OT GW

[Bernd Felsche]

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

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.

Funny how you always choose to divert discussion away from ior
ignore the threads where you don't want to deal with reality.
Where you firmly planted both feet in your mouth.

You appear to think yourself not answerable for your comments.
Perhaps non compus mentis?
--
/"\ 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

 

[Noddy]

On 12/12/2011 11:19 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

**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.

It's a government scheme to begin with, so asking them to act as their
own watchdog isn't likely to produce favourable results.

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

And as I've said to you, without all supposedly 5000 leaked emails being
released by the press the context qualifier will make that difficult.
Not for me or anyone else who can look at something and take it at face
value, but I expect your view to be different.

Still, you could have a hunt around yourself and see what you discover.
As I said a search on the subject will bring up 3 and a half million
hits. Surely if you're passionate enough about the subject to wade
through a 1600 page report you could check into this issue to satisfy
your own curiosity.

**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?

Of course I don't. Why do you have to react in such a ridiculous manner?
It's almost as if the suggestion that there might be corruption in high
scientific places is an attack on you personally.

**The climatologists do.

Of course they do. They have a vested interest.

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

Neither do I, anyone else I know (apart from you) and probably 5 billion
other people around the globe.

**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?

I don't care what he has to say about anything in particular. Same goes
for Alan Jones, or Nick Minchin (whoever the fuck he or she is).

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

You make this "95% certainty" stuff sound like some remote religious
experience

Tell me Trev, has this figure ever been verified by any genuine arms
length survey, or is it one you've plucked out of your bum just to
please yourself?

My take on it is that I'm sure a portion of a climatologist world
accepts is, but as to how big that portion is is anyone's guess. I
expect their world is no different to any other in that the heirachy
goes a long way in determining who believes what.

**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.

Can you point me towards someone who would be prepared to guarantee
those things in writing? I'd like my estate to be able to sue theirs for
breach of contract at some future point

**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?

Excuse my ignorance, but isn't the planet currently in a cooling phase?

**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.

Indeed.

**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.

How is that certain?

**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.

Eventually *when*?

Do you understand the folly of this argument Trevor? Even if what you're
saying *were* true, you're asking people to pay for something today that
won't have an effect in their lifetime , if at all.

Do you have any idea how hard that is to sell to most people?

--
Regards,
Noddy.

 

[Clocky]

"kreed" <kenreed1999@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:831d2c92-9f30-4b45-8cd5-a6ef1e3e4bba@n7g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
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)


That's exactly what the deniers are relying on, manufactured evidence and
paychecks from the polluters for spreading it.

 

[Clocky]

"Bernd Felsche" <berfel@innovative.iinet.net.au> wrote in message
news:a3ngr8x9bi.ln2@innovative.iinet.net.au...

"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.

Much more trustworthy than the uneducated guesses and outright nonsense put
forward by the deniers.

I'd err on the side of caution, particularly as it's pretty obvious that we
are hellbent on destroying this planet.

 

[Clocky]

"Noddy" <me@home.com> wrote in message news:jbhf70$pto$3@dont-email.me...

On 5/12/2011 12:44 PM, terryc wrote:

Do you have a URL?
I've tuned out for a while when t went all PR statements rahter than
science discussion.

Google "climategate" and take your pick. It'll turn up about 3 and a half
million hits.

And millions of hits for Britney Spears doesn't make her a musician.

 

[Clocky]

"Noddy" <me@home.com> wrote in message news:jbnm23$n1h$1@dont-email.me...

On 7/12/2011 1:46 AM, terryc wrote:

You can not be serious.

I couldn't be any more serious.

Oh wait, there is some great labor dead wood in
parliament, so ice bergs chance in hell might be right.

Look at it, has no support but is picked by the power boys. Then
proceeds to shit all over everyone and ignore past practises and other
peole. Eventually they labor pollies get so pissed off with him,ten when
he is gven the word, he can not get enough of them to say that they
would support him, so he folds and walks away. He was a complete good
time boy and that was the total sum of him.

Now, he throws petulant hissy fits when he isn't the centre of
attention. hardly leadership material.

Since when did leadership material ever matter when picking a leader?
Think of just *some* of the clunkers we've had in the last couple of
decades. Kim Beazley? John Howard? Mark Latham? Simon Crean? John Hewson?
The Ranga or Abbott?

