OT GW

[Noddy]

On 5/12/2011 12:46 PM, terryc wrote:

Hmm, will you vote Labor if it is only 30c/week?

I wouldn't vote for the Labor party again if you threatened to give me a
barbed wire enema and then attempted to stop the bleeding with pepper.

The cost isn't the issue for me. It's the effect, or complete lack of it.





--
Regards,
Noddy.

 

[Noddy]

On 5/12/2011 1:16 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

**I've been using the same GP for more than 25 years. He has saved my
life a couple of times and has never steered me wrong in the area of
medical issues.

That you know of anyway....

Like I said: I'll trust my GP. You can trust your local grocer if you
think that makes sense.

Well, at a pinch I'll take the advice of my local Chemist

As has been mentioned previously this seems to be about faith, and in
your case it seems to be fanatical. What genuinely intrigues me though
is that there seems to be qualified comment on both sides of the climate
debate yet you seem to put your faith on one side while criticising
everyone else who doesn't as not being an "expert".


--
Regards,
Noddy.

 

[Noddy]

On 5/12/2011 1:15 PM, terryc wrote:

I would be a lot happier if that wasn't almost all they had been looking
for in a lot of research in he last few decades.

Makes them as credible as looking for secret writing in the bible, war
and peace, etc, etc, etc

Agreed.

--
Regards,
Noddy.

 

[Noddy]

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.

--
Regards,
Noddy.

 

[Noddy]

On 5/12/2011 12:59 PM, kreed wrote:

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

I think it's been on a steady & sad decline for a while.

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

Nice.

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

I have no doubt that the US brought a lot of 9/11 on themselves thanks
largely to their ridiculous foreign policy, but I don't buy for a second
that any part of 9/11 was an internally organised event.

Not to mention the molestations at the airports

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

It's certainly a strange place, and the sad reality is that a lot of
it's stupidity seems to be heading here.

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

I know I would.


--
Regards,
Noddy.

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 12/5/2011 11:12 AM, Noddy wrote:

On 5/12/2011 9:45 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

**Yep. Out of context. Tell you what: YOU supply the allegedly daming
words, IN THEIR ORIGINAL CONTEXT to me and let's discuss what you
consider to be a problem. Fair enough?

See my reply to Clocky about an example of the "peer review" process.

**I see no proof. Just wild speculation.

**ONLY by the likes of Alan Jones.

I don't listen to Alan Jones,

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


as I'm in Victoria, but if you put

"climategate" into Google you'll get about 3 and a half million hits.

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

A tad wider spread than just Alan Jones' audience methinks.

**Maybe.

The SCIENTISTS are all still in agreement.

Oh, I'm sure that they are.

**And it the scientists who know what they're talking about.

Again: Why do you persist in ignoring the science?

Because the "science", such as it is, has not proved a single, solitary
thing.

**Ah, I see your problem. You have failed to read the science. It's easy
to condemn something you have no knowledge of.



I ignore religious nutbags for exactly the same reason.

Why do you persist in listening solely to the likes of Alan Jones?
What scientific
credentials does he have?

I don't listen to Alan Jones, and I never have.

**I said: "...the LIKES of Alan Jones."

**Examining the data is not an act of blind faith. It's just science.

With respect Trevor, your "examining of the data" is bordering on
fanatical, and to the point were everyone who is opposed to your views
is a crank.

**No. Anyone who suggests the science is bunk, but has failed to read
that science is, well, I think you know the answer to that.

**Then YOU supply your alternate figures. Over to you...

I don't have any figures Trevor,

**Of course you don't.


and that's the point. *no one* does,

**Have you read the IPCC reports?

and I find it hard to understand how you can right off this new tax with
such a miniscule impact when no one else seems to be doing so.

**And again, you seem to be imagining that because Alan Jones, Andrew
Bolt and Tony Abbott claim that the tax is crap, then it must be crap.
It doesn't work that way. All the economists have stated that the carbon
tax is the best way to address the issue. The shock-jocks and anyone
employed by News Limited disputes this. Of course, they're not
economists either.

**The tax is designed to reduce Australia's CO2 emissions. All the
economists who have studied the tax, have stated that it probably will
lower Australia's CO2 emissions.

Probably?

