OT: carbon polls in daily telegraph. Interesting results.

[Phil Allison]

"Trevor Wilson"

**Wrong. Scientific opinion is NOT divided.

** Correct.

Climate scientologists have no credibility.

Cos what they do it not science, never as been and never will be.




..... Phil

 

Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
....

I agree that the scientific opinion is very much divided on the cause
of the climate change that is obvious to all of us who have lived on
this planet for more than half a century.

**Wrong. Scientific opinion is NOT divided. The science is settled. The
arguments now come from religious nutters, politicians, talk-back radio
hosts and fossil fuel apologists. Make no mistake: The guys who study the
climate of this planet are in agreement. The guys who deny it, do so for
other reasons, other than the science.
....

To put it in numerical terms, a search of the literature since
c1970 shows about 40,000 journal publications with "climate change"
or "global warming" or related keywords.

Of these, about 800 papers (i.e. around 2%) have taken a view that
(e.g.) CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, the so-called "greenhouse effect" is
negligible, or the greenhouse effect (usually calculated to add 33C to the
earth's average surface temperature thereby putting conditions mostly above
freezing for its distance from the primary) is not affected by human
activity, or there is nothing that can be done to change any warming effect
and we should just lay back and take it, etc.

Another analysis (I've posted that elsewhere) suggests those
800 minority position articles have mostly been written by a dozen authors
over the past 40 y.

So if we admit that opinion is not unanimous (who would think
it would be?) then it's something like 98% to 2% seem to view
the available evidence in a certain way.
(That itself doesn't always point in just one direction -- but only
kooks claim there are no exceptions to their little rules).

--
Scientists are always changing their story and as a Conservative, I
have no tolerance for ambiguity. It proves that all science is lies
and the only thing we can trust is right wing rhetoric.
-- BONZO@27-32-240-172 [100 nyms and counting], 14 Jan 2011 14:46 +1100

 

kreed <kenreed1999@gmail.com> wrote:
....

A proven corrupt "results for money" group who you wouldnt trust even
if your life depended on it.
....

Are we running down medical practitioners again?

Simple answer. Don't get sick or go into a hospital.

Or you could always ask to get free treatment to guarantee an
honest diagnosis...

--
There have been floods before and there will be floods again. The
Austrailian floods weren't even record breaking.
[Later turns out Monkey judges all Australian floods by the height of
the Brisbane R].
-- Monkey Clumps <spacebrain71@yahoo.com>, 30 Jan 2011 15:13 -0800

 

[Phil Allison]

<kym@kymhorsell.com>:

...
A proven corrupt "results for money" group who you wouldnt trust even
if your life depended on it.

Are we running down medical practitioners again?

Simple answer. Don't get sick or go into a hospital.

Or you could always ask to get free treatment to guarantee an
honest diagnosis...

** There was an American surgeon interviewed on ABC radio a few years back,
who gave simple advice.

He said, in essence, that if a surgeon ever recommend surgery - seek the
advice of another.

Repeat this process up to 9 times, but only if necessary.

Stop of course, if any surgeon says it not needed.

Cos he is the one who is right.



..... Phil

 

no one <krawczuk@adam.com.au> wrote:
....

people dont realize , that climate change has just been created.
....

Fr3udian slip?

--
Scientists [and kooks] are always changing their story and as a Conservative, I
have no tolerance for ambiguity.
-- BONZO@27-32-240-172 [100 nyms and counting], 14 Jan 2011 14:46 +1100

[Change of story:]
CORRECTION: True science, (remember that?) can be trusted, but this "science" is ALL LIES!
-- BONZO@27-32-240-172 [100 nyms and counting], 19 Feb 2011 14:46 +1100

 

[no one]

climate change is a load of crap.

people dont realize , that climate change has just been created.

it is false.
the government just wanted to create a demand to pay them moree money.

like i say , they cant tell us what the wether will be next tuesday, but
they can tell us with absolute certainty whatthe weather will be in ten
years time.

so science is always correct, never wrong ? your the idiot.


"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:984ch2Fo6sU3@mid.individual.net...

kreed wrote:
On Jul 13, 11:10 am, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
kreed wrote:
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/julia-gillard-digging-...

**Why is that interesting? The average IQ of the Telegraph
readership is below room temperature.


The answers given would tend to disprove that theory.
**Nope. It merely validates it. Most people are idiots.


They reflect what I hear in my everyday work and general discussion.

**Ok. You're surrounded by idiots. I get that.

I can assure you most I work with and know do not have a low IQ.

**Clearly, that is not the case. ALL the climatologists have told us that
AGW is a reality. Denial of that, is denial of science. Denial of science
is proof of stupidity.



Witness the answer to the last question.

64% believe that global warming is a myth.
Kinda says it all, really. 64% of respondents are idiots.


It just means that 64% are awake to reality and can think for
themselves

**Nope. It is clear prof that 64% of the respondents are idiots.

It is about time Australians started to grow up, and it is great to
see.

**It is tragic that so many Australians are able to deny science so
readily.



Even worse, is the way the questions are worded. Some are impossible
to answer.


