OT GW

[kreed]

On Dec 8, 1:28 pm, Noddy <m...@home.com> wrote:

On 8/12/2011 1:10 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

**Why? I don't want to pay a carbon tax. I don't want Sydney Smummers to
get any hotter. I want to be able to go skiing down Thredbo for the next
20 odd years. I don't want to pay higher insurance premiums to cover
more bushfires and floods. I don't want those who come after me to have
to clean up the mess made by my generation.

Fair enough, but in a lot of those cases you'll be paying more
regardless of there being an effect or not. "Climate change" is far to
good a topical whipping boy not to be exploited.

**Not under dispute. Your words suggest that ALL the AGW researchers are
automatically corrupt and that the denialist scientists are pure as
driven snow.

I wasn't suggesting that for a second, and to be honest I can't see how
you would get that from what I've been saying. All I said originally was
that some of the leaked emails coming out of the "climategate" scandal
seem to suggest that some scientists are more concerned with feathering
their nests than anything else.

I accept that there are probably SOME corrupt scientists on
both sides of the debate. The vast majority are likely to be honest.

I couldn't agree more, although it's a little disturbing that some of
the corruption seems to be coming from the upper levels.

**It should be. If there was no dispute about AGW, then the researchers
would be deprived of research funds, since everyone accepts the 95%
probability.

Everyone very definitely does *not* accept the 95% probability. The fact
that in this entire thread you're the *only* one who stands on the pro
climate change side would suggest that those who do accept it are in the
minority.

**Conclusive proof may never be reached. In the 1970s, we were at around
70% certainty. Now we are at 95% certainty. IOn ten years, we may be at
(say) 98%. In 20 years, 99%. In another 50 years, 99.5%. In 100 years,
99.9%. It is an asymptotic curve. 100% certainty may never be reached.
Such is the nature of these things.

And therein lies the problem.

Assuming 100% will never be reached, at what point do YOU consider the
theory acceptable? 96%? 97%? 98%?

I don't put a number on it, because the theory itself is *far* too vague
for mine.

Man *may* be causing an accelerated warming, and that *may* have an
effect on the way we live. We *may* find ourselves with food shortages,
and we *may* find ourselves facing rising water levels. In 30 years time
we *may* find our beachfront properties well under water and we *may*
find ourselves subjected to more flooding, more bushfires, and hotter
weather.

It's like a political promise. There's all kinds of predictions, but
there's sweet fuck all that's definite.

**I did not say: "95% of climatologists". I said that the climatologists
were 95% certain that AGW theory was valid.

Okay. 100% of climatologists are fairly sure, rather than 95%. I beg
your pardon.

**Yes. There is a small amount of doubt. There is, at present, around 5%
doubt.

There's a small doubt in certain circles. There's a much larger doubt in
the broader community, and probably more still who couldn't care less.

**If you consider US$0.75/day/person a "packet", then I suspect you no
longer drive a car, drink beer, drink coffee or smoke fags.

I don't consider 75 cents a day to be a lot of money, but then I don't
think that financial modelling would be accurate. I mean, how do you
accurately cost "changing the environmental state of the entire planet"?

They have to start somewhere and put a price on it, but for all we know
the cost could run into the trillions and the effects would be largely
unknown.

US$0.75/day/person is less than one cigarette per day. Significantly
less than what you and I pay for household insurance right now. Consider
it insurance. In fact, the figure is less than I pay for Greenslip
insurance right now.

Assuming for the sake of the argument that that's how much it costs.
Personally I doubt it, but then I'm sceptical of the whole debate myself.

--
Regards,
Noddy.

Let me put it in a nutshell,

I would take the small (in my opinion) risk of the climate getting
much worse
any day over the even greater and fatal risk of putting trust in a
government program or promise.


Even if the climate did go bad, I would rather take on the challenges
of coping with it than EVER
putting my trust in green or government groups.

 

[JONZ]

On 7/12/2011 9:00 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

On 12/7/2011 8:27 AM, Jeßus wrote:
On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 23:30:45 +1100, Noddy<me@home.com> wrote:

On 5/12/2011 5:08 PM, Jeßus 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.