Hardly leadership material in any of them

The party machine cares not the slightest bit about the leadership
qualities of whomever they stick up as their poster boy (or girl). All
they care about is their popularity with the electorate, and to that end
they'd happily go with Bart Simpson if they thought he'd win them office.

You got that right, whoever they think will sell the most tickets at the
gate gets the gig.
Kevin Rudd might have his knockers, but like Turnbull he did stand for
something and followed his own convictions. He may have been an arsehole at
times, but whoever said a PM should be nice all the time?

The party heavies won't allow a puppet to run the show, so they both got
axed in any case.

Now, if anyone believes the Liberals are any better - voting for Abbott is
like voting for a preference to being stabbed over being raped...

 

[Clocky]

"Noddy" <me@home.com> wrote in message news:jbovho$v65$1@dont-email.me...

On 8/12/2011 12:59 AM, terryc wrote:

There is leadership and leadership. Different to charisma.

And largely irrelevant as far as the leadership position is concerned.

John Howard at least lead for ten years until that election. Admittedly
some of that
may be due to the fact that he had windfall surpluses rolling in and
there was only jelly fish and choir boys behind him.

Bear in mind that John Howard's success as the country's leader was due
more to the lack of a viable alternative than to anything else.

What Rudd did in his short act was to mightily piss off the choir boys
so thwey were happy to let the power brokers have thir way.

Rudd could have royally pissed of as many people within his party as he
liked without consequence as long as his popularity remained high. The
back room boys may not like it, but they're not stupid enough to forget
that the party survives largely on the popularity of the person they put
up as leader, and they're *never* going to cut their noses off to spite
their faces.

Agree entirely. The pollies were stupid to allow this turn of events to
occur, but then most of them would be there if they were not annointed.

It's politics.

You're talking about a bunch of incredibly paranoid people who's idea of
looking ahead into the future would be lucky to extend much beyond next
Thursday.

Hmm 2013. We will see. If they do, then it will be suicide.

They are already *well* past the point where they have absolutely nothing
to loose.

She is delivering big items, whereas Rudd did little.

I don't know what you think she's delivering, but all I can see is that
she has the Midas touch in reverse in that everything she puts her hands
on turns to shit in a fucking big hurry.

That depends on your point of view. From my point of view this government
has done more for my personal benefit and the benefit of my family with it's
policies in one term than Howard did in his full term.

I don't know what Abbott would do, but with the "Dead, buried and cremated"
Workchoices ready to be resurrected by a simple namechange, undoing stuff
that will lead to massive holes in his "budget" and him already torpedoing
his own pacific solution which nulls hsi previous "we will stop the boats"
pledge, his frequent gaffs and halfsmart looks when he's trying to
concentrate... I'm not at all confident he's the man who should lead this
nation.

And then Sophie Mirabella... every time she opens her gob... fuck, what a
stupid bint.

 

[Clocky]

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:9k24uoFoedU1@mid.individual.net...

On 12/5/2011 1:35 AM, kreed wrote:
On Dec 4, 2:17 pm, F Murtz<hagg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
The scam is unraveling! Too late for the iniquitous tax, the gubmint
skulduggery is being unearthed bit by bit if they do not watch out they
may end up in history as the most ridiculed and hated Gubmint ever.


Its wonderful to watch isnt it !


This filthy dirty lowlife Carbon tax / GW scam, Potentially probably
history's greatest ever theft of private property rights, theft of the
fruits of our own labor, and the removal of our right to travel, and
to even exist, or have future generations, not to mention the
corruption and total RAPE of the one time dignity and integrity of the
institution that is science, that (when not in evil hands) has done so
much for mankind and the world .

**What the fuck are you smoking? Where do you get this crap from? The Alan
Jones school of debate? It seems that in the abscence of science, you
resort to complete and utter bullshit. The facts are blindingly simple:

* The planet is warming at a faster rate than at any time in the last
600,000 years.
* Oil is running out. If we have not already hit 'peak oil', then we're
not far from it.
* At our present rate of use, the planet's resources will be depleted
within a few hundred years.



This scam was a huge hit to humanity itself and just about everything
it had achieved.

**What "scam"? Please present your peer-reviewed science to support your
notion of this alleged scam you refer to.


Its so good to see the tide turning, but the battle
is not over yet.

**Popular opinion is not scientific fact. It's just the opinion of a bunch
of people who don't have a clue. Much like yourself.