That is somewhat true.

**It is 100% true, not somewhat.

for example:

--------------

Will your vote be altered by the carbon tax at the next federal
election?

This result doesn't tell you much, as people who don't want the tax
and vote Labor or Green will change their vote (in theory)
but those that vote liberal and don't want the tax will NOT change
their vote. Without knowing how people voted without the tax being
an issue, it is a meaningless answer in regards to the carbon tax.

----------------

Should Australia have a carbon tax?

Straightforward, and gives a clear result.
I didn't even know the opposition to it was that high but its good to
see.

**The opinions of idiots mean little to me.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[no one]

you retard, where you say : "YOU explain the warming trend that has been

observed over the past 100 odd years. If it is not CO2, then what is it? "

its the natural occuring changes in our world.

warming trend ???? you ok there ?

The Global climate is continually in a state of change. Its part of the
Natural evolution

of our Planet and the Sun - Earth orbital relationship.

Global Warming or Cooling is not influenced by Climate change and I fail to

recognise how Science has been so falsified as to prove this.

We continually are brainwashed by those on the left of Politics and the

Environmentalists via the Mainstream Media into believing their conspiracy.
A review

of a vast number of Scientific Studies and Papers printed in the various
Scientific

Journals prove there is no connection.

The historical record of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide claimed by the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change {IPCC} has been widely used by the

Environmental Movement in an attempt to force Governments to reduce Green
House

Gas Emission. Professor Ernst Beck of Muran - Goeg in Germany, proves the
IPCC

falsified and misconstrued the pre 1957 CO2 levels measured from Ice Cores
and

ignored more than 90,000 direct measurements by Chemical Analysis from 1857
to

1957. Their sole aim was to prove that CO2 concentrations have been
increasing with

the progress of human industrial civilization. Becks research confirms a
wealth of

previous investigations, which clearly prove the IPCC cherry picked its data
in an

attempt to stop global industrialization in the developed world and prevent
any

development in third world countries or face extreme heat and melting
icecaps. Beck

further proved the Kyoto Treaty on greenhouse gas reduction is based on
scientific

fraud and violates the laws of the Universe, and does not recognise the well

established and accepted determination of climate by the cyclical variations
of the

Sun- Earth orbital relationship and in the Suns heat output. Greenhouse Gas
emissions

actually protect the Earth by forming a blanket in the Stratosphere and
bouncing off

the thermal heat produced by the sun and other radionuclides. Without the
greenhouse

effect the near surface air temperature would be -18 degrees C and not 15
degrees C

as it is now. The most important among these Greenhouse Gases is Water
Vapour,

which is responsible for about 96 to 99 % of the greenhouse effect.


"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:984kiqFaqdU3@mid.individual.net...

Phil Allison wrote:
"Trevor Wilson"


**Clearly, that is not the case. ALL the climatologists have told us
that AGW is a reality. Denial of that, is denial of science


** Since when is climatology a science ?

**For a few decades now. Here's a guy who seems to know a little about the
topic:

http://www.bom.gov.au/announcements/new_director/biography.shtml


It is no more a science than Scientology is.

**Really? What do you base that conclusion on?

Send a message to Dr Ayers explaining your POV. I'm certain he will most
interested in your well informed opinion.

Remind me: What is your experience in the area of atmospheric physics?


So called climatologists ( they invented the subject and dubbed
themselves with the misleading title ) do not perform experiments,

**Are you certain about that? Got some proof?

have never made successful predictions about the future climate

**Are you certain about that? Google: Svante Arrheius sometime. More than
100 years ago, Arrhenius predicted that the temperature of the planet
would rise, if humans increased CO2 emissions. He drew on works and
experimental data from guys like Fourier that has already established that
CO2 was highly resonant at several IR frequencies.

and
are generally laughed at by real scientists as obvious fakes and
opportunists.

**I don't accept that lie. I do accept that Tony Abbott, George Pell and
Alan Jones dispute the science however. None of those guys understands
diddly about science though.



BTW:

The word "science" coming from the lips of TW is a blasphemy.

**Uh-huh. I'll play your game. YOU explain the warming trend that has been
observed over the past 100 odd years. If it is not CO2, then what is it?


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[kreed]

On Jul 13, 3:09 pm, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

Phil Allison wrote:
"Trevor Wilson"

**Clearly, that is not the case. ALL the climatologists have told
us that AGW is a reality. Denial of that, is denial of science

** Since when is climatology a science ?

**For a few decades now.

** Nonsense.

It is not science at all.

**So you keep insisting. I feel reasonably certain that this guy may dispute
what you say:

http://www.bom.gov.au/announcements/new_director/biography.shtml

Send him an email, outlining your theories. I feel certain he will be
pleased to hear from you, telling him that the last few decades of his
research was a waste of time.



It is no more a science than Scientology is.

**Really? What do you base that conclusion on?

**  No science involved in either.

**I see. So, all those years of research performed by Dr Ayers is pointless?
Is that your contention?

Have you sent Dr Ayers an email, explaining your theory?



