Leo's latest missive - Silicon Chip editorial

[Trevor Wilson]

"terryc" <newssevenspam-spam@woa.com.au> wrote in message
news:4a1eb9be$0$59103$c30e37c6@pit-reader.telstra.net...

On Thu, 28 May 2009 12:45:49 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote:

"terryc" <newssevenspam-spam@woa.com.au> wrote in message
news:4a1cafc7$0$59103$c30e37c6@pit-reader.telstra.net...
On Wed, 27 May 2009 10:48:11 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote:

Is anyone else as horrified at Leo's latest outburst in his magazine

Want to post some critical analysis with excerpt? <haven't purchased it
for years

**Without violating copyright, I'll paraphrase.

Leo claimed:

1) "Hard core fanatics" feel that the planet is headed for disaster (due
to global warming).

Ignopring the colourful language, the problem with all this climate
change stuff is that a lot of it IS NOT science, but more correctly
mathematically projections, which can be very problematic.

**Can be. Unfortunately, the evidence is clear. The future effects are not
so clear. It would seem prudent to act early, before any possible thermal
runaway effects take hold. No?

The real problem is that a more and more data is re-analysed and
scientifically evaluated, it is changing and since some of this is base
data, oh dear.

**As the data is accumulated, it is becoming clear that the upper limits of
the IPCC reports are appearing conservative.

My bottom line is that we are going to see some climate change, but
weather it is runaway, and what percentage anthromorphological (sp
stuffed) I don't know.

**Nor do I. However, this is the only planet we have. We should look after
it. We should act conservatively to the only (known) home we have in this
universe.

Since we do not fully understand Australia's weather, I am very sceptical
of climate change scare stories. Credibility is nt helped by the swine
flu scare story beat up doing the rounds.

**Strawman noted.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[geoff]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

"David L. Jones" <altzone@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:jE0Tl.92529$9J5.90871@newsfe13.iad...
Trevor Wilson wrote:
Is anyone else as horrified at Leo's latest outburst in his magazine
as I am? There is a rather surprising amount of ignorance displayed
in his editorial. He seems to have the same scientific outlook as
George W Bush, John Howard and Andrew Bolt. Which is to say, none at
all.

Now that's not entirely fair, nobody can be compared to Geoge.W!

**It seems that Leo Simpson can be. Like George W, he has:

* Managed to ignore real science and trust in religion instead.
* Managed to promulgate lies in place of fact.
* Refused to back his claims with facts.

Has everybody forgotten George (oops John) Dubya Howard already ?

geoff

 

[L.A.T.]

"L.A.T." <tt92@ispdr.net.au> wrote in message
newsL1Tl.13866$y61.10709@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

"David L. Jones" <altzone@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:jE0Tl.92529$9J5.90871@newsfe13.iad...
Trevor Wilson wrote:
Is anyone else as horrified at Leo's latest outburst in his magazine
as I am? There is a rather surprising amount of ignorance displayed
in his editorial. He seems to have the same scientific outlook as
George W Bush, John Howard and Andrew Bolt. Which is to say, none at
all.

Now that's not entirely fair, nobody can be compared to Geoge.W!

I'm really enjoying reading Al Gore's The Assault on Reason at the
moment, he gives GWB and the rest of his cronies a right royal flogging.

Dave.
--
---------------------------------------------
Check out my Electronics Engineering Video Blog & Podcast:
http://www.alternatezone.com/eevblog/
I read the article minutes ago and logged on to express my horror,
confident I would be the first to do so. Not so, and I hope I'll not be
the last.
I wonder if Leo knows the difference between Chemistry and Physics?
And a gentle reminder to us all: climate is not weather and vice-versa

 

[Trevor Wilson]

"KR" <kenreed1999@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8b4a41ad-c9d3-4214-af9c-9678ae962474@f37g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
On May 29, 7:06 am, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au>
wrote:

"KR" <kenreed1...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:2a713ded-6ede-4417-a4e2-367811cc7901@p21g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
On May 28, 12:45 pm, "Trevor Wilson"



tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
"terryc" <newssevenspam-s...@woa.com.au> wrote in message

news:4a1cafc7$0$59103$c30e37c6@pit-reader.telstra.net...

On Wed, 27 May 2009 10:48:11 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote:

Is anyone else as horrified at Leo's latest outburst in his magazine

Want to post some critical analysis with excerpt?
haven't purchased it for years

**Without violating copyright, I'll paraphrase.

Leo claimed:

1) "Hard core fanatics" feel that the planet is headed for disaster (due
to
global warming).