We need to see the scum behind it being shown to
cells and gallows for this crime against humanity.

**Why? Because they cite the facts? Yeah, that's the Catholic Church's
answer. Remember Gallileo. Never forget the ignorance of the masses and
the Catholic Church.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

History repeats...

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 12/12/2011 8:43 PM, Noddy wrote:

On 12/12/2011 11:19 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

**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.

It's a government scheme to begin with, so asking them to act as their
own watchdog isn't likely to produce favourable results.

**Can't trust the government, can't trust private industry, can't trust
people.

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

And as I've said to you, without all supposedly 5000 leaked emails being
released by the press the context qualifier will make that difficult.
Not for me or anyone else who can look at something and take it at face
value, but I expect your view to be different.

Still, you could have a hunt around yourself and see what you discover.
As I said a search on the subject will bring up 3 and a half million
hits. Surely if you're passionate enough about the subject to wade
through a 1600 page report you could check into this issue to satisfy
your own curiosity.

**I'm not interested in reding some private emails, unless they are
available in context. From either side of the debate.

**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?

Of course I don't. Why do you have to react in such a ridiculous manner?

**Because the question is ridiculous. We've discussed scientists before.
They make less money than plumbers, doctors, lawyers, electricians and
almost anyone in the mining industry, UNLESS they happen to publish
material for Exxon. Sure, there are likely to be a few corrupt scientists.

It's almost as if the suggestion that there might be corruption in high
scientific places is an attack on you personally.

**Nope. I just expect some evidence to back the claims (of corruption).

**The climatologists do.

Of course they do. They have a vested interest.

**In what? There will always be climate to study.

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

Neither do I, anyone else I know (apart from you) and probably 5 billion
other people around the globe.

**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?

I don't care what he has to say about anything in particular. Same goes
for Alan Jones, or Nick Minchin (whoever the fuck he or she is).

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

You make this "95% certainty" stuff sound like some remote religious
experience

Tell me Trev, has this figure ever been verified by any genuine arms
length survey, or is it one you've plucked out of your bum just to
please yourself?

**No. See:

http://www.ipcc.ch/news_and_events/docs/ipcc33/SRREN_FD_SPM_final.pdf

"According to the formal uncertainty language used in the AR4, the term
‘very likely’ refers to a >90% assessed
probability of occurrence."

Again, I implore you to start reading some of the cites I've presented,
if you really want to view the matter imparitally.

My take on it is that I'm sure a portion of a climatologist world
accepts is, but as to how big that portion is is anyone's guess. I
expect their world is no different to any other in that the heirachy
goes a long way in determining who believes what.

**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.

Can you point me towards someone who would be prepared to guarantee
those things in writing? I'd like my estate to be able to sue theirs for
breach of contract at some future point

**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?

Excuse my ignorance, but isn't the planet currently in a cooling phase?

**Huh? Not on this planet. Do you have a reference to prove such a
claim? Here's some easily digestable science for you to read:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998-intermediate.htm

Or, if you prefer some pretty graphs that pertain to Australia:

http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/extremes/timeseries.cgi?graph=HD40&ave_yr=10


http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/extremes/timeseries.cgi?graph=HD35&ave_yr=10

http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/extremes/timeseries.cgi?graph=HN25&ave_yr=10

http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/extremes/timeseries.cgi?graph=HN20&ave_yr=10

http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/extremes/timeseries.cgi?graph=CD15&ave_yr=10

http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/extremes/timeseries.cgi?graph=CD10&ave_yr=10

http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/extremes/timeseries.cgi?graph=CN05&ave_yr=10

http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/extremes/timeseries.cgi?graph=CN00&ave_yr=10

http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/extremes/timeseries.cgi?graph=TXmx&ave_yr=10

http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/extremes/timeseries.cgi?graph=TNmx&ave_yr=10

None of the above suggests a "cooling phase". Perhaps you may care to
present some evidence to show that claim. Perhaps you've been lied to?

**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.

Indeed.

**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.

How is that certain?

**Because the predicted effects of warming will cause massive
dislocation and alteration to society. That will be expensive to deal
with. THEN, we'll still be left with trying to reduce CO2 levels. Since
there will be MUCHmore CO2 to deal with, the costs will be higher still.
Think of CO2 as you would any pollutant. Is it cheaper to:

* Keep emissions low, or deal with the effects of acid rain on forests
in Europe?
* Mine and use asbestos responsibly (or not mine the stuff at all), or
pay for the effects on society.
* Use unleaded petrol, or continue using leaded petrol and deal with the
illnesses caused.

