OT GW

[Lindsay]

"Jeßus" <none@all.invalid> wrote in message
news:6oood7l9rbe6f6cvos3a4vnhqq2gdmns5h@4ax.com...

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.

Seems to be a popular and growing perception. Maybe he has some "issues"
that he needs to confront...

Ask him about his elastic seine net killfile. It's a Twev special. It
breathes like a human lung, and lets people in and out whenever he sees fit,
but he forgets to tell anyone, until it suits his dodgy arguements.
At one stage he had every "John" on the net in there, and expected me to
pick one. I picked John the Baptist, John Lennon, John Cleese, which were
all wrong.

He's strange, is twev....

 

[John_H]

Noddy wrote:

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.

He won't of course. Same goes for the mining tax and pokie
regulations. What his replacement will almost certainly do is amend
Julia's workplace legislation!

--
John H

 

[Noddy]

On 5/12/2011 3:05 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

**I see no proof. Just wild speculation.

It was the quoted text of an email straight from the horse's mouth. Of
course, if it wasn't true I'd be expecting the people concerned to be
falling all over their lawyers in denying it.....

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

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

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

And?

**Maybe.

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

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

How do you know *they* know what they're talking about? Are you a scientist?

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

I've read as much of it as I can tolerate in one lifetime Trevor, and
come to the conclusion that the "science" is as much of a pissing
contest as any other human endeavour in that it has it's fair share of
"celebrities" who seek fame & fortune.

Take a few minutes to look into the "Climategate" issue to see what I'm
talking about. Human nature affects *everyone*.

Even "scientists".

**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.

With respect Trevor, the science itself is quite confusing as it's
inconclusive and is open to a shitload of interpretation. I mean, the
scientific world *itself* can't come to a universal & unequivocal
agreement on the issue, so what hope to the sweaty masses have?

You continually dolling out the "you can't ignore the science" line
simply doesn't help, as you seem to be confusing the correlation of data
with scientific theory.

**Have you read the IPCC reports?

What the hell do the IPCC reports have to do with a Carbon tax in
Australia? Most of the sitting members would probably have a hard time
telling you what the capital city of this country was.

**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.

Actually I don't, but thanks for assuming that I have the mental
capacity of a three year old.

It doesn't work that way.

No shit?

All the economists have stated that the carbon
tax is the best way to address the issue.

I see.

And tell me Trevor, who exactly *are* these economists you speak of, and
when was the last time that you can remember that an economist actually
made a prediction that was within cooee of being something near accurate?

The shock-jocks and anyone
employed by News Limited disputes this. Of course, they're not
economists either.

They mightn't be, but they've probably got just as much chance of
accurately predicting the effects of an economic policy as a genuine
economist.

Then again, so has the Tarrot card reader at the local flea market....

**Yes, probably.

So, you're not sure then?

Surprising. You seem to be arguing so convincingly in favour of it being
a rock solid idea.

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

Ah, the CSIRO. A government body.

Sorry, but a few minutes ago I thought you said that all of the
*economists* were in favour of the idea?

**Irrelevant and bogus. And you know it.

How is it the slightest bit irrelevant?

If the idea is to reduce emissions, then surely anyone would want to
employ a system where a distinct difference was being made. In other
words, if you have to go to the trouble then you want the best
bangs-per-buck value out of the exercise, right?

Apparently that's wrong. Even if this system *does* work to a degree,
which I personally doubt, the effects will be so small they'll be
impossible to measure.

That doesn't sound like a very effective plan to me.

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.

Right.

So, presumably then, when countries like China & India throw emissions
into the air by the megaton it just hangs there and doesn't leave their
territorial air?

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

Exactly what part of the .15% argument is bogus?

**Economists.

Some names would help.

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

How exactly?

And in asking, I mean a real, practical example. Not a "how the world
should work according to Trevor" hypothesis.

**Economists.

Denial ain't just a river....

**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.

I can't, because it has none.

As I said, I don't support Abbott's plan, but I don't favour Gillard's
attempt at it either. I think they're both equally ridiculous in that
they offer absolutely no incentive for polluters to lift a finger.

The only people who will win out of Gillard's plan are the people who
will use the "Carbon tax" as a convenient and timely excuse to add a bit
of free cash to their bottom line.

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

So you keep saying, but I'm yet to see any evidence of it.