**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.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Your patience is commendable Trevor...........

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

--
Two things that are essential to life are WD 40 and duct tape. If it
moves and it isn't supposed to, use the duct tape. If it doesn't move
and it's supposed to use the WD 40.

 

[JONZ]

On 6/12/2011 9:07 PM, Noddy wrote:

On 6/12/2011 6:09 PM, JONZ wrote:

yes, That would be your speed......

It was *really* worthwhile reposting that in it's entirety *just* to add
that insignificant little bit if shit, wasn't it Festus?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"insignificant little bit if shit?,".....indeed, just keeping things
down to your level....don`t want to tax your comprehensive skills...

Once again you show that not only are you living proof that humans can
survive with a brain the size of a walnut, but that you're a fucking
*lazy* cunt as well.

Top job dickhead.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Hmmmmm, smarting a little eh.......

--
Two things that are essential to life are WD 40 and duct tape. If it
moves and it isn't supposed to, use the duct tape. If it doesn't move
and it's supposed to use the WD 40.

 

[JONZ]

On 7/12/2011 8:58 AM, Jeßus wrote:

On Sun, 4 Dec 2011 17:59:38 -0800 (PST), kreed<kenreed1999@gmail.com
wrote:

If you take a look at the modern USA, it seems going down the same
path

Apart from trying to spy on and monitor everyone and anyone possible,
you recently got this "super congress" that is modelled on the Nazi
"enabling act" of the 30's and a couple of days ago this absolutely
chilling law
just passed by their congress that anyone SUSPECTED of being a
terrorist can be grabbed without warrant,
evidence or any due process and detained indefinitely,
probably in something like gitmo, or these overseas torture centres.

Bit rich considering there is an ever growing body of evidence that
the gov had quite a bit to do with causing 9/11 in the first place


Not to mention the molestations at the airports

Then in the USA we get these armed raids on people selling raw milk or
organic foods, (including Amish)
kids being prosecuted for having lemonade stands people arrested for
having a garden (vegetables, not illegal substances).
Google all this and be prepared for a shock,
if you aren't aware of it already

How do you like Codex Alimentarius? How about the food bill in N.Z?
http://www.sovereignindependent.com/?p=30276


I think anyone who lives there, that can, should look seriously at a
plan to get out of there if the worst happens,
while they are still actually able to do so.

Kreed, you and I are on the same page
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Yeah, of the "they`re out there to get us" novel....

--
Two things that are essential to life are WD 40 and duct tape. If it
moves and it isn't supposed to, use the duct tape. If it doesn't move
and it's supposed to use the WD 40.

 

[terryc]

kreed wrote:

Ok, so nothing is happening now, but if you don't pay, something bad
will happen

Da mufia is in toon.

 

[terryc]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

On 12/8/2011 11:53 AM, terryc wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:


Or, think of it this way:

Let's say the scientists convince Exxon,

Are you sure that Exxon doesn't have any green energy investments?

**They probably do. That's just spreading the risk. Their main source of
income is to get people to burn as much oil as possible. They are a
major funder to denialist groups and institutions.

Well, no pollis are standing up ad shoutng their turn, so of course they
will shift donations to those who do. That is why companies like this
make donations; to keep things the way they are.

 

[terryc]

Noddy wrote:

Make no mistake: Some of my clients are very wealthy. Some have made
their own money. Some have inherited it. I don't hold that against any
of them. If they use their wealth and power for nefarious purposes, then
I have a problem.

That's usually how most very wealthy people become very wealthy, isn't it?

Yep, then they establish a charitable foundation and buy respectability.

 

[kreed]

On Dec 8, 5:34 pm, terryc <newsninespam-s...@woa.com.au> wrote:

Noddy wrote:
Make no mistake: Some of my clients are very wealthy. Some have made
their own money. Some have inherited it. I don't hold that against any
of them. If they use their wealth and power for nefarious purposes, then
I have a problem.

That's usually how most very wealthy people become very wealthy, isn't it?

Yep, then they establish a charitable foundation and buy respectability.