**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.

Eventually *when*?

**That would depend on:

* When the reduction on CO2 starts.
* By how much CO2 reduction is accomplished.

If ALL CO2 production ceased tomorrow (never gonna happen), then
temperatures would continue to rise for around 100 years. After that,
temperatures could be expected to fall after several hundred years.

Do you understand the folly of this argument Trevor? Even if what you're
saying *were* true, you're asking people to pay for something today that
won't have an effect in their lifetime , if at all.

**Of course.

Do you have any idea how hard that is to sell to most people?

**Of course. It can be done. George W Bush managed to sell an invasion
of Afghanstan and Iraq to the US people (who are, admittedly, a good
deal dumber than Aussies), where almost none of them knew where those
countries were, why they were being invaded and didn't really care
either way. Nonetheless, US taxpayers are stumping up almost $1.5
TRILLION fighting these daft wars, to prop up corrupt regimes in nations
that they don't really give a crap about. Selling the unsellable can be
done.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[F Murtz]

Clocky wrote:

"Noddy"<me@home.com> wrote in message news:jbovho$v65$1@dont-email.me...
On 8/12/2011 12:59 AM, terryc wrote:

There is leadership and leadership. Different to charisma.

And largely irrelevant as far as the leadership position is concerned.

John Howard at least lead for ten years until that election. Admittedly
some of that
may be due to the fact that he had windfall surpluses rolling in and
there was only jelly fish and choir boys behind him.

Bear in mind that John Howard's success as the country's leader was due
more to the lack of a viable alternative than to anything else.

What Rudd did in his short act was to mightily piss off the choir boys
so thwey were happy to let the power brokers have thir way.

Rudd could have royally pissed of as many people within his party as he
liked without consequence as long as his popularity remained high. The
back room boys may not like it, but they're not stupid enough to forget
that the party survives largely on the popularity of the person they put
up as leader, and they're *never* going to cut their noses off to spite
their faces.

Agree entirely. The pollies were stupid to allow this turn of events to
occur, but then most of them would be there if they were not annointed.

It's politics.

You're talking about a bunch of incredibly paranoid people who's idea of
looking ahead into the future would be lucky to extend much beyond next
Thursday.

Hmm 2013. We will see. If they do, then it will be suicide.

They are already *well* past the point where they have absolutely nothing
to loose.

She is delivering big items, whereas Rudd did little.

I don't know what you think she's delivering, but all I can see is that
she has the Midas touch in reverse in that everything she puts her hands
on turns to shit in a fucking big hurry.

That depends on your point of view. From my point of view this government
has done more for my personal benefit and the benefit of my family with it's
policies in one term than Howard did in his full term.

I wonder if you could enumerate them, I can not think of any.

I don't know what Abbott would do, but with the "Dead, buried and cremated"
Workchoices ready to be resurrected by a simple namechange, undoing stuff
that will lead to massive holes in his "budget" and him already torpedoing
his own pacific solution which nulls hsi previous "we will stop the boats"
pledge, his frequent gaffs and halfsmart looks when he's trying to
concentrate... I'm not at all confident he's the man who should lead this
nation.

And then Sophie Mirabella... every time she opens her gob... fuck, what a
stupid bint.

 

[John_H]

Noddy wrote:

On 12/12/2011 11:19 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

**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?

Excuse my ignorance, but isn't the planet currently in a cooling phase?

The correct answer is probably not! Depending of course on whose
trickery you happen to believe.

The simple fact is that any trend will always be superimposed on other
variables that drive temperature over the short term, such as ENSO and
volcanic eruptions. The article I previously cited for Trevor's
benefit supports an upward trend and is well worth a read.

The usual trick is to simply plot the global annual means and draw a
line through them, which averages out the variables over time
(individual years taken in isolation mean very little). The trick
used here is to factor out the variables (there's a link to the
complete original paper within the article)....
http://www.aussmc.org/documents/waiting-for-global-cooling.pdf

It's particularly interesting in as much as it hasn't been disputed by
the usual sceptics, at least not as far as I'm aware. Nor does it
appear to support the IPCC guestimate of 0.2° C per decade... probably
because it's based on real data and not some crackpot climatologist's
model (the author is a meteorologist).

