OT GW

On 12/7/2011 8:48 AM, Jeßus wrote:
On Mon, 5 Dec 2011 20:26:41 +1100, "Lindsay"
ask.me.for.it@hornet.net.ay.you> wrote:


"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....

Indeed. I have no problem with his having views on *whatever*, but the
way he debates them is another matter.
**Fair enough. I take it yhou have no issue with these comments (from
other 'debaters' in this thread)?

--
kreed wrote:

Thats because its not. It's mostly fabricated crap in order to get the
result they are paid
to get and it is laugable. The peers that review this garbage are
just as corrupt as the authors.
--
Kreed wrote:
When you look at the staggering amounts of money and power at stake
here, buying off
these organisations (note most are gov funded) would cost lunch money
by comparison

There is one rule that always applies, -- IT IS ALWAYS ABOUT THE
MONEY / POWER. This is how
it always has been.


When you look at how things work in real life, and not in TV land or
Government land, this is the only answer.
--
atec77 wrote:
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
--
atec77 wrote:
just shows how little tweva matters , sydney then as I hear his silly
little shop is hidden in some backwater at the wrong side of town for me
so the visiting might be to much trouble , either way the bloke is still
a fuckwitt
--
kreed wrote:
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.
--
Bernd Felsche wrote:
Mounting evidence? Steaming piles of manure.
Pure Gedankenexperiments and soothsaying akin to reading the
entrails of chickens.
--
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.
--
kreed wrote:
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 ?
--
kreed wrote:
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.
--
kreed wrote:
If the ABC bought and paid for news and current affairs programs say
there is man made global warming, because its being told by a bimbo
news announcer with no qualifications, that means I should ignore it
too ! Thanks for clarifying that Twever.
--
'Lindsay' wrote:
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.
--
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.
--

That'll do. I'm bored now. There is more. MUCH more. Not only are these
comments littered with gratuitous insults, NONE are backed with cites or
anything resembling facts. How do you expect me to respond when faced
with such purile nonsense?

When presented with credible cites and some facts, I will always be
happy to respond in kind. When I am presented with gratiutous and
childish insults, I will expose the insulter for what they are. Think of
my posts as a mirror. Don't like what you see? Then act responsibly.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
 
Trevor Wilson wrote:

**Fair enough. I take it yhou have no issue with these comments (from
other 'debaters' in this thread)?
WOW, BING!, I've got it, Trev is schizo and his other half is john the
gun nut from Melbourne. Talk about two sides of a coin.
>
 
On 12/7/2011 9:50 AM, terryc wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:

**Fair enough. I take it yhou have no issue with these comments (from
other 'debaters' in this thread)?

WOW, BING!, I've got it, Trev is schizo and his other half is john the
gun nut from Melbourne. Talk about two sides of a coin.
**Clearly, I have failed to make myself clear. Read my post again. I
respond to others the way they speak to me. Place a logical, structured
argument on the record and I will respond accordingly. Respond with
insults and inanities and I will hold a mirror up.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
 
Noddy wrote:
On 6/12/2011 10:30 AM, John_H wrote:

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.
Probably, but don't expect a recycling! :)

--
John H
 
On 12/6/2011 9:12 PM, Noddy wrote:
On 6/12/2011 6:55 PM, kreed wrote:

I thought you were going to say "selling overpriced audiophile
equipment to the gullible", for a minute there :)

Lol :)

BTW it was said on another thread a few months back that Trev's missus
allegedly works at the CSIRO, probably pulling in a big and pay
packet, that comes out of our pocket as taxpayers, and one reason he
is so fanatical about supporting AGW is that she may possibly earn her
income there as a result of it
either directly or indirectly.

He didn't deny any of this that I saw.

He's mentioned before that his partner is a scientist,
**Correct.

but he gave no
indication as to what they did specifically.
**Correct, though I've expanded on that elsewhere.

If I remember correctly he
also commented that the pay was pretty lousy at under a hundred grand a
year, but he didn't say how far under a hundred large in particular.
**Also correct.

If they were getting 88 grand a year I don't think that's doing terribly
badly myself :)
**If she was earning 88 Grand a year, I reckon she'd be doing well too.
Sadly, she doesn't earn that much. In fact, she doesn't make as much as
my local plumber, builder, doctor, lawyer, electrician or almost anyone
in the WA mining industry. My last apprentice is picking up a nice 230
Grand a year working in WA. Let's not even get into how much money Gina
Rinehart makes, just though an accident of birth.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
 
Noddy wrote:
On 4/12/2011 8:40 PM, 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 or Craig Thomson. Being beholden to the Green
Slime hasn't helped. Theirs has to be one of the most spectacular
crashes in Australian political history.