Yes - and the "charity" is really just a tax dodge and publicity stunt

 

[kreed]

On Dec 8, 5:29 pm, terryc <newsninespam-s...@woa.com.au> wrote:

kreed wrote:
Ok, so nothing is happening now, but if you don't pay, something bad
will happen

Da mufia is in toon.

Actually that is a good analogy - they demand what they want from you,
you have no choice to not pay, or no way
to "opt out"

The gov is the same, if you don't pay, they threaten you, take you
before a rigged court, and when you lose,
take away your freedom and steal your private property

 

[Paul Saccani]

On Thu, 08 Dec 2011 12:32:24 +1100, Trevor Wilson
<trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

On 12/8/2011 12:09 PM, terryc wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:
As are those people who claim to hold an unbiased view of AGW theory,
but have been too fucking lazy to acquaint themselves with both sides
of the story.

Some of us have lived the evolution of the last forty years. The "story"
holds no mystique and the absoluteness is worrying, very worrying.

**What "absoluteness" do you refer to? Are you referring to the 95%
probability? Is that what you claim to be absolute?

But Trevor, the sources you cited in this thread don't support that
view. One that you cited in particular stated a 66% probability of
AGW, other were silent on the matter, you seem to be using the eye of
faith. to see things that are not there.
--
Cheers,
Paul Saccani
Perth, Western Australia.

 

[Paul Saccani]

On Wed, 07 Dec 2011 13:51:01 +1100, Trevor Wilson
<trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

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.

Interesting, given the rather lengthy discussions we have had on this
topic in the past.
--
Cheers,
Paul Saccani
Perth, Western Australia.

 

"Noddy" wrote in message news:jbgsur$rbs$2@dont-email.me...

On 5/12/2011 9:39 AM, John_H wrote:

Best arselick of the season as well!

Lol
Regards,
Noddy.
============================================================
Only to be always outdone by you two suckholes.

DAVO

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 12/8/2011 10:55 PM, Paul Saccani wrote:

On Thu, 08 Dec 2011 12:32:24 +1100, Trevor Wilson
trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

On 12/8/2011 12:09 PM, terryc wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:
As are those people who claim to hold an unbiased view of AGW theory,
but have been too fucking lazy to acquaint themselves with both sides
of the story.

Some of us have lived the evolution of the last forty years. The "story"
holds no mystique and the absoluteness is worrying, very worrying.

**What "absoluteness" do you refer to? Are you referring to the 95%
probability? Is that what you claim to be absolute?

But Trevor, the sources you cited in this thread don't support that
view.

**So? There are a large range of opinions. The IPCC is suggesting around
95% probability. That's good enough for me.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[John McKenzie]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

On 12/8/2011 11:16 AM, Noddy wrote:
On 8/12/2011 7:31 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

**Indeed. My point is that most scientists don't earn all that much.
They'd be better off doing something else. They don't, largely because
that what they want to do. My partner also has a law degree. She hates
law, but like science. Guess which one pays better?

Science?

**ROTFLMAO!


**Dunno about that. She is an ugly as a hatfull of arseholes. The only
way she managed to get laid, is because of her money.

That may be so, but it's not her fault she was born into her position,
and nor would I have a grudge against her because of it.

**I don't either. What I do hold a grudge against, is her misuse of her
money to skew politics and public opinion, so she can make even more
money.

So she should use her influence to ensure she makes less money?

In all seriousness, wtf would anyone else in her position do?

I don't see too many people from aus.cars sending half their earnings to
people in China, but I'll bet to a person they have some clothing or
electronic goods made by chinese workers getting 3 beans a month, and
some of whom are missing limbs due to the chinese government's take on
workplace safety.


Rinehart is a first rate cunt of the highest order. She pays

liars and charlatans to mislead the public.

Jesus, the same could be said of people involved in _either_ side of
politics.

That is just plain evil.

