OT GW

[Noddy]

On 13/12/2011 9:17 AM, Clocky wrote:

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

Of course it will, and it cares not what side it may be working for.

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

What a load of shit.

What the "deniers" want is something *concrete*. For all the money we're
throwing at the problem, we want *someone* to come up with something
*definite*.

Not just a bunch of fucking educated guesses.



--
Regards,
Noddy.

 

[Noddy]

On 13/12/2011 10:25 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

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

Yeah, I figured as much, which is why I haven't bothered.

**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.

I'm sure *some* do, but then there's probably plenty who make shitloads.
Just like some electricians make average wages while some earn very good
money.

Sure, there are likely to be a few corrupt scientists.

No doubt.

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

Firstly there hasn't been any claims. There has been some suggestion
that all might not be possibly right with the IPCC, but it's still early
days as far as the ClimateGate issue is concerned.

Secondly, I could think of very little that you would genuinely consider
as reliable evidence.

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

Of course, but if the issue proves to be bogus, there'll be a whole lot
less interest in it than there is now.

**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."

So, how do you get "95% certainty" from that?

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

I'll consider it.

**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?

I wasn't making a claim. I was asking if it was.

**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.

So, what you're saying here is that if we all shell out on a massive
"save the planet" scheme today, the effects *might* be felt in 20
generations or more?

**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.

There's a *huge* difference between convincing the public to fight a war
where massive amounts of taxpayer funds will go to defence contractors
(and ultimately back into the hands of the people who work for them) and
convincing the public to pay for something that will give them
absolutely *nothing* other than less money in their pockets for as long
as they live.

A *very* huge difference.

--
Regards,
Noddy.

 

[JONZ]

On 10/12/2011 9:31 AM, Trevor Wilson 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?


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.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Keep sticking it up em Trevor.....The truth will out........

--
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.

 

[Paul Saccani]

On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 10:25:55 +1100, Trevor Wilson
<trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

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.

Too bad you didn't have that ethical sense when you accused various
parties of being paid shills for oil companies with exactly no
evidence to support your claims.
--
Cheers,
Paul Saccani
Perth, Western Australia.

 

[Paul Saccani]

On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 10:25:55 +1100, Trevor Wilson
<trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

**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.

So, your cited figure of 95% certainty turns out to be bullshit,
according to your new tune.

However, it is even worse than that


"It is likely that there has been significant anthropogenic warming
over the past 50 years averaged over each continent (except
Antarctica)" - Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the
Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
ChangeCore Writing Team, Pachauri, R.K. and Reisinger, A. (Eds.)
IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland. pp 104

What that means is this, there is a 66% probability of AGW.

Correct me if I am wrong, Trevor, but you have been claiming that AGW
is "a fact", and you have cited a 95% confidence from the IPCC AR4.

But the actual value that they gave was 66%.

There is chasm between what you claim the science says, and what it
says, and this chasm is most apparent when you give specific sources,
allowing the disparity to be nailed, so to speak.

To refresh your memory about your claims:

"**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.

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

[66% is well short of the certainty that you claim]

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

Again, we see the disparity between what you claim they say, and your
cited source, which actually gives a 66% certainty.

You claim to have read the 4th IPCC report, but the report
consistently does not support your claims, least of all your claims as
to what it says.
--
Cheers,
Paul Saccani
Perth, Western Australia.

 

[Noddy]

On 13/12/2011 11:56 AM, Bernd Felsche wrote:

Just enough to pay lawyers to sue the arse of those who defame.

Lol


--
Regards,
Noddy.

 

[Noddy]

On 13/12/2011 9:23 AM, Clocky wrote:

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

You and Trev seem to have something in common. You both seem to believe
that denial is a one way street.



--
Regards,
Noddy.

 

[Paul Saccani]

On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 17:46:02 +1100, Noddy <me@home.com> wrote:

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

So, how do you get "95% certainty" from that?

It's the eye of faith - and a slippery attempt to take even that lower
value out of context.

The report actually cites a figure of 66% certainty that AGW is
happening.

Not 90%, let alone 95%.

Trevor seems to have an inadequate understanding of the field, coupled
with opinions that are as strong as they are ill informed, so he tends
to see what he wants to see.

He confuses the 90% confidence interval for anthropogenic increase in
CO2 levels with a completely different issue, the confidence interval
for AGW, which the 4th IPCC report states as being 66%.

