OT GW

[kreed]

On Dec 7, 5:52 am, Trevor Wilson <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au>
wrote:

On 12/6/2011 3:50 PM, Noddy wrote:

On 6/12/2011 9:57 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

**Sure. Happy to do so. The massive weight of scientific investigation
lies with AGW as being a reality. It is up to those who don't accept
that massive weight of scientific opinion to produce some data that
contradicts ALL the above organisations.

I believe there have been a number of such counter claims, and from some
credible sources, yet there seems to be none that you will accept.

**I'll bite. List those claims and their sources that you feel are
credible. I will discuss each and every one with you.



Could they ALL be wrong?

Of course they could. Are you saying it's impossible for a large number
of people to be wrong?

**Of course not. Look at the Catholics. However, unlike the Catholics,
AGW researchers have quite a number of 'runs on the board'. Let's look
at a very quick snapshot of what the issue entails:

* The planet has warmed at a faster rate in the last 100-odd years, than
at any time in the last 600,000 years. FACT. No dispute.
* The planet has accumulated CO2 in the atmosphere at a faster rate than
at any time in the last 600,000 years. FACT. No dispute.
* CO2 is a known greenhouse gas. FACT. No dispute. The contribution of
CO2 to planetary warming has been known for more than 100 years. It has
been shown experimentally many times. Even Mythbusters were surprised
when they performed the experiment. VERY tiny amounts of CO2 can and do
cause 'Solar forcing' (Additional warming).
* As the planet warms, more CO2 will outgas from the oceans. FACT. No
dipute.
* As the planet warms, methane will be released from permafrost areas.
Methane is a MUCH more potent GHG than CO2. Fortunately, methane breaks
down rapidly (about 10 years) in the atmosphere. UNFORTUNATELY, CO2 is
one of the breakdown products. CO2 has a very long life in the
atmoshere. FACT. No dispute.
* All this is thought to lead to a kind of positive feedback (aka:
'Tipping Point'), where more CO2 leads to hotter temperatures, which, in
turn, leads to more GHGs being released into the atmosphere, which, in
turn, leads to higher temperatures, more GHGs and so on. The 'Tipping
Point' is thought to be around 500ppm. SPECULATIVE. Plenty of dispute.
In fact, at least one researcher is of the opinion that the tipping
point has already been reached.

So, the upshot is, that we are really only arguing a single point:

Will the release of more CO2 cause irreparable damage to the planet?

We don't know for certain. The general concensus amongst most climate
scientists is that more CO2 will lead to irreparable problems.

Further to that point: Like most things in life, early attention will
cost a whole lot less than dealing with it later.



Sure. Is it likely that they're ALL wrong and Alan Jones, George Pell and
Monckton are right? Nup. Not likely at all.

Why do you keep resorting to this infantile insulting of people who
don't share your views Trevor? It really does your case no favours....

**It is very important that those who embrace the non-scientific
approach be made aware of the people that share their views.

The people that share those views is referred to as "The Majority of
Australians"

--
Trevor Wilsonwww.rageaudio.com.au

Interesting too, how he accuses anyone who disagrees with him of
having religious
motives or associations, but to date, no one has brought up religion
except him.

This time it is Catholics who are referred to.

 

[kreed]

On Dec 5, 11:43 am, terryc <newsninespam-s...@woa.com.au> wrote:

Noddy wrote:
On 4/12/2011 8:40 PM, John_H wrote:

In fact they're hopelessly inept compared to those before them,
whether it be pink bats, climate change, live cattle exports, the
Malaysian solution or Craig Thomson.  Being beholden to the Green
Slime hasn't helped.  Theirs has to be one of the most spectacular
crashes in Australian political history.

I would have thought it'd be *the* most spectacular. Even Labor party
members are talking about the party being eradicated.

The rot has been into the Labor Party for decades and the Liberals are
just a few years behind them.

Interesting that their former leader Latham wrote similar in his book
(I don't know if he mentioned the Liberals)
after leaving the ALP.

If nothing else, he was in a position to know a lot more about the
organisation than most.

 

[kreed]

On Dec 7, 8:00 am, Trevor Wilson <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au>
wrote:

On 12/7/2011 8:27 AM, Je us wrote:



On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 23:30:45 +1100, Noddy<m...@home.com>  wrote:

On 5/12/2011 5:08 PM, Je us wrote:

My experience wasn't so much like that, more to do with
backstabbing/politics and securing their own financial well being
often at the expense of scientific accuracy. Seen plenty of sloppy
technique as well. The bloke I worked for (who will remain nameless
for now) was regarded as the world authority in his field, he also had
quite an ego and was jealous of most any/all competitors in his field
(excepting those in his own little faction).

There's nothing stranger than folk.

I know Trevor rubs some people up the wrong way with his climate change
argument, and I think he's a little left field myself, but I don't mind
the bloke and genuinely enjoy my time arguing with him.

I don't mind him *until* he gets onto this subject, or on gun control.
He specialises in a special blend of oversimplified, inflexible and
naive one-sided viewpoints and insults whilst at the same time
apparently trying to have a reasoned debate.

**Let's examine those points for a moment:

* You speak of my position on gun control. What is that position? (I
don't want to drag this off-topic and into a long discussion, but see if
you can characterise my position, rather than what you imagine it to be).
* The IPCC AR4 report runs to more than 1600 pages. AR5 may be even
larger. Climate science is complex stuff. Very complex stuff. I don't
pretend to understand anything more than the basics. And yes, I've read
AR4. I've also read a large amount of denialist 'science' as well. It is
virtually impossible to encapsulate the basics in a newsgroup
discussion, particularly, when the person one is discusing this stuff
with has not even bothered to read the most important document that
pertains to the topic. Of course, I resort to qips. I have no other choice.

