OT GW

[Paul Saccani]

On Thu, 08 Dec 2011 07:26:33 +1100, Trevor Wilson
<trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

On 12/7/2011 11:07 PM, Noddy wrote:
On 7/12/2011 7:02 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

**Does it? Tell you what: You present a few of the emails, IN CONTEXT,
that you feel completely destroy the notion of AGW.

I never said anything remotely like that Trevor, but I did post a copy
of text from an email in another post, and without seeing the previous
emails or replies it's difficult to imagine the text having any context
but the obvious one.

There's plenty of others apparently.

**OK. Submit them, in context, so we can discuss them. No out of context
stuff will be acceptable.

You seem very big on demands, but very light on meeting the same
standards of yourself.

See, for example, your citation of 17+ organisations stating that AGW
was most likely, but when asked to substantiate, you provided a
plethora of irrelevant cites, and only substantiated the claim for one
of the organisations. My refutation of your claim was more than
enough to require any fair-minded person to withdraw their claim as
being unsupported, but your response was to withdraw in a completely
different fashion - you pretended that it had never happened, and made
no acknowledgement of it. When any reasonable standard of integrity
would require withdrawal.

That is a very poor performance, but, it has to be said, one that is
typical of your inadequate response to requests to substantiate your
claims.

But we have a non-stop cavalcade of your demands that everyone that
anyone says to you has to meet your own arbitrary standards - which
you never, to my knowledge, apply to yourself.

Some measure of self-reflection is really needed on your part.

Not simply to avoid you looking like a complete prat, but also for
more pragmatic reasons.

You piss people off, which is not an effective method of persuasion.

Unless this is purely a mastabatorial exercise on your part, you would
do well to consider the harm that you do to the chances of having your
view accepted by others, by your hypocritical, arrogant and generally
rude conduct on this issue.





--
Cheers,
Paul Saccani
Perth, Western Australia.

 

[Paul Saccani]

On Thu, 08 Dec 2011 07:26:33 +1100, Trevor Wilson
<trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

Science tells us that there is a 95% probability that we are going to
experience dangerous climate change. Do you insure against that?
$0.75/day/person.

That is no insurance at all. And making that equation is a nonsense.


--
Cheers,
Paul Saccani
Perth, Western Australia.

 

[Paul Saccani]

On Thu, 08 Dec 2011 07:26:33 +1100, Trevor Wilson
<trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

**It is not a 50:50 chance. It is a 95:5 chance. Factor that into your
thinking.

Please provide evidence of your claim. No vague reference to a report
of over 4,000 pages.

Say, twenty or thirty different peer reviewed papers stating a 95%
probability that "human society will be fucked [in one hundred years
due to AGW]".

Please ensure that your cite identifies at the least, the page and
paragraph that supports your claim.

Given your claim that this is the consensus view of the relevant
scientific community, this is not much to ask from you.
--
Cheers,
Paul Saccani
Perth, Western Australia.

 

[Paul Saccani]

On Thu, 08 Dec 2011 11:19:56 +1100, Trevor Wilson
<trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

**a) The planet is warming and CO2 levels are responsible.
b) If CO2 levels can be stabilised, then dangerous temperature rise can
be contained. If CO2 levels can be lowered, then temperature levels may
be able to be returned to pre-industrial levels.

The thing that you evidently do not realise is, if proposition (a) is
accepted, temperature rise can be stabilised without containing CO2
levels.

That is to say, you have created an invalid linkage between a and b.
--
Cheers,
Paul Saccani
Perth, Western Australia.

 

[Paul Saccani]

On Wed, 07 Dec 2011 09:55:58 +1100, Trevor Wilson
<trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

**Clearly, I have failed to make myself clear. Read my post again. I
respond to others the way they speak to me. Place a logical, structured
argument on the record and I will respond accordingly.

Often, your response to same seems to be silence.
--
Cheers,
Paul Saccani
Perth, Western Australia.

 

[Paul Saccani]

On Wed, 07 Dec 2011 13:07:50 +1100, Trevor Wilson
<trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

**Incorrect. Here it is once more:

http://www.ipcc.ch/

Read it and submit your page-by-page refutation.

What an absurd demand.

You can waffle on as
much as you like about all sorts of bogus crap, but, until you've
actually read the report, you'll be whilsting Dixie.