**Yes, probably.

They have also provided data on the anticipated costs. OK, so far?

Who is "they", and what are these "costs" they speak of?

**They, would include these guys:

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/carbon-tax-hit-small-csiro-20111112-1ncvq.html

These are the same economists who predicted what effects the GST would
have on the economy. Are you now
disputing what the economists have stated will likely occur? Do you have
some data to back your claims?

According to what I've read about the subject Australia's impact on the
global environment is around 1.5 percent, and if the carbon tax achieved
a reduction of 10 per cent (which would be optimistic at best in my
opinion) we'd make a difference to "climate change" in a global sense of
.15 of a percent at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars.

**Irrelevant and bogus. And you know it. AUSTRALIA'S carbon tax is
designed to reduce AUSTRALIA'S CO2 emissions. Germany's carbon tax is
designed to reduce Germany's CO2 emissions. And so on.

That might make some sense to you, but it sure as shit doesn't to me.

**Of course. You are citing bogus arguments, as espoused by that
pop-eyed liar, Monckton.

**Again: The same economists that predicted (correctly) the effects of
the GST are telling us what effects the government's carbon tax and
Abbott's carbon tax will have.

I'm sorry Trev, but who correctly predicted the effects of the GST?

**Economists.

Even the government's own modelling was wrong when they found they had
an extra billion & a half at the end of the first full year that * no
one* saw coming.

**So? How much was the total GST take? $30 billion? More? The carbon tax
can be massaged to acheive it's stated aim.

**The same economists that (correctly) predicted the effects of the GST.

As I said, who were these people?

**Economists.

**OK. Why? Moreover, if you reject the government's plan, then you
accept Abbott's plan.

What crap

Just because there are two plans doesn't mean I automatically accept the
second one if I don't like the first

**You need to think about Abbott's plan, if you reject the government's
one, since that is what you'll be stuck with. Abbott plans to take money
from taxpayers and hand it to big business. Explain the logic of that to
me, if you can.

Abbott's plan has been universally condemned as wasteful and ineffective.

Oddly enough, so has Gillard's carbon tax.

**Only by Tony Abbott, Alan Jones and the Murdock press. The people who
know their stuff reckon it should work well.

I accept that you may not like a carbon tax
(For the record: I HATE the idea of a carbon tax), but if your going to
suffer a carbon tax (and you will, regardless of who is in government),
then you may as well support the tax that has the best chance of working
and costing the community as little as possible.

That'd be great, but which one is capable of doing that? As far as I can
tell *neither* plan will give business *any* incentive to reduce their
emissions.

**Then you need to read up on the crbon tax. Ignorance is not excuse.
Read it, before speaking any more on the issue:

http://www.cleanenergyfuture.gov.au/

**You sure about that? Some of the largest mining corporations are in
favour of it:

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/business/carbon-tax-is-necessary-says-bhp-chairman-jac-nasser/story-fn7j19iv-1226197858222


Oh I have no doubt that there are some out there who are rubbing their
hands together at the prospect of a carbon tax as a nifty way of
justifying a hefty increase in prices. We've already seen reports of
some more unscrupulous businesses introducing price rises as a result of
the "carbon tax" before it was even passed through parliament

**[SIGH] You claimed that NO ONE wanted the carbon tax. I cited one very
large company that did. I'll find more if you wish.

**Sure. Ignorant people will always prefer to listen to anyone, except
those who actually know stuff.

God I love that argument. The people who agree with you are educated,
while the people who don't are ignorant

**The guys who study this stuff know what they're talking about.
Shock-jocks don't.

It's why religion is so popular.

Religion is a great tool for controlling the minds of people who's decks
are missing the 8's, 9's & 10's, but apart from that it doesn't have a
whole lot going for it.

**And again: Not the point. Most people accept religion as if it makes
sense.

And let's not get side-tracked: NO ONE WANTS A CARBON TAX. Not me, not
you,
not the government. However, we do need to find a way to reduce CO2
emissions. The carbon tax would seem to be the most effective way of
accomplishing that.

For the record, I have no problems with the idea of a carbon tax that
actually caused a reduction in emissions, but the current plans offer no
scope for that that I can see and I have a *big* problem with the idea
of a tax simply on the basis of *hoping* that it does *something* which
essentially all this tax really is.