But lostsa money and gaining influence over gullible people is the
driver.

**There are other possibilities. Perhaps the climatologists are correct and
the religious nutters (Abbott, Pell, et al) and the talk-back radio hosts
are wrong. Let's examine the possibilities:

* The guys who study the climate have told us that CO2 levels are rising to
levels that pose a serious risk of irreversible damage to our climate.
* A bunch of religious nutters, politicians and talk-back radio hosts, with
all their climate expertise, claim that the climatologists are wrong.

Yeah, sure.



So called climatologists ( they invented the subject and dubbed
themselves with the misleading title ) do not perform experiments,

**Are you certain about that?

 ** How absurd.

**Failure to answer question duly noted.



have never made successful predictions about the future climate

**Are you certain about that? Google: Svante Arrheius sometime. More
than 100 years ago, Arrhenius predicted that the temperature of the
planet would rise,

**  He a friend of  " Nostradamus "  by any chance ??

**Nup. Pretty smart guy, as it happens. Here's a Wiki entry:

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

And here's one for Fourier (who I am certain you are already familiar with):

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



 What absurd Crapology.

 The only  " science  " TW is familiar with.

**Don't be rude. Read the science and ignore what the religious nutters,
politicians and talk-back radio hosts tell you. Here's a good starting
point:

www.ipcc.ch

A proven corrupt "results for money" group who you wouldnt trust even
if your life depended on it.

are generally laughed at by real scientists as obvious fakes and
opportunists.

**I don't accept that lie.

** ROTFL.

TW always use his opinions to prove his opinions.

**Nup. Just the science and logic.



Same as all fakes, liars and charlatans.

**You mean like Tony Abbott, George Pell and Alan Jones? You think they're
honest?

How about the climategate "scientists" caught with their pants down
fabricating data ??

You're dreaming.



BTW:

The word "science" coming from the lips of TW is a blasphemy.

**Uh-huh. I'll play your game. YOU explain the warming trend that
has been observed over the past 100 odd years. If it is not CO2,
then what is it?

** The small, recent trend you allude to may well be measurement
error, statistical variance or a natural effect that will turn and go
the other way in the future.

**That "small, recent trend" is the most rapid rise in temperature in more
than 400,000 years. That makes it neither small, nor recent. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg

And:

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/Closer_Look/i...



THEN  we will have all sorts of dire predictions of planet wide
disaster from Global Cooling  !!!

**Not from the climatologists. Those claims are coming from religious
nutters, politicians, talk-back radio hosts and journalists.



THEN all the climate charlatans will be saying we need to generate
more CO2 to fix it  !!!!!

**Nope. Fact is that large sulphur emissions from China are causing less
warming on the surface. The effects of visible pollution on warming has been
known for quite some time. If more pollution is emitted, then the worst
effects of the warming trend may be able to be mitigated for awhile. Of
course, when the skies clear...............



The obvious comparisons with witchcraft and bone pointing are
frightening.

**I agree. Those who claim that climatologists are wrong are just religious
fools.

That isnt a very scientific observation

BTW:

Been damn cool where I live lately......

**So? Here's the climate comparisons where I live:

http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=tme....

And:

http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=tme.....

And:

http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=tme....

Kinda obvious, huh?

Damned science. It'll get you every single time.

--
Trevor Wilsonwww.rageaudio.com.au

 

[kreed]

On Jul 13, 6:40 pm, "no one" <krawc...@adam.com.au> wrote:

climate change is a load of crap.

people dont realize , that  climate change has just been created.

it is false.
the government just wanted to create a demand to pay them moree money.

That is part of it, but it goes deeper than that, if you control
resources, food, water, power, you
control everyone, decide who gets and doenst get them etc. That is the
main thing. From that you
can have as much money as you want, and use anyone any way you want.

like i say , they cant   tell us what the wether will be next tuesday,  but
they can tell us with absolute certainty whatthe weather will be in ten
years time.

so science is always  correct, never wrong ? your the idiot.

"Trevor Wilson" <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message

news:984ch2Fo6sU3@mid.individual.net...

kreed wrote:
On Jul 13, 11:10 am, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
kreed wrote:
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/julia-gillard-digging-....

**Why is that interesting? The average IQ of the Telegraph
readership is below room temperature.

The answers given would tend to disprove that theory.
**Nope. It merely validates it. Most people are idiots.

They reflect what I hear in my everyday work and general discussion.

**Ok. You're surrounded by idiots. I get that.

I can assure you most I work with and know do not have a low IQ.

**Clearly, that is not the case. ALL the climatologists have told us that
AGW is a reality. Denial of that, is denial of science. Denial of science
is proof of stupidity.

Witness the answer to the last question.

64% believe that global warming is a myth.
Kinda says it all, really. 64% of respondents are idiots.

It just means that 64% are awake to reality and can think for
themselves

**Nope. It is clear prof that 64% of the respondents are idiots.

It is about time Australians started to grow up, and it is great to
see.