Let me ask you a question - based on a completely hypothetical premise.
Imagine another universe, which is entirely like ours, save for the fact
(purely for the purpose of philosophical exercise) that anthropogenic
climate change is definitely not proven in any way shape or form to be
real, and research scientists in that universe are aware of that, and
promote misleading alarmist propaganda, and pseudo science,
enthusistically altering simulation paramaters (so they don't in any way
correspond to reality) until they get the result that fits their agenda.
spitting in the face of true science, which is at its heart a search for
the truth, even if that truth is not the one they expected. Now in this
purely hypothetical universe, would you, knowing the facts as I have
presented them, be of the opinion that the 'scientists' in question are
also plain evil?

I know that is (no doubt in the opinion of many) a big straw man I've
just created. So be it. But, without any intention from me to try and
use your answer against you, or twist this, would you be willing to give
me your take on it?

I'm not going to 'follow on' with some sort of perry mason bullshit, I'm
not leading you into an ambush. What I am curious about is what your
opinion would be of such individuals in such a circumstance. And if in
the course of history, AGW is shown to have been blown out of all
proportion (or not) would you, as a rational human being be willing to
concede that there was therefore an agenda in place, and people with
ulterior motives?

I'll happily go on record and say that if in the course of time, the
pro-climate change folks are totally on the money, and there was no
agenda, no deception, that I was wrong, wrong wrong, and the planet will
have suffered for it.

But I wonder if the same will occur, if the oontrary is proven, and
carbon trading and other environmental tariffs only lead to billions of
people in undeveloped countries being mandatorily kept in poverty,
keeping their chances of ecvonomic prosperity almost nil, and allowing
their populations to spiral - eill the pro-climate change people take
responsibility for all that suffering?

I know I've gone on a tangent here, which remotely at best relates back
to the original subject of this thread (shame on me) but I was prompted
to ask it because my own _opinion_ on what _I see_ (let me be clear this
is opinion and subjective commentary, take that for whatever it's worth)
as ironic - in calling someone who was born into wealth working hard to
keep and or increase it 'evil' - but potentially giving a 'get out of
jail free' card to people who knowingly have (I realise this is not
something you consider fact, and I'm not here to argue that point)
mislead one and all about climate change, for whatever reason (I believe
some of them did it altruistically, but certainly not all) - the
ultimate ramifications of which could be the poverty and ongoing
hardship of literally billions of human beings......

Make no mistake: Some of my clients are very wealthy. Some have made
their own money. Some have inherited it. I don't hold that against any
of them. If they use their wealth and power for nefarious purposes, then
I have a problem.

I honestly wonder just how many of us, if we had the exact same
upbringing and life history, would be _any_ different. Cynics joke that
a 'communist' is someone who has given up all hope of being a successful
capitalist.

btw - as far as carbon footprint and the like goes - both the cars in my
driveway are 73 models, one is on lpg, the other about to be, and I'm
typing this on a handmedown PC and CRT monitor. Hell, even my mobile
phone is a handmedown. I'm not living in poverty, I could (esp with
today's prices) certainly afford new phone/pc, and a much newer car, but
I choose not to. Certainly the cars are partly due to my own
eccentricities, but keeping them on the road, and using lpg, and the
choice of used a/v and computing gear is deliberate.

--
John McKenzie

 

[Paul Saccani]

On Fri, 09 Dec 2011 09:30:11 +1100, Trevor Wilson
<trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

On 12/8/2011 10:55 PM, Paul Saccani wrote:
On Thu, 08 Dec 2011 12:32:24 +1100, Trevor Wilson
trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

On 12/8/2011 12:09 PM, terryc wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:
As are those people who claim to hold an unbiased view of AGW theory,
but have been too fucking lazy to acquaint themselves with both sides
of the story.

Some of us have lived the evolution of the last forty years. The "story"
holds no mystique and the absoluteness is worrying, very worrying.

**What "absoluteness" do you refer to? Are you referring to the 95%
probability? Is that what you claim to be absolute?

But Trevor, the sources you cited in this thread don't support that
view.

**So?

Well, the obvious is this;

So, you can't even marshall cites to support your own claim, in this
thread, yet you act like you have absolute support for your position.

There are a large range of opinions.

Indeed, but you are constantly claiming otherwise in this thread, and
others along similar lines.