I have read the reports. All too often, what you say about them and
reality are somewhat divergent.

Demonstrating this to you has resulted in a conspicuous silence
instead of a reasoned rebuttal.
--
Cheers,
Paul Saccani
Perth, Western Australia.

 

[Paul Saccani]

On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 11:12:26 +1100, Trevor Wilson
<trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

**Then, perhaps, it is time for you to move to the Ivory Coast. No
taxation there. Enjoy your life. Me? I'll tough it out here in
Australia, where I can enjoy things like:

* Free medical care.

Most medical care in Australia is not free.

* Security.
* A long, healthy life.
* Freedom from being shot to death.

No such freedom, what a nonsense.

* Freedom from being kidnapped.

No such freedom, what a nonsense.

* Garbage collection.

fee for service.

* Sewerage.

fee for service

* Electricity.

fee for service

* Reasonable roads.

All of which and much more has been paid for by taxation.

It is nonsensical to claim that all of that is due to taxation.

You are being rather irrational.
--
Cheers,
Paul Saccani
Perth, Western Australia.

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 12/9/2011 6:58 PM, John McKenzie wrote:

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?

**She has more money than anyone could rationally spend in 100
lifetimes. How much money does one person need?

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

**She COULD do what Bill gates is doing - giving away 90% of his wealth
and making this planet a better place. Even after giving away 90% of his
wealth, Gates will still be incredibly wealthy. If Rinehart gave away
(and I am not suggesting that she should) 90% of her wealth, she would
still be incredibly wealthy. She'd still make the BRW top 100. Easy.

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.

**I'm not discussing politics. I'm talking about a very rich cunt, who
uses her wealth to get her own way.

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?

**Of course.

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?

**Done.

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?

**No. I've read the science. It is credible, reasonable and the theory
fits the observed facts. If, however, AGW theory is found to be wrong, I
would be certainly prepared to acknowledge that all the scientists are
wrong.

Let me ask YOU a hypothetical:

After having read the IPCC AR4, what do YOU think about AGW theory?

You have read AR4, haven't you?

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?

**There is an alternate possibility:

The scientists who work in that area are very concerned about global
warming. They recognise that mass starvation and dislocation is
inevitable, if the planet continues to warm. Bangladesh, for instance,
will loose 90% of it's arable land to rising sea levels. Wanna deal with
a couple of hundred million refugees from Bangladesh? Perhaps the
scientists are so very concerned that they are shouting from the
rooftops in an attempt to save our society.

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......

**Rinehart is evil. Make no mistake. Anyone who has zero regard for her
fellow humans and is totally dominated by her own desire to accumulate
more wealth, is evil. She is not the first and won't be the last. She
could do so much good if she chose to do so.

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.

**Fair points, but I believe most people can understand the difference
between right and wrong. One of my clients is a very wealthy man. An
ex-director of MacBank. Lives on the harbour in a spectacular home. He
spends almost evey waking moment of his day working for charitable
causes. He accepts no payment for his very considerable talents. It was
after long discussions with him that I began to develop a distaste for
many of Australia's wealthiest people. He holds a very deep disgust for
his fellow multi-millionaires and billionaires in this country. He
maintains that most pay lip service to charitable causes. The vast
majority are Hell-bent on acquiring more wealth than they could ever
hope to spend. He cited Bill Gates as an example that all could follow.

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.

**Good for you. Fundamentally, however, my bitch remains with the bitch
who uses her considerable wealth to skew public opinion in a way that
suits her ends.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Clocky]

"Noddy" <me@home.com> wrote in message news:jbgrng$k1t$1@dont-email.me...

On 5/12/2011 8:41 AM, Clocky wrote:

Oh dear, another one.

Another one indeed.

Here's something to ponder Clocky. There is no question that the planet is
changing, and anyone who suggests that it isn't is away with the fairies.
However, the point of contention is whether that change is a mane made one
or a result of the planet's normal evolutionary process.

A portion of the scientific community thinks that man has something to do
with it, but they can't conclusively prove it.

A massive portion of scientists with massive amounts of evidence pointing to
it.

They have their

theories of course, but none of us (including the scientists themselves)
will ever live long enough to know if their guesses are right or wrong.

Theories are not guesses.

The funny part in all of that (for me at least) as that you're happy to go
along with them but probably don't believe in the existence of "God"
despite the amount of faith required to believe in either being about the
same

The evidence is not in your favour, flat-earther.

