OT: carbon polls in daily telegraph. Interesting results.

[kreed]

On Jul 14, 7:08 pm, Alan <no...@128.0.0.1> wrote:

On Wed, 13 Jul 2011 11:59:45 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"

tre...@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 athttp://ozcomponents.com
Search or browse for that IC, capacitor,
crystal or other component you need.
Or find new components athttp://auscomponents.com

In the old days, people who didn't think the earth was flat, or
disputed that the earth was the centre of the
universe tended to live very short and miserable lives. Usually
locked up, burnt at the stake
etc.


Any scientist who has demonstrated that AGW is a total crock is not
treated much better as
far as their career and reputation is concerned. A witch hunt soon
starts. We just haven't got back to
the burning at the stake.............yet.



One thing is true throughout time, those who have the power and money
and decide that
something is a certain way, in order to gain advantage, to control
people, to rip them off etc
ALWAYS attack those who can prove them wrong.



Justice, science, government policy etc simply is a commodity, and
where possible it does and says exactly what the
highest/most powerful bidder tells it to.

 

[kreed]

 But  YOU have no idea what  " science " is.

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

....  Phil

How true a statement this is.

 

[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

 

[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

 

[yaputya]

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:984nl5FuhmU3@mid.individual.net...

<snip>

**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
snip

Just had a look at your cite Trevor, Arrhenius was brilliant - no doubt - he
also thought global warming
would be a good thing, not a bad thing !!! Arrhenius thought the natural
increase in CO2 caused by the
increased human influence would avert an ice age and a potential mass
starvation due to lack of food-
something that clever man thought would be much worse than any warming
trend. You can grow plants
in a greenhouse but not in freezer, something that has been overlooked.

And that is one of the points that is being glossed over these days - given
that the earth is warming (for
whatever reason)), isn't it a huge risk not to spend most of the available
money on adapting to the trend
to ensure the survival of our species by focussing on food production
instead of wasting it on
futile attempts to reverse what may be inevitable climate change?
(This is already happening, of course. The smart money is going to research
projects around the
world that are developing food crops that will thrive in the expected warmer
conditions.)
We are going to run out of fossil fuels when all the oil, coal and gas is
extracted, so the atmospheric
CO2 from humans cannot increase forever. There is a natural brake on how
long us feeble humans
can influence atmospheric CO2. And if global warming continues for centuries
after we have stopped
burning fossil fuels because some other factor takes over, we will have
wasted our time and effort in
pandering to contemporary political pressures, eh?

 

[no one]

i`ll top[ post all i want you newbie , , uu rage audio rip off , you sure
yyou not selling any wooden volume control knobs that give you that real
smooooooooooth sound ???


the Nakamichi PA-7 power amplifier your selling for $ 1800 ?? your joking
arent you , your lucky its worth half that ...

i also have no interest in a child that rips people of with amps , that
they think are worh alot of money....
why do you think you know anything about audio ??? its clear to me that you
dont.


"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:9870ajF372U3@mid.individual.net...

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

 

[no one]

its only changing because of natural things in life .....



"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:9873skFoitU3@mid.individual.net...

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]

kym@kymhorsell.com wrote:

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?

**No point arguing with this one Kym. It's either a 9 year old kid, or a
brain damaged adult. Either way, there's not enough intelligence to waste
your time with.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

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

kym@kymhorsell.com wrote:
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?
**No point arguing with this one Kym. It's either a 9 year old kid, or a
brain damaged adult. Either way, there's not enough intelligence to waste
your time with.

Ah, well. I was trying for entertainment value.

When I was growing up out in the stix of SA the olds taught us
kids the "bait the travelling salesman" game.

The object of the game was never entirely clear but the rules were
definitely time-varying. Some easy points were usually scored
by getting the guy to admit something they claimed as "free"
was not free.

I remember some happy times watching some guy get the treatment.
Mum and Dad (both veteran cops) would start off slow, but as the pace
increased and the questions became tricky the guy would usually contradicted
himself a few times before the errors were underlined to him a few times.
Even if the shade temp wasn't into triple digits he would be sweating to
explain why black was white and white was black in order to close the sale.
Not they anyone was going to buy the over-priced brushes anyway.

In this case I was hoping the guy was either going to claim CO2
was not a greenhouse gas, or that no-one was burning anything, or
maybe that CO2 knows the different between being added to the atm
by Man or natural processes.