The IPCC is suggesting around 95% probability.

Citations, including publication, page and paragraph numbers, please.
Also kindly demonstrate that any citation you provide is the
"suggestion of the IPCC", rather than that of someone operating under
its umbra.

Broad reference to a particular report is unacceptable.

That's good enough for me.

Unfortunately, that is an issue both of complete irrelevance and
complete obviousness. It is the fact that it is not good enough for
many people that is the cause of the debate, and simply stating that
you accept a particular view is no cause for anyone else to accept
that view.
--
Cheers,
Paul Saccani
Perth, Western Australia.

 

[Paul Saccani]

On Tue, 06 Dec 2011 15:54:30 +1100, terryc
<newsninespam-spam@woa.com.au> wrote:

Blink?
When have we had a war with Iran?
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Australian_contribution_to_the_2003_invasion_of_Iraq

These are your words, are they not? -

"Howard didn't choose Asylum seeckers [sic], but sold it outright. He
also
created the current problem by going to war in Iran and Afghanistan."

Really up to you to explain that.
--
Cheers,
Paul Saccani
Perth, Western Australia.

 

[Paul Saccani]

On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 21:55:00 +1100, Noddy <me@home.com> wrote:

**I did say: "...the LIKES of Alan jones."

I don't listen to any of them. I have absolutely no time for sensationalism.

**Type Alan Jones and you get 12.9 million hits.

And?

**Maybe.

No maybe about it unless Alan Jones' audience has spread across the
globe in a mass following, and as popular as he may be to some people I
hardly think that's likely.

You shouldn't engage him when he repeatedly throws the same red
herring. Delete and ignore it, it is intended to throw you off the
scent.
--
Cheers,
Paul Saccani
Perth, Western Australia.

 

[Paul Saccani]

On Tue, 06 Dec 2011 10:15:56 +1100, Trevor Wilson
<trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

**Ther IPCC reports are only dismissed by these people:

* Liars.
* Those who have failed to read the reports.
* Those who have an agenda which does not include AGW theory.

Get your hand of it, Trevor.

Really, what a load of shit.


--
Cheers,
Paul Saccani
Perth, Western Australia.

 

[Paul Saccani]

On Wed, 07 Dec 2011 07:02:18 +1100, Trevor Wilson
<trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

That might be science to you, but to me it's just guessing and it will
remain so until it can be conclusively proved.

**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.

I'm sorry, Trevor, but that is, from the scientific point of view,
poppycock.

Your view appears to be based on your lack of knowledge in the field,
as best illustrated by the rather limited though process demonstrated
by your rather silly assumption that if AGW exists, the only way to
mitigate its effects is to reduce CO2 (and presumably, other
greenhouse gases).

This is actually a rather nonsensical stand, but it is one that is
essential for the view that definitive proof of AGW will arrive when
it is too late to do anything about it.

This is, I reiterate, a nonsense, and one that indicates that you are
either poorly informed or have failed to engage in any deliberation on
the matter.

There are actually other schemes available that can be implemented at
later stages - and they don't cost as much either.

This isn't at all saying that CO2 reduction would not be prudent, for
clearly, it likely would be prudent, particularly if implemented by
improved efficiencies.
--
Cheers,
Paul Saccani
Perth, Western Australia.

 

[F Murtz]

Paul Saccani wrote:

On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 21:55:00 +1100, Noddy<me@home.com> wrote:

**I did say: "...the LIKES of Alan jones."

I don't listen to any of them. I have absolutely no time for sensationalism.

**Type Alan Jones and you get 12.9 million hits.

And?

**Maybe.

No maybe about it unless Alan Jones' audience has spread across the
globe in a mass following, and as popular as he may be to some people I
hardly think that's likely.

You shouldn't engage him when he repeatedly throws the same red
herring. Delete and ignore it, it is intended to throw you off the
scent.

This thread seem to have hit some buttons, when I originally started it,
it was because the news reports all day had been about the last one
hundred years of measurements at Pinchgut in Sydney harbour not bearing
out the government propaganda on the subject