OT: carbon polls in daily telegraph. Interesting results.

[Trevor Wilson]

kreed wrote:

On Jul 14, 12:48 pm, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
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 was referring to YOU Trev, not Phil. Phil has it right.

**Then get your grammar correct in future. You merely made things more
confusing. Phil has failed to respond to any of my questions and comments.
He has ignored the evidence I have provided. Now, it's up to you to prove
where Phil has it right.

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.

**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:


Already told earlier. Look up "Climategate"

**Done. I'll ask you once more:

**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.

I suggest YOU reseach the 'Climategate' issue. You may uncover somewhat more
than you first thought.

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.



And yours, do you have scientific qualifications ?

**I acquire my scientific knowledge about AGW from:

www.ipcc.ch

I'll ask you again:

Where do you acquire your knowledge about AGW from?

Tony Abbott's Preist, perhaps?

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 have read it, and I have said before, it reflects what I hear from
people I talk to
in everyday life, business and social situations. None of these have
low IQ's, and many
have been very successful in their professions.

**Cite their IQ figures. I bet you don't know them. And just to stress the
point once more:

I ONLY care about what climatologists think about glomate science. I don't
give a flying fuck what some Catholic Preist thinks about it. Nor do I care
what a brain surgeon thinks about AGW. You seem to imagine that just because
a person is (allegedly) smart, that they are suddenly an expert on
climatology. I have news for you: It ain't necessarily so.

I'll also tell you something else, for nothing: People who read the Daily
Telegraph are idiots.

One of the gifts some of these people who are in business, is being
able to smell out a scam
or a fraud and recognise it and its structure, avoid being sucked in
by it, and losing their wealth or position.

**They may be able to do so. Their alleged knowledge of climatology may not
be so robust. Yours certainly isn't. YOu have failed to produce a shred of
evidence to back your claims. Nor has PA, for that matter.

You will soon be reduced to zero if you fall for such stuff.

**Fall for what, precisely?

If anything, the 60% poll in the Telegraph would be on the low side.
I would suggest 80-90% are wide awake to the scam,
based on my discussions mentioned above.

**OK. I accept that you arer surrounded by idiots. That's your problem.

I would also say I have not

in my life seen a issue that has angered or motivated
people to action as much as this one. (except the anti-Vietnam
movement) and never seen anything gain support as fast
or as broadly across all sections of the community as the anti-carbon
tax, anti-global warming has.

**Hang on a sec. The carbon tax and AGW are two different issues. I accept
that some people may have some good reasons to believe that the carbon tax
is a bad idea. I don't happen to agree with them, but we'll see who is right
in a couple of years. AGW is another matter entirely. It's all about good,
solid science. Your denial of good science places you in a bad place.

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.


No, I would suggest that it is people who are finally wide awake, and
finally sick and tired of being lied to,
ignored and played for fools by big government, big banks and big
business over and over
who are finally starting to come forth and say "enough is enough", we
will no longer be dictated to.

**OK. That's your opinion and you are entitled to it. That does not alter
the facts. They are:

* AGW is real.
* Daily Telegraph readers are idiots.
* The Daily Telegraph polls were extremely poorly framed.

This in itself is a great thing for us, our country and our future.
Everyone who wants any sort of a secure future
where they have their rights, freedoms and any sort of future standard
of living for themselves and
their children needs to join in and stand against this.

**Against what? The carbon tax/ETS? Why? Abbott's scheme is set to suck $30
billion from taxpayers and hand it directly to polluters in the hope that
they will do 'something'. Makes no sense to me or any of the economists that
have examined the scheme. Flawed that that government's scheme is, it has
been given the thumbs up by the economists.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[kreed]

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.

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,
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) 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.

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



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

 

[Phil Allison]

"Trevor Wilson"

Phil Allison wrote:

**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.

** You have claimed over and over that it is " science".

But you have no clue what science is so we cannot debate it.

Your reasoning is the same as some fuckwit bible basher shouting

" This is the Word of the Lord .... ".

or some such drivel.



.... Phil

 

[kreed]

On Jul 14, 11:11 am, "no one" <krawc...@adam.com.au> wrote:

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

"Trevor Wilson" <tre...@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" <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

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

 

[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.auPhil 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

 

[Phil Allison]

"Trevor Wilson = Bible Basher "

Phil Allison

**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.

** You have claimed over and over that it is " science".

But you have no clue what science is so we cannot debate it.

Your reasoning is the same as some fuckwit bible basher shouting

" This is the Word of the Lord .... ".

or some such drivel.



.... 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.auPhil 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

 

[Phil Allison]

"Trevor Wilson"

**I made no such claim. I simply accept the science,

** There it is !!!!

The magic word you refuse to discuss !!!!

Cos you are an utter moron with no clue what it refers to.




..... Phil

 

[kreed]

On Jul 14, 12:48 pm, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

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 was referring to YOU Trev, not Phil. Phil has it right.

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:

Already told earlier. Look up "Climategate"

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.

And yours, do you have scientific qualifications ?

