OT GW

[F Murtz]

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.


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.

Actual data is data but incorrectly collected or arrived at data is not
and that is part of the problem.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 12/6/2011 12:21 PM, kreed wrote:

On Dec 6, 9:15 am, Trevor Wilson<tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au
wrote:
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.


True Trevor - it is the best "science" money can buy

**I see. And Exxon, along with the other guys don't have any money to
throw at this issue either Yeah, right. Your dreaming, if you imagine
that Exxon, Gina Rinehart, Western Fuels Association, OPEC and others
are on record as having funnelled millions of Dollars to those who will
stand up and deny the science. People like Monckton, for instance,
survive on the purse strings of Gina Rinehart. OTOH, you are claiming
that ALL the scientists working for all the organisations I cited have
been bought and paid for by whom? Don't forget: CSIRO, BoM, National
Academy of Sciences, here in Australia were paid by John Howard, yet
they opposed his view of AGW. Same deal with NASA, the US EPA, The US
National Academy of Sciences and others, were all paid by George W Bush.
A man who never hid his connections to the oil industry. A man who
claimed that AGW was bogus.

So, over to you: Explain how these organisations stated the case for
AGW, whilst being paid by governments who were run by deniers.

There is an alternate explanation:

They reported the science. Factually and truthfully.


, and science

"proving" AGW
paid for by the big banksters will give incredible returns in money
ripped off from the public
by this lie.

**Here's where I get to say: Prove it.

The only SCIENCE involved here, is one called MATHEMATICS.

**Wrong. Mathematics is used as part of the science.

Find scientists who can and will fabricate the theory you want, and
make it look real,

**And it will be exposed. Just as the deniers have been exposed. Many
times. They alter their claims regularly. Nonetheless, Exxon and the
others will keep thorwing money at corrupt scientists.


give them

everything, recognition, title, facilities and huge research budget,
put them in the media you control
as experts, as long as they are able to "find" and "prove" the result
you want.

**Sure. That is exactly what Exxon and the others do.

The business involved is crafting a total lie and scare campaign, to
scare people into handing
over money, and vote for corrupt politicians who will FORCE everyone
else to hand over their money
which you, as a bankster get the lions share of, and morons feel good
about "saving the environment" when there is really no way they could
save the environment, even if it was in trouble.

**"Even if it was in trouble"? Are you serious? Read the damned science.

Anyone who debunks this AGW garbage is not going to be allowed a voice
or funding for their
research as they cost the big guys trillions.

**The big guys are guys like Exxon. They have much to lose. They will
spend as much as is needed to pursuade the scientifically ignorant that
there is no problem. You've bought the lie, lock, stock and barrel. All
because you can't be bothered reading and understanding the science. I
find it tragic and appalling.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[kreed]

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.

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..

Much easier to do back then with no internet or other
public ways of mass info dissemination other than mainstream media.

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

 

[terryc]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

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.

Fine difference. they were talking about in humans and AFAIR, last two
decades has become common. General "overuse" in all species was poo-pooed.

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

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

No, and I don't intend to. I loath bureacratic reports. I just want the
raw data and basic explanation.

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.

Sadly, even the climatologists would have to agree that it is basically
a black box model. We know what happens on the ground layer and the
top/space layer, but the whole middle is mostly guess work.

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,

Actually they were doing both. Peruse the index of Scientific American.
the warming one came after, but was mostly based on localised data.

**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.

I see you need to listen to Yes minister again to understand how
government works.

 

[kreed]

On Dec 6, 9:15 am, Trevor Wilson <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au>
wrote:

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.

True Trevor - it is the best "science" money can buy , and science
"proving" AGW
paid for by the big banksters will give incredible returns in money
ripped off from the public
by this lie.

The only SCIENCE involved here, is one called MATHEMATICS.

Find scientists who can and will fabricate the theory you want, and
make it look real, give them
everything, recognition, title, facilities and huge research budget,
put them in the media you control
as experts, as long as they are able to "find" and "prove" the result
you want.

The business involved is crafting a total lie and scare campaign, to
scare people into handing
over money, and vote for corrupt politicians who will FORCE everyone
else to hand over their money
which you, as a bankster get the lions share of, and morons feel good
about "saving the environment" when there is really no way they could
save the environment, even if it was in trouble.

Anyone who debunks this AGW garbage is not going to be allowed a voice
or funding for their
research as they cost the big guys trillions.

--
Trevor Wilsonwww.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 12/6/2011 1:11 PM, terryc wrote:

Trevor Wilson wrote:
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.

Fine difference. they were talking about in humans and AFAIR, last two
decades has become common. General "overuse" in all species was poo-pooed.


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

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

No, and I don't intend to. I loath bureacratic reports. I just want the
raw data and basic explanation.

**It's all there. Read 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.

Sadly, even the climatologists would have to agree that it is basically
a black box model. We know what happens on the ground layer and the
top/space layer, but the whole middle is mostly guess work.

**You really should read AR4.

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,

Actually they were doing both.