  I gave up on it a long

time ago, the longer the debate goes on the more obtuse he becomes.

**Have you read AR4?



Notice the constant references to Alan Jones in this thread... I don't
have the patience for it anymore

**I use those points for effect. I want deniers (Noddy is one) to be
well aware that people like Jones are precisely the people that he is
aligned with. Jones has probably be bought by the fossil fuel lobby to
get their message across. Their message is pretty obivous - To muddy the
waters around the science, to pick up on the tiniest details and expose
those tiny errors and declare the whole lot invalid. Take AR4, for
instance. Of the 1600-odd pages, approximately 4 have been found to
contain errors. Naturally, it is those tiny errors that deniers focus
on. They fail to mention the 1596 pages of decent, solid science. AND, I
might add, the IPCC has addressed those errors and made the appropriate
admissions and corrections.



However, one
thing about him that I really don't get is his apparent belief that
scientists are completely immune from any kind of human failings and I
think it's pretty bizarre.

**Bollocks, Noddy. Scientists are human. They make mistakes. They lie,
cheat and steal. In the main, however, scientists are not in the job for
the money. The guys who publish books on denialist 'science', like
Carter, Lindzen and the others can make a lot more money. The boss of
Exxon makes STUPENDOUS amounts of cash.



Yeah, that's a big part of why I've lost patience with him. Life
experience has taught most of us that lesson, but not Trevor.

Agree, he seems to be off in some utopian world, and can't see the
reality around him
I wonder at how this can happen.

**Except that Noddy's assumption is not rooted in fact. He made a faulty
assumption.



I know he's mentioned before that his partner
has a scientific background and that probably plays a significant part,
but I mean, shit, people are people and even the most eminent people in
their fields can be more than a little odd as you've experienced yourself.

**My partner is a physicist. She studies the Sun. She works damned hard
for a government department. She is paid a wage that is less than a
highly qualified teacher (which she used to be), a plumber, a sparkie, a
lawyer, a doctor, or almost anyone in the mining industry. She spent
years at uni and has spent years since, studying her business (she often
goes to bed with texts to keep up with current developments - she is not
paid for those extra studies, which she needs to do to ensure she can do
her job effectively). Know any other government workers who do that? I
don't. She is the best person I know (NEVER tell her I said that).
Honest, ethical and very hard working (she works 7 days a week, once per
month, getting essential reports out to defence, shipping and
communications people).

Oh yeah: She haseven less patience than I do with either those who don't
accept AGW and complete contempt for anyone who does not educate
themselves on the matter. She cannot understand why I waste my time with
attempting to educate people in the matter. She figures they deserve
what they will get. She does not suffer fools.


You must be the perfect match then. Congratulations Trevor on meeting

such a compatible
life partner. (I mean this, and am not being sarcastic).



One good thing about you, you do encourage people to look further to
prove you wrong.


You don't educate, you parrot pretty much word for word, Bankster
funded propaganda to help them separate
us from even more of our money (by force) and make them richer. I
find it really
interesting that you have a problem with heads of oil companies and
Rinehart being
wealthy, but Rockefellers, Rothschilds, JP Morgan European Royal
families (to name just some)
who's wealth is probably more than the
rest of the world combined, but also control our both sides of our
governments - all their departments
including science, media - and basically our lives with an iron grip.

were also instrumental in concocting and pioneering the idea of these
various "dirty air" scams / fear
campaigns as far back as the 60's, to further their own wealth (they
will rake in trillions
from the carbon tax) gain greater power over humanity by denying or
restricting their use of
electricity, private transport (fuel), as restricting resource
extraction (including by "environmental" means
and eventual use for their own corporations

- these people are always ok, and probably even respected by you.


She might want to look upwards, there is a Bankster sitting at the
head of the CSIRO.





This is one thing that happens to people in her position, they put
them in a particular role, where she is only a tiny part
of the machine, and doing a very small, but probably detailed part of
the work and cannot see the big picture she
is a part of. It also looks like she is kept too busy to do much else
than her job, certainly no time to seriously
question and look into any opposing views. This is probably the same
through many of these controlled organisations.

It also fits in well with the "anti family" (especially middle class)
policies of government and their controllers.
Not saying or implying anything bad about you and your wife
personally, but this sort of lifestyle could put great strain on many
marriages, and put an end to plans to have children, or have less
children than usual.


Also likely that unless these people are the sort of personality that
will not question, or rock boats, they would not ever get in the door,
and if they did, would be weeded our or pushed aside pretty soon.


Same could go for many of the "scientists" in the AGW movement and
other key areas.



Finally, not all people are bribed or bought off with money. Some
people are happy to have a particular position or title, have
something named after them, be respected and recognised, have lots of
publicity as being an "expert", or even be the "head" of a particular
area that they are dedicated to, invited to speak at particular
conferences recognised as prestigious by their profession. Allowed to
pursue their own pet projects, whether for profit, or for their own
interest using company facilities and equipment they could never dream
of going near as a civilian. I think you will find that some people
will sell out for peanuts if approached the right way with the right
things. I still remember years ago of that guy in the USA who sold
top secret info to the soviets for about $20,000, (that was worth a
hell of a lot more) and ended up with life in jail for his trouble.


Others can also be blackmailed or simply dismissed, which I would
think would be a death sentence to many professionals.
Or they can get benefits as described above by simply being asked to
"massage" some data slightly. If they don't, then they miss out, and
someone else (probably a rival they don't like) gets the chance
instead. Once they do, they think "its a small thing, I won't do it
again, etc" then they are blackmailed with that previous fraud, until
the fraud gets greater and greater and totally out of control, as if
they stop, they could be prosecuted, and academically destroyed.
These people also have mortgages, car loans and all that stuff, just
like Mr and Ms public. Lose your job, miss a few payments, you and
your family are on the street, and walking everywhere.