**It is tragic that so many Australians are able to deny science so
readily.

Even worse, is the way the questions are worded. Some are impossible
to answer.

That is somewhat true.

**It is 100% true, not somewhat.

for example:

--------------

Will your vote be altered by the carbon tax at the next federal
election?

This result doesn't tell you much, as people who don't want the tax
and vote Labor or Green will change their vote (in theory)
but those that vote liberal and don't want the tax will NOT change
their vote.  Without knowing how people voted without the tax being
an issue, it is a meaningless answer in regards to the carbon tax.

----------------

Should Australia have a carbon tax?

Straightforward, and gives a clear result.
I didn't even know the opposition to it was that high but its good to
see.

**The opinions of idiots mean little to me.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Trevor Wilson]

no one wrote:

climate change is a load of crap.

**Indeed. The warming we are experiencing will be crap. Of course, if you
mean "crap" in the same sense that Tony Abbott meant crap, then you are as
big a scientific ignoramous as he is.

people dont realize , that climate change has just been created.

**Nup. It was predicted more than 100 years ago. Sadly, those predictions
are proving to be factual.

it is false.
the government just wanted to create a demand to pay them moree money.

**Nup. The government does not really want to bring in a carbon tax.

like i say , they cant tell us what the wether will be next
tuesday,

**Wanna bet?

The "wether" (sic) for next Tuesday will be (for Sydney):

Min - 10
Max - 18
Partly cloudy. Scattered showers. Light winds.

The accuracy for a prediction for next Tuesday is likely to be about 60%.

However, none of this means diddly squat. Weather is not climate. Climate
change predictions relate to general shifts in climate, not specific day to
day numbers.



but they can tell us with absolute certainty whatthe

weather will be in ten years time.

**No, they cannot. They can tell us what the CLIMATE will be in 50 or 100
years, IF CO2 emissions continue to rise at the present rate.

so science is always correct, never wrong ? your the idiot.

**Here's a suggestion:

BEFORE you start calling people idiots, I suggest you learn a little
nettiquette, some grammar and spelling. Your ignorance is nothing short of
breathtaking. Your posts suggest your intellect lies somewhere South of a 9
year old. That is nothing for you to be proud of.

That said: I'll play your game. Submit your science that proves the IPCC
reports are incorrect.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:984ch2Fo6sU3@mid.individual.net...
kreed wrote:
On Jul 13, 11:10 am, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@rageaudio.com.au
wrote:
kreed wrote:
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/julia-gillard-digging-...

**Why is that interesting? The average IQ of the Telegraph
readership is below room temperature.


The answers given would tend to disprove that theory.
**Nope. It merely validates it. Most people are idiots.


They reflect what I hear in my everyday work and general discussion.

**Ok. You're surrounded by idiots. I get that.

I can assure you most I work with and know do not have a low IQ.

**Clearly, that is not the case. ALL the climatologists have told us
that AGW is a reality. Denial of that, is denial of science. Denial
of science is proof of stupidity.



Witness the answer to the last question.

64% believe that global warming is a myth.
Kinda says it all, really. 64% of respondents are idiots.


It just means that 64% are awake to reality and can think for
themselves

**Nope. It is clear prof that 64% of the respondents are idiots.

It is about time Australians started to grow up, and it is great to
see.

**It is tragic that so many Australians are able to deny science so
readily.



Even worse, is the way the questions are worded. Some are
impossible to answer.


That is somewhat true.

**It is 100% true, not somewhat.

for example:

--------------

Will your vote be altered by the carbon tax at the next federal
election?

This result doesn't tell you much, as people who don't want the tax
and vote Labor or Green will change their vote (in theory)
but those that vote liberal and don't want the tax will NOT change
their vote. Without knowing how people voted without the tax being
an issue, it is a meaningless answer in regards to the carbon tax.

----------------

Should Australia have a carbon tax?

Straightforward, and gives a clear result.
I didn't even know the opposition to it was that high but its good
to see.

**The opinions of idiots mean little to me.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Trevor Wilson]

Phil Allison wrote:

"Trevor Wilson"

**Wrong. Scientific opinion is NOT divided.


** Correct.

Climate scientologists have no credibility.

Cos what they do it not science, never as been and never will be.

**And yet, despite repeated requests, you have not supplied a shred of
science to support your claims, nor have you explained to Dr Ayers that he
is wrong.

You, Tony Abbott and George Pell deserve each other.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Trevor Wilson]

kreed wrote:

On Jul 13, 3:09 pm, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
Phil Allison wrote:
"Trevor Wilson"

**Clearly, that is not the case. ALL the climatologists have told
us that AGW is a reality. Denial of that, is denial of science

** Since when is climatology a science ?

**For a few decades now.

** Nonsense.

It is not science at all.

**So you keep insisting. I feel reasonably certain that this guy may
dispute what you say:

http://www.bom.gov.au/announcements/new_director/biography.shtml

Send him an email, outlining your theories. I feel certain he will be
pleased to hear from you, telling him that the last few decades of
his research was a waste of time.



It is no more a science than Scientology is.