IMO, the many scientists who wrote the IPCC reports can ahrdly be
classified
as "hard core fanatics". Nor can the vast majority of climatologists,
who
have carefully studied global warming for the last few decades.

2) Leo claims that water vapour is the major issue, not CO2. He goes on
to
claim that the same "hard core fanatics" disregard water vapour.

He is correct, of course. However, by disregarding the effects of CO2
(and
other GHGs), he falls into a big trap. The IPCC (and others) have NEVER
disputed the effects of water vapour on global warming.

3) He claims that, because CO2 is a normal component of air, that it
cannot
be a polutant.

Anyone can see the failure of this logic.

4) He then goes on to point out the stupidity of carbon capture.

I actually agree with this point. Carbon capture is expensive, unproven
and
is doomed to failure.

5) He refers to the scientists at the IPCC as "so-called experts".

This failure to acknowledge the credentials of the climate scientists
who
wrote much of the reports, is just dumb.

Read the editorial. He has it wrong. Very wrong.

--
Trevor Wilsonwww.rageaudio.com.au

Have read the editorial, and until you actually stated otherwise, I
first thought the part you were taking issue with Leo to was the part
about "the economy improving in a year in most nations". I think he
needs to get more of a grip on economic reality before making a
ridiculous statement like that. I hope none of you are investing or
planning for the future based on beliefs like this.

While I don't dispute that climate change may be occurring and that it
always has occurred as part of a natural climate cycle, there are also
very many who believe that the theory of man made global warming (AGW)
is rubbish .

**Indeed. There are a large number of scientific illiterates who state
just
that. Sadly, those people have either failed to read the IPCC reports, or
are financially tied to the fossil fuel industry. The facts are blindingly
simple: The vast majority of climatologists have carefully and succinctly
explained that global warming is occuring and that it is mostly due to
anthropogenic influence.

Bodies like the IPCC also have their own agendas

**Really? What would they be? Don't forget to provide your evidence to
support your claim.

I also have read where Al Gore is being sued by 20,000 scientists over
his claims of AGW so if that is true, then there is plenty of doubt,
as I dont regard 20,000 scientists as an insignificant number.

**Sounds bogus to me. However, I'll be happy to read whatever evidence you
can provide to support your claim. If you cannot provide any evidence,
your
claim will be dismissed as bullshit.

Trevor, I long ago dismissed most of what you say as bullshit, so Im
not
particularly worried.

**Of cpurse. Scientific illiterates like you, hate the truth.


here is a quick google search, (for what its worth)
I admit I was wrong, its 30,000 scientists, not 20,000.

http://www.google.com.au/search?q=al+gore+sued+AND+scientists&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&client=firefox-a


**Nothing there. All I see is someone THREATENING to sue Gore. I do not see
30,000 scientists actually suing Gore. Claim dismissed.

At the end of the day, Gore is a politician and an environmentalist,
these are 2 excellent reasons to take anything he says with quite a
few (proverbial) grains of salt. The fact that the AGW movement has
done everything to rubbish and put down research and views opposite to
their "party line" speaks volumes as to their integrity also. If they
are in fact correct, they should have nothing to fear by scrutiny and
peer review of their "research".

**It HAS been peer-reviewed! Many times. The result is always the same.
Read
the IPCC reports. They were peer-reviewed.

Either way, if (hypothetically) AGW was true, any of the currently
proposed methods to "fix" it would result in incredible price
increases in energy, most current sources of which there is no viable
and cost-effective alternative for (short of nuclear) anyway. This
would result in widespread poverty and poor living conditions.

**Really? How much would it cost? Be precise. You're claiming that it will
result in "incredible price increases". Please feel free to present your
evidence.

At the end of the day, it stinks of an excuse for another tax (ie:
stealing more of our earnings that WE have worked for), another excuse
to regulate and control our lives, travel and transport, industry, and/
or as a cover for the inevitable downgrades, rationing, blackouts
that in reality will be caused by collapsing state revenues, and the
lack of investment in infrastructure (and their years of endless and
seemingly unlimited incompetence).

**All those things are (partly) the result of lack of investment in
infrastructure, caused (partly) by inadequate taxation.

I would be amazed if the tax was spent on anything positive to "fix"
AGW, it would just disappear into the black hole that is the
government budget and now the national debt the current government has
given us.

