In Europe: The great CFL rip-off.

[KR]

On Sep 6, 7:10 pm, "David L. Jones" <altz...@gmail.com> wrote:

KR wrote:
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)

20%, is that all?
That's pretty cheap IMO for a sensible and ultimately needed move toward a
more sustainable energy future.
If you complain about the cost, how about trying to use 20% less?
People have enjoyed (wasted) cheap energy for far too long, time for that
mind-set to change I recon.
Just like people who complain about the price of petrol - even at it's most
expensive it's still cheap, ridiculously cheap.

Dave.
--

I already am careful with electricity, fuel and water use as I'm not
and never have been into wasting money needlessly.

Feel free to hand over as much of your money as you want, to whoever
you want, that is your right, and your choice, spend on solar panels,
buy a Prius, a bicycle, or any other of things you believe in, but
don't either support or become anyone who forces others (especially
those not as fortunate as us through no fault of their own) to do the
same, against their will and take away their right to a choice. At
best, even if it forces wages up to match the extra cost, this will
push many into a higher tax bracket, creating a double whammy.

If you were to fall on hard times, lose your job, get incapacitated
etc, you might not think of things you now take for granted as being
"cheap". Even if you don't personally mind doing it tough, what about
your children, wife and family ?
Dont for one minute think that it "cant happen to you", especially
once this so called recession resumes its downhill slide once again.

In this case where it's a tax, (on top of hundreds of other taxes we
are burdened with) that will simply be inefficiently used and wasted,
and do little (if anything at all) to achieve any "alternative" energy
sources in the long run. It will just flow through just about every
sector forcing up prices for every item and service and hurt those who
can least afford it. The corporate world will simply either pass the
tax onto the consumer, simply avoid paying it, and/or lobby to have
any such legislation modified to impact them as little as possible.

The money that has been dumped down the toilet as "stimulus" at huge
future cost to the taxpayer, The US handing out 100's of billions out
incompetent banks and corporations, fighting illegal foreign wars,
should instead be spent on these "alternative energy" sources, if they
really, truly are that important. The money wasted on funding the AGW
fraud industry could instead be diverted into alternative energy
development.


Their actions show that these "alternative" energies are of a pretty
low importance to governments.

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

 

[Phil Allison]

"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.

Except for the existence of usenet - TW would be an obscure nutter from
nowhere.

Stop feeding his evil, sick ego by debating him.

Do what I do -

PISS on him from a great height.




..... Phil

 

[terryc]

On Sun, 06 Sep 2009 14:52:42 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote:

**Science has never been wrong. Science is science.

mhahahahahahaha, please.

Science has often been wrong. Science is not a fact.

 

[Trevor Wilson]

"David L. Jones" <altzone@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:HdOom.23659$u76.20029@newsfe10.iad...

Ross Vumbaca wrote:
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?

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.

**Gotta go with Dave there. Gyrocking is not that hard. Like any new skill,
it's a little scarey at first, but within a short time, I was patching
holes, ripping off quad and doing a professional job.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Trevor Wilson]

"Dyna Soar" <dynasoar..REMOVE..THIS..@ozdebate.com> wrote in message
news:7ghe4gF2pp2krU1@mid.individual.net...

Trevor Wilson wrote:
"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.

Where have I posted that I either accept or do not accept the "obvious
conclusions from that data"? Once again you're jumping to a conclusion.

**In this conversation:
---
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.
---

I cite facts and your attempt to suggest that they are not facts. That makes
you fundamentally anti-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.

Precisely! Did you not notice I used the word "scientists" not
"Science"?

No comment on this?

**Nope.

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.

**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.

Where have I posted that I either accept or do not accept the "obvious
conclusions from that data"? Once again you're jumping to a conclusion.

Right here:

---
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.
---

You 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.

Have I ever posted that I disagree or otherwise?

**Indeed you have. Right here, in fact:

---
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.
---



You're still jumping to

conclusions based on no facts what-so-ever. Makes any conclusions you
make on anything completely suspect.

**Then retract your idiotic comments and we can move on.

This 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.

And you base that on no evidence, except some vague conclusion you draw
from what you *guess* are my views. I've never posted any such views one
way or the other anywhere.

**Yes, you did. Right here:

---
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.
---

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?

So only scientists that *you* disagree with come into these three classes.

Lets take an example of *real* scientists.

