In Europe: The great CFL rip-off.

[Trevor Wilson]

"terryc" <newsninespam-spam@woa.com.au> wrote in message
news:h82625$ba0$1@news.eternal-september.org...

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?

**Certainly:

http://www.aussmc.org.au/IanPlimerclimatebook.php

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/bob_ward_on_plimer.php

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6804961.ece

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/jul/09/george-monbiot-ian-plimer

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/04/the_science_is_missing_from_ia.php

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

**What set alarm bells ringing for me was when Plimer stated that
temperature rises always preceeded CO2 level rise. The science proves that
this statement is bunk:

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/

Plimer just accepted nonsense sprouted by the pseudo-science, denialist
sites that abound. Had he cared to carefully examine the data, he would have
seen the errors.

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

**The IPCC did not "want" the data to go any way. The IPCC collated the data
and made predictions, based on that data. More up to date data has allowed
the IPCC to refine those predictions. Their next report will likely result
in more refinements. It's called good science.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Phil Allison]

"Trevor Wilson is DAMN LIAR "

**What set alarm bells ringing for me was when Plimer stated that
temperature rises always preceeded CO2 level rise. The science proves that
this statement is bunk:

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/

** More blatant INSANITY.

Once again , the link is irelevant to the issue.

ONLY INSANE LIARS post such links as proof.

TW is an INSANE LIAR




...... Phil

 

[KR]

On Sep 7, 3:35 pm, terryc <newsninespam-s...@woa.com.au> wrote:

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

That is the way things are done with the sorts.

Think of the worldwide tax and power grab at stake, it would add up to
trillions, that would just keep on coming and coming.

They have to keep the fake fear levels up, but as time passes it
becomes harder and harder as people wake up to the fact that they have
been "had"..

 

[APR]

"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
news:4aa4c295$0$6096$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...

"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.

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.

It is not that I want fluorescents to be more directional. When looking at

efficacy the lumen output per watt of T8 Fluros is comparable to high
efficiency power leds, however, usable light output per watt is better for
the led because the light is more directed and reflectors are not
necessarily required to get the light where it is wanted. The tube fluro
radiates light equally around the tube axis, thus requiring a reflector to
redirect light radiated above the horizontal plane of the tube back toward
the floor. There are significant losses from the reflector, and also, in a
twin tube fluro design there is absorption of light by the adjacent tube.
These issues with tube fluros result in losses that evidentally
significantly impact the amount of radiated light that arrives where it is
wanted.

 

[APR]

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:7gk3bcF2q5ibpU2@mid.individual.net...

**What set alarm bells ringing for me was when Plimer stated that
temperature rises always preceeded CO2 level rise. The science proves that
this statement is bunk:

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/

Plimer just accepted nonsense sprouted by the pseudo-science, denialist
sites that abound. Had he cared to carefully examine the data, he would
have seen the errors.

Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

Fuck Me Trevor, what bullshit do you see when you read literature. Go and

read the second paragraph of the link you gave above. Then read the third
paragraph where it states "Whether the ultimate cause of temperature
increase is excess CO2, or a different orbit, or some other factor probably
doesn't matter much.". Yes it does matter a lot if the cause of any climate
change/variation on earth is never going to be controlled by what the
population does in response. You are demonstrating yourself to be a wanker
of the highest order with your selective view.

 

[Trevor Wilson]

"APR" <I_Don't_Want@Spam.com> wrote in message
news:4aa4fe04$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:7gk3bcF2q5ibpU2@mid.individual.net...


**What set alarm bells ringing for me was when Plimer stated that
temperature rises always preceeded CO2 level rise. The science proves
that this statement is bunk:

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/

Plimer just accepted nonsense sprouted by the pseudo-science, denialist
sites that abound. Had he cared to carefully examine the data, he would
have seen the errors.

Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

Fuck Me Trevor, what bullshit do you see when you read literature. Go and
read the second paragraph of the link you gave above. Then read the third
paragraph where it states "Whether the ultimate cause of temperature
increase is excess CO2, or a different orbit, or some other factor
probably doesn't matter much.".

**I've read it all. Have you? Do you understand it and do you understand why
Plimer made a huge blunder when he claimed that higher temps ALWAYS preceded
higher CO2 levels? Do you understand his error?


Yes it does matter a lot if the cause of any climate

change/variation on earth is never going to be controlled by what the
population does in response.