What's say we reconvene in about 18 months and take a looksie. If by
then the Carbon tax turns out to be as much as a fuck-up as anything
else Labor's put their fingers on over the last couple of years then
perhaps you might have a re-appraisal of your opinion of "economists".

**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/

Like the theory itself, it's a dead link.

You claimed that NO ONE wanted the carbon tax.

To be precise Trev, I said that I haven't seen anyone who does, and
hadn't until you provided that link. However I wouldn't be stupid enough
to suggest that there wouldn't be some people who were in favour of it,
as I'm sure there'll be plenty who can turn it to their advantage.

I cited one very large company that did. I'll find more if you wish.

If you like. I'm sure you could.

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

Just out of curiosity Trev, how would you know?

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

It probably does to them anyway, but it requires a fair amount of faith.
Not unlike the level of faith you seem to place in the experts telling
you what you want to hear in fact.

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

Basic business experience.

Let's take a basic example. If I ran a business and you were the sole
supplier of a particular product who suddenly lifted his prices I could
do any one of a number of things in response:

Firstly, I could just suck it up, but seeing how I'm in business to make
money that'd be highly unlikely.

Secondly, I could give you a call and say "I thought we were friends but
now you're a turd who is off my Christmas card list" and spend a large
amount of money to implement a new system that would see me reduce my
emissions, but the price of my goods would rise anyway due to the cost
of the restructure,

or,

I could just pass any price hikes straight onto the end user knowing
full well that there'd be jack shit they could do about it as a captive
audience and life for me would continue as before.

Now, being realistic for just a minute and bearing in mind that the
option rests firmly with them, if you lined up 100 CEO's and asked them
what *they'd* do, what do you think would be the most likely respeonse?

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

No, and no, I really don't. I don't follow sensationalist press. I might
read the dailies, but I have no time for editorial. You don't have to be
Einstein to look at this idea and see that it has more holes in it than
a chunk of Swiss cheese the size of Nebraska.

**Good. Have you read the IPCC reports?

No, and nor do I read editorial either.

**Fine. Have you read the IPCC reports?

For the record Trev, I have *not* read them, and nor am I ever likely to
*want* to. To take it further, I think the IPCC is no different to any
other major body in that it seems to be full of ego and has an agenda.

The thousands of scientists around the world who volunteer information
to the IPCC are probably hard working & dedicated professionals who have
a genuine interest in what they do, but the IPCC themselves seem like a
bunch of egotistical dickheads who are more concerned with doing
whatever is necessary to preserve their positions than any genuine
concern for the environment.

**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.

Okay.

So, how would someone like Alcoa for example go about achieving a 15%
reduction in their emissions, how much do you think it would cost, and
how much of that cost would be passed on to the price of aluminium?

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

My point exactly.

Of *course* they must, and in this country the general business
philosophy is "RTPOOECAOAP", or Rip The Piss Out Of Every Cunt As Often
As Possible.

To that end, even *if* some businesses decide to restructure and be more
efficient there will be a cost, and those costs will be passed on to you
and me.

Only a true idiot would think that prices will remain unchanged.

**Of course.

Yet in acknowledging this you somehow believe that polluting businesses
are going to happily restructure their companies *just* so they can gain
an advantage on their competitors and keep their prices down.

Interesting.

**When do you imagine they did that?

In the early 1980's if I remember correctly, and like every other major
government scheme it was a fuck-up of biblical proportions that saw
people (mainly business) go ballistic.

Of course the same old story about "competition being better for the
consumer" was trotted out as usual, with the same old response of the
major players getting together to control the market and root everyone
right in the Tijuana being the result.

Remember the good old days when banks were elated if they made 20
million bucks profit a year while employing thousands of people? Now if
they're not making 20 million bucks profit *a day* while continually
sacking people in the hundreds they're pissing and moaning as if the
sky's going to cave in.

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

In your opinion, and only time will tell if you're right. I doubt it,
but then that's just my opinion.

**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.

Bearing in mind of course that the focus of the tax is this country's
apparently 500 heaviest polluters, and I would imagine that for most of
them an emissions restructure of any significance is going to be a
fairly major investment.

**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.

So it's a pretty significant investment then. We're talking, what, a
couple of billion dollars to build an environmentally friendly power
plant of that size?