The sad part is, and I have seen this many times over. This sort of
dedication she shows, and even following and pushing the AGW faith
tends to count for nothing in the end. You seem to get more respect
and job security working in the supermarket than as an employee in
many "professional" areas.



It might sound strange, but in most cases, I don't really hate a lot
of these people, (except for those who purposely and sadistically went
out of their way to cause intentional harm) most have just been sold a
bunch of fake bullshit about life from a young age, and if and when
they wake up, usually when its too late, as they often have become a
victim by then (usually of the same system they previously supported,
or even were a part of), put the pieces together and work it all out,
it would be a horrible, indescribable feeling of an entire life,
career and existence being based around a big lie and empty
promises.



I just feel sorry for them.

--
Trevor Wilsonwww.rageaudio.com.au

 

[kreed]

On Dec 7, 8:35 am, Trevor Wilson <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au>
wrote:

On 12/7/2011 8:48 AM, Je us wrote:



On Mon, 5 Dec 2011 20:26:41 +1100, "Lindsay"
ask.me.for...@hornet.net.ay.you>  wrote:

"Je us"<n...@all.invalid>  wrote in message
news:6oood7l9rbe6f6cvos3a4vnhqq2gdmns5h@4ax.com...

I should have known better. How many times are you going to try to
infer that we all listen to that moron Alan Jones? I haven't even
stated my opinion on GW, in case you haven't noticed!

You, Trevor, are a fucking idiot. Time to filter you again.

Seems to be a popular and growing perception. Maybe he has some "issues"
that he needs to confront...

Ask him about his elastic seine net killfile. It's a Twev special. It
breathes like a human lung, and lets people in and out whenever he sees fit,
but he forgets to tell anyone, until it suits his dodgy arguements.
At one stage he had every "John" on the net in there, and expected me to
pick one. I picked John the Baptist, John Lennon, John Cleese, which were
all wrong.

He's strange, is twev....

Indeed. I have no problem with his having views on *whatever*, but the
way he debates them is another matter.

**Fair enough. I take it yhou have no issue with these comments (from
other 'debaters' in this thread)?

--

kreed wrote:

Thats because its not. It's mostly fabricated crap in order to get the
result they are paid
to get and it is laugable.  The peers that review this garbage are
just as corrupt as the authors.
--Kreed wrote:

When you look at the staggering amounts of money and power at stake
here, buying off
these organisations (note most are gov funded) would cost lunch money
by comparison

There is one rule that always applies,   -- IT IS ALWAYS ABOUT THE
MONEY / POWER.  This is how
it always has been.

When you look at how things work in real life, and not in TV land or
Government land, this is the only answer.
--atec77 wrote:

The reality is we all knew the model tweva aspires to was is and will
remain flawed due to data being made to fit the requirements
Now that climate-gate is openly being examined it's patently obvious
tweva is a fuckwitt , next time I get down Melbourne and time permits I
intend explaining in person exactly why he is
--atec77 wrote:

just shows how little tweva matters , sydney then as I hear his silly
little shop is hidden in some backwater at the wrong side of town for me
so the visiting might be to much trouble , either way the bloke is still
a fuckwitt
--kreed wrote:

Bloody hell, for an "expert" on spotting good and bad "science" you
are a real riot Trev.

On the other hand, based on what we see these days, it is possible
that DDT ill effects
were pushed aside for financial gain - kind of like what "warmists" do
now for financial gain, or to protect financial gain..

Much easier to do back then with no internet or other
public ways of mass info dissemination other than mainstream media.
--Bernd Felsche wrote:

Mounting evidence? Steaming piles of manure.
Pure Gedankenexperiments and soothsaying akin to reading the
entrails of chickens.
--Noddy wrote:

The one were most of the "credible" scientists in England who have been
associated with it for a number of years are now largely in hiding after
it was recently revealed that their modelling was wrong (and they knew
it) and that their principal objective was to scare the shit out of the
public to ensure continued funding.
--kreed wrote:

The IPCC reports are not relevant.  Its paid, corrupted, agenda based
"science".  The IPCC has little credibility and it won't be accepted
in a rational discussion.

Kind of like asking a used car salesman or a politician (hmmm... bad
example as I know Trev worships labor pollies and big banks)

Kind of like asking Hitler for advice on advancing the rights of
Jewish people, and having blind faith and belief in all he says ?
--kreed wrote:

Anyone who debunks this AGW garbage is not going to be allowed a voice
or funding for their
research as they cost the big guys trillions.
--kreed wrote:

If the ABC bought and paid for news and current affairs programs say
there is man made global warming, because its being told by a bimbo
news announcer with no qualifications, that means I should ignore it
too !    Thanks for clarifying that Twever.
--'Lindsay' wrote:

Ask him about his elastic seine net killfile. It's a Twev special. It
breathes like a human lung, and lets people in and out whenever he sees
fit,
but he forgets to tell anyone, until it suits his dodgy arguements.
At one stage he had every "John" on the net in there, and expected me to
pick one. I picked John the Baptist, John Lennon, John Cleese, which were
all wrong.
--kreed wrote:

Now that that is over we shall see.  The basics are is that it is a
tax, and therefore state theft of private property without consent,
and that governments are only good at turning things to shit means
inherently overall it has to have a BAD effect.
--

That'll do. I'm bored now. There is more. MUCH more. Not only are these
comments littered with gratuitous insults, NONE are backed with cites or
anything resembling facts. How do you expect me to respond when faced
with such purile nonsense?

When presented with credible cites and some facts, I will always be
happy to respond in kind. When I am presented with gratiutous and
childish insults, I will expose the insulter for what they are. Think of
my posts as a mirror. Don't like what you see? Then act responsibly.

The problem is that you have not presented any credible evidence.