Thalidomide was a drug wildly acclaimed in the late 50s/early 60s and
given to pregnant women as a treatment .
William McBride, an Australian medical scientist, showed that the drug was
a major source of birth defects and was rightly honoured for this work.
Some years later, this same *real* scientist was struck off the Australian
medical register in 1993 for falsifying data on a project.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg13718620.800-thalidomide-hero-found-guilty-of-scientific-fraud-.html
"William McBride ...... has been found guilty of scientific fraud. Last
week, a medical tribunal concluded that McBride had deliberately published
false and misleading scientific reports and altered the results of
experiments."

**Your point being?

Who'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.

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.

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.
You talk of data, I doubt you even know the meaning of the word.

**You would, of course, be wrong. I base my conclusions on your words.
Nothing more. If you agree with my position, then say so and we'll be fine.
If you don't, then present your alternative science.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[terryc]

On Sun, 06 Sep 2009 10:44:27 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote:

"terryc" <newsninespam-spam@woa.com.au> wrote in message
news:h7uugi$5sb$1@news.eternal-september.org...
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.

**Er, nope. It is being challenged though, not successfully.

Wrong, you are not looking in the garbage press and not the scientific
press and not finding the successful challenges. Ones that are taking a
lot of the strength of the claimed changes out of the fundamental data
sets

Your problem is that you are assuming that everyone follows those
loons, rather than considers matters for themselves.

**These loons latch onto anti-science nonsense. The science says
otherwise.

Your science? Your science isn't science but extreme religious
fanatiscism.

We should not have to convince the anti-science idiots, religious
zealots and politicians.

blink; god sdave us from populist science.

**I agree. The science is all that matters. The rest is bunk.

And you are following a load of populist bunk.

 

[terryc]

On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 08:39:58 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote:

-

I cite facts

Err, must have missed them.
IPCC == collection of yeasterday's facts. that is the nature of science.

 

[KR]

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.


I remember him well years ago as one of the main players in the
endless pathetic, nauseating cock-spanking and pocket pissing that
went on daily on aus hifi before I simply gave up reading it. I hate
to think what I would find if I looked into other groups (if any) he
frequents.

Except for the existence of usenet - TW would be an obscure nutter from
nowhere.

Stop feeding his evil, sick ego by debating him.

Do what I do   -

PISS  on him from a great height.

....   Phil

 

[KR]

On Sep 6, 7:36špm, "Dyna Soar"
<dynasoar..REMOVE..THI...@ozdebate.com> wrote:

Trevor Wilson wrote:
"Dyna Soar" šwrote ...
Trevor Wilson wrote:
"Dyna Soar" š wrote ...
Trevor Wilson wrote:
"Dyna Soar" šwrote š...
Jeeze!! šWill 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. šYou do not
know, nor have I ever said, what I accept or do not accept. šThen
you accuse me of being a moron or a religious nutter. šNeither 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.

Where have I posted that I either accept or do not accept the "obvious
conclusions from that data"? šOnce again you're jumping to a conclusion..

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! šDid you not notice I used the word "scientists" not
"Science"?

No comment on this?



šFossil 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.

Where have I posted that I either accept or do not accept the "obvious
conclusions from that data"? šOnce again you're jumping to a conclusion..

šYou 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.

Have I ever posted that I disagree or otherwise? šYou're still jumping to
conclusions based on no facts what-so-ever. šMakes any conclusions you make
on anything completely suspect.

This 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.

And you base that on no evidence, except some vague conclusion you draw from
what you *guess* are my views. šI've never posted any such views one way or
the other anywhere.

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?

So only scientists that *you* disagree with come into these three classes..

Lets take an example of *real* scientists.

Thalidomide was a drug wildly acclaimed in the late 50s/early 60s and given
to pregnant women as a treatment .
William McBride, an Australian medical scientist, showed that the drug was a
major source of birth defects and was rightly honoured for this work.
Some years later, this same *real* scientist was struck off the Australian
medical register in 1993 for falsifying data on a project.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg13718620.800-thalidomide-hero-f...
"William McBride ...... has been found guilty of scientific fraud. Last
week, a medical tribunal concluded that McBride had deliberately published
false and misleading scientific reports and altered the results of
experiments."



Who's correct? šI don't know. šThe 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.

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. šName
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.