--
John H

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 12/13/2011 9:31 AM, Clocky wrote:

"Noddy"<me@home.com> wrote in message news:jbnm23$n1h$1@dont-email.me...
On 7/12/2011 1:46 AM, terryc wrote:

You can not be serious.

I couldn't be any more serious.

Oh wait, there is some great labor dead wood in
parliament, so ice bergs chance in hell might be right.

Look at it, has no support but is picked by the power boys. Then
proceeds to shit all over everyone and ignore past practises and other
peole. Eventually they labor pollies get so pissed off with him,ten when
he is gven the word, he can not get enough of them to say that they
would support him, so he folds and walks away. He was a complete good
time boy and that was the total sum of him.

Now, he throws petulant hissy fits when he isn't the centre of
attention. hardly leadership material.

Since when did leadership material ever matter when picking a leader?
Think of just *some* of the clunkers we've had in the last couple of
decades. Kim Beazley? John Howard? Mark Latham? Simon Crean? John Hewson?
The Ranga or Abbott?

Hardly leadership material in any of them

The party machine cares not the slightest bit about the leadership
qualities of whomever they stick up as their poster boy (or girl). All
they care about is their popularity with the electorate, and to that end
they'd happily go with Bart Simpson if they thought he'd win them office.

You got that right, whoever they think will sell the most tickets at the
gate gets the gig.
Kevin Rudd might have his knockers, but like Turnbull he did stand for
something and followed his own convictions. He may have been an arsehole at
times, but whoever said a PM should be nice all the time?

The party heavies won't allow a puppet to run the show, so they both got
axed in any case.

Now, if anyone believes the Liberals are any better - voting for Abbott is
like voting for a preference to being stabbed over being raped...

**Not even close. A vote for Abbott would be like being strapped to a
table and carefully and methodically tortured for four years. Wishing
that death would come, but of course, Abbott would never allow you to be
killed. Torture is OK with the fucking Catholics though. Anything short
of actual death.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Bernd Felsche]

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

On 12/12/2011 8:43 PM, Noddy wrote:
On 12/12/2011 11:19 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

And as I've said to you, without all supposedly 5000 leaked
emails being released by the press the context qualifier will
make that difficult. Not for me or anyone else who can look at
something and take it at face value, but I expect your view to be
different.

Still, you could have a hunt around yourself and see what you
discover. As I said a search on the subject will bring up 3 and
a half million hits. Surely if you're passionate enough about the
subject to wade through a 1600 page report you could check into
this issue to satisfy your own curiosity.

**I'm not interested in reding some private emails, unless they are
available in context. From either side of the debate.

They are NOT PRIVATE emails. Emails sent in the conduct of one's
work or using the facilities of one's employer are the property of
the corporation; unless that corportation provides a facility for
the conduct of PRIVATE emails.

If the corporation has a requirement to provide information under
law, then they must supply that information. A university with
research funded by government has that obligation.

Of course I don't. Why do you have to react in such a ridiculous manner?

**Because the question is ridiculous. We've discussed scientists before.
They make less money than plumbers, doctors, lawyers, electricians and
almost anyone in the mining industry, UNLESS they happen to publish
material for Exxon. Sure, there are likely to be a few corrupt scientists.

How do you classify "corrupt"? Does it include passively playing the
game? A very LUCRATIVE game.
<http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2011/08/23/the-alarming-cost-of-climate-change-hysteria/>

It's almost as if the suggestion that there might be corruption in high
scientific places is an attack on you personally.

**Nope. I just expect some evidence to back the claims (of corruption).

It's in the emails. They take less time to read than an IPCC
Assessment Report and the opinions expressed therein are startlingly
frank about their uncertainties.

Tell me Trev, has this figure ever been verified by any genuine arms
length survey, or is it one you've plucked out of your bum just to
please yourself?

**No. See:

http://www.ipcc.ch/news_and_events/docs/ipcc33/SRREN_FD_SPM_final.pdf

"According to the formal uncertainty language used in the AR4, the term
‘very likely’ refers to a >90% assessed
probability of occurrence."

Again, I implore you to start reading some of the cites I've presented,
if you really want to view the matter imparitally.

You don't seem to understand that those are BUREAUCRATIC
definitions, not scientific.

How is that certain?