--
Trevor Wilsonwww.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 12/7/2011 12:53 PM, kreed wrote:

On Dec 7, 5:52 am, Trevor Wilson<tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au
wrote:
On 12/6/2011 3:50 PM, Noddy wrote:

On 6/12/2011 9:57 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

**Sure. Happy to do so. The massive weight of scientific investigation
lies with AGW as being a reality. It is up to those who don't accept
that massive weight of scientific opinion to produce some data that
contradicts ALL the above organisations.

I believe there have been a number of such counter claims, and from some
credible sources, yet there seems to be none that you will accept.

**I'll bite. List those claims and their sources that you feel are
credible. I will discuss each and every one with you.



Could they ALL be wrong?

Of course they could. Are you saying it's impossible for a large number
of people to be wrong?

**Of course not. Look at the Catholics. However, unlike the Catholics,
AGW researchers have quite a number of 'runs on the board'. Let's look
at a very quick snapshot of what the issue entails:

* The planet has warmed at a faster rate in the last 100-odd years, than
at any time in the last 600,000 years. FACT. No dispute.
* The planet has accumulated CO2 in the atmosphere at a faster rate than
at any time in the last 600,000 years. FACT. No dispute.
* CO2 is a known greenhouse gas. FACT. No dispute. The contribution of
CO2 to planetary warming has been known for more than 100 years. It has
been shown experimentally many times. Even Mythbusters were surprised
when they performed the experiment. VERY tiny amounts of CO2 can and do
cause 'Solar forcing' (Additional warming).
* As the planet warms, more CO2 will outgas from the oceans. FACT. No
dipute.
* As the planet warms, methane will be released from permafrost areas.
Methane is a MUCH more potent GHG than CO2. Fortunately, methane breaks
down rapidly (about 10 years) in the atmosphere. UNFORTUNATELY, CO2 is
one of the breakdown products. CO2 has a very long life in the
atmoshere. FACT. No dispute.
* All this is thought to lead to a kind of positive feedback (aka:
'Tipping Point'), where more CO2 leads to hotter temperatures, which, in
turn, leads to more GHGs being released into the atmosphere, which, in
turn, leads to higher temperatures, more GHGs and so on. The 'Tipping
Point' is thought to be around 500ppm. SPECULATIVE. Plenty of dispute.
In fact, at least one researcher is of the opinion that the tipping
point has already been reached.

So, the upshot is, that we are really only arguing a single point:

Will the release of more CO2 cause irreparable damage to the planet?

We don't know for certain. The general concensus amongst most climate
scientists is that more CO2 will lead to irreparable problems.

Further to that point: Like most things in life, early attention will
cost a whole lot less than dealing with it later.



Sure. Is it likely that they're ALL wrong and Alan Jones, George Pell and
Monckton are right? Nup. Not likely at all.

Why do you keep resorting to this infantile insulting of people who
don't share your views Trevor? It really does your case no favours....

**It is very important that those who embrace the non-scientific
approach be made aware of the people that share their views.


The people that share those views is referred to as "The Majority of
Australians"

**Of course. I never assumed that the majority of Australians were
particularly bright. Did you? Look at the success of the following:

* Alan Jones
* The Murdoch Press
* Its a Knockout
* The Bolt Report
* Today
* A Current Affair
* Danoz
* Sunrise
* Deal or no Deal
* Today Tonight
* Etc

--
Trevor Wilsonwww.rageaudio.com.au




Interesting too, how he accuses anyone who disagrees with him of
having religious
motives or associations

**Bollocks. No, not bollocks. An outright lie. What I DO accuse those
who have dissagreed with me (in this thread) of being is ignorant. None
have admitted to reading the IPCC AR4.


, but to date, no one has brought up religion

except him.

**Another lie. I suggest you read the thread carefully.

This time it is Catholics who are referred to.

**And I was not the first.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 12/7/2011 1:07 PM, terryc wrote:

Trevor Wilson wrote:
My last apprentice is picking up a nice 230 Grand a year working in WA.

but what a very sad lifestyle.

**Depends on what you call "sad". He regards it as a necessary sacrifice
to advance himself. The guy is 30 years old and will have his (Sydney)
home paid off before his 31st birthday. He is planning his fourth
holiday in the US and plans buying a couple of investment properties
over there. By the time he calls it quits in the mining biz (two years
hence) he should be well placed for the next few years. It's a crappy
life right now, but the payoffs shoud be good for him.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 12/7/2011 2:24 PM, kreed wrote:

On Dec 7, 12:51 pm, Trevor Wilson<tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au
wrote:
On 12/7/2011 12:53 PM, kreed wrote:



On Dec 7, 5:52 am, Trevor Wilson<tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au
wrote:
On 12/6/2011 3:50 PM, Noddy wrote:

On 6/12/2011 9:57 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

**Sure. Happy to do so. The massive weight of scientific investigation
lies with AGW as being a reality. It is up to those who don't accept
that massive weight of scientific opinion to produce some data that
contradicts ALL the above organisations.

I believe there have been a number of such counter claims, and from some
credible sources, yet there seems to be none that you will accept.

**I'll bite. List those claims and their sources that you feel are
credible. I will discuss each and every one with you.

Could they ALL be wrong?

Of course they could. Are you saying it's impossible for a large number
of people to be wrong?