What sort of impact do you think that kind of investment is going to
have on the price of power?

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

Did you have anyone in particular in mind?

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

With a great deal of it coming from the service component of the tax
scheme. Things that we never paid tax on before, like dry cleaning,
tradesman's labour, having your lawn mowed, etc.

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

Sorry Trev, for a minute I thought you were going to throw up a few
things that were relevant to the average Joe

Still, you managed one though. Petrol might be exempt (which it should
be as it's already taxed to the BeJesus), but everything else associated
with the running of a car is likely to change.

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

And why is that a burden only I seem to be stuck with?

**And I know that to provide a balanced opinion on a topic, one should
read both sides of the argument.

There is a distinction between being aware of the argument and burying
yourself in useless trivia for the sake of it.

Have you read the IPCC documents yet?

You already know the answer to that question.

--
Regards,
Noddy.

 

[kreed]

On Dec 5, 8:32 am, Rheilly Phoull <rhei...@bigslong.com> wrote:

On 12/5/2011 6:19 AM, Jeßus wrote:

On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 09:12:09 +1100, Noddy<m...@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

Or tune into SBS late at night, if its anything like it was when I
last watched a couple of years back
its a safe bet that at least one of the movies you see will feature at
least a graphic sex scene, someone throwing up, or using a toilet.

Sometimes all 3.

 

[Noddy]

On 5/12/2011 9:47 PM, John_H wrote:

He won't of course.

I don't expect he will, but I can live in hope.

Same goes for the mining tax and pokie
regulations. What his replacement will almost certainly do is amend
Julia's workplace legislation!

Lol



--
Regards,
Noddy.

 

[Noddy]

On 5/12/2011 9:07 PM, kreed wrote:

Or tune into SBS late at night, if its anything like it was when I
last watched a couple of years back
its a safe bet that at least one of the movies you see will feature at
least a graphic sex scene, someone throwing up, or using a toilet.

Sometimes all 3.

It does

Of course, the worst (for me at least) is that I always seem to fluke
flicking over whilst channel surfing *just* in time to see some bloke
sticking his tongue down the throat of another bloke.

Not that there's anything wrong with that, but *fuck* it makes me want
to heave



--
Regards,
Noddy.

 

[Noddy]

On 5/12/2011 5:08 PM, Jeßus wrote:

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

There's nothing stranger than folk.

I know Trevor rubs some people up the wrong way with his climate change
argument, and I think he's a little left field myself, but I don't mind
the bloke and genuinely enjoy my time arguing with him. However, one
thing about him that I really don't get is his apparent belief that
scientists are completely immune from any kind of human failings and I
think it's pretty bizarre. I know he's mentioned before that his partner
has a scientific background and that probably plays a significant part,
but I mean, shit, people are people and even the most eminent people in
their fields can be more than a little odd as you've experienced yourself.

I can recall similar incidents myself over the years, and one that
springs to mind was when I was a service manager at a car dealership
some time ago. It was in an up-market part of town and had a few clients
who were pretty well known, and one in particular I'll never forget.

He was a psychiatrist, and one of Melbourne's most eminent shrinks, but
he had this "my shit's chocolate ice-cream" air about him and looked
down his nose at everyone else. I'll never forget when I met him when he
first brought his car in for a service, as he introduced himself as
"Professor X", he *insisted* that he be called professor and whipped
open his attaché case to produce a 17 page fucking *resume* that
detailed all of his scholastic and professional achievements going back
almost 40 years

A business card? sure. The handle of "professor"? Okay, you're
important. But a fucking resume to book your car in for a service?
*Jesus*... Talk about relevance deprivation

As bizarre as that sounds (and it really was. I still have the resume as
a memento of a truly unique experience) such strange behaviour isn't
limited to white collar professionals.

Years ago I did an apprenticeship with Repco at one of their larger
machine shops. This was back in the early 80's when Repco was a
Respected company that had machine shops that were staffed by
experienced tradesmen who'd been in the job for decades.

This particular shop was in Footscray, and it was one of three large
shops (Coburg & Dandenong being the other two) in Victoria that was
totally self sufficient. BY that I mean it was equipped with the
necessary machinery & staff to do anything from rebuilding small
stationary engines to grinding the valves on the Able Tasman (which we
did amongst other strange & wonderful things, but that's another story).