**Because the predicted effects of warming will cause massive
dislocation and alteration to society.

Over a time scale of 10,000 years.

If we collectively put $1,000,000 into an interest-bearing account,
then that would pay for all the costs of "relocation". In the past,
it was called "migration" when people moved because the weather was
consistently unbearable.

That will be expensive to deal
with. THEN, we'll still be left with trying to reduce CO2 levels. Since
there will be MUCHmore CO2 to deal with, the costs will be higher still.
Think of CO2 as you would any pollutant. Is it cheaper to:

* Keep emissions low, or deal with the effects of acid rain on forests
in Europe?

CO2 has nothing to do with "acid rain"

* Mine and use asbestos responsibly (or not mine the stuff at all), or
pay for the effects on society.

CO2 has nothing to do with asbestos.

* Use unleaded petrol, or continue using leaded petrol and deal with the
illnesses caused.

CO2 has nothing to do with lead "poisoning" from exhaust gases.

THREE attempts to distract from the fact that CO2 is NOT a control
knob for global temperature. Your inability to concentrate argument
on the subject matter indicates a lack of depth of understanding.

You have failed to cite just ONE credible published paper that
demonstrates how CO2 substantially controls global temperature; let
alone our meagre CO2 emissions.

**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.

Eventually *when*?

**That would depend on:

* When the reduction on CO2 starts.
* By how much CO2 reduction is accomplished.

If ALL CO2 production ceased tomorrow (never gonna happen), then
temperatures would continue to rise for around 100 years. After that,
temperatures could be expected to fall after several hundred years.

Bollocks. There is NO credible evidence of that in the real world.
Pre-history shows temperature varying WIDELY with CO2 levels far
higher than even the most catastrophist predictions from the IPCC.

In the real world; CO2 levels respond to temperature change. Not the
other way around.
--
/"\ 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

 

[Bernd Felsche]

Trevor Wilson <trevor@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?

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?

Just enough to pay lawyers to sue the arse of those who defame.
--
/"\ 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 13, 9:25 am, Trevor Wilson <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au>
wrote:

On 12/12/2011 8:43 PM, Noddy wrote:

On 12/12/2011 11:19 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

**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.

It's a government scheme to begin with, so asking them to act as their
own watchdog isn't likely to produce favourable results.

**Can't trust the government, can't trust private industry, can't trust
people.



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

And as I've said to you, without all supposedly 5000 leaked emails being
released by the press the context qualifier will make that difficult.
Not for me or anyone else who can look at something and take it at face
value, but I expect your view to be different.

Still, you could have a hunt around yourself and see what you discover.
As I said a search on the subject will bring up 3 and a half million
hits. Surely if you're passionate enough about the subject to wade
through a 1600 page report you could check into this issue to satisfy
your own curiosity.

**I'm not interested in reding some private emails, unless they are
available in context. From either side of the debate.



**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?

Of course I don't. Why do you have to react in such a ridiculous manner?

**Because the question is ridiculous. We've discussed scientists before.
They make less money than plumbers, doctors, lawyers, electricians and
almost anyone in the mining industry, UNLESS they happen to publish
material for Exxon. Sure, there are likely to be a few corrupt scientists..

It's almost as if the suggestion that there might be corruption in high
scientific places is an attack on you personally.

**Nope. I just expect some evidence to back the claims (of corruption).



**The climatologists do.

Of course they do. They have a vested interest.

**In what? There will always be climate to study.





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

Neither do I, anyone else I know (apart from you) and probably 5 billion
other people around the globe.

**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?

I don't care what he has to say about anything in particular. Same goes
for Alan Jones, or Nick Minchin (whoever the fuck he or she is).

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

You make this "95% certainty" stuff sound like some remote religious
experience

Tell me Trev, has this figure ever been verified by any genuine arms
length survey, or is it one you've plucked out of your bum just to
please yourself?

**No. See:

http://www.ipcc.ch/news_and_events/docs/ipcc33/SRREN_FD_SPM_final.pdf

"According to the formal uncertainty language used in the AR4, the term
‘very likely’ refers to a >90% assessed
probability of occurrence."

Again, I implore you to start reading some of the cites I've presented,
if you really want to view the matter imparitally.





My take on it is that I'm sure a portion of a climatologist world
accepts is, but as to how big that portion is is anyone's guess. I
expect their world is no different to any other in that the heirachy
goes a long way in determining who believes what.