**Of course not. Look at the Catholics. However, unlike the Catholics,
AGW researchers have quite a number of 'runs on the board'. Let's look
at a very quick snapshot of what the issue entails:

* The planet has warmed at a faster rate in the last 100-odd years, than
at any time in the last 600,000 years. FACT. No dispute.
* The planet has accumulated CO2 in the atmosphere at a faster rate than
at any time in the last 600,000 years. FACT. No dispute.
* CO2 is a known greenhouse gas. FACT. No dispute. The contribution of
CO2 to planetary warming has been known for more than 100 years. It has
been shown experimentally many times. Even Mythbusters were surprised
when they performed the experiment. VERY tiny amounts of CO2 can and do
cause 'Solar forcing' (Additional warming).
* As the planet warms, more CO2 will outgas from the oceans. FACT. No
dipute.
* As the planet warms, methane will be released from permafrost areas.
Methane is a MUCH more potent GHG than CO2. Fortunately, methane breaks
down rapidly (about 10 years) in the atmosphere. UNFORTUNATELY, CO2 is
one of the breakdown products. CO2 has a very long life in the
atmoshere. FACT. No dispute.
* All this is thought to lead to a kind of positive feedback (aka:
'Tipping Point'), where more CO2 leads to hotter temperatures, which, in
turn, leads to more GHGs being released into the atmosphere, which, in
turn, leads to higher temperatures, more GHGs and so on. The 'Tipping
Point' is thought to be around 500ppm. SPECULATIVE. Plenty of dispute.
In fact, at least one researcher is of the opinion that the tipping
point has already been reached.

So, the upshot is, that we are really only arguing a single point:

Will the release of more CO2 cause irreparable damage to the planet?

We don't know for certain. The general concensus amongst most climate
scientists is that more CO2 will lead to irreparable problems.

Further to that point: Like most things in life, early attention will
cost a whole lot less than dealing with it later.

Sure. Is it likely that they're ALL wrong and Alan Jones, George Pell and
Monckton are right? Nup. Not likely at all.

Why do you keep resorting to this infantile insulting of people who
don't share your views Trevor? It really does your case no favours....

**It is very important that those who embrace the non-scientific
approach be made aware of the people that share their views.

The people that share those views is referred to as "The Majority of
Australians"


**Of course. I never assumed that the majority of Australians were
particularly bright. Did you?


No, there are a lot who aren't, but a lot have awoken in the last
couple of years



Look at the success of the following:



* Alan Jones


Haven't heard the guys program but if he is exposing
AGW for what it is, he cant be too bad.


* The Murdoch Press
* Its a Knockout


* The Bolt Report


Taken down by the "Thought Police" and had his human
rights trampled recently so therefore must have been
credible or would have been left alone.


* Today
* A Current Affair
* Danoz
* Sunrise
* Deal or no Deal
* Today Tonight
* Etc



Can't say I watch any of that.

Can anyone else on here comment if they do ?



--
Trevor Wilsonwww.rageaudio.com.au

Interesting too, how he accuses anyone who disagrees with him of
having religious
motives or associations

**Bollocks. No, not bollocks. An outright lie. What I DO accuse those
who have dissagreed with me (in this thread) of being is ignorant. None
have admitted to reading the IPCC AR4.

, but to date, no one has brought up religion

except him.

**Another lie. I suggest you read the thread carefully.



This time it is Catholics who are referred to.

**And I was not the first.


Probably true that you aren't the first, but you bring it up the most
often.

**I accept your admission that you lied.

Go read AR4.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[kreed]

On Dec 7, 12:51 pm, Trevor Wilson <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au>
wrote:

On 12/7/2011 12:53 PM, kreed wrote:



On Dec 7, 5:52 am, Trevor Wilson<tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au
wrote:
On 12/6/2011 3:50 PM, Noddy wrote:

On 6/12/2011 9:57 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

**Sure. Happy to do so. The massive weight of scientific investigation
lies with AGW as being a reality. It is up to those who don't accept
that massive weight of scientific opinion to produce some data that
contradicts ALL the above organisations.

I believe there have been a number of such counter claims, and from some
credible sources, yet there seems to be none that you will accept.

**I'll bite. List those claims and their sources that you feel are
credible. I will discuss each and every one with you.

Could they ALL be wrong?

Of course they could. Are you saying it's impossible for a large number
of people to be wrong?

**Of course not. Look at the Catholics. However, unlike the Catholics,
AGW researchers have quite a number of 'runs on the board'. Let's look
at a very quick snapshot of what the issue entails:

* The planet has warmed at a faster rate in the last 100-odd years, than
at any time in the last 600,000 years. FACT. No dispute.
* The planet has accumulated CO2 in the atmosphere at a faster rate than
at any time in the last 600,000 years. FACT. No dispute.
* CO2 is a known greenhouse gas. FACT. No dispute. The contribution of
CO2 to planetary warming has been known for more than 100 years. It has
been shown experimentally many times. Even Mythbusters were surprised
when they performed the experiment. VERY tiny amounts of CO2 can and do
cause 'Solar forcing' (Additional warming).
* As the planet warms, more CO2 will outgas from the oceans. FACT. No
dipute.
* As the planet warms, methane will be released from permafrost areas.
Methane is a MUCH more potent GHG than CO2. Fortunately, methane breaks
down rapidly (about 10 years) in the atmosphere. UNFORTUNATELY, CO2 is
one of the breakdown products. CO2 has a very long life in the
atmoshere. FACT. No dispute.
* All this is thought to lead to a kind of positive feedback (aka:
'Tipping Point'), where more CO2 leads to hotter temperatures, which, in
turn, leads to more GHGs being released into the atmosphere, which, in
turn, leads to higher temperatures, more GHGs and so on. The 'Tipping
Point' is thought to be around 500ppm. SPECULATIVE. Plenty of dispute.
In fact, at least one researcher is of the opinion that the tipping
point has already been reached.

So, the upshot is, that we are really only arguing a single point:

Will the release of more CO2 cause irreparable damage to the planet?

We don't know for certain. The general concensus amongst most climate
scientists is that more CO2 will lead to irreparable problems.

Further to that point: Like most things in life, early attention will
cost a whole lot less than dealing with it later.

Sure. Is it likely that they're ALL wrong and Alan Jones, George Pell and
Monckton are right? Nup. Not likely at all.