**Except that we know several things:

* CO2 is a known GHG.
* CO2 levels have risen faster in the last 200 years than at any time in the
last 600,000 years.
* Temperatures have risen faster in the last 200 years than at any time in
the last 600,000 years.
* That rising temperatures can lead and lag increasing CO2 levels.
* We CAN control how much CO2 is released.

You are demonstrating yourself to be a wanker

of the highest order with your selective view.

**I am only dealing with the facts. YOU appear to be placing your faith in
religius nutters, fossil fuel apologists and morons. I suggest you study the
science.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[terryc]

On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 19:50:16 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote:

"terryc" <newsninespam-spam@woa.com.au> wrote in message
news:h82625$ba0$1@news.eternal-september.org...
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?

**Certainly:

http://www.aussmc.org.au/IanPlimerclimatebook.php

Only one makes any attempt to rebut anything in the book and seems to
loose the track doing it. Some have not even read the book. Basically,
more "trust us".

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/bob_ward_on_plimer.php

Err, a blog that says nothing except one graph has no source.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6804961.ece

Same author and much the same as the above.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/jul/09/george-
monbiot-ian-plimer

Umm a basically plagurised blog attempting to attack another rival
publication, a couple of unclear points and more trust me quotes.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/04/
the_science_is_missing_from_ia.php

Starts off sounding good, but quickly gets into "trust me" and bogs
there. Seems the data that supports a rebuttal of Ian
Pilmer is locked away and I have to trust someone "extract".

Lot of it sounds like an argument over the name of a shade of blue.

**What set alarm bells ringing for me was when Plimer stated that
temperature rises always preceeded CO2 level rise. The science proves
that this statement is bunk:

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/

Err, where. It isn't clear which preceeds which and it seems to bog down
in the equivalent of "wearing underwear causes you to die".

Plimer just accepted nonsense sprouted by the pseudo-science, denialist
sites that abound. Had he cared to carefully examine the data, he would
have seen the errors.

That is a "trust me" statement and used by a whole pile of people who get
their money from the side that sees a great career in supporting global
warming. As opposed to those whose career is from fossil fuel. Leaves
most of us totally lost.

**The IPCC did not "want" the data to go any way. The IPCC collated the
data and made predictions, based on that data. More up to date data has
allowed the IPCC to refine those predictions. Their next report will
likely result in more refinements. It's called good science.

No, maybe better science. Ignoring one odd figure is acceptable, but not
a whole raft of them, which is what they did initially. Seems they have
even dropped the hockey stick now as indefensible.

 

[terryc]

On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 09:14:36 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote:

**I've read it all. Have you? Do you understand it

No, because a lot of it it like the cyclic arguments about which is the
better "design" of electronic circuit; immaterial and irrelevant and as
effective as speed strips on the final product.

Yes it does matter a lot if the cause of any climate
change/variation on earth is never going to be controlled by what the
population does in response.

**Except that we know several things:

* CO2 is a known GHG.

But a minor one.

* CO2 levels have risen faster in the last 200 years than at any time in
the last 600,000 years.

* Temperatures have risen faster in the last 200 years than at any time
in the last 600,000 years.

Temperatures where?
Umm, didn't one of those graphs show that they have also fallen faster?
<now we see who understands what "global warming" really is>

* That rising temperatures can lead and lag increasing CO2 levels.

So there is no causal factor from increased CO2 leading to "global
warming"? *

We CAN control how much CO2 is released.

Wow, that is a wonderful fairy tale. Can you see everyone in the world
giving up all individual transport motor vehicles and riding bicycles?
Because that is the first step in really controlling CO2 emissions.

**I am only dealing with the facts.

I am having trouble seeing the facts. What I am reading is a lot like
medieval science;

1) put cheese into empty cupboard
2) close cupboard
3) wait a few days
4) open cupboard
5) observe cheese now gone and replace by a mouse
5) decide that mice are created from cheese

 

[Trevor Wilson]

"terryc" <newsninespam-spam@woa.com.au> wrote in message
news:h84b91$b3e$2@news.eternal-september.org...

On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 09:14:36 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote:


**I've read it all. Have you? Do you understand it

No, because a lot of it it like the cyclic arguments about which is the
better "design" of electronic circuit; immaterial and irrelevant and as
effective as speed strips on the final product.