**OK, I accept your opinion. What are your economic credentials to make
that claim?

As far as the government is concerned, they give not the slightest shit
about the environment as they won't be in power long enough to see any
improvement, if any.

**So? Irrelevant.


The *only* reason we have a carbon tax today is

because it was necessary for Gillard to maintain support and keep
herself in the top job.

**Duh.

End of story.

**The "general consensus" is code for: A bunch of ignorant dickheads. I
don't give a crap about what Fred Bloggs doen the road thinks about
anything. If I want to know about what is wrong with my car, I'll ask my
mechanic (or you). I won't ask Alan Jones. If I want to know about the
mysterious lump on my leg, I'll ask my doctor. I won't ask Alan Jones.
If I want to know about the economic effects of a carbon tax, I'll ask
an economist. I won't ask Alan Jones. If I want to know about climate
change, I'll ask the CSIRO, BoM or NASA. I won't ask Alan Jones.

The real question here is this: Why do YOU place your faith in what Alan
Jones, Andrew Bolt and George Pell say, rather than the people who know
what they're talking about?

I don't Trev.

**Yes, you do. Have you read the IPCC reports?

As far as this issue is concerned I try to be as objective as I can

**Good. Have you read the IPCC reports?


, and

I consider arguments from *both* sides. I don't flat out believe
everything the scientists say just because they're "scientists", and nor
do I believe everything the anti-climate change brigade say just because
they're sceptics.

**OK. I accept that. Have you read the IPCC reports?

As I've said before I don't doubt that the planet is changing, and it
has been for millions of years. What I'm *not* convinced is that it's a
man made problem, or if it is that there's anything we can do about it
that will prevent it.

**Fine. Have you read the IPCC reports?

**Incorrect. The companies that generate or use power with low CO2
emissions can sell their power, goods and/or services at a lower cost,
because their costs of doing business are lower than their less
efficient competition.

If you ran a company that made widgets that cost X amount to get to
market, why would you spend millions on reducing your carbon footprint
in the hope that you could reduce your costs and sell them *cheaper*?

As I said, where's the incentive?

**Asked and answered. The companies that can reduce their costs, through
low CO2 emission strategies, can reduce their costs. BTW: That need not
require an investment of millions of Dollars.

I'd be more than a little surprised if there's been a single proposal
over the years that has worked out anything like the initial forecasts
in practice once they were implemented.

Look at electricity pricing for example.

**Yes, let's.

The privatising the government owned utility companies was sold on the
idea of competition between private companies would create a very
competitive market with cheaper pricing.

**Which was always going to be bollocks. Governments can afford to sell
stuff at cost. Companies MUST make a profit.


Yet power prices have

sky-rocketed in the last few years with predictions of ever increasing
costs as the "competing private companies" all get together and dictate
terms for the market.

**Of course.

The same thing happened when they deregulated the banking industry.

**When do you imagine they did that?

**Maybe that will occur. Or maybe competitive factors will come into
play.

There's a hell of a lot of maybe's in there Trev, with the only
certainty that we'll all be paying more in the mean time.

**Indeed. However, the amount we will pay is utterly insignificant.

**Your assumption is not necessarily correct. The power companies that
generate their energy via the use of geo-thermal, Solar, wind or other
low emission technologies will have a competitive advantage. They can
sell at a lower cost and gain market share.

And do you *really* think they will after investing the necessary
capital in order to do that?

**They do not necessarily have to invest any capital. And those that can
sell stuff at a lower price, due to lower costs, will either do so, or
pocket the extra profit.


How much do you think it'd cost a power

company to set up a Geo-Thermal power grid capable of supplying a town
like Newcastle for example?

**Less than the cost of a nuke and slightly more than the cost of a coal
fired power station. The carbon tax will suddenly make geo-thermal power
a lot more interesting to a number of companies.

They're going to want that money back, and in pretty short order.

**Some will. Some will play a much longer game.

**And others got more expensive. TOTAL tax receipts increased
dramatically. We paid far more total tax the day after GST was
introduced.

In terms of purchased goods it was pretty balanced as a lot of items had
existing taxes that were hidden in the retain price. Where they *really*
made their money was on the services component.