He is much, much worse than Allison. Its like comparing dogshit to
donunts

Having a discussion with you is like belting one's head against a concrete
wall. šYour constant making up and posting wrong conclusions about your
"opponent" based on no evidence as you've done with me shows your make-up..
You talk of data, I doubt you even know the meaning of the word.

--
Dyna

All rights reserved. All wrongs avenged.

I had a substantial reply in mind but in the end couldnt be bothered.
The prick seems to thrive off the attention



As an old Russian saying goes that applies well to the person in
question
ÇĎŇÂÁÔĎÇĎ ÍĎÇÉĚÁ ÉÓĐŇÁ×ÉÔ

English: "only the grave can improve the humpbacked" (brain dead)

 

[KR]

On Sep 6, 10:47 pm, "David L. Jones" <altz...@gmail.com> wrote:

Ross Vumbaca wrote:
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?

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.

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

If getting into the ceiling is a big hassle, you can always feed a pre-
glued strip of scrap up through the hole and manipulate it so it is
directly over the hole, once the glue sets and its in place, you can
then glue or screw a circular piece of plasterboard to it from below,
sand and paint as already described.



I had to do this recently when a smoke alarm that had been improperly
installed (into the plaster rather than a stud) by an electrician,
fell off the ceiling and was hanging by its wires. In this case a
20cm strip of scrap 15mm ply, and 4 screws did wonders.

 

[David L. Jones]

KR wrote:

On Sep 6, 10:47 pm, "David L. Jones" <altz...@gmail.com> wrote:
Ross Vumbaca wrote:
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?

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.

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

If getting into the ceiling is a big hassle, you can always feed a
pre-
glued strip of scrap up through the hole and manipulate it so it is
directly over the hole, once the glue sets and its in place, you can
then glue or screw a circular piece of plasterboard to it from below,
sand and paint as already described.

Yep, I've done that a couple of times for hard to reach crawl spaces, or
when I'm just too lazy to get into my old clothes, get out the ladder, move
the car, and get up into the roof.

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

 

[Dyna Soar]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

"Dyna Soar" wrote

Where have I posted that I either accept or do not accept the
"obvious conclusions from that data"? Once again you're jumping to
a conclusion.

**In this conversation:

---
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.
---

English is not your first language? Nowhere in that post did I write I
agreed or disagreed with the points you had raised. What I did write was a
criticism of your audacity in speaking for everyone by use of the royal
"we". Note that, in my post, "We" was written in inverted commas and the
use of the word "necessarily".

I cite facts and your attempt to suggest that they are not facts.
That makes you fundamentally anti-science.

English is not your first language? Nowhere in that post did I write I
agreed or disagreed with the points you had raised. What I did write was a
criticism of your audacity in speaking for everyone by use of the royal
"we". Note that, in my post, "We" was written in inverted commas and the use
of the word "necessarily".

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"?

No comment on this?

**Nope.

Thought not. Shows you wont answer certain questions, but demand others
answer yours.

Where have I posted that I either accept or do not accept the
"obvious conclusions from that data"? Once again you're jumping to
a conclusion.

Right here:

---
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.
---

English is not your first language? Nowhere in that post did I write I
agreed or disagreed with the points you had raised. What I did write was a
criticism of your audacity in speaking for everyone by use of the royal
"we". Note that, in my post, "We" was written in inverted commas and the
use of the word "necessarily".

**You dispute the fact that AGW is real. That is sufficient for me
to judge.

Have I ever posted that I disagree or otherwise?

**Indeed you have. Right here, in fact:

---
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.
---

English is not your first language? Nowhere in that post did I write I
agreed or disagreed with the points you had raised. What I did write was a
criticism of your audacity in speaking for everyone by use of the royal
"we". Note that, in my post, "We" was written in inverted commas and the
use of the word "necessarily".

You're still jumping to
conclusions based on no facts what-so-ever. Makes any conclusions
you make on anything completely suspect.

**Then retract your idiotic comments and we can move on.

I've made no idiotic comments. I stand by these posts.

This 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.

And you base that on no evidence, except some vague conclusion you
draw from what you *guess* are my views. I've never posted any such
views one way or the other anywhere.

**Yes, you did. Right here:

---
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.
---

English is not your first language? Nowhere in that post did I write I
agreed or disagreed with the points you had raised. What I did write was a
criticism of your audacity in speaking for everyone by use of the royal
"we". Note that, in my post, "We" was written in inverted commas and the
use of the word "necessarily".