 

[kreed]

On Dec 9, 10:23 pm, Paul Saccani <sacc...@omen.net.au> wrote:

On Wed, 07 Dec 2011 09:55:58 +1100, Trevor Wilson

tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

**Clearly, I have failed to make myself clear. Read my post again. I
respond to others the way they speak to me. Place a logical, structured
argument on the record and I will respond accordingly.

Often, your response to same seems to be silence.
--
Cheers,
Paul Saccani
Perth, Western Australia.

Yes, I have noticed that too. Deafening silence when something
correct and hard to refute comes up.

 

[kreed]

On Dec 10, 8:31 am, Trevor Wilson <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au>
wrote:

On 12/9/2011 6:58 PM, John McKenzie wrote:



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?

They should do something else, or quit whinging.

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?

**She has more money than anyone could rationally spend in 100
lifetimes. How much money does one person need?



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

**She COULD do what Bill gates is doing - giving away 90% of his wealth
and making this planet a better place. Even after giving away 90% of his
wealth, Gates will still be incredibly wealthy. If Rinehart gave away
(and I am not suggesting that she should) 90% of her wealth, she would
still be incredibly wealthy. She'd still make the BRW top 100. Easy.

Oh yes, he donates heavily to "La Raza" which is a south American Klu-
Klux Klan
type organisation that hates and wants to wipe out white people (ie,
most of us on here?) and has the motto
"for our race everything - for the other races nothing" and other
particularly hateful and
nasty groups.

The same guy who believes that we should be terminating old people so
that the pension and health money
"wasted" on them can be spent on things like "employing teachers, cops
etc"?.

Do some research before you put these dirt bags on a pedestal.

How about these other great philanthropists who shit on their country
by outsourcing jobs ?
isnt that more important to the nation's future ?

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.

**I'm not discussing politics. I'm talking about a very rich cunt, who
uses her wealth to get her own way.

Rothschild, Rockefeller, etc ? Mention them please.

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?

**Of course.



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?

**Done.



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?

**No. I've read the science. It is credible, reasonable and the theory
fits the observed facts. If, however, AGW theory is found to be wrong, I
would be certainly prepared to acknowledge that all the scientists are
wrong.

Let me ask YOU a hypothetical:

After having read the IPCC AR4, what do YOU think about AGW theory?

You have read AR4, haven't you?



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?

**There is an alternate possibility:

It is very likely, and it fits in with how the world works. Note also
that a whole lot more
"scum" will get very rich from this "carbon" crap, and they will use
that money to get
their own way too. How different is that from Rinehart ?

I forgot, its quite ok for Gore and co to be rich but not for an
Australian woman ?

The scientists who work in that area are very concerned about global
warming. They recognise that mass starvation and dislocation is
inevitable, if the planet continues to warm. Bangladesh, for instance,
will loose 90% of it's arable land to rising sea levels. Wanna deal with
a couple of hundred million refugees from Bangladesh? Perhaps the
scientists are so very concerned that they are shouting from the
rooftops in an attempt to save our society.

People in other places have been left to starve to death, blown up by
drones
or missiles and no one gives a shit, and no one has for a long time,
why would they care now ?


A lot of places people end up poor because of banksters and western
sponsored dictators
being placed in these countries, indebting them with onerous debt
against the will of the
public, and then handing over all their resources as collateral on
these bogus loans

the people starve, and then have to pay interest in perpetuity on
these loans

The same will happen in the west unless people grow a pair and stop
the process.
Everything leads back to these mega rich banking families and royal
families that own just about
everything.


What a load of fake, empty people these scientists are. What a load
of hypocritical degenerates that sell
out themselves to these mega rich families and scum and become part of
the problem.

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......

**Rinehart is evil. Make no mistake. Anyone who has zero regard for her
fellow humans and is totally dominated by her own desire to accumulate
more wealth, is evil. She is not the first and won't be the last. She
could do so much good if she chose to do so.

See above, banksters and elite are 1000x worse than she could ever
dream of being
Start taking on the REAL enemy

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.