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 have read it, and I have said before, it reflects what I hear from
people I talk to
in everyday life, business and social situations. None of these have
low IQ's, and many
have been very successful in their professions.

One of the gifts some of these people who are in business, is being
able to smell out a scam
or a fraud and recognise it and its structure, avoid being sucked in
by it, and losing their wealth or position.
You will soon be reduced to zero if you fall for such stuff.


If anything, the 60% poll in the Telegraph would be on the low side.
I would suggest 80-90% are wide awake to the scam,
based on my discussions mentioned above. I would also say I have not
in my life seen a issue that has angered or motivated
people to action as much as this one. (except the anti-Vietnam
movement) and never seen anything gain support as fast
or as broadly across all sections of the community as the anti-carbon
tax, anti-global warming has.

  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.

No, I would suggest that it is people who are finally wide awake, and
finally sick and tired of being lied to,
ignored and played for fools by big government, big banks and big
business over and over
who are finally starting to come forth and say "enough is enough", we
will no longer be dictated to.

This in itself is a great thing for us, our country and our future.
Everyone who wants any sort of a secure future
where they have their rights, freedoms and any sort of future standard
of living for themselves and
their children needs to join in and stand against this.

--
Trevor Wilsonwww.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Trevor Wilson]

Geoff wrote:

"Phil Allison" <phil_a@tpg.com.au> wrote in news:987al4F3diU1
@mid.individual.net:


"Trevor Wilson"

**I made no such claim. I simply accept the science,


** There it is !!!!

The magic word you refuse to discuss !!!!

Cos you are an utter moron with no clue what it refers to.




.... Phil







Thats a great "gotcha"!

**PA's careful avoidance of answering any questions is not a "gotcha". PA's
careful avoidance of the science is not a "gotcha". It's just ignorance.
PA's refusal to pose questions to a climatologist, is not a "gotcha".


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Phil Allison]

"Trevor Wilson"

Geoff wrote:
"Phil Allison"

"Trevor Wilson"

**I made no such claim. I simply accept the science,


** There it is !!!!

The magic word you refuse to discuss !!!!

Cos you are an utter moron with no clue what it refers to.

Thats a great "gotcha"!

**PA's careful avoidance of answering any questions

** You refuse to explain your own choice of words.

PA's careful avoidance of the science

** Is TW using the word " science " in its religious sense ?

Sure looks that way.

PA's refusal to pose questions to a climatologist,

** Do not ever dream of telling me what to do

- you PITA wanker.



..... Phil

 

[Geoff]

"Phil Allison" <phil_a@tpg.com.au> wrote in news:987al4F3diU1
@mid.individual.net:

"Trevor Wilson"

**I made no such claim. I simply accept the science,


** There it is !!!!

The magic word you refuse to discuss !!!!

Cos you are an utter moron with no clue what it refers to.




.... Phil

Thats a great "gotcha"!

 

[no one]

you retarded or what , its the NATURAL OCCURING CHANGES TAHT WE SEE, IT
HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MAN MADE CO2 ..

YOU SPASTIC MOOORION

<kym@kymhorsell.com> wrote in message
news:4e1e5dec$0$13392$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...

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)

 

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

you retarded or what , its the NATURAL OCCURING CHANGES TAHT WE SEE, IT
HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MAN MADE CO2 ..
....

LOL. Can you prove that negative?

--
[Rain as the origin of SLR:]
The slow rise of sea level is caused by rain. Water transfer the soil to see.
The acceleration during the last 50 years is caused by using gas and oil
instead of coal. Gas and oil are changed into water during combustion.
So the slow or the accelerated rise of sea level is not a problem.
-- Szczepan Bialek <sz.bialek@wp.pl>, 28 May 2011 09:50 +0200

 

[Alan]

On Wed, 13 Jul 2011 11:59:45 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
<trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

Denial of that, is denial of science. Denial of science is
proof of stupidity.

Isn't that what was said to the people that claimed the Earth was
round and those that claimed the Earth was not the centre of the
universe.

How many times have our illustrious scientists told us something that
was "absoloutely correct" only to have the claim proved wrong later?
And usually not just one scientist but hundreds and thousands of them.

Climate change is absolutely true - it happens every day and
everywhere. AWG on the other hand is not proven to be true, except by
the people that want to make money out of it. And the UN is the
biggest proponent of AWG to keep us all scared!

--
Sell your surplus electronic components at http://ozcomponents.com
Search or browse for that IC, capacitor,
crystal or other component you need.
Or find new components at http://auscomponents.com

 

[F Murtz]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

kreed wrote:
On Jul 14, 12:48 pm, "Trevor Wilson"<tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
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 was referring to YOU Trev, not Phil. Phil has it right.

**Then get your grammar correct in future. You merely made things more
confusing. Phil has failed to respond to any of my questions and comments.
He has ignored the evidence I have provided. Now, it's up to you to prove
where Phil has it right.




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.

**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.

Extremely difficult, as any scientist at all who differs in the
slightest with the views you expound is automatically and unequivocally
not credible

..