**Wrong. It demonstrates very nicely how very closely related CO2 levels and
temperatures are. When one goes up, the other follows. That is how it has
been over the last 600,000 years.

Yes it does matter a lot if the cause of any climate
change/variation on earth is never going to be controlled by what the
population does in response.

**Except that we know several things:

* CO2 is a known GHG.

But a minor one.

**A faulty conclusion. CO2 is the second most important GHG. Second only to
water vapour. It's influence is far from minor. It ranges from 9% ~ 26%.
Would you consider a 26% cut in your wages "minor"? How about a 25% increase
in tax? Do you regard that as "minor"? You seem to be labouring under the
delusion that even 9% is unimportant when dealing with the climate system.
It is not.

* CO2 levels have risen faster in the last 200 years than at any time in
the last 600,000 years.

* Temperatures have risen faster in the last 200 years than at any time
in the last 600,000 years.

Temperatures where?

**On this planet. Look at the graphs.

Umm, didn't one of those graphs show that they have also fallen faster?

**The TREND in temperature is clear enough. Variations from month to month
and even year to year are not the issue.

now we see who understands what "global warming" really is

**If you happen to be one of those who judges climate change by a cold day
in December, then I have some bad news for you.

* That rising temperatures can lead and lag increasing CO2 levels.

So there is no causal factor from increased CO2 leading to "global
warming"? *

**Of course there is. Here is how it works:

* Increasing CO2 levels, cause increasing temperatures.
* Increasing temperatures, cause CO2 to come out of solution from the
world's oceans.
* More CO2, causes more temperature rise.
* More temperature rise, causes more CO2 to come out of solution.
* More CO2, cause more temperature rise.
* More temperature rise, causes methane to be released from permafrost.
* Methane is a more potent, but short lived GHG than CO2.

We CAN control how much CO2 is released.

Wow, that is a wonderful fairy tale.

**Nope. It's a fact.

Can you see everyone in the world

giving up all individual transport motor vehicles and riding bicycles?

**Voluntarily? No. Eventually, the rabid religious nutters, morons and
fossil fuel apologists will realise that some sacrifices will need to be
made.

Because that is the first step in really controlling CO2 emissions.

**Not really. There are a whole range of steps that can be made. These
include:

* Getting rid of coal powered electricity generation and switching to more
benign systems. That is all about money, since the technology is with us
now.
* Reducing our wasteful ways, in all manner of areas.
* Switching more people to public transport.
* Reducing our dependence on cement.
* Etc.

**I am only dealing with the facts.

I am having trouble seeing the facts. What I am reading is a lot like
medieval science;

**A religious nutter would see it that way.

1) put cheese into empty cupboard
2) close cupboard
3) wait a few days
4) open cupboard
5) observe cheese now gone and replace by a mouse
5) decide that mice are created from cheese

**Yep. I was right. Look at the graphs and explain to me that CO2 levels and
temperature levels are NOT related. Take as much space as you need to
explain how they are not related.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Trevor Wilson]

"terryc" <newsninespam-spam@woa.com.au> wrote in message
news:h84fmh$b3e$5@news.eternal-september.org...

On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 11:53:59 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote:


**Wrong. It demonstrates very nicely how very closely related CO2 levels
and temperatures are. When one goes up, the other follows. That is how
it has been over the last 600,000 years.

But which one leads?

**Both. Depends on the time period. In some cases, CO2 has led, whilst
inothers temperatures have. It makes a mockery of Plimer's core claim.

Or are both really solar driven?

**In the past Solar conditions may well have driven climate change/CO2
levels. No one disputes this. The difference is that HERE AND NOW, we know
that CO2 levels are driving climate change. In the past, that may or may not
have been the case.

But a minor one.

**A faulty conclusion. CO2 is the second most important GHG. Second only
to water vapour.

So why are we not chasing water vapour?

**For several reasons:

* There's bugger all we can do about it.
* CO2 has a vastly greater effect, by mass, than water vapour does.
* It makes sense to deal with the things you can deal with, rather than the
stuff you cannot.
* CO2 is a long-lived GHG. Water vapour is not. Dealing with CO2 now, will
have effects hundreds of years into the future.

It's influence is far from minor. It ranges from 9% ~ 26%.
Would you consider a 26% cut in your wages "minor"?
How about a 25% increase in tax?

Umm, been there and done that, except it was far greater.