--
[The non-obvious cause of Ice Ages:]
But the Earth produces also the ice dust and export it into space.
Probably in ice ages the ice dust fall down on the Earth.
If the Earth was covered by ice the water to made it could not be from
oceans It was from the space.
-- "Szczepan Bialek" <sz.bialek@wp.pl>, 7 Jul 2011 10:08 +0200

 

[Alan]

On 14 Jul 2011 09:32:15 GMT, kym@kymhorsell.com wrote:

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.


I'm not confused about which ones are scientists - some of the so

called scientists are!

The majority of scientists do NOT "go out and measure things that
confirm or not an initial hypothesis" but accept what they are
"taught" about a whole range of things - just like the rest of us.
Very few scientists will actually check that all these things are true
by doing their own confirmation experiments for any hypotheses.

True, they may read "papers" and consider them "good science" but the
majority will never repeat those experiments to confirm the results
for themselves. And this is true in many day to day activities of us
"normal" people where we learn something in school, university, etc.
and use that as the basis for our future expansion of that subject.
Sometimes using this approach comes unstuck when an anomaly is found
and then "exceptions to the rule" are created to mask the problem.

The trouble with proving AGW is that they haven't actually "proved"
that the Earth will be 2 degrees (or whatever) hotter in 100 years
time. They are just claiming that by extrapolating graphs of what has
happened in the recent past. It's like me saying that if I accelerate
my car linearly from 0 to 100kph in 10 mins that I will be driving at
200kph in 20 mins or 600kph in 60 mins. Perfectly reasonable if I
draw a graph of speed against time and then extrapolate from the 10
min point onwards. The only trouble is that when I reach the 10 min
mark I may start linearly breaking and slow the car to a dead stop at
the 20 min mark - then where does my future speed hypothsis stand?
--
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

 

Alan <noone@128.0.0.1> wrote:

On 14 Jul 2011 09:32:15 GMT, kym@kymhorsell.com wrote:
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.
I'm not confused about which ones are scientists - some of the so
called scientists are!
....

Trying to move the goalposts?

Remember your chosen topic is "the people that claimed the Earth was round"
and "those that claimed the Earth was not the centre of the universe".

Scientists do things like put regression lines through random time-series.

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

It's called hypothesis testing.

Everthing else is engineering.

--
Scientists don't look at records, they use regression analysis. One
can't find a trend by looking at extrema.
-- Roger Coppock <rcoppock@adnc.com>, 26 Jan 2011 19:57 -0800

 

[no one]

yeah m your a twit , u SIMPLY ACCEPT , u dont even bother finding out for
ya self...



"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:987ea1FqshU3@mid.individual.net...

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

 

[no one]

you gotta be brain damaged selling so called hi fi gear , at 5 times th
eaccepted value .

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:989f5sF9hrU3@mid.individual.net...

kym@kymhorsell.com wrote:
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?

**No point arguing with this one Kym. It's either a 9 year old kid, or a
brain damaged adult. Either way, there's not enough intelligence to waste
your time with.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

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

yeah m your a twit , u SIMPLY ACCEPT , u dont even bother finding out for
ya self...
....

Sounds like a simple projection.

What have you gone out and measured to make you sure of your position?

Don't worry. It's rhetorical. We know you generally can't prove a negative
that way.

Hence:
"If an eminent scientist examines all the evidence and concludes
that something is not so, they are most likely wrong". -- Albert E

Moreso for non-scientists, one assumes.

--
Another problem that has to be taken seriously is a slow rise of sea level
which could become catastrophic if it continues to accelerate. We have
accurate measurements of sea level going back 200 years. We observe a
steady rise from 1800 to the present, with an acceleration during the last
50 years. It is widely believed that the recent acceleration is due to
human activities, since it coincides in time with the rapid increase of carbon
dioxide in the atmosphere.
-- Freeman Dyson, "Many Colored Glass: Reflections on the Place of Life in the

Professor Freeman Dyson, World Renowned "Heir To Einstein" Physicist
-- BONZO@27-32-240-172 [86 nyms and counting], 27 Feb 2011 12:50 +1100

 

kreed <kenreed1999@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jul 15, 1:23?pm, "no one" <krawc...@adam.com.au> wrote:
yeah m your a twit , ?u SIMPLY ACCEPT ?, ?u dont even bother finding out for
ya self...
He just goes to a "priest" (Ipcc Et al) who tells him what to think
and how to think
and says "yes master", even if they were to tell him the sky was
green.