**Really? What do you base that conclusion on?

** No science involved in either.

**I see. So, all those years of research performed by Dr Ayers is
pointless? Is that your contention?

Have you sent Dr Ayers an email, explaining your theory?



But lostsa money and gaining influence over gullible people is the
driver.

**There are other possibilities. Perhaps the climatologists are
correct and the religious nutters (Abbott, Pell, et al) and the
talk-back radio hosts are wrong. Let's examine the possibilities:

* The guys who study the climate have told us that CO2 levels are
rising to levels that pose a serious risk of irreversible damage to
our climate. * A bunch of religious nutters, politicians and
talk-back radio hosts, with all their climate expertise, claim that
the climatologists are wrong.

Yeah, sure.



So called climatologists ( they invented the subject and dubbed
themselves with the misleading title ) do not perform experiments,

**Are you certain about that?

** How absurd.

**Failure to answer question duly noted.



have never made successful predictions about the future climate

**Are you certain about that? Google: Svante Arrheius sometime.
More than 100 years ago, Arrhenius predicted that the temperature
of the planet would rise,

** He a friend of " Nostradamus " by any chance ??

**Nup. Pretty smart guy, as it happens. Here's a Wiki entry:

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

And here's one for Fourier (who I am certain you are already
familiar with):

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



What absurd Crapology.

The only " science " TW is familiar with.

**Don't be rude. Read the science and ignore what the religious
nutters, politicians and talk-back radio hosts tell you. Here's a
good starting point:

www.ipcc.ch



A proven corrupt "results for money" group who you wouldnt trust even
if your life depended on it.

**Really? Got some proof of that?

are generally laughed at by real scientists as obvious fakes and
opportunists.

**I don't accept that lie.

** ROTFL.

TW always use his opinions to prove his opinions.

**Nup. Just the science and logic.



Same as all fakes, liars and charlatans.

**You mean like Tony Abbott, George Pell and Alan Jones? You think
they're honest?



How about the climategate "scientists" caught with their pants down
fabricating data ??

**Really? Cite which data was fabricated.

You're dreaming.



BTW:

The word "science" coming from the lips of TW is a blasphemy.

**Uh-huh. I'll play your game. YOU explain the warming trend that
has been observed over the past 100 odd years. If it is not CO2,
then what is it?

** The small, recent trend you allude to may well be measurement
error, statistical variance or a natural effect that will turn and
go the other way in the future.

**That "small, recent trend" is the most rapid rise in temperature
in more than 400,000 years. That makes it neither small, nor recent.
See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg

And:

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/Closer_Look/i...



THEN we will have all sorts of dire predictions of planet wide
disaster from Global Cooling !!!

**Not from the climatologists. Those claims are coming from religious
nutters, politicians, talk-back radio hosts and journalists.



THEN all the climate charlatans will be saying we need to generate
more CO2 to fix it !!!!!

**Nope. Fact is that large sulphur emissions from China are causing
less warming on the surface. The effects of visible pollution on
warming has been known for quite some time. If more pollution is
emitted, then the worst effects of the warming trend may be able to
be mitigated for awhile. Of course, when the skies
clear...............



The obvious comparisons with witchcraft and bone pointing are
frightening.

**I agree. Those who claim that climatologists are wrong are just
religious fools.



That isnt a very scientific observation

**Yes, it is. The overwhelming amonut of scientific evidence supports the
notion of AGW. Anyone who denies the overwhelming bulk of science can only
be regarded as an idiot, or a religious ignoramous. Given that some of the
most outspoken people happne to be Tony Abbott, Nick Minchin, George Pell
and Monckton, it is only reasonable to assume that the Catholic Church has
some kind of interest in promulgating a mistrust of good science. Given the
history of the Catholics, this should surprise no one.

BTW:

Been damn cool where I live lately......

**So? Here's the climate comparisons where I live:

http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=tme...

And:

http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=tme....

And:

http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=tme...

Kinda obvious, huh?

Damned science. It'll get you every single time.

**No response from you or PA on climate data I note.

SOP.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Phil Allison]

"Trevor Wilson"

Phil Allison wrote:
"Trevor Wilson"

**Wrong. Scientific opinion is NOT divided.


** Correct.

Climate scientologists have no credibility.

Cos what they do it not science, never as been and never will be.


**And yet, despite repeated requests,

** YOU made the claim.

But YOU have no idea what " science " is.

Cos you have no education, no insight and no clue.




..... Phil

 

[Trevor Wilson]

Phil Allison wrote:

"Trevor Wilson"
Phil Allison wrote:
"Trevor Wilson"

**Wrong. Scientific opinion is NOT divided.


** Correct.

Climate scientologists have no credibility.

Cos what they do it not science, never as been and never will be.


**And yet, despite repeated requests,


** YOU made the claim.

**_I_ made no such claim. I simply accept the science, as presented here:

www.ipcc.ch

and by this man:

http://www.bom.gov.au/announcements/new_director/biography.shtml

Here, OTOH, are your claims (that you have yet to substantiate):

---
"It (climatology) is no more a science than Scientology is.

