Phil Allison wrote:
"Trevor Wilson is a FUCKING LIAR "
That is typical of Trev. Plenty of bull, ignorance.
Believing in the man made "carbon pollution" scam proves his lunacy
**It's not my "belief".
** The TW charlatan is a mental defective.
But that is no excuse in law for his many CRIMES.
It the fucking science, you idiot.
** TW would not recognise real " science " if it BIT him on the end of
his tiny dick.
Wilson is a NOTORIOUS CRIMINAL LIAR.
The DIRECT BLOODY OPPOSITE of any of his demented claims is far
more likely to be true.
.... Phil
He is off again. Any scientist that does not agree with Trev is not a real
scientist.
Err, isn't this the Vatican Vs Galileo all over again?"F Murtz" <haggisz@hotmail.com> wrote in message
He is off again. Any scientist that does not agree with Trev is not a real
scientist.
**Nope. Any scientist who disputes the SCIENCE, is not a scientist.
**Maybe, except the Vatican (Tony Abbott et al) are wrong and every saneTrevor Wilson wrote:
"F Murtz" <haggisz@hotmail.com> wrote in message
He is off again. Any scientist that does not agree with Trev is not a
real scientist.
**Nope. Any scientist who disputes the SCIENCE, is not a scientist.
Err, isn't this the Vatican Vs Galileo all over again?
**That's normal. The problem is that the non-scientists (the politicians)We have a committee of non-scientists making a scientific decision.
**Bullshit. Complete and absolute bullshit.couple with the fact that "global warmng" has been must include jargon in
every scientific research grant application for at least the last three
decades.
So every body that disagrees with Trevor and his scientists are now insane."terryc" <newsninespam-spam@woa.com.au> wrote in message
news:h7scvj$36t$1@news.eternal-september.org...
Trevor Wilson wrote:
"F Murtz" <haggisz@hotmail.com> wrote in message
He is off again. Any scientist that does not agree with Trev is not a
real scientist.
**Nope. Any scientist who disputes the SCIENCE, is not a scientist.
Err, isn't this the Vatican Vs Galileo all over again?
**Maybe, except the Vatican (Tony Abbott et al) are wrong and every sane
person on the planet knows it.
We have a committee of non-scientists making a scientific decision.
**That's normal. The problem is that the non-scientists (the politicians)
are ignoring the suggestions of the scientists. That, too, is normal.
couple with the fact that "global warmng" has been must include jargon in
every scientific research grant application for at least the last three
decades.
**Bullshit. Complete and absolute bullshit.
**Nope. Anyone who disputes the SCIENCE is an idiot, or in the pay of theTrevor Wilson wrote:
"terryc" <newsninespam-spam@woa.com.au> wrote in message
news:h7scvj$36t$1@news.eternal-september.org...
Trevor Wilson wrote:
"F Murtz" <haggisz@hotmail.com> wrote in message
He is off again. Any scientist that does not agree with Trev is not a
real scientist.
**Nope. Any scientist who disputes the SCIENCE, is not a scientist.
Err, isn't this the Vatican Vs Galileo all over again?
**Maybe, except the Vatican (Tony Abbott et al) are wrong and every sane
person on the planet knows it.
So every body that disagrees with Trevor and his scientists are now
insane.
Settle petal.David L. Jones
"Trevor Wilson "
**Cite please. I read about a UK reactor's de-commissioning costs
which started out at 46 BILLION Pounds, but have blown out to 73
Billion and are expected to rise still further.
** Proves the TW lying charlatan get all his FALSE info from web
forums.
Hint:
The real figures are in millions, not billions.
That is typical of Trev. Plenty of bull, ignorance.
No, his figure is correct.
** Like FUCKING HELL it is you FUCKING LIAR !!
Err, not really."F Murtz" <haggisz@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4aa1eec0@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
Trevor Wilson wrote:
"terryc" <newsninespam-spam@woa.com.au> wrote in message
news:h7scvj$36t$1@news.eternal-september.org...