You guys keep confusing the Pope (the guy that accepts what he reads in
the old books) with Galileo (the guy that measures something and decides for
hisself).

Not really unusual. It probably takes one to know one.

--
If your ideas are any good you'll have to ram them down people's throats.
-- Howard Aiken

 

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

Al Gore, self proclaimed expert has been reported to be buying
waterfront property, apparently Rudd has done the same.
I wouldn't worry about it too much. Might be a good time to get into
beach front property once the market finishes dropping.

The Lex Luthor stategy.

The California coast sounds like it should have very very high returns.
(AKA a "courageous investment" in Yes Minister terminology).


Heavy coastal erosion in 2009-2010 winter linked to climate change

Suzanne Bohan
Contra Costa Times [Cal, US]
07/14/2011 03:20:53 PM PDT

The storms that battered the W Coast during the winter of 2009-10 eroded
record chunks of shoreline, and more will likely disappear as the changing
climate brings more such powerful storm seasons, scientists warn in a new study.

Pacific waves were 20% stronger on average than any y since 1997 and
higher-than-usual sea levels drove them further inland, tearing away on
average 1/3 more land in California.

The state's beaches were "eroded to often unprecedented levels," said Patrick
Barnard, a coastal geologist with the US Geological Survey who led the research.

"It's the kind of winter we may experience more frequently" as global
temperatures rise, he said.

Nowhere along the W Coast was erosion more pronounced than at Ocean Beach in
San Francisco. That winter, the Pacific encroached 184 feet inland, 75% more
than in a typical season.

Waves reaching 30 feet eroded bluffs and triggered the collapse of a section
of Highway 1. It reopened with one of its 2 southbound lanes permanently
closed. San Francisco built a 425-foot rock bulwark to protect the road and
the wastewater treatment plant behind it.

The southern end of Ocean Beach "really is in a sad state," said Benjamin
Grant, a consultant with the San Francisco Planning and Urban Research
Association. He's leading the nonprofit's development of a voluntary master
plan for the beach.

"Large piles of rubble make it very difficult to move along the beach or
across the beach to get into the water. "... Ocean Beach really looks like a
lot more of (what) the California coast is going to look like in 20, 30, 40,
50 years," Grant said. "It's a glimpse of California's future in some ways."

The raging storms also stripped several San Diego beaches, leaving nothing but
"cobble, boulders and just rock," Barnard said.

Bluff, dune and cliff erosion, along with winter waves hauling off fine sand,
is part of the natural dynamic along coastlines. Summer brings smaller waves
carrying sand back on shore, replenishing beaches.

However, after the winter of 2009-10, there was less beach replenishment than
usual. That leaves scoured beaches vulnerable to even worse erosion if one
powerful winter is followed by another.

The force behind the damaging storms of 2009-10 was a different type of El
Ni?o, a climate pattern that periodically brings wetter winters to the
California coast.

Warmer-than-usual sea surface temperatures in the eastern equatorial region of
the Pacific create the classic El Ni?o, which drenched California during the
winters of 1982-83 and 1997-98.

But researchers observed another type of El Ni?o has become far more
prevalent, the Central Pacific El Ni?o.

It's characterized by warm sea surface temperatures in the central Pacific,
flanked on the E and W by cooler waters. It's also called El Ni?o Modoki; the
last word is Japanese for "similar, but different."

The new study notes that the Modoki occurred more frequently during the past 2
decades than the classic El Ni?o. Climate change is expected to raise central
Pacific water temperatures, increasing by as much as fivefold of El Ni?o
Modoki frequency, according to a 2009 study in Nature.

The estimated frequency is based on varying projections for carbon dioxide
emissions in coming decades.

Given the odds that the newly identified El Ni?o will continue its regular
appearance, researchers decided to compare its effects to a typical El Ni?o,
Barnard said.

They found that Modoki packs a punch when compared to a typical El Ni?o.

"Pretty much everywhere we surveyed, the erosion during the 2009-10 winter was
comparable to or more severe" than the classic El Ni?o in 1997-98, Barnard said.

He acknowledged that the study encompassed 5 to 13 y of data, depending upon
the beach. The researchers studied sections of the coastline, using GPS, buoys
and airborne laser mapping between Seattle and San Diego.