**Then we need to ensure that this does not occur. AGW is a serious
problem
and requires serious solutions.

The only real way to fix any hypothetical AGW situation would be a
decrease in population levels.

**Good idea. In theory. In practice, not so good. The economies of this
planet are predicated on continuous population increase. As soon as
population growth ceases, economies start falling over. It is, of course,
a
giant 'Ponzi Scheme'. It was always doomed to failure.

By having a future with less people
around, both stops carbon emissions through breathing, not to mention
the enormous amount each person produces indirectly through their
lives just by energy consumption, food production, fuel use etc.
Taking any "breeding" bonuses away from hard core welfare ferals and
using them in place of proposed carbon taxes would be the best way to
kick this off , but dropping the carbon tax and leaving this wasted
money in the hands of the taxpayer would be even better still.

**Why? So the taxpayer can buy bigger, more powerful 4WDs, or bigger, more
power hungry plasma TV sets, or bigger, more power hungry homes? Tough
taxation, although extremely unpopular, may just cause people to start
acting responsibly. There are some possible links between lightly taxed
nations (like the US and Australia) and the amount of energy used.

It is supposed to be a free and a capitalist country.

**It is. However, like every nation on Earth, it is a (partly) Socialist
system. Taxpayers fund (amongst other things):

* Defence.
* Garbage collection.
* Infrastructure.
* Police.
* The courts system.
* The medical system.
* The public transport system.
* Those who cannot support themselves.

Taxes pay for this stuff and more.


If people have the ability to earn income - through their own hard
work, risk, or clever investment its their right to spend their own
money as they personally see fit.

**After they pay tax, yes.


Its NOT the right of a government in a free society to just take large
chunks of people's money and spend it as the government sees fit.

**Yes, it is. The government sets the rate of taxation. You don't get a
choice in the matter. Short of using your Democratic voting rights, of
course.

This
is the sort of society like the USSR, NK etc, its NOT what we want or
need here. Socialism does not work in the long term, and never has.

**Your inability to understand the fine nuances of realpolitik is duly
noted. ALL nations are Socialist to varying degrees. Every single one. Well,
except, perhaps, Somalia. Would you prefer that Australia be more like
Somalia?

Governments are typcally the most wasteful and inefficient
institutions we have ever been cursed with, and the last thing we need
is to be feeding them more.

**Utter, banal bullshit. Governments CAN be wasteful. As can large
corporations. OTOH, since governments are not profit-driven, they can
provide certain services at far lower cost than corporations. The health
system, for instance, here in Australia, has some serious benefits to
Australians, as regards costs and quality of service, compared to the US.


These things like big homes, 4WD's etc are soon going to be things
of the past, now that the credit bubble is collapsing, unemployment is
going through the roof, and ridiculous policies / labor laws etc chase
investment and jobs out of here and to countries that want business,
investment and a future. I would suggest you also look at the large
number of smaller, modern cars that have been bought in recent years
also. In many cases these have replaced older inefficient clunkers and
probably saved more than the 4wds have consumed. I wouldn't be
surprised if there were far more small and efficient cars like
Corolla, Lancer, Astra etc sold than 4Wds.


As for plasmas and big cars, 4WD
I don't own any of these things, and have no desire for them.
electricity and fuel cost enough as it is, that I wouldn't want a 4WD,
or a plasma as the cost of running them is simply too much for me
over the long term.
However, I value and defend my right and everyone else's right and
free choice to buy and use these things, and to enjoy them, if honest
work and saving has been done to buy them, and have the need or
desire to own them.

**No argument from me, as long as the real costs to the community (and the
planet) are reflected in their purchase price.

It's also your right to spend YOUR money on things like solar panels,
energy efficient lighting, electric vehicles, just (like the guy in
silicon chip this month). If you seriously believe that carbon is a
problem, then take YOUR money, and do the same, and help others who
don't have the skills to do the same, IF they WANT to do it.

To limit future carbon emissions, voluntary sterilisation should also
be on this list for the environmentally responsible.

**It already is.

Dont dare force other people to waste their money when they have other
priorities or desires in their life.

**I'm not. I'm simply stating that there are methods that governments will
need to use to cause people to emit less CO2.

It is silly to throw money we can't afford at a fictitious cause

**Whoa there boy! You have to prove that all those climatologists have it
wrong, BEFORE you can claim that AGW is fictitious. Unfortunately, for
you,
the data is already in. AGW is real and it is a serious problem. However,
feel free to present your proof.

and
doing such economic damage that by the time we realise that man's
activites have nothing to do with climate change, we then find that we
have few resources left to deal with how to adapt to natural change in
climate. We will then be decades behind any countries that don't fall
for this stupidity.