Although I would not say that I am a climatologist, I did study
climatology at undergraduate major level long before it was
fashionable, when it was still an obscure interest of physicists.
This probably makes it easier for me to avoid the problems of
interpretation that Trevor appears to be suffering from. My interest
was in climate modelling. Trevor's interest in climatology appears to
be largely focused on showing everyone that he is smarter than they
are.
--
Cheers,
Paul Saccani
Perth, Western Australia.

 

[Paul Saccani]

On Sat, 10 Dec 2011 07:13:06 +0800, "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:

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.

All due respect to you, Clocky, but the consensus value only gives it
a 66% confidence, which is far from massive amounts of evidence.
--
Cheers,
Paul Saccani
Perth, Western Australia.

 

[Noddy]

On 13/12/2011 9:52 AM, Clocky wrote:

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.

In what way?

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.

I'm certainly no Abbott fan, and it's usually a case of incumbent
government's loosing the support of the electorate rather than the
opposition winning it.

However, I'm often amused when the old "workchoices" barrow is wheeled
out. The reason I'm amused is that whenever I ask anyone what was it
about the policy that was so offensive, or what is it about the current
policy, apart from it's name, that is any different no one can tell me

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

That she ma be, but you'll find no greater example of a stupid
egotistical twat than they fucking idiot red-head we have in the top job
now.




--
Regards,
Noddy.

 

[Noddy]

On 13/12/2011 10:29 AM, F Murtz wrote:

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

No can I.

I can, on the other hand, think of *many* examples where her
government's and her own incompetence has cost us many millions of dollars.



--
Regards,
Noddy.

 

[Noddy]

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

You got that right, whoever they think will sell the most tickets at the
gate gets the gig.

Which is precisely why Rudd may be PM again one day soon.

The powers that be within the Labor party which arseholed Rudd know full
well that their loyalty to anyone other than themselves is limited to
how well their "leader" is able to keep them in their jobs.

They might have thought Rudd was the greatest cunt in the world
yesterday, but he might be the best chance they've got of holding onto
their perks tomorrow, and they'll happily risk political retribution
rather than electoral defeat.

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?

Either could have been the biggest prick in the world if they wanted to,
and the party couldn't have given a shit as long as they thought they
were popular.

Look at Paul Keating. He was probably *the* most unappealing person to
ever be Prime Minister in this country, yet he had full support of his
party as long as he did well in the polls.

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

The party heavies would happily have the cast of The Thunderbirds
running the show if the electorate thought it was a good idea

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 entirely.

You may not like Abbott, and for what it's worth I don't either, but
there is a very distinct difference between the Liberal & Labor parties
in terms of philosophy, and the leader's role in each case is more about
being scenery for the spectators rather than anything else. The party
doctrine, rather than any individual leader's ambitions, tends to have
the biggest influence upon the state of the nation.

In the case of the Liberals, that's usually conservatism, stability and
unity. In the case of Labor, it's usually splinter groups coming
together under the one banner to put on a "unified" face whilst hating
each other's guts.

To put it in basic terms, having the Liberals in office is like having a
bunch of accountants running the country. Things might not be very
exciting, but the money tends to stay in the till. Having Labor in
office is like handing the country over to a bunch of 17 year old girls.
Nothing they do makes sense to anyone but themselves, and they don't
care how much anything costs if it's a "cool idea".

As to which one serves us better I can't tell you other than to suggest
that the Liberals spend a *shitload* less time & money pandering to
minorities than Labor usually do.



--
Regards,
Noddy.

 

[Noddy]

On 10/12/2011 9:31 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

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

How does that make her different from most other wealthy people?

**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.

Most probably, but then your description of her probably applies to the
majority of people on this planet.

She could do so much good if she chose to do so.

How do you know what she does and doesn't do in private?

**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.

In what way does she do that?



--
Regards,
Noddy.

 

[Noddy]

On 13/12/2011 11:09 PM, Paul Saccani wrote:

Trevor seems to have an inadequate understanding of the field, coupled
with opinions that are as strong as they are ill informed, so he tends
to see what he wants to see.

I think his passion certainly clouds his view.

He confuses the 90% confidence interval for anthropogenic increase in
CO2 levels with a completely different issue, the confidence interval
for AGW, which the 4th IPCC report states as being 66%.

Interesting.

Although I would not say that I am a climatologist, I did study
climatology at undergraduate major level long before it was
fashionable, when it was still an obscure interest of physicists.
This probably makes it easier for me to avoid the problems of
interpretation that Trevor appears to be suffering from. My interest
was in climate modelling. Trevor's interest in climatology appears to
be largely focused on showing everyone that he is smarter than they
are.