Anyway, a situation that always existed in this particular shop was that
there were always more machines than permanent staff capable of
operating them, and the reason for that was that at any given time not
every piece of machinery needed to be in operation. We had guys who
stuck to permanent roles like reconditioning cylinder heads, grinding
cranks or assembling engines, but then there'd be a few others who had
multi roles like pin fitting & boring & honing, and when they weren't
doing those jobs they'd be on the line bore machine or any odd general
engineering tasks.

Another policy that management had in place was that they always wanted
at least two guys who were capable of operating every machine in the
place, as it got them out of trouble if there was someone off sick or on
leave. I was one of those along with another guy, but he left the
company after a while to start his own business and they needed a second.

So they offered the role to this young bloke who was not long out of his
time, and to make it somewhat appealing they "promoted" him to a
position of leading hand.

He was a very meticulous and diligent worker who normally was very
courteous and friendly, and to everyone else in the shop this promoting
simply meant nothing other than "If Jack's off on leave next week you're
driving the boring bar until he gets back". But this kid took it to mean
he was now wearing a Sheriff's badge, and his attitude went from the
sublime to the totally fucking ridiculous.

Within the space of a few days he went from being someone who was
genuinely interested in his work and just got on with the job to being
interested in nothing other than strutting around telling people (who
really didn't need to be told) what to do and how to do it. Virtually
overnight he suddenly thought he knew more about the job than everyone
else in the shop combined, and that everyone else in the place was a
fucking idiot and only he knew how to run the shop properly.

Of course this kind of shit wasn't going to fly for long, and by the end
of the second week everyone in the place had had a gutful. He was
dragged over the coals and told to pull his head in, and reminded of the
fact that while he was good at his job he was still fresh out of his
time and had absolutely no business telling blokes who were doing it
while he was still a glint in his old man's eye how they should do theirs.

But sadly it fell on deaf ears. He got so caught up in his own
importance he told management that they didn't have a clue and was
eventually dismissed which was sad, as he was a good tradie when he
wanted to be and by that stage the job was already becoming a dying art
that saw fewer & fewer people willing to learn with each new year.

I guess that story probably wasn't worth the read, but it was just a
memory of how strange some people can be at times. I haven't seen the
guy in years, but the last I heard he was driving a courier van for a
living.

--
Regards,
Noddy.

 

[who where]

On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 13:13:02 +1100, terryc
<newsninespam-spam@woa.com.au> wrote:

who where wrote:

2. They (Verve in the case of W.A.) have estimated a minimum 8%
increase based on the *startup* tax rate. (And note that the tax will
increase yearly after its introduction.)

3. The S.A. government recently provided a figure of ~$2000 as the
average household annual electricity bill. (Mine here in Perth is
somewhat higher).

Was that all Carbon Tax, or did it include any infrastructure costs?

Infrastructure cost? It (2) is the straight cost of what the carbon
tax does to their balance sheet at $23/tonne.

(3) is the current (pre-CT) figure.

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 12/5/2011 2:49 PM, Noddy wrote:

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".

**How the fuck would you know? You have not read the IPCC reports. The
IPCC reports are the premier documents in this area. You cannot claim
that there are qualified comments on both sides, if you have not
bothered reading one of those sides.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[John_H]

terryc wrote:

John_H wrote:

In fact they're hopelessly inept compared to those before them,
whether it be pink bats, climate change, live cattle exports, the
Malaysian solution

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.

Sounds reasonable, and inconsequential to Labor's mishandling of it.
In spite of those who might think otherwise, the idea isn't to close
this country to genuine asylum seekers but to control how they come
here. In retrospect the Howard Government had it pretty right.

Labor changed the system solely for its own political purposes (they
thought there might've been a few votes in it) and ended up with a
complete stuff up, all down to their own ineptitude.

--
John H

 

[Trevor Wilson]

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.

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.

**Not that I've seen. We have a bunch of independent scientists
generating data. We also have a bunch of fossil fuel apolologists
carefully cherry picking the data to advance their case. Data is data.
It cannot be fudged. INTERPRETATION, or careful cherry picking can alter
the conclusions reached.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 12/5/2011 7:22 PM, Bernd Felsche wrote:

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.