**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.

Can you point me towards someone who would be prepared to guarantee
those things in writing? I'd like my estate to be able to sue theirs for
breach of contract at some future point

**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?

Excuse my ignorance, but isn't the planet currently in a cooling phase?

**Huh? Not on this planet. Do you have a reference to prove such a
claim? Here's some easily digestable science for you to read:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998-interm...

Or, if you prefer some pretty graphs that pertain to Australia:

http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/extremes/timeseries.cgi?...

http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/extremes/timeseries.cgi?...

http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/extremes/timeseries.cgi?...

http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/extremes/timeseries.cgi?...

http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/extremes/timeseries.cgi?...

http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/extremes/timeseries.cgi?...

http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/extremes/timeseries.cgi?...

http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/extremes/timeseries.cgi?...

http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/extremes/timeseries.cgi?...

http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/extremes/timeseries.cgi?...

None of the above suggests a "cooling phase". Perhaps you may care to
present some evidence to show that claim. Perhaps you've been lied to?





**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.

Indeed.

**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.

How is that certain?

**Because the predicted effects of warming will cause massive
dislocation and alteration to society. That will be expensive to deal
with. THEN, we'll still be left with trying to reduce CO2 levels. Since
there will be MUCHmore CO2 to deal with, the costs will be higher still.
Think of CO2 as you would any pollutant. Is it cheaper to:

* Keep emissions low, or deal with the effects of acid rain on forests
in Europe?
* Mine and use asbestos responsibly (or not mine the stuff at all), or
pay for the effects on society.
* Use unleaded petrol, or continue using leaded petrol and deal with the
illnesses caused.



**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.

Eventually *when*?

**That would depend on:

* When the reduction on CO2 starts.
* By how much CO2 reduction is accomplished.

If ALL CO2 production ceased tomorrow (never gonna happen), then
temperatures would continue to rise for around 100 years. After that,
temperatures could be expected to fall after several hundred years.



Do you understand the folly of this argument Trevor? Even if what you're
saying *were* true, you're asking people to pay for something today that
won't have an effect in their lifetime , if at all.

**Of course.



Do you have any idea how hard that is to sell to most people?

**Of course. It can be done. George W Bush managed to sell an invasion
of Afghanstan and Iraq to the US people (who are, admittedly, a good
deal dumber than Aussies), where almost none of them knew where those
countries were, why they were being invaded and didn't really care
either way. Nonetheless, US taxpayers are stumping up almost $1.5
TRILLION fighting these daft wars, to prop up corrupt regimes in nations
that they don't really give a crap about. Selling the unsellable can be
done.

It wasn't sold - it was forced and most DO NOT support it.

If something is "right" it does not have to be SOLD.
If something is "wrong" the advertising and propaganda gets defecated
on the public.


Please note that under this new defense bill, US citizens can be
arrested without evidence, or trial and held indefinitely (Gitmo) and
all of the USA is now considered a "battlefield".

As I understand it, there are now reports of concentration camps run
by some group called FEMA being activated right now, ready to take
anyone who has a problem with US gov policies, or who just doesnt
worship the gov?. Take a look at this issue.


I would tell your friend you posted about last week who has dreams of
living there to get the hell away from the place and get out of any
investment properties (or investments) there..

--
Trevor Wilsonwww.rageaudio.com.au

 

[kreed]

On Dec 13, 10:08 am, John_H <john4...@inbox.com> wrote:

Noddy wrote:
On 12/12/2011 11:19 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

**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?

Excuse my ignorance, but isn't the planet currently in a cooling phase?

The correct answer is probably not!  Depending of course on whose
trickery you happen to believe.  

The simple fact is that any trend will always be superimposed on other
variables that drive temperature over the short term, such as ENSO and
volcanic eruptions.  The article I previously cited for Trevor's
benefit supports an upward trend and is well worth a read.

The usual trick is to simply plot the global annual means and draw a
line through them, which averages out the variables over time
(individual years taken in isolation mean very little).  The trick
used here is to factor out the variables (there's a link to the
complete original paper within the article)....http://www.aussmc.org/documents/waiting-for-global-cooling.pdf

It's particularly interesting in as much as it hasn't been disputed by
the usual sceptics, at least not as far as I'm aware.  Nor does it
appear to support the IPCC guestimate of 0.2° C per decade... probably
because it's based on real data and not some crackpot climatologist's
model (the author is a meteorologist).