Why do you keep resorting to this infantile insulting of people who
don't share your views Trevor? It really does your case no favours.....

**It is very important that those who embrace the non-scientific
approach be made aware of the people that share their views.

The people that share those views is referred to as  "The Majority of
Australians"


**Of course. I never assumed that the majority of Australians were
particularly bright. Did you?

No, there are a lot who aren't, but a lot have awoken in the last
couple of years



Look at the success of the following:

* Alan Jones

Haven't heard the guys program but if he is exposing
AGW for what it is, he cant be too bad.

* The Murdoch Press
* Its a Knockout

* The Bolt Report

Taken down by the "Thought Police" and had his human
rights trampled recently so therefore must have been
credible or would have been left alone.

* Today
* A Current Affair
* Danoz
* Sunrise
* Deal or no Deal
* Today Tonight
* Etc

Can't say I watch any of that.

Can anyone else on here comment if they do ?

--
Trevor Wilsonwww.rageaudio.com.au

Interesting too, how he accuses anyone who disagrees with him of
having religious
motives or associations

**Bollocks. No, not bollocks. An outright lie. What I DO accuse those
who have dissagreed with me (in this thread) of being is ignorant. None
have admitted to reading the IPCC AR4.

, but to date, no one has brought up religion

except him.

**Another lie. I suggest you read the thread carefully.



This time it is Catholics who are referred to.

**And I was not the first.

Probably true that you aren't the first, but you bring it up the most
often.

--
Trevor Wilsonwww.rageaudio.com.au

 

[kreed]

On Dec 7, 12:56 pm, Trevor Wilson <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au>
wrote:

On 12/7/2011 1:07 PM, terryc wrote:

Trevor Wilson wrote:
My last apprentice is picking up a nice 230 Grand a year working in WA..

but what a very sad lifestyle.

**Depends on what you call "sad". He regards it as a necessary sacrifice
to advance himself. The guy is 30 years old and will have his (Sydney)
home paid off before his 31st birthday. He is planning his fourth
holiday in the US and plans buying a couple of investment properties
over there. By the time he calls it quits in the mining biz (two years
hence) he should be well placed for the next few years. It's a crappy
life right now, but the payoffs shoud be good for him.

--
Trevor Wilsonwww.rageaudio.com.au

Now I'm envious, it took me until 34 to be debt and mortgage free



He will come unstuck if he thinks he is going to make a profit out
of investment property in the current market.

Got the hell out of that game in 06 and never regretted it.

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 12/7/2011 2:29 PM, kreed wrote:

On Dec 7, 12:56 pm, Trevor Wilson<tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au
wrote:
On 12/7/2011 1:07 PM, terryc wrote:

Trevor Wilson wrote:
My last apprentice is picking up a nice 230 Grand a year working in WA.

but what a very sad lifestyle.

**Depends on what you call "sad". He regards it as a necessary sacrifice
to advance himself. The guy is 30 years old and will have his (Sydney)
home paid off before his 31st birthday. He is planning his fourth
holiday in the US and plans buying a couple of investment properties
over there. By the time he calls it quits in the mining biz (two years
hence) he should be well placed for the next few years. It's a crappy
life right now, but the payoffs shoud be good for him.

--
Trevor Wilsonwww.rageaudio.com.au



Now I'm envious, it took me until 34 to be debt and mortgage free

**I'm impressed. It took me 'till I was 35 or thereabouts. And I bought
my first home back when the cost of an average home was around 4 times
the average wage. He is doing so under much more difficult conditions.

He will come unstuck if he thinks he is going to make a profit out
of investment property in the current market.

**I've mentioned that he should be extremely cautious. Ultimately, it is
his decision. For some reason, he wants to live in the US. I guess he
figures that by owning real estate, he can find a way in.

Got the hell out of that game in 06 and never regretted it.

**Yep. More trouble that it's worth.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

"Noddy" wrote in message news:jbk6vq$2p9$1@dont-email.me...


Why do you keep resorting to this infantile insulting of people who
don't share your views Trevor? It really does your case no favours....
Regards,
Noddy.
==========================================================================
Wholly fuckin' shit.......talk about pot kettle black. You're one very
strange unbalanced character Darren.
DAVO

 

[John_H]

terryc wrote:

John_H wrote:

They're already irrelevant, all of their own own making. Rudd could
and should have gone to a double dissolution on the ETS. Whatever the
outcome, not only would Labor have maintained their credibility the
Green Slime would've been neutered to boot.

Their demise started in the 80's when power factions started taking
power away from local party members and started annoiting their local
candidates.

Which doesn't quite explain how they were able to maintain the most
successful federal Labor Government in Australian history from 1983 to
1996!... And if weren't for the totally uninspiring Beazley would've
been back in office after just two terms in opposition (at most).

The "Green Slime" has been growing for longer, very slowly. It does well
when large segments of the people are fed up with BOTH major parties.

They're suddenly doing exceptionally well as the loony left desert
Labor in droves (and aren't likely to return). The Greens are to
Labor what One Nation was to the National Party... except that Gillard
has been stupid enough to form an alliance which has pissed off the
moderates, who then vote Liberal. The biggest obstacle to an even
greater exodus is Abbott.

The only direction remaining for Labor is down!

--
John H

 

[John_H]

kreed wrote:

On Dec 7, 12:51 pm, Trevor Wilson <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au
wrote:

* Today
* A Current Affair
* Danoz
* Sunrise
* Deal or no Deal
* Today Tonight
* Etc



Can't say I watch any of that.

Can anyone else on here comment if they do ?

Wife watches Sunrise... for the morning news I think (I prefer The
Australian).

'Deal or no Deal' is a must, where folk claiming to be teachers, etc,
demonstrate their complete inability to perform simple mental
arithmetic. I'm yet to see a climatologist but it's probably only a
matter of time!