**Was it "minor"?

Do you regard that as "minor"? You seem to be labouring
under the delusion that even 9% is unimportant when dealing with the
climate system. It is not.

Isn't that sort of like plugging the borer holes in the hull when there
is an enormous hole from an iceberg?

**No. It's about acting on the possible, rather than acting on the
impossible.

Isn't the one with 36-70% effect more important than the 9-26%?

**It would be, if ther was something we could do about it. Humans raised
levels of CO2 by around 30%. Therefore, humans can reduce those levels. Or
at least, humans can contain future rises.

**If you happen to be one of those who judges climate change by a cold
day in December, then I have some bad news for you.

Lol, you do not understand what "global warming" really means and how
"sudden' changes up or down support the premise.


* That rising temperatures can lead and lag increasing CO2 levels.

So there is no causal factor from increased CO2 leading to "global
warming"? *

**Of course there is. Here is how it works:

* Increasing CO2 levels, cause increasing temperatures. * Increasing
temperatures, cause CO2 to come out of solution from the world's oceans.
* More CO2, causes more temperature rise. * More temperature rise,
causes more CO2 to come out of solution. * More CO2, cause more
temperature rise. *

So it is really the ocean to blame?

**Nope. Rising CO2 levels, which caused the temperature rises are.
Significant CO2 has not yet been released from the oceans. That is something
we get to look forward to.

What warmed up the ocean in the first place to release the initial CO2?

**No idea. I was not alive back then. I can only refer to the present day
conditions and make appropriate suggestions. We know that CO2 is causing our
present warming trend.

We CAN control how much CO2 is released.

Wow, that is a wonderful fairy tale.

**Nope. It's a fact.

Can you see everyone in the world
giving up all individual transport motor vehicles and riding bicycles?

**Voluntarily? No. Eventually, the rabid religious nutters, morons and
fossil fuel apologists will realise that some sacrifices will need to be
made.

Because that is the first step in really controlling CO2 emissions.

**Not really. There are a whole range of steps that can be made. These
include:

* Getting rid of coal powered electricity generation and switching to
more benign systems. That is all about money, since the technology is
with us now.

You think people giving up their individual motor transport is going to
be contentious, try telling them no air-con, one hot meal a day, 1 hr of
tv, no shopping, etc

**What part of what I wrote suggests such a thing? Be precise in your answer
please. Be aware that any changes would be epxected to take some years. They
cannot be implemented overnight without potentially catstrophic results.

* Reducing our wasteful ways, in all manner of areas.
* Switching more people to public transport.
* Reducing our dependence on cement.
* Etc.

These are all just green religious nutter slogans.
They are not going to happen.

**Your descendents had better hope that they do. I hope they do, but I fear
you are correct. Politicians will dither, religious nutters, morons and
fossil fuel apologists will obfuscate and lie, until it is too late.

It will be like the russia of cia stories; "your application for a radio
has been approved, you can collect it from this shop in five years time"
or even good old Henry ford " you can have any colour car you like so
long as it is black"




**Yep. I was right. Look at the graphs and explain to me that CO2 levels
and temperature levels are NOT related. Take as much space as you need
to explain how they are not related.

Umm irrelevant straw argument.

**Your inability to deal with a direct request is duly noted. I am not
surprised. The data is clear and unequivocal. CO2 levels and temperatures
are closely related.

It is the causal factor/method, which

causes which that is relevant.

**Yes and, no. We know that every time CO2 levels rise, temperatures follow.
We know that every time temperatures rise, CO2 levels follow. We are
presently witnessing the most rapid rise in CO2 levels known to science. We
are presently witnessing the most rapid rise in temperatures known to
science.

Otherwise, this would have all been

adverted becuae I've ridden my bicycle or taken public transport to work
during my working life.

**One person is unlikely to make a difference. It needs to be a concerted
effort by the entire planet. Including China.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Trevor Wilson]

"terryc" <newsninespam-spam@woa.com.au> wrote in message
news:h84ih0$p60$3@news.eternal-september.org...

On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 12:57:11 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote:


You think people giving up their individual motor transport is going to
be contentious, try telling them no air-con, one hot meal a day, 1 hr
of tv, no shopping, etc

**What part of what I wrote suggests such a thing? Be precise in your
answer please. Be aware that any changes would be epxected to take some
years. They cannot be implemented overnight without potentially
catstrophic results.