**And there is the real problem. This is a planetary problem. The entire
planet must work to sort it out. Australia must do it's part.

As for Bush, personally, I can't stand the man, and haven't been able
to ever since the he started his pathetic Iraq war based on lies, then
his Gitmo torture camps, Patriot act etc.

On the carbon issue, he had it dead right.

**No, he didn't. Leo has been sucked in by charlatans and liars. He, like
you, is just hoping that the climatologists don't know their business.
You're both wrong.

I also think his current replacement isn't really much of an
improvement.

**Nonsense. Bush place the US (and the rest of the world) into this mess.
Bush cut taxation for the very wealthy and INCREASED spending. It does not
take a genius to work out that when a nation spends more than it earns,
there'll be big problems further down the track. At least Obama has
assessed
the situation and placed the facts in front of the public.

And spent even more in his first few months in office.

**Wrong. Bush racked up a debt exceeding 10 Billion US Dollars. Obama has
not even come close to this figure. Your nonsenical claim is duly noted. Do
you have any grip on reality?

Very likely
will crash the dollar and the
entire country.

**Maybe. It's not that simple. China now has so much invested in the US
economy, that it cannot afford to see the US Dollar plunge. Nor can most
other economies. Nonetheless, we'll see. We live in interesting times (to
paraphrase on old Chinese proverb).

A trillion of taxpayer dollars handed out to banks /
Wall St. is little more than criminal in my book and will impoverish
generations of Americans (and the rest of us, since we will indirectly
cop it too) paying it back, with the interest.

**I'm not qualified to speak about serious economic matters. There are
credible arguments for doing nothing and credible arguments for bailing
out
private businesses.

--

Your also not qualified to speak on AGW, just like the rest of us.


**Unlike you, I've read widely on the issue. I certainly understand
considerably more than you do.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Mr.T]

"John Tserkezis" <jt@techniciansyndrome.org.invalid> wrote in message
news:4a1e96ca$0$9134$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...

My point being, hypothetically, if you were to remove ALL sources of
animal,
human warming, and basically everything you have control over, then the
earth
would STILL warm up. Surely not as quickly, but it would still warm
anyway.

That's hard to say. In the seventies Scientific American ran an article
stating the earth was moving towards another ice age (albeit very slowly of
course), which is a natural cycle independant of human interference.
The current global warming is a natural consequence of overpopulation, which
probably goes too far in the other direction. No-one wants to tackle the
population problem however, so the rest is just empty rhetoric, vested
interests and loonies.
Hard to say whether humans will adapt better to global warming or global
cooling however, and how many of the 7+ billion people the earth can really
support in either case.

MrT.

 

[Mr.T]

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:788e2pF1l2mlfU1@mid.individual.net...

It would seem prudent to act early, before any possible thermal
runaway effects take hold. No?

*IF* we could actually change anything sufficiently to have any noticeable
benefit. No plans whatsoever to do that at the moment.

However, this is the only planet we have. We should look after
it. We should act conservatively to the only (known) home we have in this
universe.

Why? It is unimaginable that we are the only planet in the universe with
life forms of any kind, just because you don't know of any others.
We may well do the rest of the universe a favour and save many other planets
by our becoming extinct.

MrT.

 

[Trevor Wilson]

"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
news:4a1f2e81$0$29316$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...

"John Tserkezis" <jt@techniciansyndrome.org.invalid> wrote in message
news:4a1e96ca$0$9134$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
My point being, hypothetically, if you were to remove ALL sources of
animal,
human warming, and basically everything you have control over, then the
earth
would STILL warm up. Surely not as quickly, but it would still warm
anyway.

That's hard to say. In the seventies Scientific American ran an article
stating the earth was moving towards another ice age (albeit very slowly
of
course), which is a natural cycle independant of human interference.

**Sciam probably ran an article on 'Cold Fusion' too. Sciam does run
articles of a highly speculative nature from time to time. That does not
suggest that the majority of scientists feel there is (or was) any credence
to the issue. Personally, I am doubtful of your claim, but I am certainly
prepared to concede that Sciam did run such an article, after you provide
some proof. In the meantime, I suggest you read this:

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2008/10/global-cooling-was-a-myth.html

And this:

http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf

It puts paid to the myth that the scientific community gave any real
credence to the notion of global cooling. It was mostly in the realm of
popular press.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Trevor Wilson]

"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
news:4a1f3062$0$7111$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:788e2pF1l2mlfU1@mid.individual.net...
It would seem prudent to act early, before any possible thermal
runaway effects take hold. No?