**Bollocks. The total extra tax was in the order of several tens of
Billions of Dollars.

**Wrong. The carbon tax will add to the cost of many things. Just like
GST did.

Give me an example of a few items that well not be impacted by the
Carbon tax.

**Walking. Solar power, hydro power, wind power, riding a bicycle,
driving an automobile, etc.

**And your economic credentials are?

Ah, right. I'm not a recognised expert, therefore I can't have a valid
opinion.

**You are entitled to your opinion. What you don't seem to be providing
is much in the way of proof.

I'm not David Attenborough either, but I know enough about elephants to
know that I don't want one as a household pet.

**And I know that to provide a balanced opinion on a topic, one should
read both sides of the argument. Have you read the IPCC documents yet?

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[terryc]

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.

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

Blink, we have had both camps; warming and cooling finding data.

 

[terryc]

Noddy wrote:

On 5/12/2011 12:42 PM, terryc wrote:

Umm, John howards Malaysia solution was to take those with money, make
them do a 6 months course and them give them permanent residency no
questions asked.

Even if that was *remotely* true, I'd much rather that than the
situation as it currently is.

It was totally true. where do you think the boom in education services
came from?

 

[terryc]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

On 12/5/2011 1:07 PM, terryc wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:

So, tell me? Who're you going to place YOUR health care opinions with?
Alan Jones or an 'expert' (aka: Your family GP)?

Well, frankly, as far as some experts go, listening to Alan Jones can
not be any worse. Many "medicial specialists" are just crowd followers
and faddist, even within their own field.

You have to educate yourself and decide what is working and what isn't.

**I've been using the same GP for more than 25 years. He has saved my
life a couple of times and has never steered me wrong in the area of
medical issues.

Unfortunately, had mixed experience.
I guess that also illustrates my point.

 

[terryc]

kreed wrote:

On Dec 5, 12:10 pm, terryc <newsninespam-s...@woa.com.au> wrote:
kreed wrote:
We have no solid idea yet about the real effect of the GST as the
effects of it were masked by the housing boom
and the associated upturn in just about every business, as a flow on
effect from it.
Bullshit. for many items, there was absoltely no effect as GST just
replaced the impact of sales tax.


It wouldnt have happened unless it generated more tax

exactly, it was an efficency thing and closed a hell of a lot of loop
holes they didn't know about. Of course two years later, a new lot were
found.

Now that that is over we shall see. The basics are is that it is a
tax, and therefore state theft of private property without consent,
You voted, so you consented. Seriously, when did they ammend the
constitution so you had any say. This is australia mate, not the USofA.

I did not vote for it and did not consent.
Well, if you don't vote, tough titties.

 

[kreed]

On Dec 5, 8:05 am, <j...@nothome.com> wrote:

"Noddy"  wrote in messagenews:jbfqmo$tfn$1@dont-email.me...

On 4/12/2011 4:57 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

**What "scam" would that be?

If Abbott lives up to his promise of abolishing the Carbon Tax when he
takes office at the next election he'll be better than most.
=====================================================================> The only word of truth here is "if". Let go of it Noddy, just for a change.
Fuck me, what a pair of tools, you and Abbott. Even his own predecessors in
the Tories are deserting themselves from his ridiculous statements. The one
he stabbed would get my vote, not this sanctimonious fuckwit.
DAVO

There are no "tories" in Australia. Your ignorance is showing.

 

[Jeßus]

On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 09:40:35 +1100, Noddy <me@home.com> wrote:

On 5/12/2011 9:19 AM, Jeßus wrote:

Having been a research assistant in my earlier days, I can certainly
attest to that. The things I saw happen...

Not that I've had any personal experience, but if you look at the famous
people throughout the scientific world it seems to be a bizarre one.

Take Werner Von Braun for example. Probably the world's most eminent
rocket scientist in his day, and a man who played a major role in the
American space program to put a man on the moon, but for a time he was a
passionate Nazi developing weapons that killed thousands of people and
was in charge of a production facility that employed slave labour that
brutally killed hundreds more.

The theme that seemed to run through his life as it did with so many
other famous scientists was Ego. He didn't seem to care terribly much
how his work impacted on others, as long as he was allowed to do it and
was prepared to deal with the devil to make that possible.

I've seen and read a fair bit on this topic, and I agree with your
assessment on Von Braun. His sole motivation seems to have been to do
the science itself, at any cost.