--
John H

Might be a good project for SC, a weather station that can log this
data over a long period and export it to a PC. Give it a few years
and we will be able to see for ourselves.

 

[kreed]

On Dec 13, 10:45 am, Trevor Wilson <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au>
wrote:

On 12/13/2011 9:31 AM, Clocky wrote:



"Noddy"<m...@home.com>  wrote in messagenews:jbnm23$n1h$1@dont-email.me...
On 7/12/2011 1:46 AM, terryc wrote:

You can not be serious.

I couldn't be any more serious.

Oh wait, there is some great labor dead wood in
parliament, so ice bergs chance in hell might be right.

Look at it, has no support but is picked by the power boys. Then
proceeds to shit all over everyone and ignore past practises and other
peole. Eventually they labor pollies get so pissed off with him,ten when
he is gven the word, he can not get enough of them to say that they
would support him, so he folds and walks away. He was a complete good
time boy and that was the total sum of him.

Now, he throws petulant hissy fits when he isn't the centre of
attention. hardly leadership material.

Since when did leadership material ever matter when picking a leader?
Think of just *some* of the clunkers we've had in the last couple of
decades. Kim Beazley? John Howard? Mark Latham? Simon Crean? John Hewson?
The Ranga or Abbott?

Hardly leadership material in any of them

The party machine cares not the slightest bit about the leadership
qualities of whomever they stick up as their poster boy (or girl). All
they care about is their popularity with the electorate, and to that end
they'd happily go with Bart Simpson if they thought he'd win them office.

You got that right, whoever they think will sell the most tickets at the
gate gets the gig.
Kevin Rudd might have his knockers, but like Turnbull he did stand for
something and followed his own convictions. He may have been an arsehole at
times, but whoever said a PM should be nice all the time?

The party heavies won't allow a puppet to run the show, so they both got
axed in any case.

Now, if anyone believes the Liberals are any better - voting for Abbott is
like voting for a preference to being stabbed over being raped...

**Not even close. A vote for Abbott would be like being strapped to a
table and carefully and methodically tortured for four years. Wishing
that death would come, but of course, Abbott would never allow you to be
killed. Torture is OK with the fucking Catholics though. Anything short
of actual death.

--
Trevor Wilsonwww.rageaudio.com.au

Bloody hell, Trev is becoming unhinged.

Trevor tying things to religion again. LOL. Note the pattern
anyone ?


Maybe he isn't looking too hard at the thing that is in right now.
Although I cant stand him, I would vote for Abbot just for

1> the repeal of the Carbon Tax (if he goes ahead with it)
2> to get rid of Gillard and co. I doubt the country would be able to
take much more of these clowns.


The risk of your wife's job might be an influence here, as someone who
tells the truth about AGW getting into
power might take an axe to the CSIRO with a great blessing from many
Australians and she might be at
risk ?


Unfortunately the rest of us have to think of our own futures to
consider and they are mud with Gillard.


Who else is there ? Independents ? What a total disaster that was
at the last election.
People are forced to Abbot by default.

 

[Albm&ctd]

In article <9k4ul4Fnc0U1@mid.individual.net>, trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au
says...

On 12/5/2011 3:24 PM, terryc wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 12/5/2011 12:40 PM, terryc wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:

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.)

What was their early psition on DDT?

**No idea. Tell us.
My point made.

**How so? I said I nad no idea of what all those organisations stated
about DDT. They may have stated negatively, or positively on the use of
the stuff. It seems you don't know either. If you made a point, then it
is sure an obscure one.

Look for DDT wallpaper for childrens rooms to kill nasty flies and such.

I'm sure it was in/on our boomer baby food too.

Al
-
I don't take sides.
It's more fun to insult everyone.

 

[Albm&ctd]

In article <jbjjgu$dke$1@dont-email.me>, newsninespam-spam@woa.com.au says...

We have. In the 70's is was a new Ice Age was predicted.

This?

http://www.burtonsys.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf

Al
--
I don't take sides.
It's more fun to insult everyone.

 

[Albm&ctd]

In article <9k50ibF65iU1@mid.individual.net>, trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au
says...

**Another lie. Worse, a lie, based on careful cherry-picked data.

You deny the other side a few cherries?

Al
--
I don't take sides.
It's more fun to insult everyone.