**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?

So only scientists that *you* disagree with come into these three
classes.

Lets take an example of *real* scientists.

Thalidomide was a drug wildly acclaimed in the late 50s/early 60s and
given to pregnant women as a treatment .
William McBride, an Australian medical scientist, showed that the
drug was a major source of birth defects and was rightly honoured
for this work. Some years later, this same *real* scientist was
struck off the Australian medical register in 1993 for falsifying
data on a project.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg13718620.800-thalidomide-hero-found-guilty-of-scientific-fraud-.html
"William McBride ...... has been found guilty of scientific fraud.
Last week, a medical tribunal concluded that McBride had
deliberately published false and misleading scientific reports and
altered the results of experiments."

**Your point being?

It's obvious. Although science is "pure", scientists are not, including
some of those you would call "real" scientists.

Who'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:

You're in good company.

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.

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. You talk of data, I doubt you even
know the meaning of the word.

**You would, of course, be wrong. I base my conclusions on your words.

No, you base your conclusion (and I suspect deliberately) by twisting the
meaning of my words to suit your view.

Nothing more. If you agree with my position, then say so and we'll be
fine. If you don't, then present your alternative science.

My views are my own. I have no problem with your having a view and stating
it. My problem with you is your continual use of the royal "we" and that
you regard with contempt anyone who disagrees with your views. By doing so,
it's you that beggars contempt!

This is my last post to you on this matter. Don't accept this as any sort
of win by you, it's just that one cannot have a logical, fair discussion
with the twister and distorter you are.


--
Dyna

All rights reserved. All wrongs avenged.

 

[Dyna Soar]

Phil Allison wrote:

"Dyna Soar"

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.

Except for the existence of usenet - TW would be an obscure nutter
from nowhere.

Stop feeding his evil, sick ego by debating him.

I agree and see the futility in trying to reason with him.

Do what I do -

PISS on him from a great height.

Not my nature. I'm now just going to ignore him.


--
Dyna

All rights reserved. All wrongs avenged.

 

[GeoffC]

"Dyna Soar" <dynasoar..REMOVE..THIS..@ozdebate.com> wrote in
news:7ggsviF2pqn5tU1@mid.individual.net:

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.
If scientists have never ever been wrong, they would be more
believable. A blind believer like you just places *you* in the third
category of your list.

Unfortunately, scientists may not only be wrong but indulge in
obfuscation.
Check out climateaudit.org for scandalous examples still being played
out.
If that site is a bit heavy on stats and maths, wattsupwiththat.com
Luckily the bad science is being outed, which is why the Mann hockey
stick is now discredited, and not even in the 2007 IPCC report.

 

[Trevor Wilson]

"GeoffC" <Your@email.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9C7F7E8767239Youremailcom@188.40.43.213...

"Dyna Soar" <dynasoar..REMOVE..THIS..@ozdebate.com> wrote in
news:7ggsviF2pqn5tU1@mid.individual.net:

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.
If scientists have never ever been wrong, they would be more
believable. A blind believer like you just places *you* in the third
category of your list.


Unfortunately, scientists may not only be wrong but indulge in
obfuscation.

**Indeed. Here are two prime examples of scientists who have been caught out
in lies:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen

Lindzen is on record as accepting money from big oil.

And this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Plimer

Plimer's latest book has been found to contain more than 300 (three HUNDRED)
errors.

Both these guys are real scientists. Well trained and educated. Both lie for
money.

Check out climateaudit.org for scandalous examples still being played
out.
If that site is a bit heavy on stats and maths, wattsupwiththat.com
Luckily the bad science is being outed, which is why the Mann hockey
stick is now discredited, and not even in the 2007 IPCC report.

**So? That's how science works. Small errors in predictions do not suggest
that the fundamental facts are in error.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[David L. Jones]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

"GeoffC" <Your@email.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9C7F7E8767239Youremailcom@188.40.43.213...
"Dyna Soar" <dynasoar..REMOVE..THIS..@ozdebate.com> wrote in
news:7ggsviF2pqn5tU1@mid.individual.net:

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.
If scientists have never ever been wrong, they would be more
believable. A blind believer like you just places *you* in the
third category of your list.


Unfortunately, scientists may not only be wrong but indulge in
obfuscation.

**Indeed. Here are two prime examples of scientists who have been
caught out in lies:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen

Lindzen is on record as accepting money from big oil.