**Wrong. It was the popular press claiming an ice age.

Peruse the index of Scientific American.

**I still have my issues of Sciam from the 1970s. No reference is made
to an impending ice age, but quite a few references to AGW are made.

the warming one came after, but was mostly based on localised data.


**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.

I see you need to listen to Yes minister again to understand how
government works.

**Read what I wrote again. You can't have it both ways. Either the
scientists are pandering to the government, or they're not.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[John_H]

terryc wrote:

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.

It was Labor (Hawke) who took us to the first war with Iran, and Labor
continue to support the war in Afghanistan (same as they supported the
one in Vietnam until it suited them to do otherwise). Are you
seriously suggesting that PM Beazley would've told the US to fuck off?

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.

Labor has stuffed up at every point, starting by abolishing the
Pacific solution and finishing up with a kick in the arse from the
High Court when they tried to replace it with something far worse,
with the East Timor stuff up in the interim.

Howard's policy kept the gate crashers to manageable numbers, it
wasn't intended to shut the door on legitimate asylum seekers and nor
did it.

--
John H

 

[terryc]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

On 12/6/2011 1:11 PM, terryc wrote:

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

Sadly, even the climatologists would have to agree that it is basically
a black box model. We know what happens on the ground layer and the
top/space layer, but the whole middle is mostly guess work.

**You really should read AR4.

Absolute waste of my time. They have no a clue on what is really
happening in the middle atmosphere. No amount of reading any beaucrat
produced paper is going to change that simple fact.

**Another, oft-cited, lie.

Faaarrrk, you're a cracked record like roddles. Same rubbish replies
with total distortions and with nothing of substance.

 

[atec77]

On 6/12/2011 2:14 PM, terryc wrote:

Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 12/6/2011 1:11 PM, terryc wrote:

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

Sadly, even the climatologists would have to agree that it is basically
a black box model. We know what happens on the ground layer and the
top/space layer, but the whole middle is mostly guess work.

**You really should read AR4.

Absolute waste of my time. They have no a clue on what is really
happening in the middle atmosphere. No amount of reading any beaucrat
produced paper is going to change that simple fact.


**Another, oft-cited, lie.

Faaarrrk, you're a cracked record like roddles. Same rubbish replies
with total distortions and with nothing of substance.
The reality is we all knew the model tweva aspires to was is and will

remain flawed due to data being made to fit the requirements
Now that climate-gate is openly being examined it's patently obvious
tweva is a fuckwitt , next time I get down Melbourne and time permits I
intend explaining in person exactly why he is

--









X-No-Archive: Yes

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 12/6/2011 3:14 PM, terryc wrote:

Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 12/6/2011 1:11 PM, terryc wrote:

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

Sadly, even the climatologists would have to agree that it is basically
a black box model. We know what happens on the ground layer and the
top/space layer, but the whole middle is mostly guess work.

**You really should read AR4.

Absolute waste of my time.

**How would you know?


They have no a clue on what is really

happening in the middle atmosphere. No amount of reading any beaucrat
produced paper is going to change that simple fact.

**Since you have admitted that you have failed to read AR4, you cannot
condemn it. You are speaking from a position of ignorance.

**Another, oft-cited, lie.

Faaarrrk, you're a cracked record like roddles. Same rubbish replies
with total distortions and with nothing of substance.

**You lied. I called you on that lie. Simple. Stop lying and I won't
have to point out your lies.

Your snipping of the lies about Sciam is duly noted.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[terryc]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

On 12/6/2011 3:14 PM, terryc wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 12/6/2011 1:11 PM, terryc wrote:

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

Sadly, even the climatologists would have to agree that it is basically
a black box model. We know what happens on the ground layer and the
top/space layer, but the whole middle is mostly guess work.

**You really should read AR4.

Absolute waste of my time.

**How would you know?


They have no a clue on what is really
happening in the middle atmosphere. No amount of reading any beaucrat
produced paper is going to change that simple fact.

**Since you have admitted that you have failed to read AR4, you cannot
condemn it. You are speaking from a position of ignorance.



**Another, oft-cited, lie.

Faaarrrk, you're a cracked record like roddles. Same rubbish replies
with total distortions and with nothing of substance.

**You lied.

Nope, I stated what I knew from that time. I have no ias one way or the
other, but you have.

I called you on that lie.

Nope, you just call everything you do not like a lie.

Your snipping of the lies about Sciam is duly noted.

That was where I read it.
Read the one on global dimming?

 

[terryc]

atec77 wrote:

Now that climate-gate is openly being examined it's patently obvious
tweva is a fuckwitt , next time I get down Melbourne and time permits I
intend explaining in person exactly why he is

You would be around 870Kms too far away for that purpose.

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 12/6/2011 3:34 PM, terryc wrote:

Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 12/6/2011 3:14 PM, terryc wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 12/6/2011 1:11 PM, terryc wrote:

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

Sadly, even the climatologists would have to agree that it is
basically
a black box model. We know what happens on the ground layer and the
top/space layer, but the whole middle is mostly guess work.