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:


Already told earlier. Look up "Climategate"

**Done. I'll ask you once more:

**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.

I suggest YOU reseach the 'Climategate' issue. You may uncover somewhat more
than you first thought.



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.



And yours, do you have scientific qualifications ?

**I acquire my scientific knowledge about AGW from:

www.ipcc.ch

I'll ask you again:

Where do you acquire your knowledge about AGW from?

Tony Abbott's Preist, perhaps?


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 have read it, and I have said before, it reflects what I hear from
people I talk to
in everyday life, business and social situations. None of these have
low IQ's, and many
have been very successful in their professions.

**Cite their IQ figures. I bet you don't know them. And just to stress the
point once more:

I ONLY care about what climatologists think about glomate science. I don't
give a flying fuck what some Catholic Preist thinks about it. Nor do I care
what a brain surgeon thinks about AGW. You seem to imagine that just because
a person is (allegedly) smart, that they are suddenly an expert on
climatology. I have news for you: It ain't necessarily so.

I'll also tell you something else, for nothing: People who read the Daily
Telegraph are idiots.


One of the gifts some of these people who are in business, is being
able to smell out a scam
or a fraud and recognise it and its structure, avoid being sucked in
by it, and losing their wealth or position.

**They may be able to do so. Their alleged knowledge of climatology may not
be so robust. Yours certainly isn't. YOu have failed to produce a shred of
evidence to back your claims. Nor has PA, for that matter.

You will soon be reduced to zero if you fall for such stuff.

**Fall for what, precisely?



If anything, the 60% poll in the Telegraph would be on the low side.
I would suggest 80-90% are wide awake to the scam,
based on my discussions mentioned above.

**OK. I accept that you arer surrounded by idiots. That's your problem.

I would also say I have not
in my life seen a issue that has angered or motivated
people to action as much as this one. (except the anti-Vietnam
movement) and never seen anything gain support as fast
or as broadly across all sections of the community as the anti-carbon
tax, anti-global warming has.

**Hang on a sec. The carbon tax and AGW are two different issues. I accept
that some people may have some good reasons to believe that the carbon tax
is a bad idea. I don't happen to agree with them, but we'll see who is right
in a couple of years. AGW is another matter entirely. It's all about good,
solid science. Your denial of good science places you in a bad place.




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.


No, I would suggest that it is people who are finally wide awake, and
finally sick and tired of being lied to,
ignored and played for fools by big government, big banks and big
business over and over
who are finally starting to come forth and say "enough is enough", we
will no longer be dictated to.

**OK. That's your opinion and you are entitled to it. That does not alter
the facts. They are:

* AGW is real.
* Daily Telegraph readers are idiots.
* The Daily Telegraph polls were extremely poorly framed.


This in itself is a great thing for us, our country and our future.
Everyone who wants any sort of a secure future
where they have their rights, freedoms and any sort of future standard
of living for themselves and
their children needs to join in and stand against this.

**Against what? The carbon tax/ETS? Why? Abbott's scheme is set to suck $30
billion from taxpayers and hand it directly to polluters in the hope that
they will do 'something'. Makes no sense to me or any of the economists that
have examined the scheme. Flawed that that government's scheme is, it has
been given the thumbs up by the economists.

 

[Phil Allison]

"Alan"
"Trevor Wilson"

Denial of that, is denial of science. Denial of science is
proof of stupidity.

Isn't that what was said to the people that claimed the Earth was
round and those that claimed the Earth was not the centre of the
universe.

** The history of modern science is less than 200 years old.

A flat, earthed centred universe was a religious notion.

How many times have our illustrious scientists told us something that
was "absoloutely correct" only to have the claim proved wrong later?

** You tell us.

And usually not just one scientist but hundreds and thousands of them.

** Prior to the discovery of nuclear energy, how the stars worked was a
mystery.

Climate change is absolutely true - it happens every day and
everywhere. AWG on the other hand is not proven to be true, except by
the people that want to make money out of it. And the UN is the
biggest proponent of AWG to keep us all scared!

** Scare people and you can control them.

Bureaucrats are all control freaks.

So are most Greenies.



..... Phil

 

[F Murtz]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

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.

You are making a basic mistake in deriding these individuals none of
whom have credentials in these subject and do not claim to. They are
getting their material from others who are working in these fields,I
don't know who they are or their credentials.
The only sin is their repeating the material you disagree with which is
automatically wrong by your thinking.

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.

 

Alan <noone@128.0.0.1> wrote:

On Wed, 13 Jul 2011 11:59:45 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
Denial of that, is denial of science. Denial of science is
proof of stupidity.
Isn't that what was said to the people that claimed the Earth was
round and those that claimed the Earth was not the centre of the
universe.
....

You are confused about which ones are the scientists.

The scientists are the ones that go out and measure things that
confirm or not an initial hypothesis.

The ones saying "we don't accept your logic or your measurements; it's
all a gigantic hoax -- our holy writings say something else is true"
are the denialists.

--
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]

Extremely difficult, as any scientist at all who differs in the
slightest with the views you expound is automatically and unequivocally
not credible

Exactly right That sums it up perfectly..