And this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Plimer

Plimer's latest book has been found to contain more than 300 (three
HUNDRED) errors.

Who else has tried to read Plimers book Heaven & Earth?
I just got through it, and boy, it's quite possibly the most mind numbingly
boring read of all time.
It's just a few hundred pages of references to various published papers.
"Science by bombardment" is a term that comes to mind.
I was hoping for a good read (based on the reviews) with him talking apart
the Global Warming theory point by point. But all I got was rambling several
paragraph summaries of almost ever paper ever published on any related
topic. Each page is half filled with those references.
When he did finally get into his own summary at the end (minus the
references), it was just essentially more cobbled together rambling.
He does make some good points, but geeze, you'd give this book as punishment
to even the most ardent Anti-GW zealots.
Shame really.

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

 

[terryc]

On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 14:28:22 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote:

Plimer's latest book has been found to contain more than 300 (three
HUNDRED) errors.

URL to a list?
I've heard and read a lot of criticism, but most of it has ben of the
"trust me" type.

If that site is a bit heavy on stats and maths, wattsupwiththat.com
Luckily the bad science is being outed, which is why the Mann hockey
stick is now discredited, and not even in the 2007 IPCC report.

**So? That's how science works. Small errors in predictions do not
suggest that the fundamental facts are in error.

Err, it wasn't small errors in prediction. It was "conveniently" ignoring
data that didn't go the way IPCC wanted

 

[GeoffC]

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in
news:7gjgfpF2p06i5U2@mid.individual.net:

"GeoffC" <Your@email.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9C7F7E8767239Youremailcom@188.40.43.213...
"Dyna Soar" <dynasoar..REMOVE..THIS..@ozdebate.com> wrote in
news:7ggsviF2pqn5tU1@mid.individual.net:

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.
If scientists have never ever been wrong, they would be more
believable. A blind believer like you just places *you* in the
third category of your list.


Unfortunately, scientists may not only be wrong but indulge in
obfuscation.

**Indeed. Here are two prime examples of scientists who have been
caught out in lies:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen

Lindzen is on record as accepting money from big oil.

And this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Plimer

Plimer's latest book has been found to contain more than 300 (three
HUNDRED) errors.

Both these guys are real scientists. Well trained and educated. Both
lie for money.


Check out climateaudit.org for scandalous examples still being played
out.
If that site is a bit heavy on stats and maths, wattsupwiththat.com
Luckily the bad science is being outed, which is why the Mann hockey
stick is now discredited, and not even in the 2007 IPCC report.

**So? That's how science works. Small errors in predictions do not
suggest that the fundamental facts are in error.

Well, another poster pointed out the extreme bias in this particular
instance. It would not matter in the scheme of things, as it may well be
a small bunch of bad science which would otherwise fade away.

The problem is that the hockey stick is part of the centre of AGW beliefs
as reported to governments and this may end up costing us all without due
benefits (carbob trading etc.)

 

[Mr.T]

"APR" <I_Don't_Want@Spam.com> wrote in message
news:4aa393c5$3@dnews.tpgi.com.au...

I didn't realise fluorescents were as high efficicent as they are until I
did some research, however, they do lose out to leds through not being as
directional.

Can't beat tubes for efficiency or longevity IME. The tubes in my house
easily last 4 or 5 times as long as CFL's and provide a far better spread of
light with white ceilings and non recessed fittings. Why you would want them
to be more directional is a mystery to me. Simply use halogen track lights
where *absolutely* necessary. I have none since I don't find ANY to be
absolutely necessary!

MrT.

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

"David L. Jones" wrote:

Who else has tried to read Plimers book Heaven & Earth?
I just got through it, and boy, it's quite possibly the most mind numbingly
boring read of all time.
It's just a few hundred pages of references to various published papers.
"Science by bombardment" is a term that comes to mind.
I was hoping for a good read (based on the reviews) with him talking apart
the Global Warming theory point by point. But all I got was rambling several
paragraph summaries of almost ever paper ever published on any related
topic. Each page is half filled with those references.
When he did finally get into his own summary at the end (minus the
references), it was just essentially more cobbled together rambling.
He does make some good points, but geeze, you'd give this book as punishment
to even the most ardent Anti-GW zealots.
Shame really.

Maybe they can use it to replace 'waterboarding'?

--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense!