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.
Their incandescents are shit as well. Just burnt out a pair of candles"APR" <I_Don't_Want@Spam.com> wrote in message
news:4aa211dc$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
"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?
**Crompton, but I've tried others.
Unfortunately, the validity of their base data is being continally and**The IPCC reports do not predict with 100% accuracy what will occur. They
cannot. They provide a range of possible outcomes, if nothing is done.
Entirely reasonable, given the enormous complexity of the system.
Your problem is that you are assuming that everyone follows those loons,Guys like Tony Abbott, John Howard and George W Bush are hardly
pillars of scientific knowledge.
Now THAT is proven beyond all doubt! :-
**And yet, we have people on this group who subscribe to the ramblings of
these people instead of listening to real scientists.
blink; god sdave us from populist science.We should not have to convince the anti-science idiots, religious zealots
and politicians.
Trevor Wilson wrote:
"APR" <I_Don't_Want@Spam.com> wrote in message
news:4aa211dc$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
"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?
**Crompton, but I've tried others.
Their incandescents are shit as well. Just burnt out a pair of candles
in as many months.
**Er, nope. It is being challenged though, not successfully.Trevor Wilson wrote:
**The IPCC reports do not predict with 100% accuracy what will occur.
They cannot. They provide a range of possible outcomes, if nothing is
done. Entirely reasonable, given the enormous complexity of the system.
Unfortunately, the validity of their base data is being continally and
successfully challenged.
**These loons latch onto anti-science nonsense. The science says otherwise.Guys like Tony Abbott, John Howard and George W Bush are hardly
pillars of scientific knowledge.
Now THAT is proven beyond all doubt! :-
**And yet, we have people on this group who subscribe to the ramblings of
these people instead of listening to real scientists.
Your problem is that you are assuming that everyone follows those loons,
rather than considers matters for themselves.
**I agree. The science is all that matters. The rest is bunk.We should not have to convince the anti-science idiots, religious zealots
and politicians.
blink; god sdave us from populist science.
**Of course. Religious nutters, fossil fuel apologists and morons willTrevor Wilson wrote:
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.
Jeeze!! Will you stop your arrogant audacity of speaking for everyone.
"We" do not necessarily "know" (and/or agree with) all or some of the
points you raise.
cone shaped halogen with the two pins out the back?I have not been able to find a led downlight fitting to fit my
recepticle in 240v or 12v.
Religious Nutters ??"Dyna Soar" <dynasoar..REMOVE..THI...@ozdebate.com> wrote in message
news:7ggc9bF2p8tcrU1@mid.individual.net...
Trevor Wilson wrote:
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.
Jeeze!! Will you stop your arrogant audacity of speaking for everyone.
"We" do not necessarily "know" (and/or agree with) all or some of the
points you raise.
**Of course. Religious nutters, fossil fuel apologists and morons will
always dispute the science. They always have and always will.
So now all opposing scientists are Religious nutters, fossil fuel"Dyna Soar" <dynasoar..REMOVE..THIS..@ozdebate.com> wrote in message
news:7ggc9bF2p8tcrU1@mid.individual.net...
Trevor Wilson wrote:
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.
Jeeze!! Will you stop your arrogant audacity of speaking for everyone.
"We" do not necessarily "know" (and/or agree with) all or some of the
points you raise.
**Of course. Religious nutters, fossil fuel apologists and morons will
always dispute the science. They always have and always will.
**Now you've finally got it. Not only scientists, BTW. The evidenceTrevor Wilson wrote:
"Dyna Soar" <dynasoar..REMOVE..THIS..@ozdebate.com> wrote in message
news:7ggc9bF2p8tcrU1@mid.individual.net...
Trevor Wilson wrote:
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.
Jeeze!! Will you stop your arrogant audacity of speaking for everyone.
"We" do not necessarily "know" (and/or agree with) all or some of the
points you raise.
**Of course. Religious nutters, fossil fuel apologists and morons will
always dispute the science. They always have and always will.
So now all opposing scientists are Religious nutters, fossil fuel
apologists and morons
Religious Nutters ??"Dyna Soar" <dynasoar..REMOVE..THI...@ozdebate.com> wrote in message
news:7ggc9bF2p8tcrU1@mid.individual.net...
Trevor Wilson wrote:
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.
Jeeze!! Will you stop your arrogant audacity of speaking for everyone.
"We" do not necessarily "know" (and/or agree with) all or some of the
points you raise.
**Of course. Religious nutters, fossil fuel apologists and morons will
always dispute the science. They always have and always will.
--
Trevor Wilsonwww.rageaudio.com.au
I'm none of those, just someone who just does not accept blindly everything"Dyna Soar" wrote ...
Jeeze!! Will you stop your arrogant audacity of speaking for
everyone. "We" do not necessarily "know" (and/or agree with) all or
some of the points you raise.
**Of course. Religious nutters, fossil fuel apologists and morons will
always dispute the science. They always have and always will.