I would have thought it'd be *the* most spectacular. Even Labor party
members are talking about the party being eradicated.
They're already irrelevant, all of their own own making. Rudd could
and should have gone to a double dissolution on the ETS. Whatever the
outcome, not only would Labor have maintained their credibility the
Green Slime would've been neutered to boot.

Given the same opportunity the next government will almost certainly
take it and Labor's own eradication will be complete. All of which
probably makes the rescinding of the carbon tax a very real possibly!

--
John H
 
On 12/7/2011 11:06 AM, kreed wrote:
On Dec 6, 11:52 am, Trevor Wilson<tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au
wrote:
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 Wilsonwww.rageaudio.com.au


Ummm, if you take a real look at all this, these guys are mostly
funding and supporting the "warmists"
**Cite where Exxon have done any such thing. In fact, Exxon have funded
groups like the Heartland Insititute for many years.

BP and others have funded green groups for years.
**Cite where I claimed BP did anything. BP have had a foot in the Solar
industry for a very long time. Like Exxon, I don't cite BP as a source
for anything connected with AGW. BP is not an independent source.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
 
On 12/7/2011 11:00 AM, kreed wrote:
On Dec 5, 12:07 pm, terryc<newsninespam-s...@woa.com.au> 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.



There are plenty of crap doctors out there. (Jayant Patel probably
being one of the worst)
I went through about 7 before finding one that was decent and can
attest to Trevor's experience -
this one good doctor due to being competent improved my health
enormously.

To blindly just run along to any doctor and claim that he/she is
automatically an expert because they have "DR" before
their name, is playing a very risky game.

Trevor is lucky that he found a good doctor - or at least one that for
whatever reason happened to notice
what was wrong, and at least had knowledge and experience in that
problem, to diagnose and cure it.
**No luck involved. I've had my fair share of incompetent, or uncaring
doctors. IME, that amounts to about 30% of them. That said, if my life
was in the balance, I'd rather be attended by a doctor than a plumber.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
 
On Dec 5, 12:07 pm, terryc <newsninespam-s...@woa.com.au> 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.


There are plenty of crap doctors out there. (Jayant Patel probably
being one of the worst)
I went through about 7 before finding one that was decent and can
attest to Trevor's experience -
this one good doctor due to being competent improved my health
enormously.

To blindly just run along to any doctor and claim that he/she is
automatically an expert because they have "DR" before
their name, is playing a very risky game.

Trevor is lucky that he found a good doctor - or at least one that for
whatever reason happened to notice
what was wrong, and at least had knowledge and experience in that
problem, to diagnose and cure it.



I could say the same for vets also, for those who have animals.
 
On Dec 6, 11:52 am, Trevor Wilson <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au>
wrote:
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 Wilsonwww.rageaudio.com.au

Ummm, if you take a real look at all this, these guys are mostly
funding and supporting the "warmists"
BP and others have funded green groups for years.
 
On Dec 5, 5:40 pm, Bernd Felsche <ber...@innovative.iinet.net.au>
wrote:
Trevor Wilson <tre...@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.
Thats right. Got it in one.


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
 
On Dec 7, 12:46 am, terryc <newsninespam-s...@woa.com.au> wrote:
Noddy wrote:
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.

You can not be serious. Oh wait, there is some great labor dead wood in
parliament, so ice bergs chance in hell might be right.

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

Now, he throws petulant hissy fits when he isn't the centre of
attention. hardly leadership material.
They don't really have anyone else they can use, and this current
"thing" is completely on the nose
and unelectable.
 
John_H wrote:
Noddy wrote:
On 4/12/2011 8:40 PM, 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 or Craig Thomson. Being beholden to the Green
Slime hasn't helped. Theirs has to be one of the most spectacular
crashes in Australian political history.
I would have thought it'd be *the* most spectacular. Even Labor party
members are talking about the party being eradicated.

They're already irrelevant, all of their own own making. Rudd could
and should have gone to a double dissolution on the ETS. Whatever the
outcome, not only would Labor have maintained their credibility the
Green Slime would've been neutered to boot.
Their demise started in the 80's when power factions started taking
power away from local party members and started annoiting their local
candidates.