If human produced CO2 is the problem and we are already producing too
much, then we need to work out the safe amount of human caused CO2
production and share it been between every person alive on the earth.

You work out the resultant living level.

**Perhaps you missed my question. I'll repeat it:
---
What part of what I wrote suggests such a thing? Be precise in your answer
please.
---

Otherwise, this would have all been
adverted becuae I've ridden my bicycle or taken public transport to
work during my working life.

**One person is unlikely to make a difference. It needs to be a
concerted effort by the entire planet. Including China.

How about the western nations leading by example?

**Sounds good, in theory. Provided the entire planet acts in concert, then
the system should work. That may involve trade restrictions on nations that
fail to comply.

As China and India say; you lot had the benefits and caused this.

**Fair enough too. However, the planet cannot afford every Chinese and
Indian to acquire a Wester standard of living. It would be an environmental
catastrophe.

Alternatively, we can easily meet even the toughest CO2 emission
standards by stopping the export of coal. That is where our per capita
figure comes from.

**No, we cannot. Our emissions, per capita are amongst the highest on the
planet. Enforcing CO2 restrictions will automatically cause our coal
exports
to cease.

Your snips have been noted. I accept your admission that I am correct where
you snipped my responses.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Trevor Wilson]

"David L. Jones" <altzone@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Nx0pm.19690$UH2.7713@newsfe01.iad...

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?

**Not me. When I read some quotes from Plimer, I realised that he had been
hoodwinked by the pseudo-scientific morons that are some common-place on
the
'net. I will read it, but I refuse to pay full price for a hardback
edition.
I may wait for the floppy cover, or buy second hand from Amazon.

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.

**Indeed. Having read his Telling Lies For God, I was a fan of Plimer.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Trevor Wilson]

"terryc" <newsninespam-spam@woa.com.au> wrote in message
news:h81ibe$mj5$1@news.eternal-september.org...

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

**Feel free to present your peer-reviewed science that refutes the real
science.

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.

**It's not "my science". It's just proper science. Nothing more.

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.

**Er, nope. I am accepting what has been written by real scientists who are
not religious nutters and are not paid by the fossil fuel lobby.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[terryc]

On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 11:53:59 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote:

**Wrong. It demonstrates very nicely how very closely related CO2 levels
and temperatures are. When one goes up, the other follows. That is how
it has been over the last 600,000 years.

But which one leads?
Or are both really solar driven?

But a minor one.

**A faulty conclusion. CO2 is the second most important GHG. Second only
to water vapour.

So why are we not chasing water vapour?

It's influence is far from minor. It ranges from 9% ~ 26%.
Would you consider a 26% cut in your wages "minor"?
How about a 25% increase in tax?

Umm, been there and done that, except it was far greater.

Do you regard that as "minor"? You seem to be labouring
under the delusion that even 9% is unimportant when dealing with the
climate system. It is not.

Isn't that sort of like plugging the borer holes in the hull when there
is an enormous hole from an iceberg?

Isn't the one with 36-70% effect more important than the 9-26%?

**If you happen to be one of those who judges climate change by a cold
day in December, then I have some bad news for you.

Lol, you do not understand what "global warming" really means and how
"sudden' changes up or down support the premise.

* That rising temperatures can lead and lag increasing CO2 levels.

So there is no causal factor from increased CO2 leading to "global
warming"? *

**Of course there is. Here is how it works:

* Increasing CO2 levels, cause increasing temperatures. * Increasing
temperatures, cause CO2 to come out of solution from the world's oceans.
* More CO2, causes more temperature rise. * More temperature rise,
causes more CO2 to come out of solution. * More CO2, cause more
temperature rise. *

So it is really the ocean to blame?
What warmed up the ocean in the first place to release the initial CO2?

We CAN control how much CO2 is released.

Wow, that is a wonderful fairy tale.

**Nope. It's a fact.

Can you see everyone in the world
giving up all individual transport motor vehicles and riding bicycles?

**Voluntarily? No. Eventually, the rabid religious nutters, morons and
fossil fuel apologists will realise that some sacrifices will need to be
made.

Because that is the first step in really controlling CO2 emissions.

**Not really. There are a whole range of steps that can be made. These
include:

* Getting rid of coal powered electricity generation and switching to
more benign systems. That is all about money, since the technology is
with us now.