*IF* we could actually change anything sufficiently to have any noticeable
benefit. No plans whatsoever to do that at the moment.

However, this is the only planet we have. We should look after
it. We should act conservatively to the only (known) home we have in this
universe.

Why?

**Er, so we can perpetuate our species.

It is unimaginable that we are the only planet in the universe with

life forms of any kind, just because you don't know of any others.
We may well do the rest of the universe a favour and save many other
planets
by our becoming extinct.

**That would be the pessimistic view. It is possible that humans are the
only intelligent species in the universe. Even if we are not, it is possible
that we may have something of worth to offer the universe.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[KR]

On May 29, 7:06 am, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au>
wrote:

"KR" <kenreed1...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:2a713ded-6ede-4417-a4e2-367811cc7901@p21g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
On May 28, 12:45 pm, "Trevor Wilson"



tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
"terryc" <newssevenspam-s...@woa.com.au> wrote in message

news:4a1cafc7$0$59103$c30e37c6@pit-reader.telstra.net...

On Wed, 27 May 2009 10:48:11 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote:

Is anyone else as horrified at Leo's latest outburst in his magazine

Want to post some critical analysis with excerpt?
haven't purchased it for years

**Without violating copyright, I'll paraphrase.

Leo claimed:

1) "Hard core fanatics" feel that the planet is headed for disaster (due
to
global warming).

IMO, the many scientists who wrote the IPCC reports can ahrdly be
classified
as "hard core fanatics". Nor can the vast majority of climatologists, who
have carefully studied global warming for the last few decades.

2) Leo claims that water vapour is the major issue, not CO2. He goes on to
claim that the same "hard core fanatics" disregard water vapour.

He is correct, of course. However, by disregarding the effects of CO2 (and
other GHGs), he falls into a big trap. The IPCC (and others) have NEVER
disputed the effects of water vapour on global warming.

3) He claims that, because CO2 is a normal component of air, that it
cannot
be a polutant.

Anyone can see the failure of this logic.

4) He then goes on to point out the stupidity of carbon capture.

I actually agree with this point. Carbon capture is expensive, unproven
and
is doomed to failure.

5) He refers to the scientists at the IPCC as "so-called experts".

This failure to acknowledge the credentials of the climate scientists who
wrote much of the reports, is just dumb.

Read the editorial. He has it wrong. Very wrong.

--
Trevor Wilsonwww.rageaudio.com.au

Have read the editorial, and until you actually stated otherwise,  I
first thought the part you were taking issue with Leo to was the part
about "the economy improving in a year in most nations". I think he
needs to get more of a grip on economic reality before making a
ridiculous statement like that.   I hope none of you are investing or
planning for the future based on beliefs like this.

While I don't dispute that climate change may be occurring and that it
always has occurred as part of a natural climate cycle, there are also
very many who believe that the theory of man made global warming (AGW)
is rubbish .

**Indeed. There are a large number of scientific illiterates who state just
that. Sadly, those people have either failed to read the IPCC reports, or
are financially tied to the fossil fuel industry. The facts are blindingly
simple: The vast majority of climatologists have carefully and succinctly
explained that global warming is occuring and that it is mostly due to
anthropogenic influence.

Bodies like the IPCC also have their own agendas

I also have read where Al Gore is being sued by 20,000 scientists over
his claims of AGW so if that is true, then there is plenty of doubt,
as I dont regard 20,000 scientists as an insignificant number.

**Sounds bogus to me. However, I'll be happy to read whatever evidence you
can provide to support your claim. If you cannot provide any evidence, your
claim will be dismissed as bullshit.

Trevor, I long ago dismissed most of what you say as bullshit, so Im
not
particularly worried.

here is a quick google search, (for what its worth)
I admit I was wrong, its 30,000 scientists, not 20,000.

http://www.google.com.au/search?q=al+gore+sued+AND+scientists&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&client=firefox-a

At the end of the day, Gore is a politician and an environmentalist,
these are 2 excellent reasons to take anything he says with quite a
few (proverbial)  grains of salt. The fact that the AGW movement has
done everything to rubbish and put down research and views opposite to
their "party line" speaks volumes as to their integrity also. If they
are in fact correct, they should have nothing to fear by scrutiny and
peer review of their "research".