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

 

[Jeßus]

On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 10:06:40 +1100, Trevor Wilson
<trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

On 12/5/2011 8:49 AM, Jeßus wrote:
On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 06:56:16 +1100, Trevor Wilson
trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

On 12/4/2011 11:56 PM, Noddy wrote:
On 4/12/2011 4:57 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

**What "scam" would that be?

The Global Warming one.

**Again: Citing Alan Jones as some kind of credible scientific source is
hardly appropriate. When the guys at 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.
When all these guys (and a many more SCIENTIFIC organisations) tell us
that AGW is a "scam", then and only then, will I sit up and take notice.

I'll say again: Alan Jones, Andrew Bolt, George Pell and yourself, have
zero credibility as climatologists.


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

**Really? Of are you just accepting some out of context words, from
people who have a financial gain in perpetuating the digging up of
fossil fuels?


Don't forget your peer-reviewed science. Failure to present it will
result in you being called a laughing stock

Feel free to call me a laughing stock Trev. When you have people like
Bob Brown on your side I piss my pants all day long

**Make no mistake: Bob Brown is a politician. Bob Brown is NOT a
climatologist. I don't listen to Bob Brown. I listen to the scientists.
You listen to shock jocks. Wanna bet on who is right?


**Thanks to Tony Abbott, Alan Jones, Bolt, et al, they already are.
Sadly, they're no better nor worse than any government that preceeded
them.

If Abbott lives up to his promise of abolishing the Carbon Tax when he
takes office at the next election he'll be better than most.

**Abbott has promised to eliminate a tax that will cost the average
punter less than $0.30/week. His tax will extract taxpayer funds and
give it to large companies in the hope that they will spend it wisely.
Abbott's tax will increase the size of the public service by many
thousands. Taxes will rise to accomodate his increased spending.

You tell me why you think that Abbott's completely discredited scheme
makes any sense at all. Are you an economist too? All the economists
have stated that Abbott's scheme will be costly and doomed to failure,
whereas the government's scheme will be relatively modestly priced and
will work.


Not that this will change you mind on any of this, but something worth
viewing nonetheless:
http://www.cbc.ca/doczone/episode/the-trouble-with-experts.html

Torrent:
http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/6862823/CBC_Doc_Zone_The_Trouble_With_Experts_2011_HDTV_x264_AAC
http://www.demonoid.me/files/details/2777785/005760348140/

**I haven't watched the video, but I did read the posted article. OK, so
you tell me:

* Do I ignore my mechanic, when he tells me that my car engine needs an
oil change? Or do I listen to Alan Jones?
* Do I ignore my doctor, when he tells me that I should have a Sunspot
excised from my face? Or do I listen to Alan Jones?
* Do I ignore Microsoft, when they tell me I need another 2GB RAm to run
Windows 7, 64bit correctly? Or do I listen to Alan Jones?
* Do I listen to the climatologists, when they tell us that there is too
much CO2 in the atmosphere? Or do I listen to Alan Jones?

It's one thing to weigh up the opinions of people. It's quite another to
be presented with a very large amount of highly compelling data.

So, tell me? Who're you going to place YOUR health care opinions with?
Alan Jones or an 'expert' (aka: Your family GP)?

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

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

 

[Jeßus]

On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 13:16:51 +1100, Trevor Wilson
<trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

On 12/5/2011 1:07 PM, terryc wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:

So, tell me? Who're you going to place YOUR health care opinions with?
Alan Jones or an 'expert' (aka: Your family GP)?

Well, frankly, as far as some experts go, listening to Alan Jones can
not be any worse. Many "medicial specialists" are just crowd followers
and faddist, even within their own field.

You have to educate yourself and decide what is working and what isn't.

**I've been using the same GP for more than 25 years. He has saved my
life a couple of times and has never steered me wrong in the area of
medical issues.

Like I said: I'll trust my GP. You can trust your local grocer if you
think that makes sense.

I know of two GPs in Brisbane's southside:

One didn't know what an MRI was when I suggested it may be a good idea
for my then GF's pinched nerve.

The other swears by putting caster oil around your mid-section, then
wrapping it in glad wrap - for any complaint.

They are both qualified and practicing GPs in Australia.

 

[terryc]

kreed wrote:

I turned off part way through before I ended up in a situation where I
had to wash my mouth out and a bucket also.

Welcome to the new ABC. The rot did start under little johnny and hasn't
reversed.

 

[atec77]

On 5/12/2011 8:32 AM, Rheilly Phoull wrote:

On 12/5/2011 6:19 AM, Jeßus wrote:
On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 09:12:09 +1100, Noddy<me@home.com> wrote:

just because someone wears a white lab
coat and calls themselves a "scientist" that they are automatically a
person of the highest moral standard and couldn't *possibly* be acting
in their own self interest.

Having been a research assistant in my earlier days, I can certainly
attest to that. The things I saw happen...

Any way, despite the thread not being remotely connected to the groups
purpose it's coming along quite nicely. We have politics and religion
combined, I'm just waiting for some one to introduce sex and we'll have
the complete package.

Rheilly
Ok , best you fickoff

--









X-No-Archive: Yes

 

[Bernd Felsche]

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

On 12/4/2011 11:56 PM, Noddy wrote:

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

**Really? Of are you just accepting some out of context words, from
people who have a financial gain in perpetuating the digging up of
fossil fuels?

Oh yeah ... the fossil fuel funding... which happens to be about
20:1 in favour of the CAGW alarmist organizations.

It's about money for research. Money to maintain power.
No science.

You don't understand the concept of a rational argument.
Which is why you're such an excellent example of how NOT to argue
when trying to make a point.

SO, keep doing it.
--
/"\ 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 5, 4:24 pm, Je us <n...@all.invalid> wrote:

On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 10:06:40 +1100, Trevor Wilson



tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
On 12/5/2011 8:49 AM, Je us wrote:
On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 06:56:16 +1100, Trevor Wilson
tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au>  wrote:

On 12/4/2011 11:56 PM, Noddy wrote:
On 4/12/2011 4:57 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

**What "scam" would that be?

The Global Warming one.

**Again: Citing Alan Jones as some kind of credible scientific source is
hardly appropriate. When the guys at 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.
When all these guys (and a many more SCIENTIFIC organisations) tell us
that AGW is a "scam", then and only then, will I sit up and take notice.

I'll say again: Alan Jones, Andrew Bolt, George Pell and yourself, have
zero credibility as climatologists.

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

**Really? Of are you just accepting some out of context words, from
people who have a financial gain in perpetuating the digging up of
fossil fuels?

Don't forget your peer-reviewed science. Failure to present it will
result in you being called a laughing stock

Feel free to call me a laughing stock Trev. When you have people like
Bob Brown on your side I piss my pants all day long

**Make no mistake: Bob Brown is a politician. Bob Brown is NOT a
climatologist. I don't listen to Bob Brown. I listen to the scientists.
You listen to shock jocks. Wanna bet on who is right?

**Thanks to Tony Abbott, Alan Jones, Bolt, et al, they already are.
Sadly, they're no better nor worse than any government that preceeded
them.

If Abbott lives up to his promise of abolishing the Carbon Tax when he
takes office at the next election he'll be better than most.

**Abbott has promised to eliminate a tax that will cost the average
punter less than $0.30/week. His tax will extract taxpayer funds and
give it to large companies in the hope that they will spend it wisely..
Abbott's tax will increase the size of the public service by many
thousands. Taxes will rise to accomodate his increased spending.

You tell me why you think that Abbott's completely discredited scheme
makes any sense at all. Are you an economist too? All the economists
have stated that Abbott's scheme will be costly and doomed to failure,
whereas the government's scheme will be relatively modestly priced and
will work.

Not that this will change you mind on any of this, but something worth
viewing nonetheless:
http://www.cbc.ca/doczone/episode/the-trouble-with-experts.html

Torrent:
http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/6862823/CBC_Doc_Zone_The_Trouble_With....
http://www.demonoid.me/files/details/2777785/005760348140/

**I haven't watched the video, but I did read the posted article. OK, so
you tell me:

* Do I ignore my mechanic, when he tells me that my car engine needs an
oil change? Or do I listen to Alan Jones?
* Do I ignore my doctor, when he tells me that I should have a Sunspot
excised from my face? Or do I listen to Alan Jones?
* Do I ignore Microsoft, when they tell me I need another 2GB RAm to run
Windows 7, 64bit correctly? Or do I listen to Alan Jones?
* Do I listen to the climatologists, when they tell us that there is too
much CO2 in the atmosphere? Or do I listen to Alan Jones?