**You really should read AR4.

Absolute waste of my time.

**How would you know?


They have no a clue on what is really
happening in the middle atmosphere. No amount of reading any beaucrat
produced paper is going to change that simple fact.

**Since you have admitted that you have failed to read AR4, you cannot
condemn it. You are speaking from a position of ignorance.



**Another, oft-cited, lie.

Faaarrrk, you're a cracked record like roddles. Same rubbish replies
with total distortions and with nothing of substance.

**You lied.

Nope, I stated what I knew from that time.

**And, after I pointed out your error, you continued to claim that I was
wrong. At that point, your error became a lie. See the difference?
Repeating a lie once is an error. Continued repeating of a lie, is a lie
in itself.

I have no ias one way or the

other, but you have.

**I merely corrected your error, then I pointed out your lie.

I called you on that lie.

Nope, you just call everything you do not like a lie.

**Not so. A lie is a lie. You lied.

Your snipping of the lies about Sciam is duly noted.

That was where I read it.

**Cite.

Read the one on global dimming?

**Along with a bunch of other stuff, yes. Have you taken the time to
read AR4 yet? Or do you prefer to wallow in ignorance?

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 12/6/2011 3:45 PM, terryc wrote:

atec77 wrote:

Now that climate-gate is openly being examined it's patently obvious
tweva is a fuckwitt , next time I get down Melbourne and time permits
I intend explaining in person exactly why he is

You would be around 870Kms too far away for that purpose.

**I realise that you will now claim that I am calling atec77 an idiot,
because I he opposes everything I say, but you'd be wrong. atec77 is,
demonstrably, a complete idiot.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Noddy]

On 6/12/2011 9:57 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

**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.

I believe there have been a number of such counter claims, and from some
credible sources, yet there seems to be none that you will accept.

Could they ALL be wrong?

Of course they could. Are you saying it's impossible for a large number
of people to 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.

Why do you keep resorting to this infantile insulting of people who
don't share your views Trevor? It really does your case no favours....



--
Regards,
Noddy.

 

[terryc]

John_H wrote:

terryc wrote:
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.

It was Labor (Hawke) who took us to the first war with Iran,

Blink?
When have we had a war with Iran?
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Australian_contribution_to_the_2003_invasion_of_Iraq

and Labor
continue to support the war in Afghanistan (same as they supported the
one in Vietnam until it suited them to do otherwise).

Might be true lathough it is hard to stop everything one day, especially
when your partners know the game is up.

Are you seriously suggesting that PM Beazley
would've told the US to fuck off?
First it was Hawke, now Beazley......

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.

Labor has stuffed up at every point, starting by abolishing the
Pacific solution

The PacSoln which was really about keeping a corrupt government in power?

and finishing up with a kick in the arse from the
High Court when they tried to replace it with something far worse,
with the East Timor stuff up in the interim.

Labor or Kevin "Look at MEEEEE" Rudd?

Howard's policy kept the gate crashers to manageable numbers,

No such thing. The numbers were a result of progress in the war. since
the war in afghanistan has been lost(no surprise there), there will be
plenty more wanting to get out in the future, coupled with the mass
exodus of Tamils from the hell of earth created for them in SriLanka.

 

[Noddy]

On 6/12/2011 7:32 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

**How the fuck would you know? You have not read the IPCC reports.

That's right, I haven't. Nor do I want to, or *need* to.

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.

What a load of cods






--
Regards,
Noddy.

 

[Noddy]

On 6/12/2011 10:15 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

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

The "climategate" affair certainly casts a heavy shadow over the
operations of the IPCC, as well as other criticisms.

**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.

Given that you cannot possibly know what goes on in the minds of anyone
else *but* yourself, such comments make you look terribly "emotional".

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

Crap.

Correct me if I'm wrong Trev, but the "science", such as it is, consists
of little than the correlation of data, and some *theories* as to what
causes them to be.

That might be science to you, but to me it's just guessing and it will
remain so until it can be conclusively proved.

--
Regards,
Noddy.

 

[Noddy]

On 6/12/2011 10:30 AM, John_H wrote:

You might take it a little more seriously!

This is Australian politics we're talking about

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.

Indeed, although I'd add that little Kevvy probably still has some life
left in him yet.


--
Regards,
Noddy.

 

[Noddy]

On 6/12/2011 3:54 PM, terryc wrote:

No such thing. The numbers were a result of progress in the war. since
the war in afghanistan has been lost(no surprise there), there will be
plenty more wanting to get out in the future, coupled with the mass
exodus of Tamils from the hell of earth created for them in SriLanka.

Bullshit.

The "war" is largely irrelevant as far as this issue is concerned. What
*has* caused a massive increase in numbers over the last couple of years
is the widely known knowledge that processing takes place on shore
rather than off, and as long as that situation exists people will flood
our shores comfortable in the knowledge that getting a foot on
Australian soil is the first step to a new life.

Don't believe that? Then go back to Howard's plan and watch the numbers
drop to nothing virtualy overnight.

--
Regards,
Noddy.