So called climatologists ( they invented the subject and dubbed themselves
with the misleading title ) do not perform experiments, have never made
successful predictions about the future climate and are generally laughed at
by real scientists as obvious fakes and opportunists."
---

---
"It is not science at all."
---
---
"** The small, recent trend you allude to may well be measurement error,
statistical variance or a natural effect that will turn and go the other way
in the future.

THEN we will have all sorts of dire predictions of planet wide disaster
from Global Cooling !!!

THEN all the climate charlatans will be saying we need to generate more CO2
to fix it !!!!!

The obvious comparisons with witchcraft and bone pointing are frightening."
---
---
"Climate scientologists have no credibility.

Cos what they do it not science, never as been and never will be."
---

I note your continued inability to substantiate your claims. I, again,
invite you to do the following:

Read the following site in full:

www.ipcc.ch

and, send a message to this man:

http://www.bom.gov.au/announcements/new_director/biography.shtml

Explain to him that his life's work is bogus and that you know far more than
he does about climate science. I feel certain he will be axious to hear of
your expertise in this area.

But YOU have no idea what " science " is.

**So you keep bleating. Now you need to explain to all of us where the IPCC
is wrong and you, Tony Abbott, George Pell and Nick Minchin are correct.

Cos you have no education, no insight and no clue.

**So you keep saying. I invite you to explain to Dr Ayers where he is wrong
and you are right. I eagerly await his reply to your email. Please feel free
to publish that reply in this forum.

I also note your inability to answer my previous questions and comment on
the data I presented to you.

Sad.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[no one]

there IS NO CLIMATE CHANGE , ITS JUST THE NATURAL OCCURING CHANGES.


"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:986dolF2rqU3@mid.individual.net...

no one wrote:
climate change is a load of crap.

**Indeed. The warming we are experiencing will be crap. Of course, if you
mean "crap" in the same sense that Tony Abbott meant crap, then you are as
big a scientific ignoramous as he is.


people dont realize , that climate change has just been created.

**Nup. It was predicted more than 100 years ago. Sadly, those predictions
are proving to be factual.


it is false.
the government just wanted to create a demand to pay them moree money.

**Nup. The government does not really want to bring in a carbon tax.


like i say , they cant tell us what the wether will be next
tuesday,

**Wanna bet?

The "wether" (sic) for next Tuesday will be (for Sydney):

Min - 10
Max - 18
Partly cloudy. Scattered showers. Light winds.

The accuracy for a prediction for next Tuesday is likely to be about 60%.

However, none of this means diddly squat. Weather is not climate. Climate
change predictions relate to general shifts in climate, not specific day
to day numbers.



but they can tell us with absolute certainty whatthe
weather will be in ten years time.

**No, they cannot. They can tell us what the CLIMATE will be in 50 or 100
years, IF CO2 emissions continue to rise at the present rate.


so science is always correct, never wrong ? your the idiot.

**Here's a suggestion:

BEFORE you start calling people idiots, I suggest you learn a little
nettiquette, some grammar and spelling. Your ignorance is nothing short of
breathtaking. Your posts suggest your intellect lies somewhere South of a
9 year old. That is nothing for you to be proud of.

That said: I'll play your game. Submit your science that proves the IPCC
reports are incorrect.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au




"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:984ch2Fo6sU3@mid.individual.net...
kreed wrote:
On Jul 13, 11:10 am, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@rageaudio.com.au
wrote:
kreed wrote:
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/julia-gillard-digging-...

**Why is that interesting? The average IQ of the Telegraph
readership is below room temperature.


The answers given would tend to disprove that theory.
**Nope. It merely validates it. Most people are idiots.


They reflect what I hear in my everyday work and general discussion.

**Ok. You're surrounded by idiots. I get that.

I can assure you most I work with and know do not have a low IQ.

**Clearly, that is not the case. ALL the climatologists have told us
that AGW is a reality. Denial of that, is denial of science. Denial
of science is proof of stupidity.



Witness the answer to the last question.

64% believe that global warming is a myth.
Kinda says it all, really. 64% of respondents are idiots.


It just means that 64% are awake to reality and can think for
themselves

**Nope. It is clear prof that 64% of the respondents are idiots.

It is about time Australians started to grow up, and it is great to
see.

**It is tragic that so many Australians are able to deny science so
readily.



Even worse, is the way the questions are worded. Some are
impossible to answer.


That is somewhat true.

**It is 100% true, not somewhat.

for example:

--------------

Will your vote be altered by the carbon tax at the next federal
election?

This result doesn't tell you much, as people who don't want the tax
and vote Labor or Green will change their vote (in theory)
but those that vote liberal and don't want the tax will NOT change
their vote. Without knowing how people voted without the tax being
an issue, it is a meaningless answer in regards to the carbon tax.

----------------

Should Australia have a carbon tax?

Straightforward, and gives a clear result.
I didn't even know the opposition to it was that high but its good
to see.