You think people giving up their individual motor transport is going to
be contentious, try telling them no air-con, one hot meal a day, 1 hr of
tv, no shopping, etc

* Reducing our wasteful ways, in all manner of areas.
* Switching more people to public transport.
* Reducing our dependence on cement.
* Etc.

These are all just green religious nutter slogans.
They are not going to happen.
It will be like the russia of cia stories; "your application for a radio
has been approved, you can collect it from this shop in five years time"
or even good old Henry ford " you can have any colour car you like so
long as it is black"

**Yep. I was right. Look at the graphs and explain to me that CO2 levels
and temperature levels are NOT related. Take as much space as you need
to explain how they are not related.

Umm irrelevant straw argument. It is the causal factor/method, which
causes which that is relevant. Otherwise, this would have all been
adverted becuae I've ridden my bicycle or taken public transport to work
during my working life.

 

[KR]

On Sep 8, 11:16 am, terryc <newsninespam-s...@woa.com.au> wrote:

On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 09:14:36 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote:
**I've read it all. Have you? Do you understand it

No, because a lot of it it like the cyclic arguments about which is the
better "design" of electronic circuit; immaterial and irrelevant and as
effective as speed strips on the final product.

 Yes it does matter a lot if the cause of any climate
change/variation on earth is never going to be controlled by what the
population does in response.

**Except that we know several things:

* CO2 is a known GHG.

But a minor one.

* CO2 levels have risen faster in the last 200 years than at any time in
the last 600,000 years.
* Temperatures have risen faster in the last 200 years than at any time
in the last 600,000 years.

Temperatures where?
Umm, didn't one of those graphs show that they have also fallen faster?
now we see who understands what "global warming" really is

* That rising temperatures can lead and lag increasing CO2 levels.

So there is no causal factor from increased CO2 leading to "global
warming"? *

We CAN control how much CO2 is released.

Wow, that is a wonderful fairy tale. Can you see everyone in the world
giving up all individual transport motor vehicles  and riding bicycles?
Because that is the first step in really controlling CO2 emissions.

Killing a proportionate amount of the population is about the only way

when you really think about it. No matter what they do - just by being
alive humans produce this "evil satanic carbon" through the basics of
food, shelter etc.

What I find amusing is that nations like China, that bin this carbon
pollution rubbish where it belongs, and go ahead and do what is needed
to create jobs, products, services, wealth and a sound future are
rising up from bicycles to cars, becoming first world, improving
their skills, technology and heading well on the road to superpower
status, while US, UK, Aus propose descending from cars to bicycles,
paying fortunes for electricity, banning or restricting mining and
making of things they need as being progress, chase out their
entrepreneurs and wealth creators in the name of PC, "environment"
bullshit, head into the dark ages in many forms - including this
bodgy "science" and do nothing but destroy their power and future in
a huge high speed race to see who can hit the bottom first. I doubt
that the west (with the exception of their older generations) is even
in the top 10 in real wealth (when you take out pretend wealth based
on borrowed paper money that isn't going to be paid back), educational
standards, skills, family/moral values, living standards or general
intellect any more, and is heading down rather than up in most or all
of these.


The end result is quite simple, in time the strong (probably China)
wipe out these fools, or just enslave them, end up owning and using
their resources as they please, enjoy their control and power, while
the local fools are consigned to the bottom of the heap where they
belong and where they asked to be by decades of blatant stupidity.
Growing some balls and declaring environmentalists and PC crackpots as
the real terrorists, and/or enemies of the nation - which they are,
and dealing with them (which we should have done a generation ago)
will no doubt happen.

The end result is that in the long run the uranium still ends up being
mined, used for energy, weapons or whatever, the coal still gets mined
and burnt for energy, the only difference is that we get no money, or
benefit from it, and our former "enemies", who basically own us, laugh
all the way to the bank, and do what they want to.

**I am only dealing with the facts.

I am having trouble seeing the facts. What I am reading is a lot like
medieval science;

1) put cheese into empty cupboard
2) close cupboard
3) wait a few days
4) open cupboard
5) observe cheese now gone and replace by a mouse
5) decide that mice are created from cheese

That is the "new" western science. You could even fund further
research and expand it by waiting longer to open and finding that
instead of a mouse you can end up with a cat, and this is how the cat
is created . Just start with cheese and you can make certain
creatures ,
Don't dare eat cheese though, because it might turn into a mouse while
inside of you which might eat out all your guts, or at best you risk
being charged with attempted bestiality/felching.