Trevor Wilson wrote:
"F Murtz" <haggisz@hotmail.com> wrote in message
He is off again. Any scientist that does not agree with Trev is
not a real scientist.
**Nope. Any scientist who disputes the SCIENCE, is not a
scientist.
Err, isn't this the Vatican Vs Galileo all over again?
**Maybe, except the Vatican (Tony Abbott et al) are wrong and every
sane person on the planet knows it.
So every body that disagrees with Trevor and his scientists are now
insane.
**Nope. Anyone who disputes the SCIENCE is an idiot, or in the pay of
the fossil fuel lobby. Or a religious nutter, of course. Sheesh! I
don't make the rules. The science is there. It's proven and solid.
Now THAT is proven beyond all doubt! :->Guys like Tony Abbott, John Howard and George W Bush are hardly
pillars of scientific knowledge.
Some of the concepts, yes, the detailed science, no chance. AtmosphereicFor fuck's sake, it's high school science. Anyone in Australia (except
Queensland, of course) has studied this stuff and understands it.
I don't even want to get into the (un)reliability of those 50 Watt
halogens.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
What brand of halogens have you identified as unreliable?
** All running on dimmers - right ?I have a large number of 12v halogen downlights in my house as well as a
couple of CFL's. After 7 years I am yet to replace a halogen globe
while I have had to replace CFL's.
One CFL, in the pantry, has been replaced three times and it is an exposed
globe in a bare light fitting and is never on for long so I don't expect
excess heat has contributed to these failures.
** LOL !!The only trouble I have had with the halogens is the thermal protection
activating in the transformer.
Umm, no science is proven and solid. it is just the best fit at the"F Murtz" <haggisz@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4aa1eec0@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
Trevor Wilson wrote:
"terryc" <newsninespam-spam@woa.com.au> wrote in message
news:h7scvj$36t$1@news.eternal-september.org...
Trevor Wilson wrote:
"F Murtz" <haggisz@hotmail.com> wrote in message
He is off again. Any scientist that does not agree with Trev is not
a real scientist.
**Nope. Any scientist who disputes the SCIENCE, is not a scientist.
Err, isn't this the Vatican Vs Galileo all over again?
**Maybe, except the Vatican (Tony Abbott et al) are wrong and every
sane person on the planet knows it.
So every body that disagrees with Trevor and his scientists are now
insane.
**Nope. Anyone who disputes the SCIENCE is an idiot, or in the pay of
the fossil fuel lobby. Or a religious nutter, of course. Sheesh! I don't
make the rules. The science is there. It's proven and solid.
Actually, it was the out burst from Robyn Williams from the ABC thatGuys like
Tony Abbott, John Howard and George W Bush are hardly pillars of
scientific knowledge. Why any sane person would accept their stupidity
as truth is utterly beyond belief.
That was then. That was all dropped.For fuck's sake, it's high school science. Anyone in Australia (except
Queensland, of course) has studied this stuff and understands it.
my wife at the time, and I was stupid enough to agree to it. The lights are"APR".
The only trouble I have had with the halogens is the thermal protection
activating in the transformer.
** LOL !!
Massive wasted energy up in the roof as well as from the lamps themselves.
Sooner that BAN the stupid things the better.
..... Phil
I don't disagree Phil. The installation of the halogens was a requirement of
**Crompton, but I've tried others."Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:7g6qfvF2n5p2kU1@mid.individual.net...
I don't even want to get into the (un)reliability of those 50 Watt
halogens.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
What brand of halogens have you identified as unreliable?
**First thing I did was to chuck out those iron transformers. Each oneI have a large number of 12v halogen downlights in my house as well as a
couple of CFL's. After 7 years I am yet to replace a halogen globe while I
have had to replace CFL's. One CFL, in the pantry, has been replaced three
times and it is an exposed globe in a bare light fitting and is never on
for long so I don't expect excess heat has contributed to these failures.
Further, this light probably identifies the worst of CFL's as it is turned
on and off regularly but is only ever on for minutes at a time. Cycle the
Phillips regularly and see how long it lasts. Based on experience I don't
believe Phillips' CFL product is much, if any, better than much cheaper
products as I have used Phillips CFL's and had failures.
The only trouble I have had with the halogens is the thermal protection
activating in the transformer. The protection does take 10-15 minutes to
reset and sometimes a lot longer. This issue is resolved by ensuring the
transformers are not covered by insulation material. The insulation
material has been cut around the halogens to ensure they don't overheat,
and the halogens ventilate to the roof cavity by design.
Speaking of that, what gets me is that we try to predict rain or drynessAtmosphereic
science and climate change is far from easy to understand, and even
harder to model at a fairly crude level. That much I've learned from
having an environmental scientist wife, and an atmospheric scientist
sister-in-law!
I notice you don't make any attempt to refute the observation that you don't"ian field was probed by an alien "
One trick I've found works well with incanscents is to wire a NTC
inrush limiting thermistor in the switch plate, you have to take some
care over the rating - salvaged thermistors from a scrap monitor
rated between 60 - 80W work well with a 100W bulb.
** Classic bullshit story.
The only increased in lifetime obtained is at the EXPENSE of light
output from the reduced running voltage.
Just use a resistor of 50 to 100 ohms an get even more life.
It's not my problem that you're too thick to know what a NTC thermistor
does.
** Yawnnnnnnnnn....
Ian is a obvious congenital mental defective.
IF he ever had an intelligent thought, that thought would die from
loneliness.
As usual, Filthy doesn't have an intelligent answer ...
** All you posted was is STUPID INSULT
- F U C K W I T !!
You got a very clever one back.
**The IPCC reports do not predict with 100% accuracy what will occur. TheyTrevor Wilson wrote:
"F Murtz" <haggisz@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4aa1eec0@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
Trevor Wilson wrote:
"terryc" <newsninespam-spam@woa.com.au> wrote in message
news:h7scvj$36t$1@news.eternal-september.org...
Trevor Wilson wrote:
"F Murtz" <haggisz@hotmail.com> wrote in message
He is off again. Any scientist that does not agree with Trev is
not a real scientist.
**Nope. Any scientist who disputes the SCIENCE, is not a
scientist.
Err, isn't this the Vatican Vs Galileo all over again?
**Maybe, except the Vatican (Tony Abbott et al) are wrong and every
sane person on the planet knows it.
So every body that disagrees with Trevor and his scientists are now
insane.
**Nope. Anyone who disputes the SCIENCE is an idiot, or in the pay of
the fossil fuel lobby. Or a religious nutter, of course. Sheesh! I
don't make the rules. The science is there. It's proven and solid.
Err, not really.
No scientific theory or hypothesis can ever really be completely "proven".
It's usually just the best fit for the current data, waiting for one bit
of data to contradict it or a better theory to come along.
Don't the IPCC reports even say it's only "more than likely" (or some term
like that) to be correct, with that meaning 80% probability (I forget the
exact figure) of being correct?
**And yet, we have people on this group who subscribe to the ramblings ofGuys like Tony Abbott, John Howard and George W Bush are hardly
pillars of scientific knowledge.
Now THAT is proven beyond all doubt! :-
**Indeed. The PRECISE outcomes of the present warming trend are unknown. TheFor fuck's sake, it's high school science. Anyone in Australia (except
Queensland, of course) has studied this stuff and understands it.
Some of the concepts, yes, the detailed science, no chance. Atmosphereic
science and climate change is far from easy to understand, and even harder
to model at a fairly crude level. That much I've learned from having an
environmental scientist wife, and an atmospheric scientist sister-in-law!
Jeeze!! Will you stop your arrogant audacity of speaking for everyone.We know the trend.
We know that CO2 acts as a GHG.
We know that CO2 and temperatures are inextricably linked.
We should not have to convince the anti-science idiots, religious
zealots and politicians.