**The opinions of idiots mean little to me.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Trevor Wilson]

no one wrote:

there IS NO CLIMATE CHANGE , ITS JUST THE NATURAL OCCURING CHANGES.

**OK, Mr Top Posting Moron, prove it.

Prove that anthropogenic CO2 is not responsible for the warming trend noted
over the past 100 years.

Also note: Unless you can provide some scientific proof that the IPCC
reports are 100% wrong, or that you are not a child, this will be my last
response to you on this topic. I have no interest in carrying on an adult
discussion with a child or a person with a severe learning disability.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:986dolF2rqU3@mid.individual.net...
no one wrote:
climate change is a load of crap.

**Indeed. The warming we are experiencing will be crap. Of course,
if you mean "crap" in the same sense that Tony Abbott meant crap,
then you are as big a scientific ignoramous as he is.


people dont realize , that climate change has just been created.

**Nup. It was predicted more than 100 years ago. Sadly, those
predictions are proving to be factual.


it is false.
the government just wanted to create a demand to pay them moree
money.

**Nup. The government does not really want to bring in a carbon tax.


like i say , they cant tell us what the wether will be next
tuesday,

**Wanna bet?

The "wether" (sic) for next Tuesday will be (for Sydney):

Min - 10
Max - 18
Partly cloudy. Scattered showers. Light winds.

The accuracy for a prediction for next Tuesday is likely to be about
60%. However, none of this means diddly squat. Weather is not climate.
Climate change predictions relate to general shifts in climate, not
specific day to day numbers.



but they can tell us with absolute certainty whatthe
weather will be in ten years time.

**No, they cannot. They can tell us what the CLIMATE will be in 50
or 100 years, IF CO2 emissions continue to rise at the present rate.


so science is always correct, never wrong ? your the idiot.

**Here's a suggestion:

BEFORE you start calling people idiots, I suggest you learn a little
nettiquette, some grammar and spelling. Your ignorance is nothing
short of breathtaking. Your posts suggest your intellect lies
somewhere South of a 9 year old. That is nothing for you to be proud
of. That said: I'll play your game. Submit your science that proves the
IPCC reports are incorrect.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au




"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:984ch2Fo6sU3@mid.individual.net...
kreed wrote:
On Jul 13, 11:10 am, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@rageaudio.com.au
wrote:
kreed wrote:
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/julia-gillard-digging-...

**Why is that interesting? The average IQ of the Telegraph
readership is below room temperature.


The answers given would tend to disprove that theory.
**Nope. It merely validates it. Most people are idiots.


They reflect what I hear in my everyday work and general
discussion.

**Ok. You're surrounded by idiots. I get that.

I can assure you most I work with and know do not have a low IQ.

**Clearly, that is not the case. ALL the climatologists have told
us that AGW is a reality. Denial of that, is denial of science.
Denial of science is proof of stupidity.



Witness the answer to the last question.

64% believe that global warming is a myth.
Kinda says it all, really. 64% of respondents are idiots.


It just means that 64% are awake to reality and can think for
themselves

**Nope. It is clear prof that 64% of the respondents are idiots.

It is about time Australians started to grow up, and it is great
to see.

**It is tragic that so many Australians are able to deny science so
readily.



Even worse, is the way the questions are worded. Some are
impossible to answer.


That is somewhat true.

**It is 100% true, not somewhat.

for example:

--------------

Will your vote be altered by the carbon tax at the next federal
election?

This result doesn't tell you much, as people who don't want the
tax and vote Labor or Green will change their vote (in theory)
but those that vote liberal and don't want the tax will NOT change
their vote. Without knowing how people voted without the tax
being an issue, it is a meaningless answer in regards to the
carbon tax. ----------------

Should Australia have a carbon tax?

Straightforward, and gives a clear result.
I didn't even know the opposition to it was that high but its good
to see.

**The opinions of idiots mean little to me.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Trevor Wilson]

kreed wrote:

On Jul 14, 7:20 am, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
Phil Allison wrote:
"Trevor Wilson"

**Wrong. Scientific opinion is NOT divided.

** Correct.

Climate scientologists have no credibility.

Cos what they do it not science, never as been and never will be.

**And yet, despite repeated requests, you have not supplied a shred
of science to support your claims, nor have you explained to Dr
Ayers that he is wrong.

You, Tony Abbott and George Pell deserve each other.

--
Trevor Wilsonwww.rageaudio.com.au


I would also suggest he has been indoctrinated into this in a similar
way to how these religious cults (including Jim Jones)
indoctrinate their "followers" to strictly follow their crackpot
ideals.

**Not so. I believe that PA, like many people, has not taken the time to
bother reading the science. The IPCC has published some excellent material
in this area.

I can remember years back this was a big thing and there were lots of
documentaries over time showing how much time and
effort was needed to "deprogram" these people from this crap.