But given what he called a startling lack of coastline studies, Barnard said
the data they gathered "is the best we have. There's nothing like it, and it
covers a really broad area."

Barnard was the lead author of the study, published by the American
Geophysical Union on July 9 in Geophysical Research Letters. Researchers with
5 other institutions participated.

With little more than a decade of data, "we couldn't unequivocally" say this
portends the future, he said.

"But there's no indication that there's a light at the end of the tunnel
anytime soon, given the current trends that we're observing."

--
[CO2 can tell who added it to the atm:]
you retarded or what , its the NATURAL OCCURING CHANGES TAHT WE SEE, IT
HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MAN MADE CO2 ..
YOU SPASTIC MOOORION
-- "no one" <krawczuk@adam.com.au>, 14 Jul 2011 17:23 +0930

 

kym@kymhorsell.com wrote:

kreed <kenreed1999@gmail.com> wrote:
...
Al Gore, self proclaimed expert has been reported to be buying
waterfront property, apparently Rudd has done the same.
I wouldn't worry about it too much. Might be a good time to get into
beach front property once the market finishes dropping.
....

I just remembered. If only you had mentioned your plan earlier I could
have put you onto my sister.

She was trying to unload^h^h^hsell some land up on the Whitsundays she
bought a few years back. Well... lemme think.... maybe 30 years back.

In the interim it seems to have developed cyclone-prone and swampy tendancies.

But maybe it's just a statistical abberation?

--
They said it was only luck. But the more I practised, the luckier I got.
-- Gary Player [and others]

 

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

To share a small joke. I just read a headline roughly along
the lines of "The US may be sweltering, but it's nowhere near
the record for heatwaves".

About 1/2 the US has seen a week or 2 with daily max into triple
digits. Fairly unusual.

But optimism knowing no bounds, the writer of the article
pointed out there was nothing to worry about because the
2 wks was nowhere near the record -- 154 consecutive days
with max over 100 F.

Of course that's in Death Valley.

The joke part?

We're comparing population centres in the US with Death Valley
and congratulating ourselves it ain't as hot as that, now, are we?

--
[Some gmail n00b can't config for HTML or use Google News:]
Why have you posted binaries to a text-only newsgroup, fuck wit?
Would you like to see how it appears in a compliant newsreader, which
all of the usenet with IQs beyond single digits use? It appears as
above in the quoted text - NO IMAGES AT ALL! ROTFL
-- Gillard Lies <oyrooloutacarbontax@gmail.com>, 18 Feb 2011 22:57 -0800 (PST)

 

[kreed]

On Jul 15, 1:23 pm, "no one" <krawc...@adam.com.au> wrote:

yeah m your a twit ,  u SIMPLY ACCEPT  ,  u dont even bother finding out for
ya self...

He just goes to a "priest" (Ipcc Et al) who tells him what to think
and how to think
and says "yes master", even if they were to tell him the sky was
green.

 

[kreed]

On Jul 15, 1:44 pm, k...@kymhorsell.com wrote:

no one <krawc...@adam.com.au> wrote:
yeah m your a twit ,  u SIMPLY ACCEPT  ,  u dont even bother finding out for
ya self...

...

Sounds like a simple projection.

What have you gone out and measured to make you sure of your position?

Don't worry. It's rhetorical. We know you generally can't prove a negative
that way.

Hence:
"If an eminent scientist examines all the evidence and concludes
that something is not so, they are most likely wrong". -- Albert E

Moreso for non-scientists, one assumes.

--
Another problem that has to be taken seriously is a slow rise of sea level
which could become catastrophic if it continues to accelerate. We have
accurate measurements of sea level going back 200 years. We observe a
steady rise from 1800 to the present, with an acceleration during the last
50 years. It is widely believed that the recent acceleration is due to
human activities, since it coincides in time with the rapid increase of carbon
dioxide in the atmosphere.
  -- Freeman Dyson, "Many Colored Glass: Reflections on the Place of Life in the

Professor Freeman Dyson, World Renowned "Heir To Einstein" Physicist
  -- BONZO@27-32-240-172 [86 nyms and counting], 27 Feb 2011 12:50 +1100

Al Gore, self proclaimed expert has been reported to be buying
waterfront property, apparently Rudd has done the same.
I wouldn't worry about it too much. Might be a good time to get into
beach front property once the market finishes dropping.