**It HAS been peer-reviewed! Many times. The result is always the same. Read
the IPCC reports. They were peer-reviewed.

Either way, if (hypothetically) AGW was true, any of the currently
proposed methods to "fix" it would result in incredible price
increases in energy, most current sources of which there is no viable
and cost-effective alternative for (short of nuclear) anyway. This
would result in widespread poverty and poor living conditions.

**Really? How much would it cost? Be precise. You're claiming that it will
result in "incredible price increases". Please feel free to present your
evidence.

At the end of the day, it stinks of an excuse for another tax (ie:
stealing more of our earnings that WE have worked for), another excuse
to regulate and control our lives, travel and transport, industry, and/
or as a cover for the inevitable downgrades, rationing, blackouts
that in reality will be caused by collapsing state revenues, and the
lack of investment in infrastructure (and their years of endless and
seemingly unlimited incompetence).

**All those things are (partly) the result of lack of investment in
infrastructure, caused (partly) by inadequate taxation.

I would be amazed if the tax was spent on anything positive to "fix"
AGW, it would just disappear into the black hole that is the
government budget and now the national debt the current government has
given us.

**Then we need to ensure that this does not occur. AGW is a serious problem
and requires serious solutions.

The only real way to fix any hypothetical AGW situation would be a
decrease in population levels.

**Good idea. In theory. In practice, not so good. The economies of this
planet are predicated on continuous population increase. As soon as
population growth ceases, economies start falling over. It is, of course, a
giant 'Ponzi Scheme'. It was always doomed to failure.

 By having a future with less people
around, both stops carbon emissions through breathing, not to mention
the enormous amount each person produces indirectly through their
lives just by energy consumption, food production, fuel use etc.
Taking any "breeding" bonuses away from hard core welfare ferals and
using them in place of proposed carbon taxes would be the best way to
kick this off , but dropping the carbon tax and leaving this wasted
money in the hands of the taxpayer would be even better still.

**Why? So the taxpayer can buy bigger, more powerful 4WDs, or bigger, more
power hungry plasma TV sets, or bigger, more power hungry homes? Tough
taxation, although extremely unpopular, may just cause people to start
acting responsibly. There are some possible links between lightly taxed
nations (like the US and Australia) and the amount of energy used.

It is supposed to be a free and a capitalist country.

If people have the ability to earn income - through their own hard
work, risk, or clever investment its their right to spend their own
money as they personally see fit.

Its NOT the right of a government in a free society to just take large
chunks of people's money and spend it as the government sees fit. This
is the sort of society like the USSR, NK etc, its NOT what we want or
need here. Socialism does not work in the long term, and never has.
Governments are typcally the most wasteful and inefficient
institutions we have ever been cursed with, and the last thing we need
is to be feeding them more.

These things like big homes, 4WD's etc are soon going to be things
of the past, now that the credit bubble is collapsing, unemployment is
going through the roof, and ridiculous policies / labor laws etc chase
investment and jobs out of here and to countries that want business,
investment and a future. I would suggest you also look at the large
number of smaller, modern cars that have been bought in recent years
also. In many cases these have replaced older inefficient clunkers and
probably saved more than the 4wds have consumed. I wouldn't be
surprised if there were far more small and efficient cars like
Corolla, Lancer, Astra etc sold than 4Wds.


As for plasmas and big cars, 4WD
I don't own any of these things, and have no desire for them.
electricity and fuel cost enough as it is, that I wouldn't want a 4WD,
or a plasma as the cost of running them is simply too much for me
over the long term.
However, I value and defend my right and everyone else's right and
free choice to buy and use these things, and to enjoy them, if honest
work and saving has been done to buy them, and have the need or
desire to own them.

It's also your right to spend YOUR money on things like solar panels,
energy efficient lighting, electric vehicles, just (like the guy in
silicon chip this month). If you seriously believe that carbon is a
problem, then take YOUR money, and do the same, and help others who
don't have the skills to do the same, IF they WANT to do it.

To limit future carbon emissions, voluntary sterilisation should also
be on this list for the environmentally responsible.

Dont dare force other people to waste their money when they have other
priorities or desires in their life.

It is silly to throw money we can't afford at a fictitious cause

**Whoa there boy! You have to prove that all those climatologists have it
wrong, BEFORE you can claim that AGW is fictitious. Unfortunately, for you,
the data is already in. AGW is real and it is a serious problem. However,
feel free to present your proof.

 and
doing such economic damage that by the time we realise that man's
activites have nothing to do with climate change, we then find that we
have few resources left to deal with how to adapt to natural change in
climate.  We will then be decades behind any countries that don't fall
for this stupidity.