**Sure. Happy to do so. The massive weight of scientific investigation
lies with AGW as being a reality. It is up to those who don't accept
that massive weight of scientific opinion to produce some data that
contradicts ALL the above organisations. Could they ALL be wrong? Sure.
Is it likely that they're ALL wrong and Alan Jones, George Pell and
Monckton are right? Nup. Not likely at all.

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.

**Sure. The data generated was not perfect, but the theory has been
validated (experimentally) many times since.

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

Mounting evidence?

**Yes. Mounting evidence.

Steaming piles of manure.

**Cite your science that proves them all wrong.

Pure Gedankenexperiments and soothsaying akin to reading the
entrails of chickens.

**That would be a lie, rooted in igorance.

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

**Cite.

CO2 levels have risen steadily for more than a decade ... but no
global temperature increase.

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

Even a slight cooling.

**Another lie.



Pronounced

cooling is you look at the temperature of the oceans; the climate
system's most-significant store of heat.

**Indeed.

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20090916_globalstats.html

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/

**After you've read the IPCC AR4, provide us with a page-by-page
refutation of the data.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 12/6/2011 10:00 AM, kreed wrote:

On Dec 6, 6:32 am, Trevor Wilson<tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au
wrote:
On 12/5/2011 2:49 PM, Noddy wrote:







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".

**How the fuck would you know? You have not read the IPCC reports. The
IPCC reports are the premier documents in this area. You cannot claim
that there are qualified comments on both sides, if you have not
bothered reading one of those sides.

--
Trevor Wilsonwww.rageaudio.com.au


The IPCC reports are not relevant.

**The IPCC reports represent the best, most comprehensive science on
AGW. Moreover, ANYONE who claims to be impartial, or who claims that AGW
is not a valid theory, should read those reports.


Its paid, corrupted, agenda based

"science".

**Prove it. Cite your hard evidence to support your claim.


The IPCC has little credibility and it won't be accepted

in a rational discussion..

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

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

Kind of like asking a used car salesman or a politician (hmmm... bad
example as I know Trev worships labor pollies and big banks)

**I accept your admission that you are a liar.

Kind of like asking Hitler for advice on advancing the rights of
Jewish people, and having blind faith and belief in all he says ?

**Science is science. If you don't read, nor try to understand the
science, then you can't critcise it.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[terryc]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

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.

Educate yourself; scientific bodies thought it was woderful. It took
decades until the nmbers indicated otherwise and another few for them to
understand the mechanism. Same with cell phone?

Same with using anti-biotic in livestock. Forty years ago if you
suggested using anti-biotic in livestock was not a wise thing to do as
it would br super bugs, you were laughed at by all(?)/greater majority
of scientific bodies. One of our major threats is a virus from pigs and
chickens. Go figure.

I am very wary of taking any widely held scientific belief as absolute.
Our science knowledge is simply the latest findings and evolvos. Some
area rapidly and other glacially.

Climate research is a new area and any modelling is at best a vague
approximation.

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.

**Not that I've seen.

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

We have a bunch of independent scientists generating data.

Independent? No, sadly very few people rock the boat on the official
line these days, even in academic institutions.


We also have a bunch of fossil fuel apolologists

carefully cherry picking the data to advance their case.

No argument.

Data is data.
Interpreation is the bone of contention

It cannot be fudged.

Data does not always indicate what it is thought to indicate.

INTERPRETATION, or careful cherry picking can alter
the conclusions reached.

Not unknown on both sides.

 

[terryc]

John_H wrote:

terryc wrote:
John_H wrote:

In fact they're hopelessly inept compared to those before them,
whether it be pink bats, climate change, live cattle exports, the
Malaysian solution
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.

Sounds reasonable, and inconsequential to Labor's mishandling of it.
In spite of those who might think otherwise, the idea isn't to close
this country to genuine asylum seekers but to control how they come
here. In retrospect the Howard Government had it pretty right.

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

Labor changed the system solely for its own political purposes (they
thought there might've been a few votes in it) and ended up with a
complete stuff up, all down to their own ineptitude.

Umm, where is the astuff up? (Almost) All of Howard's Pacific Island
solution ended up here in the end for a significant cost to us.
>

 

[John_H]

Noddy wrote:

On 5/12/2011 9:47 PM, John_H wrote:

He won't of course.

I don't expect he will, but I can live in hope.