--
John H

 

[Bernd Felsche]

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

**If she was earning 88 Grand a year, I reckon she'd be doing well too.
Sadly, she doesn't earn that much. In fact, she doesn't make as much as
my local plumber, builder, doctor, lawyer, electrician or almost anyone
in the WA mining industry. My last apprentice is picking up a nice 230
Grand a year working in WA. Let's not even get into how much money Gina
Rinehart makes, just though an accident of birth.

You're an idiot, Trevor. No "accident of birth".
The family fortune was built on personal industry and endeavour.

Or do you advocate that children should in no way benefit from the
endeavours and love of their parents?
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | For every complex problem there is an
X against HTML mail | answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.
/ \ and postings | --HL Mencken

 

[kreed]

On Dec 7, 1:41 pm, Trevor Wilson <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au>
wrote:

On 12/7/2011 2:24 PM, kreed wrote:



On Dec 7, 12:51 pm, Trevor Wilson<tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au
wrote:
On 12/7/2011 12:53 PM, kreed wrote:

On Dec 7, 5:52 am, Trevor Wilson<tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au
wrote:
On 12/6/2011 3:50 PM, Noddy wrote:

On 6/12/2011 9:57 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

**Sure. Happy to do so. The massive weight of scientific investigation
lies with AGW as being a reality. It is up to those who don't accept
that massive weight of scientific opinion to produce some data that
contradicts ALL the above organisations.

I believe there have been a number of such counter claims, and from some
credible sources, yet there seems to be none that you will accept.

**I'll bite. List those claims and their sources that you feel are
credible. I will discuss each and every one with you.

Could they ALL be wrong?

Of course they could. Are you saying it's impossible for a large number
of people to be wrong?

**Of course not. Look at the Catholics. However, unlike the Catholics,
AGW researchers have quite a number of 'runs on the board'. Let's look
at a very quick snapshot of what the issue entails:

* The planet has warmed at a faster rate in the last 100-odd years, than
at any time in the last 600,000 years. FACT. No dispute.
* The planet has accumulated CO2 in the atmosphere at a faster rate than
at any time in the last 600,000 years. FACT. No dispute.
* CO2 is a known greenhouse gas. FACT. No dispute. The contribution of
CO2 to planetary warming has been known for more than 100 years. It has
been shown experimentally many times. Even Mythbusters were surprised
when they performed the experiment. VERY tiny amounts of CO2 can and do
cause 'Solar forcing' (Additional warming).
* As the planet warms, more CO2 will outgas from the oceans. FACT. No
dipute.
* As the planet warms, methane will be released from permafrost areas.
Methane is a MUCH more potent GHG than CO2. Fortunately, methane breaks
down rapidly (about 10 years) in the atmosphere. UNFORTUNATELY, CO2 is
one of the breakdown products. CO2 has a very long life in the
atmoshere. FACT. No dispute.
* All this is thought to lead to a kind of positive feedback (aka:
'Tipping Point'), where more CO2 leads to hotter temperatures, which, in
turn, leads to more GHGs being released into the atmosphere, which, in
turn, leads to higher temperatures, more GHGs and so on. The 'Tipping
Point' is thought to be around 500ppm. SPECULATIVE. Plenty of dispute.
In fact, at least one researcher is of the opinion that the tipping
point has already been reached.

So, the upshot is, that we are really only arguing a single point:

Will the release of more CO2 cause irreparable damage to the planet?

We don't know for certain. The general concensus amongst most climate
scientists is that more CO2 will lead to irreparable problems.

Further to that point: Like most things in life, early attention will
cost a whole lot less than dealing with it later.

Sure. Is it likely that they're ALL wrong and Alan Jones, George Pell and
Monckton are right? Nup. Not likely at all.

Why do you keep resorting to this infantile insulting of people who
don't share your views Trevor? It really does your case no favours.....

**It is very important that those who embrace the non-scientific
approach be made aware of the people that share their views.

The people that share those views is referred to as  "The Majority of
Australians"

**Of course. I never assumed that the majority of Australians were
particularly bright. Did you?

No, there are a lot who aren't, but a lot have awoken in the last
couple of years

Look at the success of the following:

* Alan Jones

Haven't heard the guys program but if he is exposing
AGW for what it is, he cant be too bad.

* The Murdoch Press
* Its a Knockout

* The Bolt Report

Taken down by the "Thought Police" and had his human
rights trampled recently so therefore must have been
credible or would have been left alone.

* Today
* A Current Affair
* Danoz
* Sunrise
* Deal or no Deal
* Today Tonight
* Etc

Can't say I watch any of that.

Can anyone else on here comment if they do ?

--
Trevor Wilsonwww.rageaudio.com.au

Interesting too, how he accuses anyone who disagrees with him of
having religious
motives or associations

**Bollocks. No, not bollocks. An outright lie. What I DO accuse those
who have dissagreed with me (in this thread) of being is ignorant. None
have admitted to reading the IPCC AR4.

, but to date, no one has brought up religion

except him.

**Another lie. I suggest you read the thread carefully.

This time it is Catholics who are referred to.

**And I was not the first.

Probably true that you aren't the first, but you bring it up the most
often.

**I accept your admission that you lied.

Go read AR4.

--
Trevor Wilsonwww.rageaudio.com.au

no, i stated the obvious

 

[Bernd Felsche]

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

**I just deal with facts. AFTER you have read the IPCC AR4 you may
share my view.

So you're happy with Chapter 9?

Happy about the stuff being added AFTER peer review closed.

Happy about the report including previously-unpublished materials?

Happy about cursory review; submissions being considered to be
acceptable because the reviewers felt that they were right?

Happy about the "peer-reviewed" sources that weren't? Like 30%
overall and almost half the references in some chapters?