Perhaps, but I don't get that from him specifically.

That may stem from my own obvious lack of knowledge on the subject, but
all I come away with is that his passion borders on the fanatical, and
to the point where he will take no opposition to his claims as valid
regardless of whom they come from.





--
Regards,
Noddy.

 

[kreed]

On Dec 13, 10:13 pm, Noddy <m...@home.com> wrote:

On 13/12/2011 9:52 AM, Clocky wrote:

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.

In what way?

And at what future expense to yourself and the country in the future

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.

I'm certainly no Abbott fan, and it's usually a case of incumbent
government's loosing the support of the electorate rather than the
opposition winning it.

However, I'm often amused when the old "workchoices" barrow is wheeled
out. The reason I'm amused is that whenever I ask anyone what was it
about the policy that was so offensive, or what is it about the current
policy, apart from it's name, that is any different no one can tell me

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

That she ma be, but you'll find no greater example of a stupid
egotistical twat than they fucking idiot red-head we have in the top job
now.

Not to mention Wong and Roxon. IMHO Gutter trash just like Gillard and
their
rightful place in parliament should be not in power but scrubbing
floors and toilets,
or alternately on their back in a brothel.

--
Regards,
Noddy.

 

[John_H]

kreed wrote:

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.

Probably not. I've had exactly that setup in operation for quite a
few years... Davis Vantage Pro wireless weather station with data
logger (cheaper alternatives are now commonplace). The annual
variation in the mean temperature for a single location is
surprisingly large and will long remain statistically insignificant in
terms of any global, or even local, trend.

I any case satellite derived data, which have been available since the
1970's, are likely to produce far more reliable results than data from
ground stations. And of course historical data, like Trevor's 600,000
year claim, rely entirely on proxies which are both questionable and
open to manipulation... look no further than Mann's hockey stick (and
Trevor probably doesn't).

--
John H

 

[John_H]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

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

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.

Sounds fitting... we can but hope that George Pell, the Pope and that
other RC chap, Monckton, all get to have a go as well!

--
John H

 

[kreed]

On Dec 14, 6:25 am, John_H <john4...@inbox.com> wrote:

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

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.

Sounds fitting... we can but hope that George Pell, the Pope and that
other RC chap, Monckton, all get to have a go as well!  

--
John H

How about monckton as PM, Pell as Treasurer and the Pope doing
something else in there, as well as Alan Jones. I would have
consider a vote for this team, if nothing else, just to piss off
Trevor.

 

[John_H]

kreed wrote:

On Dec 14, 6:25 am, John_H <john4...@inbox.com> wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 12/13/2011 9:31 AM, Clocky wrote:

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.

Sounds fitting... we can but hope that George Pell, the Pope and that
other RC chap, Monckton, all get to have a go as well!  

How about monckton as PM, Pell as Treasurer and the Pope doing
something else in there, as well as Alan Jones. I would have
consider a vote for this team, if nothing else, just to piss off
Trevor.

Hell no, I was referring to Trevor's inquisitors... he deserves the
best!

--
John H

 

[JONZ]

On 14/12/2011 12:14 AM, Noddy wrote:

On 13/12/2011 11:09 PM, Paul Saccani wrote:

Trevor seems to have an inadequate understanding of the field, coupled
with opinions that are as strong as they are ill informed, so he tends
to see what he wants to see.

I think his passion certainly clouds his view.

He confuses the 90% confidence interval for anthropogenic increase in
CO2 levels with a completely different issue, the confidence interval
for AGW, which the 4th IPCC report states as being 66%.

Interesting.

Although I would not say that I am a climatologist, I did study
climatology at undergraduate major level long before it was
fashionable, when it was still an obscure interest of physicists.
This probably makes it easier for me to avoid the problems of
interpretation that Trevor appears to be suffering from. My interest
was in climate modelling. Trevor's interest in climatology appears to
be largely focused on showing everyone that he is smarter than they
are.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So, you think he`s after *YOUR* position in the A/C pecking
order?..........

Perhaps, but I don't get that from him specifically.

That may stem from my own obvious lack of knowledge on the subject, but
all I come away with is that his passion borders on the fanatical, and
to the point where he will take no opposition to his claims as valid
regardless of whom they come from.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Hmmm, possibly might nave something to do with a few half smarts
around here rubbishing every Trevor utterance like a bunch of of dumb
arse kids....( i have no idea what is being discussed,....But abuse is
the weapon of the brain dead, so thats wot eye do....)

--
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.