Same goes for the mining tax and pokie
regulations. What his replacement will almost certainly do is amend
Julia's workplace legislation!

Lol

You might take it a little more seriously!

Abbott inherited the poisoned chalice by default, at the time when no
one anticipated Labor's imminent fall from grace, yet IIRC his
popularity rating has always been lower than Gillard's (or Rudd's).
He's completely lacking in vision and he's made a heap of commitments
he can't possibly honour in government.

All of which points to an early use by date. Whether he falls on his
sword, falls off his bike or gets abducted by aliens remains to be
seen. It's a fairly safe bet he won't go the same way as Rudd.

--
John H

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 12/6/2011 10:18 AM, terryc wrote:

Trevor Wilson wrote:
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.

Educate yourself; scientific bodies thought it was woderful.

**And again: Show us the evidence.

It took

decades until the nmbers indicated otherwise and another few for them to
understand the mechanism. Same with cell phone?

Same with using anti-biotic in livestock. Forty years ago if you
suggested using anti-biotic in livestock was not a wise thing to do as
it would br super bugs, you were laughed at by all(?)/greater majority
of scientific bodies. One of our major threats is a virus from pigs and
chickens. Go figure.

**Actually, over-use of antibiotics has been suggested by many people
for many years.

I am very wary of taking any widely held scientific belief as absolute.

**Fair enough. Have you actually read the IPCC AR4?

It's OK to question scientific theory. In fact, it is ESSENTIAL that we
do so. If, however, you haven't even bothered to acquaint yourself with
the best available information, then you're hardly in a position to
criticise.

Our science knowledge is simply the latest findings and evolvos. Some
area rapidly and other glacially.

**Indeed. The theory of AGW was first proposed more than 100 years ago.
It may be another 100 years before it has been proven. Trouble is this:
By the time absolute proof is available, it may be too late to do
anything about it.

Climate research is a new area and any modelling is at best a vague
approximation.

**The would seem to be an over-simplification, though climate modelling
is certainly in it's infancy.

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.

**Not that I've seen.

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

**Utter and complete bollocks. This is an oft-cited lie. If you'd care
to do some research, you'd understand that the scientific journals at
the time were issuing warnings about global warming, whilst the popular
press was bleating about ice ages. The popular press rarely concerns
itself with science.

We have a bunch of independent scientists generating data.

Independent?

**Yes. Independent.


No, sadly very few people rock the boat on the official

line these days, even in academic institutions.

**Another, oft-cited, lie. Think back a few years. We had, here in
Australia, John Howard and Tony Abbott running a government that clearly
and unequivocally claimed that A) The planet was not warming and B) Man
was not responsible anyway. Exactly the same thing was stated by George
W Bush. Ad nauseum. Yet here in Australia, CSIRO, BoM and the National
Academy of Science was issuing clear warnings that AGW was a real
problem. This, despite the fact that the guys who paid their wages (John
Howard) claimed the scientists knew nothing. In the US, NASA, the EPA,
The National Academy of Science were issuing warnings to the US (climate
change-denying) government that AGW was a problem.

So much for your claim that scientists are not prepared to bite the hand.

We also have a bunch of fossil fuel apolologists
carefully cherry picking the data to advance their case.

No argument.

**You SHOULD be very concerned. Cherry-picking data is not a good thing.
Yet deniers constantyly do just that. They use 1998 as a baseline for
temperature measurements.

Data is data.
Interpreation is the bone of contention

It cannot be fudged.

Data does not always indicate what it is thought to indicate.

**Such as.

INTERPRETATION, or careful cherry picking can alter
the conclusions reached.

Not unknown on both sides.

**Cite where the IPCC has cherry-picked data.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[kreed]

On Dec 6, 6:32 am, Trevor Wilson <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au>
wrote:

On 12/5/2011 2:49 PM, Noddy wrote:







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".

**How the fuck would you know? You have not read the IPCC reports. The
IPCC reports are the premier documents in this area. You cannot claim
that there are qualified comments on both sides, if you have not
bothered reading one of those sides.

--
Trevor Wilsonwww.rageaudio.com.au

The IPCC reports are not relevant. Its paid, corrupted, agenda based
"science". The IPCC has little credibility and it won't be accepted
in a rational discussion.