Happy about the graduate students (some pre-PhD at the time of
selection) acting as the best experts in the field; in the roles of
lead authors, etc?

Happy about people acting as lead authors on chapters including
their own material and (even unpublished) material that was drafted
by others to support the prejudicial conclusions in preference to
those (published and peer-reviewed) submissions which run counter to
the argument?

Happy about expert reviewers' comments being rejected without
explaination or justification?

Happy about the lack of actual transparency in IPCC processes?

Happy about the lack of verifying the quality of data during peer
review?

Happy about the Summary for Policymakers being drafted before much
of the report has been written?

Have you read "The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the
World's Top Climate Expert" by Donna Laframboise?
<http://www.amazon.com/Delinquent-Teenager-Mistaken-Climate-ebook/dp/B005UEVB8Q/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1318550369&sr=8-1>

The IPCC is NOT a scientific body.

The IPCC issues reports ... based on political motivation, not for
scientific enlightenment.

Didn't you notice that in your diligent reading of the third and 4th
Asssessment reports?

I didn't have to read thousands of pages of either to be able to
figure out that it wasn't about science. Or that continued reading
would lead to further enlightenment.

**And, as I have stated before, absolute, conclusive proof will come at
a time when it is too late to act (assuming the 'tipping point' theory
is correct). The cost of action now is relatively inconvenient, but
managable. The cost of acting later (say 100 years hence) is likely to
be impossible to fund. IOW: Human society will be fucked.

Catastrophists work on the assumption that positive feedback is
prevalent in nature. Realists observe that negative feedback is
inherent and dominant.

After all, climate recovered after the YDE. And that was a
substantial perturbation; much larger than even the IPCC have ever
attributed to anthroprogenic effects by CO2 emissions.
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | For every complex problem there is an
X against HTML mail | answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.
/ \ and postings | --HL Mencken

 

[kreed]

On Dec 7, 2:48 pm, John_H <john4...@inbox.com> wrote:

kreed wrote:
On Dec 7, 12:51 pm, Trevor Wilson <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au
wrote:

* Today
* A Current Affair
* Danoz
* Sunrise
* Deal or no Deal
* Today Tonight
* Etc

Can't say I watch any of that.

Can anyone else on here comment if they do ?

Wife watches Sunrise... for the morning news I think (I prefer The
Australian).  

Mine occasionally watches that. (has it on while she is doing stuff
around the house)
It gives me a good incentive to get out of the house and do something
constructive. As soon as you hear an ad for a miracle vacuum cleaner,
exercise gear or whatever
that is a good motivation.

'Deal or no Deal' is a must, where folk claiming to be teachers, etc,
demonstrate their complete inability to perform simple mental
arithmetic.  I'm yet to see a climatologist but it's probably only a
matter of time!  

I can remember occasionally seeing the ending of that show a while
back, which was on just before the news
(When I used to watch the 6pm news). People paid very dearly for the
lack of knowledge of probability
and statistics.




"Well, there is $100,000 and 50c on the board, would you like to take
a turn at knocking out the 50c and walking
home with a massive $100k - or take the offer of $50k".


They also fail to realise that $50k tax free (tax free as a
competition prize, unless the laws have changed since last time I
looked)


- Is worth a hell of a lot more than just 50k - its worth what you
need to earn to NET $50k after tax. (depends on bracket you are in)

- It is probably worth $250k + if you are in the early years of a
mortgage when you take 25 yr of non tax deductible interest into
account and the tax paid on the earnings to pay that.

- Taking that much financial and associated mental stress out of your
life, allowing you to spend more time with your family, or your wife
not being forced to work if she doesn't want to - PRICELESS.



No wonder we have a bloody financial crisis......

--
John H

 

[Noddy]

On 7/12/2011 10:46 AM, John_H wrote:

They're already irrelevant, all of their own own making. Rudd could
and should have gone to a double dissolution on the ETS. Whatever the
outcome, not only would Labor have maintained their credibility the
Green Slime would've been neutered to boot.

Probably.

One good thing to come out of the current political mess is that the
Greens have peaked, and come the next election they'll be acting as
ushers guiding what remains of the Labor party into the remotest corner
of the political wilderness.

Given the same opportunity the next government will almost certainly
take it and Labor's own eradication will be complete. All of which
probably makes the rescinding of the carbon tax a very real possibly!

As I said, I live in hope.


--
Regards,
Noddy.

 

[Paul Saccani]

On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 11:05:13 +1100, Trevor Wilson
<trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

Thats because its not. It's mostly fabricated crap in order to get the
result they are paid
to get and it is laugable. The peers that review this garbage are
just as corrupt as the authors.


**I see. So, your contention is this:

ALL the major scientific organisations on the planet (including: CSIRO,
NASA, The Australian Academy of Science, the US National Academy of
Science, the UK Met, The Australian BoM, The French Academy of Science,
the German Academy of Science, Austrian Academy of Sciences, Royal
Society of Canada, Royal Danish Acadeny of Sciences and Letters, The
Finnish Academy of Sciences and Letters, Hungarian Academy of Sciences,
Russian Academy of Sciences, Royal Society of Scotland, Royal Swedish
Academy of Sciences, et al.) tell us that AGW is the most likely
explanation for the warming that has been noted.

Trevor, kindly substantiate your claim.

In an appropriate measure of detail.
--
Cheers,
Paul Saccani
Perth, Western Australia.

 

[Paul Saccani]

On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 12:45:15 +1100, Trevor Wilson
<trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

BTW: The theory of human induced global warming is not a new idea. It
was first theorised well over 100 years ago. Over the last 100 years,
mounting evidence has eradicated oposition to the theory.

Clearly not, otherwise you would not have made it a major focus of
your life to do so.

--
Cheers,
Paul Saccani
Perth, Western Australia.