The "Green Slime" has been growing for longer, very slowly. It does well
when large segments of the people are fed up with BOTH major parties.
Hint, slime is an essential biological phenomina(sp?).
Given the same opportunity the next government will almost certainly
take it and Labor's own eradication will be complete.
I sadly doubt it. <queue The International VBG
All of which probably makes the rescinding
of the carbon tax a very real possibly!
Hahahahaha, i'll believe that when I see it.
>
 
kreed wrote:

Ummm, if you take a real look at all this, these guys are mostly
funding and supporting the "warmists"
BP and others have funded green groups for years.
Yep.
Hint, if you don't know about Fuck'em strategy, check out the relevant
issue of Gruen Planet.
 
kreed wrote:
On Dec 7, 12:46 am, terryc <newsninespam-s...@woa.com.au> wrote:
Noddy wrote:

Indeed, although I'd add that little Kevvy probably still has some life
left in him yet.
You can not be serious. Oh wait, there is some great labor dead wood in
parliament, so ice bergs chance in hell might be right.

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

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



They don't really have anyone else they can use,
Yep, people are just about past ex trade union leaders and they can not
follow another woman with another woman (novel).


and this current "thing" is completely on the nose
and unelectable.
The alternative isn't, sadly.
 
On 12/7/2011 1:00 PM, kreed wrote:
On Dec 7, 8:35 am, Trevor Wilson<tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au
wrote:
On 12/7/2011 8:48 AM, Je us wrote:



On Mon, 5 Dec 2011 20:26:41 +1100, "Lindsay"
ask.me.for...@hornet.net.ay.you> wrote:

"Je us"<n...@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....

Indeed. I have no problem with his having views on *whatever*, but the
way he debates them is another matter.

**Fair enough. I take it yhou have no issue with these comments (from
other 'debaters' in this thread)?

--

kreed wrote:

Thats because its not. It's mostly fabricated crap in order to get the
result they are paid
to get and it is laugable. The peers that review this garbage are
just as corrupt as the authors.
--Kreed wrote:

When you look at the staggering amounts of money and power at stake
here, buying off
these organisations (note most are gov funded) would cost lunch money
by comparison

There is one rule that always applies, -- IT IS ALWAYS ABOUT THE
MONEY / POWER. This is how
it always has been.

When you look at how things work in real life, and not in TV land or
Government land, this is the only answer.
--atec77 wrote:

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
--atec77 wrote:

just shows how little tweva matters , sydney then as I hear his silly
little shop is hidden in some backwater at the wrong side of town for me
so the visiting might be to much trouble , either way the bloke is still
a fuckwitt
--kreed wrote:

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.
--Bernd Felsche wrote:

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

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 ?
--kreed wrote:

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.
--kreed wrote:

If the ABC bought and paid for news and current affairs programs say
there is man made global warming, because its being told by a bimbo
news announcer with no qualifications, that means I should ignore it
too ! Thanks for clarifying that Twever.
--'Lindsay' wrote:

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.
--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.
--

That'll do. I'm bored now. There is more. MUCH more. Not only are these
comments littered with gratuitous insults, NONE are backed with cites or
anything resembling facts. How do you expect me to respond when faced
with such purile nonsense?

When presented with credible cites and some facts, I will always be
happy to respond in kind. When I am presented with gratiutous and
childish insults, I will expose the insulter for what they are. Think of
my posts as a mirror. Don't like what you see? Then act responsibly.



The problem is that you have not presented any credible evidence.
**Incorrect. Here it is once more:

http://www.ipcc.ch/

Read it and submit your page-by-page refutation. You can waffle on as
much as you like about all sorts of bogus crap, but, until you've
actually read the report, you'll be whilsting Dixie.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
 
Trevor Wilson wrote:
* The IPCC AR4 report runs to more than 1600 pages. AR5 may be even
larger.
Brings to mind that if you can not dazzle them with brilliance, then
baffle them with bullshit.

Climate science is complex stuff. Very complex stuff.
Still no excuse for troweling it on. Hint,if the climate science is
accepted, then you don't have to explain it.
 
On 12/7/2011 1:09 PM, terryc wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:

* The IPCC AR4 report runs to more than 1600 pages. AR5 may be even
larger.

Brings to mind that if you can not dazzle them with brilliance, then
baffle them with bullshit.

Climate science is complex stuff. Very complex stuff.

Still no excuse for troweling it on. Hint,if the climate science is
accepted, then you don't have to explain it.
**Agreed. Good thing it is accepted by all the climatologists. Alan
Jones, George Pell and Monckton are holding the line against the science.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
 
On Dec 7, 12:37 am, terryc <newsninespam-s...@woa.com.au> wrote:
Noddy wrote:
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....

He has no case. Just a mindless reciting of rote.

He reminds me of something Ah - I remember now :


"Polly want a cracker"

<Squawk!>

"Polly want a cracker"
 

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top