Kind of like asking a used car salesman or a politician (hmmm... bad
example as I know Trev worships labor pollies and big banks)


Kind of like asking Hitler for advice on advancing the rights of
Jewish people, and having blind faith and belief in all he says ?

 

[bugalugs]

On 5/12/2011 1:56 a.m., Noddy wrote:

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

**What "scam" would that be?

The Global Warming one.

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.

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

**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.

This is copied from another newsgroup and shows the lengths that those
in the global warming religion will go to discredit those whom oppose them.


(Chris de Freitas is an Associate Professor in the School of Environment
at the University of Auckland in New Zealand.)

How climate scientists attempted to get rid of a sceptic.

Climategate-2 email #3052 (of maybe 250,000!)

[email addresses deleted]

cc: n.nicholls.au, Peter.Whetton.au, Roger.Francey.au,
David.Etheridge.au, Ian.Smith.au, Simon.Torok.au, Willem.Bouma.au,
j.salinger.com, pachauri@.in, Greg.Ayers.au, Rick.Bailey.au,
Graeme.Pearman.au, mmaccrac.net, tcrowley.edu, rbradley@.edu
date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 11:21:50 +1200
from: j.salinger.nz
subject: Another course of Action – Recent climate sceptic research
and the
to: Barrie.Pittock.au, m.hulme.uk, Barrie.Pittock.au, mann.edu, Phil
Jones, harvey.ca, wigley.edu, n.nicholls.au

Dear All

For information, De Freista has finally put all his arguments
together in a paper published in the Canadian Bulletin of Petroleum
Geology, 2002 (on holiday at the moment, and the reference is at
work!)

I have had thoughts also on a further course of action. The present
Vice Chancellor of the University of Auckland, Professor John Hood
(comes from an engineering background) is very concerned that
Auckland should be seen as New Zealand’s premier research
university, and one with an excellent reputation internationally. He
is concerned to the extent that he is monitoring the performance of
ALL his senior staff, from Associate Professor upwards, including
interviews with them. My suggestion is that a band of you review
editors write directly to Professor Hood with your concerns. In it
you should point out that you are all globally recognized top
climate scientist. It is best that such a letter come from outside
NZ and is signed by more than one person. His address is:

Professor John Hood
Vice Chancellor
University of Auckland
Private Bag 92019
Auckland, New Zealand

Let me know what you think! See suggested text below.

Regards

Jim

Some suggested text below:

***************

We write to you as the editorial board(review editors??) of the
leading international journal Climate Research for climate scientists
….
We are very concerned at the poor standards and personal biases
shown by a member of your staff. …..

When we originally appointed … to the editorial board we were
under the impression that they would carry out their duties in an
objective manner as is expected of scientists world wide. We
were also given to understand that this person has been honoured
with science communicator of the year award, several times by
your … organisation.

Instead we have discovered that this person has been using his
position to promote ‘fringe’ views of various groups with which
they are associated around the world. It perhaps would have been
less disturbing if the ‘science’ that was being passed through
the system was sound. However, a recent incident has alerted us
to the fact that poorly constructed and uncritical work has been
allowed to enter the pages of the journal. A recent example has
caused outrage amongst leading climate scientists around the
world and has resulted in the journal dismissing (??).. from the
editorial board.

We bring this to your attention since we consider it brings the
name of your university and New Zealand into some disrepute. We
leave it to your discretion what use you make of this
information.

The journal itself cannot be considered completely blameless in
this situation and we clearly need to tighten some of our
editorial processes; however, up until now we have relied on the
honour and professionalism of our editors. Sadly this incident
has damaged our faith in some of our fellow scientists.
Regrettably it will reflect on your institution as this person is
a relatively senior staff member

 

[Trevor Wilson]

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

On Dec 6, 8:24 am, Trevor Wilson<tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au
wrote:
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.




Bloody hell, for an "expert" on spotting good and bad "science" you
are a real riot Trev.

**OK. Then YOU tell us what all those organisations said about DDT. I
don't know. terryc doesn't know.

On the other hand, based on what we see these days, it is possible
that DDT ill effects
were pushed aside for financial gain - kind of like what "warmists" do
now for financial gain, or to protect financial gain..

**FIRST, you have to make the point about the above-mentioned
organisations and what they claimed about DDT. In the case of AGW, the
warnings have been made since the 19th century. Long before anyone had
any alleged financial gain in the matter.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au