We should also note the sort of dangerous fanatics involved in the AGW
movement who advocate killing large portions of the world population,

**Cite. Cite where any credible scientist working in the area of climate
science has used such tactics. I am not interested in religious zealots,
politicians, or talk-back radio hosts. Cite the damned scientists.

show graphic advertisements with children in class being blown up and
their guts going all over their classmates for not wanting to reduce
carbon, (This is "child abuse material" and should be prosecuted as
such, especially since it seems our courts view nude cartoons of the
Simpsons are child abuse material) and want people arrested, charged
and jailed for speaking out against AGW. To me this sounds like a
Nazi party on steroids.


Note that Trevors only defense (apart from linking to the discredited
IPCC)

**You keep saying that the IPCC has been discredited, but, despite repeated
requests for proof, you fail to provide any evidence. I'll ask you once
more:

Cite your evidence that proves ALL the IPCC reports have been discredited.
Cite your evidence that proves IPCC reports are wrong. And, once more: Cite
the science, not the opinion of religious nutters.

is to claim that anyone that doesn't share his views, then it is

because of a religious belief, or is a moron, or paid off by some oil
company, when in reality big oil is actively pushing for the carbon
tax.

**The reality, of course, is very different. Big oil has financed several
organisations, whose sole job is to cast doubt on the science of AGW. SOME
fossil fuel companies want certainty for the future and wish the carbon tax
issue to be finalised.

I suppose he goes to Alan Bond and Christopher Skase to learn about
corporate ethics ?

**I'd be more interested in knowing where you acquire your scientific
knowledge about AGW from. Tony Abbott's local preist, probably.

64% of Australians in the "Telegraph" poll are morons. liars etc
according to Trev. "have an IQ of room temperature".

**That much is clear and obvious. read the fucking poll and make your own
mind up.

I would doubt

that people of that IQ could even read and understand much in the
newspaper (rather than pictures) much less form an opinion or make a
vote on a website

**And yet, that is exactly what those idiots have done.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Trevor Wilson]

kreed wrote:

That is right. has been shown many times that the climate was
changing like this long before there were any widespread carbon
emissions.

**Irrelevant. The climate in the past has changed. Sometimes, under the
influence of CO2 and sometimes not. RIGHT NOW, our climate is changing due
to the influence of high CO2 emissions.

Sheesh!

It's really not that difficult to understand.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
....

I would also suggest he has been indoctrinated into this in a similar
way to how these religious cults (including Jim Jones)
indoctrinate their "followers" to strictly follow their crackpot
ideals.

Sounds like projection to me.

**Not so. I believe that PA, like many people, has not taken the time to
bother reading the science. The IPCC has published some excellent material
in this area.
....

I'm afraid if X hasn't done Y by now, there is no point expecting same.
While my early childhood experience persuaded me that "anyone can
do science" (indeed, some of the teachers tried to encourage this view)
it turns out not to be the case. Humans are always trying to fool themselves
about something and there is also that "optimism bias" the psychologists
talk about -- wanting to beleive the best case without regard to
its probability.

No, "doing science" needs a pretty unusual and brutally honest approach to
all topics. And that's rather unusual, as it turns out (even among
"scientists" .

But there's also another idea. "Seeing is believing". Not quite as powerful
as the usual optimisim bias (sometimes characterised by the phrase
"eyes wired shut").

Simple plots with some statistical figuring (adjustment for nastiness in
the data that might otherwise falsely say something is significant when
it actually is not) shows that "unusual weather conditions" in Australia
have become more common since records began.

The "conditions" chosen by scientists are not subject to the usual population
growth confounding factors (e.g. "dollar cost of storm damage" simply grows
1-2% per year due to inflation, and maybe another 1-2% because of
incraseses in population density, and maybe another 1-2% because of
the keeping up with the Jonese factor).

Like "number of consecutive days with a daily max temp over 30 C".
Or "number of days in a year with less than 1 mm of dain per day".

These data are plotted at:

http://www.kymhorsell.com/graphs/aus-extreme.html


--
[Some n00b can't tell the diff between HTML and binary:]
Why have you posted binaries to a text-only newsgroup, fuck wit?
-- Gillard Lies <oyrooloutacarbontax@gmail.com>, 18 Feb 2011 22:57 -0800 (PST)
I'll concede that my use of "binary" was obscure... incorrect if it
makes you happy.
-- Gillard Lies <oyrooloutacarbontax@gmail.com>, 19 Feb 2011 00:55 -0800 (PST)

 

Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
....

**Irrelevant. The climate in the past has changed. Sometimes, under the
influence of CO2 and sometimes not. RIGHT NOW, our climate is changing due
to the influence of high CO2 emissions.
....

It's perfectly true the "climate has changed in the past".

If you want to point to what the climate looks like after all the fossfil
fuel has been burned, you can point to the period 55 mn years ago
when the atm CO2 was up to 10 trillon tonnes (pre industrial was around
3 trillion; we're presently passing through 4 trillion).

The source of the extra CO2 is a bit of a mystery then. Now, of course,
we know where it's coming from.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene-Eocene_Thermal_Maximum


--
[Help, my automated poster has developed socialistic tendencies!]
Mr. Robot is just another left wing alarmist.
-- Ed <ed.carpenter@ymail.com>, 19 Feb 2011 07:48 -0800 (PST)