I also remember of the "scientific theory" that maggots were
spontaneously generated (created out of thin air) and "appeared" on
rotten meat.


Its the same in society - instead of common sense, you villify certain
things, most of which are pure fantasy or minor to start with -
"racism, terrorism, various religions, discrimination, Non- PC
behaviour", and when anything goes wrong, you simply twist and turn it
to fit into one of these groups, rather than looking for the real
cause and cure.

 

[terryc]

On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 19:36:58 -0700, KR wrote:

What I find amusing is that nations like China, that bin this carbon
pollution rubbish where it belongs, and go ahead and do what is needed
to create jobs, products, services, wealth and a sound future are rising
up from bicycles to cars,

They suffer from the same human arrogance and they have not learnt from
the mistakes of other countries and are now going through the same
industrial pollution and motor vehicle smog problems that all other
places went through.

 

[David L. Jones]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

"David L. Jones" <altzone@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Nx0pm.19690$UH2.7713@newsfe01.iad...
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?

**Not me. When I read some quotes from Plimer, I realised that he had
been hoodwinked by the pseudo-scientific morons that are some
common-place on the
'net. I will read it, but I refuse to pay full price for a hardback
edition.
I may wait for the floppy cover, or buy second hand from Amazon.

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.

**Indeed. Having read his Telling Lies For God, I was a fan of Plimer.

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.

Dave.


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

 

[Trevor Wilson]

"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.

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


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[terryc]

On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 12:57:11 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote:

You think people giving up their individual motor transport is going to
be contentious, try telling them no air-con, one hot meal a day, 1 hr
of tv, no shopping, etc

**What part of what I wrote suggests such a thing? Be precise in your
answer please. Be aware that any changes would be epxected to take some
years. They cannot be implemented overnight without potentially
catstrophic results.

If human produced CO2 is the problem and we are already producing too
much, then we need to work out the safe amount of human caused CO2
production and share it been between every person alive on the earth.

You work out the resultant living level.

Otherwise, this would have all been
adverted becuae I've ridden my bicycle or taken public transport to
work during my working life.

**One person is unlikely to make a difference. It needs to be a
concerted effort by the entire planet. Including China.

How about the western nations leading by example?
As China and India say; you lot had the benefits and caused this.

Alternatively, we can easily meet even the toughest CO2 emission
standards by stopping the export of coal. That is where our per capita
figure comes from.

 

[terryc]

On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 14:26:35 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote:

"terryc" <newsninespam-spam@woa.com.au> wrote in message
news:h84ih0$p60$3@news.eternal-september.org...
On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 12:57:11 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote:


You think people giving up their individual motor transport is
going to be contentious, try telling them no air-con, one hot meal
a day, 1 hr of tv, no shopping, etc

**What part of what I wrote suggests such a thing? Be precise in
your answer please. Be aware that any changes would be epxected to
take some years. They cannot be implemented overnight without
potentially catstrophic results.

If human produced CO2 is the problem and we are already producing too
much, then we need to work out the safe amount of human caused CO2
production and share it been between every person alive on the earth.

You work out the resultant living level.

**Perhaps you missed my question. I'll repeat it: ---
What part of what I wrote suggests such a thing? Be precise in your
answer please.

Only a fool would think our lifestyle can continue without adjustment.

**Sounds good, in theory. Provided the entire planet acts in concert,

No, the western worlds, who have benefited and caused the problem have to
lead. None of this "you first", "no you first" bullshit.

then the system should work. That may involve trade restrictions on
nations that fail to comply.


As China and India say; you lot had the benefits and caused this.

**Fair enough too. However, the planet cannot afford every Chinese and
Indian to acquire a Wester standard of living. It would be an
environmental catastrophe.

So, our standard of living will have to drop to world average. Or do you
want to still quibble about the resultant drop in out standard of living?
Perhaps you claim some special dispensation from some god that your arse
is more important that any indian or chinese arse?

Alternatively, we can easily meet even the toughest CO2 emission
standards by stopping the export of coal. That is where our per
capita figure comes from.

**No, we cannot. Our emissions, per capita are amongst the highest on
the planet. Enforcing CO2 restrictions will automatically cause our coal
exports to cease.

Funny how no one has mentioned that.