**Wrong. You're accepting the words of dodgy 'scientists' who have zeroTrevor Wilson wrote:
"Dyna Soar" wrote ...
Jeeze!! Will you stop your arrogant audacity of speaking for
everyone. "We" do not necessarily "know" (and/or agree with) all or
some of the points you raise.
**Of course. Religious nutters, fossil fuel apologists and morons will
always dispute the science. They always have and always will.
I'm none of those, just someone who just does not accept blindly
everything that's dished up me.
**Science has never been wrong. Science is science. People have been wrongIf scientists have never ever been wrong, they would be more believable.
**I do not blindly accept what is dished up. I examine the data and weighblind believer like you just places *you* in the third category of your
list.
Bloody hell, you expect us to believe what you "understand" from reports by"Dyna Soar" wrote ...
Trevor Wilson wrote:
"Dyna Soar" wrote ...
Jeeze!! Will you stop your arrogant audacity of speaking for
everyone. "We" do not necessarily "know" (and/or agree with) all or
some of the points you raise.
**Of course. Religious nutters, fossil fuel apologists and morons
will always dispute the science. They always have and always will.
I'm none of those, just someone who just does not accept blindly
everything that's dished up me.
**Wrong. You're accepting the words of dodgy 'scientists' who have
zero credibility. That makes you a moron. Or a religious nutter.
Precisely! Did you not notice I used the word "scientists" not "Science"?If scientists have never ever been wrong, they would be more
believable.
**Science has never been wrong. Science is science. People have been
wrong in their interpretations of science many times.
Another conclusion of yours based on nothing. You know nothing of myFossil fuel
apologists are presently misrepresenting data. Religious zealots and
morons are accepting it as fact. The fossil fuel apologists are using
the same tactics that big tobacco did. Stupid people believed big
tobacco and stupid people believe the fossil fuel apologists.
A blind believer like you just places *you* in the third category of
your list.
**I do not blindly accept what is dished up. I examine the data and
weigh the information. Unlike you, I acquired a decent education in
science whilst at school.
There are still many views on this by many different scientists based onAGW is the only acceptable explanation for
the warming trend we are experiencing. If you have an alternate
explanation, present it. Make certain it is peer-reviewed.
**Wrong. You have yet to supply any data which disputes the data ITrevor Wilson wrote:
"Dyna Soar" wrote ...
Trevor Wilson wrote:
"Dyna Soar" wrote ...
Jeeze!! Will you stop your arrogant audacity of speaking for
everyone. "We" do not necessarily "know" (and/or agree with) all or
some of the points you raise.
**Of course. Religious nutters, fossil fuel apologists and morons
will always dispute the science. They always have and always will.
I'm none of those, just someone who just does not accept blindly
everything that's dished up me.
**Wrong. You're accepting the words of dodgy 'scientists' who have
zero credibility. That makes you a moron. Or a religious nutter.
Bloody hell, you expect us to believe what you "understand" from reports
by scientists, then you post comments like this. You do not know, nor
have I ever said, what I accept or do not accept. Then you accuse me of
being a moron or a religious nutter. Neither is further from the truth.
**Wrong. You have yet to supply any data which disputes the data IIf scientists have never ever been wrong, they would be more
believable.
**Science has never been wrong. Science is science. People have been
wrong in their interpretations of science many times.
Precisely! Did you not notice I used the word "scientists" not "Science"?
Fossil fuel
apologists are presently misrepresenting data. Religious zealots and
morons are accepting it as fact. The fossil fuel apologists are using
the same tactics that big tobacco did. Stupid people believed big
tobacco and stupid people believe the fossil fuel apologists.
A blind believer like you just places *you* in the third category of
your list.
**I do not blindly accept what is dished up. I examine the data and
weigh the information. Unlike you, I acquired a decent education in
science whilst at school.
Another conclusion of yours based on nothing.
**You dispute the fact that AGW is real. That is sufficient for me to judge.education or scientific background, yet make a definite judgment of them.
**Not at all. AGW deniers fall into one of several groups:This alone as an example of "examining data" by you shows how flawed those
actions of yours are.
**Indeed. Real scientists are well aware that AGW is a fact. TheAGW is the only acceptable explanation for
the warming trend we are experiencing. If you have an alternate
explanation, present it. Make certain it is peer-reviewed.
There are still many views on this by many different scientists based on
many different observations.
I'm sure of is that you don't know either, even though you may believe one
line.
20%, is that all?On Sep 6, 10:45 am, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au
wrote:
"Dyna Soar" <dynasoar..REMOVE..THI...@ozdebate.com> wrote in message
news:7ggc9bF2p8tcrU1@mid.individual.net...
Trevor Wilson wrote:
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.
Jeeze!! Will you stop your arrogant audacity of speaking for
everyone. "We" do not necessarily "know" (and/or agree with) all or
some of the points you raise.
**Of course. Religious nutters, fossil fuel apologists and morons
will always dispute the science. They always have and always will.
Religious Nutters ??
When there is an opportunity of tax and power grab of a scale
unprecedented in modern times at stake (The carbon tax in the US
alone has been estimated to end up costing an extra 20% to consumers
on all current energy costs)
Where have I posted that I either accept or do not accept the "obvious"Dyna Soar" wrote ...
Trevor Wilson wrote:
"Dyna Soar" wrote ...
Trevor Wilson wrote:
"Dyna Soar" wrote ...
Jeeze!! Will you stop your arrogant audacity of speaking for
everyone. "We" do not necessarily "know" (and/or agree with) all
or some of the points you raise.
**Of course. Religious nutters, fossil fuel apologists and morons
will always dispute the science. They always have and always will.
I'm none of those, just someone who just does not accept blindly
everything that's dished up me.
**Wrong. You're accepting the words of dodgy 'scientists' who have
zero credibility. That makes you a moron. Or a religious nutter.
Bloody hell, you expect us to believe what you "understand" from
reports by scientists, then you post comments like this. You do not
know, nor have I ever said, what I accept or do not accept. Then
you accuse me of being a moron or a religious nutter. Neither is
further from the truth.
**Wrong. You have yet to supply any data which disputes the data I
previously presented to you. Yet you still refuse to accept the
obvious conclusions from that data. That makes you a moron or a
religious nutter. Or, of course, an apologist for the fossil fuel
industry.
No comment on this?If scientists have never ever been wrong, they would be more
believable.
**Science has never been wrong. Science is science. People have been
wrong in their interpretations of science many times.
Precisely! Did you not notice I used the word "scientists" not
"Science"?
Where have I posted that I either accept or do not accept the "obviousFossil fuel
apologists are presently misrepresenting data. Religious zealots and
morons are accepting it as fact. The fossil fuel apologists are
using the same tactics that big tobacco did. Stupid people believed
big tobacco and stupid people believe the fossil fuel apologists.
A blind believer like you just places *you* in the third category
of your list.
**I do not blindly accept what is dished up. I examine the data and
weigh the information. Unlike you, I acquired a decent education in
science whilst at school.
Another conclusion of yours based on nothing.
**Wrong. You have yet to supply any data which disputes the data I
previously presented to you. Yet you still refuse to accept the
obvious conclusions from that data. That makes you a moron or a
religious nutter. Or, of course, an apologist for the fossil fuel
industry.
Have I ever posted that I disagree or otherwise? You're still jumping toYou know nothing of my
education or scientific background, yet make a definite judgment of
them.
**You dispute the fact that AGW is real. That is sufficient for me to
judge.
And you base that on no evidence, except some vague conclusion you draw fromThis alone as an example of "examining data" by you shows how flawed
those actions of yours are.
**Not at all. AGW deniers fall into one of several groups:
Religious nutters.
Morons.
Fossil fuel apologists.
You fall into one of those groups.
So only scientists that *you* disagree with come into these three classes.AGW is the only acceptable explanation for
the warming trend we are experiencing. If you have an alternate
explanation, present it. Make certain it is peer-reviewed.
There are still many views on this by many different scientists
based on many different observations.
**Indeed. Real scientists are well aware that AGW is a fact. The
'scientists' who dispute that are either religious nutters, morons or
fossil fuel apologists. Can you not see that?
I'm neither a moron nor scientifically illiterate nor religious (as a nutterWho's correct? I don't know. The only thing
I'm sure of is that you don't know either, even though you may
believe one line.
**I believe the DATA. Nothing more. The data is compelling and
obvious to anyone who is not a religious nutter, a moron or a fossil
fuel apologist. Here's a short list of AGW deniers:
John Howard - Fossil fuel apologist, scientific illiterate, religious
nutter.
Tony Abbott - Religious nutter, scientific illiterate.
George W Bush - Scientific illiterate, religious nutter, fossil fuel
apologist.
Barnaby Joyce - Scientific illiterate, fossil fuel apologist.
Richard Lindzen - Fossil fuel apologist (on record as accepting money
from big oil and the tobacco industry).
Prof Ian Plimer - Fossil fuel apologist (ironically, he told lies in
order to promote the fossil fuel industry line).
You're in good company.
thanks, I wll have to check them out and see what they have got.On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 18:19:10 +1000, APR wrote:
I have not been able to find a led downlight fitting to fit my
recepticle in 240v or 12v.
cone shaped halogen with the two pins out the back?
Jaycar has a led replacementlight, but it is expensive and not as bright.
and the halogens ventilate to the roof cavity by design.
**First thing I did was to chuck out those iron transformers. Each one
wasted around 15 Watts. The 'electronic transformers' that replaced them
are far more efficient.
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
I am not sure what type of transfromer I have fitted.
Except that results in all these holes in your ceiling! What does one doMy house had a dozens of them when I moved in, they were the first things to
be ripped out.
Err, you fill them of course.Hi,
David L. Jones wrote:
My house had a dozens of them when I moved in, they were the first
things to be ripped out.
Except that results in all these holes in your ceiling! What does one
do then?