It's one thing to weigh up the opinions of people. It's quite another to
be presented with a very large amount of highly compelling data.

So, tell me? Who're you going to place YOUR health care opinions with?
Alan Jones or an 'expert' (aka: Your family GP)?

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

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

We don't even get Alan Jones up here, the only thing I have heard him
say that I can think of was
on the national press club about the mining industry fucking over
farmers a few weeks back


I have also not heard anything of this Pell guy that Wilson loves
bringing up, or any other "religious nutters" even mention GW, except
some time back on Compass where they did a blatant ABC propaganda
piece on religious crackpots PUSHING the man made global warming
theory.

I turned off part way through before I ended up in a situation where I
had to wash my mouth out and a bucket also.

 

[Bernd Felsche]

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

On 12/5/2011 11:03 AM, kreed wrote:

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

**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.
* Security.
* A long, healthy life.
* Freedom from being shot to death.
* Freedom from being kidnapped.
* Garbage collection.
* Sewerage.
* Electricity.
* Reasonable roads.

* A bureaucracy of public and publically-funded corporations that
suck up about half the total workforce to reduce GDP.
* First-class travel for senior public servants.
* Business class travel for public servants.
* Free travel for current and past MP.
* Huge grants for "scientific research" that supports CAGW alarmism
* A whole department based on CAGW alarmism.
* Subsidies to install insulation to burn down your house.
* Subsidies to build school halls; to be torn down a year later.
* Subsidies to install PV solar so that you can rip off the
electricity company by making them buy electricity at 4 times the
market rate.
* Handouts to purchase plasma TVs so that you can watch them float
away at the next flood
* Money for the ABC to spruik propaganda in all media at not just
every opportunity, but to generate opportunities.
* Handouts to SBS to fragment Australian culture

Relevant to aus.cars:
* Funding Police so that they can buy stupid machines to "police"
speed limits to within 1 km/h where speed limits are sometimes
well below the 50th percentile.
<http://contrary2belief.wordpress.com/2011/10/29/wa-police-again-show-that-speed-limits-are-too-low/>

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

While Antarctica gets colder.
<http://notrickszone.com/2011/12/04/antarctic-neumayer-iii-deputy-director-veteran-polar-scientist-we-have-a-light-cooling-trend/>

Who are you going to believe? The guy who spent decades researching
polar climate, or some has-been "journalist" whose claim to fame is
decades of molesting wildlife on TV?

You do realize that the BBC got not only their scripts from WWF and
Greenpeace via UEA CRU; but also a huge part of their funding, don't
you? Effectively acting as a publically-subsidises propaganda arm of
those organizations. That to fuel the alarmism to rake in the
donations so that their executives can live the high life.

Or haven't you read the emails and the "BBC-gateau" reports?

Other CAGW activists are of the same ilk.
<http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/30/the-worst-kind-of-ugly-propaganda-david-suzuki-targets-kids-at-christmas-in-the-name-of-climate-chnage/>
--
/"\ 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 12/5/2011 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.)

Fallacy: Appeal to authority.

What was their early psition on DDT?

**No idea. Tell us.

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

Hypothecised. And others showed the flaws in his experiment.

mounting evidence has eradicated oposition to the theory. ...

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

The theory has been falsified because the MEASUREMENTS in the REAL
WORLD prove it to be wrong.

CO2 levels have risen steadily for more than a decade ... but no
global temperature increase. Even a slight cooling. Pronounced
cooling is you look at the temperature of the oceans; the climate
system's most-significant store of heat.

Except by people like Alan Jones, George Pell and Nick Minchin. Of
course, those guys are ignorant of science.

Nice bunch of strawmen. And you can line up beside them and nobody
will be able to tell the difference.

You, like so many others, are too lazy or afraid to do your own
thinking. To go back to first principles and to tackle the
underlying physics and biological cycles that make the climate what
it is.
<http://contrary2belief.wordpress.com/2011/10/22/global-warming/>
--
/"\ 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