**Fair points, but I believe most people can understand the difference
between right and wrong. One of my clients is a very wealthy man. An
ex-director of MacBank. Lives on the harbour in a spectacular home. He
spends almost evey waking moment of his day working for charitable
causes. He accepts no payment for his very considerable talents. It was
after long discussions with him that I began to develop a distaste for
many of Australia's wealthiest people. He holds a very deep disgust for
his fellow multi-millionaires and billionaires in this country. He
maintains that most pay lip service to charitable causes. The vast
majority are Hell-bent on acquiring more wealth than they could ever
hope to spend. He cited Bill Gates as an example that all could follow.

Oh god, Gates. Then he is an ignoramus to quote that thing
Tell the guy to do his research

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.

**Good for you. Fundamentally, however, my bitch remains with the bitch
who uses her considerable wealth to skew public opinion in a way that
suits her ends.

But I love it when the banksters do this, and cause huge damage ?

--
Trevor Wilsonwww.rageaudio.com.au

 

[kreed]

On Dec 10, 9:13 am, "Clocky" <notg...@happen.com> wrote:

"Noddy" <m...@home.com> wrote in messagenews:jbgrng$k1t$1@dont-email.me....
On 5/12/2011 8:41 AM, Clocky wrote:

Oh dear, another one.

Another one indeed.

Here's something to ponder Clocky. There is no question that the planet is
changing, and anyone who suggests that it isn't is away with the fairies.
However, the point of contention is whether that change is a mane made one
or a result of the planet's normal evolutionary process.

A portion of the scientific community thinks that man has something to do
with it, but they can't conclusively prove it.

A massive portion of scientists with massive amounts of evidence pointing to
it.

They have their

theories of course, but none of us (including the scientists themselves)
will ever live long enough to know if their guesses are right or wrong.

Theories are not guesses.

The funny part in all of that (for me at least) as that you're happy to go
along with them but probably don't believe in the existence of "God"
despite the amount of faith required to believe in either being about the
same

The evidence is not in your favour, flat-earther.

Manufactured evidence will say whatever the manufacturer tells it to
do, (of those paying the manufacturers)

 

[kreed]

On Dec 10, 9:41 am, kreed <kenreed1...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Dec 10, 8:31 am, Trevor Wilson <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au
wrote:

BTW trevor - these banking familes funded all the evil you can think
of - including regimes of Hitler, and Lenin.

They are the filth, Rinehart is nothing by comparison.

 

[lindsay]

On 9/12/2011 11:16 PM, Paul Saccani wrote:

On Thu, 08 Dec 2011 07:26:33 +1100, Trevor Wilson
trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:


**It is not a 50:50 chance. It is a 95:5 chance. Factor that into your
thinking.

Please provide evidence of your claim. No vague reference to a report
of over 4,000 pages.

Say, twenty or thirty different peer reviewed papers stating a 95%
probability that "human society will be fucked [in one hundred years
due to AGW]".

Please ensure that your cite identifies at the least, the page and
paragraph that supports your claim.

Given your claim that this is the consensus view of the relevant
scientific community, this is not much to ask from you.

Anyone else hear the deathly silence?

Hardly suprising really.

PS 2 - TW 0

 

[John_H]

terryc wrote:

John_H wrote:

The only direction remaining for Labor is down!

Lol, is it that long ago that people have forgotten aout the thrice
risen souffle? Wasn't that Keating about Howards chances?

What's it got to with Howard's chances? (Lazarus with a triple bypass
according to Keating.)
Labor's problems now go far deeper than leadership... credibility and
relevance just for starters!

--
John H

 

[kreed]

On Dec 10, 6:16 pm, John_H <john4...@inbox.com> wrote:

terryc wrote:
John_H wrote:

The only direction remaining for Labor is down!

Lol, is it that long ago that people have forgotten aout the thrice
risen souffle?  Wasn't that Keating about Howards chances?

What's it got to with Howard's chances?  (Lazarus with a triple bypass
according to Keating.)
Labor's problems now go far deeper than leadership... credibility and
relevance just for starters!

--
John H

I think it is getting like that for all of them . They fuck up
everything for us, but help their mates and we are forced to pay for
it. I don't really see a point in having Government a lot more and
more.

 

[Paul Saccani]

On Sat, 10 Dec 2011 09:31:05 +1100, Trevor Wilson
<trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

**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?

**She has more money than anyone could rationally spend in 100
lifetimes. How much money does one person need?


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

**She COULD do what Bill gates is doing - giving away 90% of his wealth
and making this planet a better place. Even after giving away 90% of his
wealth, Gates will still be incredibly wealthy. If Rinehart gave away
(and I am not suggesting that she should) 90% of her wealth, she would
still be incredibly wealthy. She'd still make the BRW top 100. Easy.