**And there is the real problem. This is a planetary problem. The entire
planet must work to sort it out. Australia must do it's part.

As for Bush, personally, I can't stand the man, and haven't been able
to ever since the he started his pathetic Iraq war based on lies, then
his Gitmo torture camps, Patriot act etc.

On the carbon issue, he had it dead right.

**No, he didn't. Leo has been sucked in by charlatans and liars. He, like
you, is just hoping that the climatologists don't know their business.
You're both wrong.

I also think his current replacement isn't really much of an
improvement.

**Nonsense. Bush place the US (and the rest of the world) into this mess.
Bush cut taxation for the very wealthy  and INCREASED spending. It does not
take a genius to work out that when a nation spends more than it earns,
there'll be big problems further down the track. At least Obama has assessed
the situation and placed the facts in front of the public.

And spent even more in his first few months in office. Very likely

will crash the dollar and the
entire country.

  A trillion of taxpayer dollars handed out to banks /
Wall St. is little more than criminal in my book and will impoverish
generations of Americans (and the rest of us, since we will indirectly
cop it too) paying it back, with the interest.

**I'm not qualified to speak about serious economic matters. There are
credible arguments for doing nothing and credible arguments for bailing out
private businesses.

--

Your also not qualified to speak on AGW, just like the rest of us.


> Trevor Wilsonwww.rageaudio.com.au

 

[terryc]

On Fri, 29 May 2009 10:39:06 +1000, Mr.T wrote:

The current global warming is a natural consequence of overpopulation,

you do realise that "global warming" does not mean that temperatures
every where are going to rise, but that the "weather" will have more
energy driving it with more extreme (both ends) weather events?

and how many of the 7+ billion people the earth can
really support in either case.

That depends on the life style you want them to have.

 

[Keithr]

mark krawczuk wrote:

hi, did you know there is NO proof of global warming.

There is absolute proof of global warming, the only argument is whether
it is the result of man's activities or a purely natural phenomonom.

 

[Keithr]

John Tserkezis wrote:

mark krawczuk wrote:

hi, did you know there is NO proof of global warming.

There is, it's just a question of WHO (or what) is causing it, and by
how much.

Current consensus is the earth is in a phase where it's warming up
anyway, though it would be a reasonable guess that humans factor in
somewhat too.

The question is HOW much are the humans actually effecting it. Blaming
it entirely on humans is incorrect, likewise, it would be a good guess
that blaming it on the earth doing it behind our backs entirely isn't
quite right either.

Cow flatulence factors significantly in some circles, but if you've
ever met my brother in law, his flatulence would probably account for a
fair proportion too.

My point being, hypothetically, if you were to remove ALL sources of
animal, human warming, and basically everything you have control over,
then the earth would STILL warm up. Surely not as quickly, but it would
still warm anyway.

Personally, I think a diet change for my BIL would be a good start.

What it comes down to with regard to pollution or global warming is that
it ain't what you do, it's the scale on which you do it. Unfortunately,
with the exponential growth of population, the effect on the planet goes
up similarly.

 

[terryc]

On Fri, 29 May 2009 07:29:41 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote:

"terryc" <newssevenspam-spam@woa.com.au> wrote in message
news:4a1eb9be$0$59103$c30e37c6@pit-reader.telstra.net...
On Thu, 28 May 2009 12:45:49 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote:

"terryc" <newssevenspam-spam@woa.com.au> wrote in message
news:4a1cafc7$0$59103$c30e37c6@pit-reader.telstra.net...
On Wed, 27 May 2009 10:48:11 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote:

Is anyone else as horrified at Leo's latest outburst in his magazine

Want to post some critical analysis with excerpt? <haven't purchased
it for years

**Without violating copyright, I'll paraphrase.

Leo claimed:

1) "Hard core fanatics" feel that the planet is headed for disaster
(due to global warming).

Ignopring the colourful language, the problem with all this climate
change stuff is that a lot of it IS NOT science, but more correctly
mathematically projections, which can be very problematic.

**Can be. Unfortunately, the evidence is clear.

no it isn't Every day I come across information that suggest flaws have
been found in certain core data sets on which these projections have been
made.

there is also the issue that some data sets are really local weather data
and not global climate data.