Really! In essence, her charity contributions don't support your pet
causes, so you think that entitles you to demonise her.

Ridiculous, of course.
--
Cheers,
Paul Saccani
Perth, Western Australia.

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 12/8/2011 2:28 PM, Noddy 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.

**Can we expect to see corruption, nepotism and everything else that
accompanies any sort of government scheme? Of course. It's pretty much a
certainty. We should certainly be pressing the government to do
everything possible to ensure that scams are minimised. If not eliminated.

**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.

**So you keep saying. All I've ever asked for is some IN CONTEXT
evidence to support that claim.

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.

**Such as? Let's see the evidence of this alleged corruption. What do
these people stand to gain? As much as that fucking Kiwi who screwed
Queensland for $16 million? More? Less? Got a Dollar figure?

**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 climatologists do. Guys like Alan Jones, George Pell and Nick
Minchin don't.


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.

**That's because the vast majority of climatologists do accept it. I
don't give a flying fuck what Alan Jones, George Pell and Nick minchin,
nor their devoted slaves think about the issue. I am only interested in
what the climatologists tell us. Do you care what George Pell has to say
about the advantages of a side valve vs. overhead valve engine are?

**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.

**If you consider a 95% certainty "vague" then I don't know what to tell
you.

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.

**Except for sea level rise (which is unlikely to cause any real
problems for at least 100 years), those other things are pretty much
guaranteed to occur.

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

**Huh? We've already seen the evidence. The temperature of the planet is
rising at a faster rate than at any time in the last 600,000 years. What
more evidence do you require?

**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.

**Indeed. There is small doubt in the guys who study the science of of
the climate.

There's a much larger doubt in

the broader community, and probably more still who couldn't care less.

**Sure. Most people don't give a crap which wheels are doing the
propulsion for their car either. I do. Most people don't give a crap
about the tyres on their car, as long as they are cheap and last a long
time. Me? I care about such things. I don't give a crap about the
longevity of my tyres. I care about how well they hang on in the wet.
People care about different things.

**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"?

**At some point, we need to trust in some of the people who have done
the modelling. I have not done the modelling, so I don't know if the
number is accurate or not. What is certain, however, is that the cost of
action later, will be considerably higher still.

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.

**We already know that the cost will run into the trillions. No doubt
about it. Since CO2 is a known GHG, then reducing the amount of CO2 in
the atmosphere will, eventually, cause a fall in global temperatures.

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.

**I understand that.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Cole De Sac]

On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 11:19:31 +1100, Trevor Wilson
<trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

I don't give a flying fuck what Alan Jones, George Pell and Nick
minchin, nor their devoted slaves think about the issue.

Weally Twevor!?! Well, ya weally fooled me with your constant
references to Alan Jones, George Pell and Nick Minchin in virtually
every reply of yours in this thread!

 

[Bernd Felsche]

"Clocky" <notgonn@happen.com> wrote:

"Noddy" <me@home.com> wrote in message news:jbgrng$k1t$1@dont-email.me...
On 5/12/2011 8:41 AM, Clocky wrote:

Here's something to ponder Clocky. There is no question that the
planet is changing, and anyone who suggests that it isn't is away
with the fairies. However, the point of contention is whether
that change is a mane made one or a result of the planet's normal
evolutionary process.

A portion of the scientific community thinks that man has
something to do with it, but they can't conclusively prove it.

A massive portion of scientists with massive amounts of evidence
pointing to it.

If it's so massive, where is that "evidence" hiding?
Correlation is not proof of causation.

They have their theories of course, but none of us (including the
scientists themselves) will ever live long enough to know if
their guesses are right or wrong.

Theories are not guesses.

Educated they may be, but they are still guesses.

Adoption of the scientific philosophy as per Popper (Falsifiability)
abandons the arrogance of certainty. The basis of modern science is
that it invites guesses which are formulated as theories. Theories
are then tested against observations. That is how e.g. we have
quantum mechanics and can reap the rewards.

The theories aren't proven to be "correct" if they fit
obeservations; they are considered to not yet be falsified.
--
/"\ 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