Since we do not fully understand Australia's weather, I am very
sceptical of climate change scare stories. Credibility is nt helped by
the swine flu scare story beat up doing the rounds.

**Strawman noted.

the fact that we do not really know enough about the factors influencing
Australian weather casts doubt on whether we really under global weather
and climate.





--
Once again, our prime minister Kevin Rudd brings stability to the nation
by reassurring the nation that one law still exists for the rich
and another for the poor. After a personal visit;
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/04/27/2553855.htm

 

[dmm]

On 29 May 2009 05:42:03 GMT, terryc <newssevenspam-spam@woa.com.au> wrote:

the fact that we do not really know enough about the factors influencing
Australian weather casts doubt on whether we really under global weather
and climate.

Catalyst last night had a program which showed that climate scientists are only now thinking
that the Indian Ocean may be responsible for the drought in SE Australia.

http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/2583329.htm

If it's taken local climate scientists this long for them to realise this, then what else are the IPCC
scientists missing regarding the much larger problem of global weather?

 

[dmm]

On Fri, 29 May 2009 07:29:41 +1000, "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

**Nor do I. However, this is the only planet we have. We should look after
it. We should act conservatively to the only (known) home we have in this
universe.

Of course we should look after it, but to indicate that it's the only home we have
ignores the potential of 7 other planets (sorry Pluto), moons, and uncounted number
of asteroids, comets and assorted detritus.

 

[Phil Allison]

"dmm"
"Trevor Wilson"

**Nor do I. However, this is the only planet we have. We should look after
it. We should act conservatively to the only (known) home we have in this
universe.

Of course we should look after it, but to indicate that it's the only home
we have
ignores the potential of 7 other planets (sorry Pluto), moons, and
uncounted number
of asteroids, comets and assorted detritus.

** Which one are you living on now ??

Mr pointy headed, space alien fuckwit .



..... Phil

 

[Alan Rutlidge]

"terryc" <newssevenspam-spam@woa.com.au> wrote in message
news:4a1eba51$0$59103$c30e37c6@pit-reader.telstra.net...

On Thu, 28 May 2009 20:55:17 +1000, Phil Allison wrote:

"KR"

The only real way to fix any hypothetical AGW situation would be a
decrease in population levels.

nope, you could offer to reduce your cnsumptive living to a more simple,
less resource consuming lifestyle. i.e sharing, rather than greed.

And share the love our Philthy does. Here and elsewhere on UseNet on a
fairly regular basis.
Just read a few of his recent posts here.
Can't you "feel" the love he shares with us all?

 

[The Real Andy]

On 28 May 2009 16:22:41 GMT, terryc <newssevenspam-spam@woa.com.au>
wrote:

On Thu, 28 May 2009 20:55:17 +1000, Phil Allison wrote:

"KR"

The only real way to fix any hypothetical AGW situation would be a
decrease in population levels.

nope, you could offer to reduce your cnsumptive living to a more simple,
less resource consuming lifestyle. i.e sharing, rather than greed.

For once, I actually agree with phil on this one.

 

[bruce varley]

On Fri, 29 May 2009 10:47:07 +1000, Mr.T wrote:

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:788e2pF1l2mlfU1@mid.individual.net...
It would seem prudent to act early, before any possible thermal
runaway effects take hold. No?

*IF* we could actually change anything sufficiently to have any
noticeable benefit. No plans whatsoever to do that at the moment.

However, this is the only planet we have. We should look after it. We
should act conservatively to the only (known) home we have in this
universe.

Why? It is unimaginable that we are the only planet in the universe with
life forms of any kind, just because you don't know of any others. We
may well do the rest of the universe a favour and save many other
planets by our becoming extinct.

MrT.

Yep, all this moaning about save the planet is a joke. Rats, cockroaches
and ants have nothing to worry about.

Anyway, there's only one strategy that's likely to have any significant
effect, and only then if it's applied suitably - ie very - aggressively,
and that's (wait for it) population reduction. It looks highly likely
that that will be looked after for us by mother nature. No need for us to
do anything.

 

[Phil Allison]

"The Real Andy"
terryc

"KR"

The only real way to fix any hypothetical AGW situation would be a
decrease in population levels.

nope, you could offer to reduce your cnsumptive living to a more simple,
less resource consuming lifestyle. i.e sharing, rather than greed.

For once, I actually agree with phil on this one.

** Shame there is nothing from me here.

Do read the whole thread before sticking your smelly feet in your mouth.



..... Phil