SA Greenies

[Xeno]

On 18/02/2017 10:55 AM, Petzl wrote:

On Sat, 18 Feb 2017 09:43:16 +1100, Trevor Wilson
trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

On 17/02/2017 9:20 PM, Ned Latham wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:

----snip----

So, what will you do? Kill a cat today? I send my neighbour's cats off
to the pound when I catch them.

Fuck me, that's a good idea!

**It is indeed. Possum cages work well. A can of tuna or salmon and the
cat is caught. The average cat in Australia is reputed to kill something
like 7 native animals per year. It's appalling. Cat owners are, in the
main, a disgusting sub-set of humanity. That said, not all are like
that. A mate's wife owned a cat, so my mate arranged for a large
indoor/outdoor area to be securely fenced with chicken wire, so the cat
could play and not interact with any native species. He is in the minority.


Microchipped desexed cats pose little problem towards birds, feral
cats yes.
The greatest bird threat in suburbia is rats.

Correction, it is domestic cats. Cats are, by their very nature,
hunters. All domestic cats need, at a minimum, to be desexed and *belled*.

Looks like cats will be extinct in Sydney shortly in any case.
http://sydney.edu.au/news-opinion/news/2017/02/08/cats-at-risk-from-deadly-virus-outbreak.html
https://is.gd/eyvE4O

--

Xeno

First they ignore you,
Then they ridicule you,
Then they fight you,
Then you win.

Mahatma Ghandi

 

[Xeno]

On 18/02/2017 10:33 AM, Petzl wrote:

On Sat, 18 Feb 2017 09:37:19 +1100, Trevor Wilson
trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

On 17/02/2017 5:12 PM, felix wrote:
On Friday, 17 Feb 2017 4:49 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 16/02/2017 5:55 PM, Petzl wrote:
On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 15:56:28 +1100, Trevor Wilson
trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

On 16/02/2017 3:17 PM, F Murtz wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 15/02/2017 11:36 PM, F Murtz wrote:
felix wrote:
On Wednesday, 15 Feb 2017 12:35 PM, F Murtz wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 14/02/2017 8:50 PM, F Murtz wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:

**Are you familiar with:

* Batteries.
* Solar/thermal.
* Geo-thermal.


Where is Australia Geo-thermal potential and how far from consumers

**Australia is geologically very stable and has easily accessible
geo-thermal capacity to supply power for the next several thousand
years. Distance from consumers is not a major issue, as HV DC power
transmission losses are less than 3% per 1,000km.





Renewable energy generation is definitely something to aim
for but I
was
pointing out where it is not working because it is not up to the
point
yet and needs not so green assistance till such time,which
SA has
not
allowed for.

**And again: The SA problems began when YOUR mates in the
Lieberal
Party
of SA sold off electricity assets to private industry. Do you
understand
and acknowledge that?


I will acknowledge that the power has been sold off everywhere
bit by
bit when I would rather it not

**And the guys you hate (the Greens) tried to stop it.

**And the guys you hate (the Greens) tried to stop it.

They got Labor to stop selling it then had the coal stations shut down

**Coal-fired power stations emit large amounts of CO2. CO2 is a major
contributor to global warming. Therefore, coal-fired power stations
must be shut down.

Global warming is it?

**The planet is warming rapidly, due to excessive CO2 emissions.
Therefore, we can refer to it as 'Global Warming'.

Fakenews
I see Turnbull is making fake Churchill Quotes
"Winston Churchill never said that politicians complaining about the
newspapers is like a sailor complaining about the sea."
Next he will be advocating windfarms (not known as a turncoat for
nothing)



I thought that mantra was abandoned in favour of
'Climate Change' after it was discovered that warming predictions were
not being met

**No. The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on CLIMATE CHANGE) was set up in
1988, in response to the observed change in the climate. It was
determined that the panel should investigate the following:

* What was changing
* BY how much
* What can be done to mitigate the effects
* What can be done in order for us to best survive the change.

As it happens, the IPCC determined that the planet was warming. Hence:
GLOBAL WARMING.

Do they actually name CO2 as the cause not the earths axis being
aligned to the sun?
https://www.ipcc.ch

Yes they do. In fact, global warming is being blamed for changing the
tilt of the earth's axis.

Read more here; http://tinyurl.com/jlam7c2

and here; http://tinyurl.com/zhxtqtw

More here; http://tinyurl.com/zef9gf6

Might I suggest you make a greater effort into *correctly* interpreting
what you read. It would save a lot of false information being spread about.


--

Xeno

First they ignore you,
Then they ridicule you,
Then they fight you,
Then you win.

Mahatma Ghandi

 

[Petzl]

On Sat, 18 Feb 2017 11:22:34 +1100, Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au>
wrote:

On 18/02/2017 10:33 AM, Petzl wrote:
On Sat, 18 Feb 2017 09:37:19 +1100, Trevor Wilson
trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

On 17/02/2017 5:12 PM, felix wrote:
On Friday, 17 Feb 2017 4:49 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 16/02/2017 5:55 PM, Petzl wrote:
On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 15:56:28 +1100, Trevor Wilson
trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

On 16/02/2017 3:17 PM, F Murtz wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 15/02/2017 11:36 PM, F Murtz wrote:
felix wrote:
On Wednesday, 15 Feb 2017 12:35 PM, F Murtz wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 14/02/2017 8:50 PM, F Murtz wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:

**Are you familiar with:

* Batteries.
* Solar/thermal.
* Geo-thermal.


Where is Australia Geo-thermal potential and how far from consumers

**Australia is geologically very stable and has easily accessible
geo-thermal capacity to supply power for the next several thousand
years. Distance from consumers is not a major issue, as HV DC power
transmission losses are less than 3% per 1,000km.





Renewable energy generation is definitely something to aim
for but I
was
pointing out where it is not working because it is not up to the
point
yet and needs not so green assistance till such time,which
SA has
not
allowed for.

**And again: The SA problems began when YOUR mates in the
Lieberal
Party
of SA sold off electricity assets to private industry. Do you
understand
and acknowledge that?


I will acknowledge that the power has been sold off everywhere
bit by
bit when I would rather it not

**And the guys you hate (the Greens) tried to stop it.

**And the guys you hate (the Greens) tried to stop it.

They got Labor to stop selling it then had the coal stations shut down

**Coal-fired power stations emit large amounts of CO2. CO2 is a major
contributor to global warming. Therefore, coal-fired power stations
must be shut down.

Global warming is it?

**The planet is warming rapidly, due to excessive CO2 emissions.
Therefore, we can refer to it as 'Global Warming'.

Fakenews
I see Turnbull is making fake Churchill Quotes
"Winston Churchill never said that politicians complaining about the
newspapers is like a sailor complaining about the sea."
Next he will be advocating windfarms (not known as a turncoat for
nothing)



I thought that mantra was abandoned in favour of
'Climate Change' after it was discovered that warming predictions were
not being met

**No. The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on CLIMATE CHANGE) was set up in
1988, in response to the observed change in the climate. It was
determined that the panel should investigate the following:

* What was changing
* BY how much
* What can be done to mitigate the effects
* What can be done in order for us to best survive the change.

As it happens, the IPCC determined that the planet was warming. Hence:
GLOBAL WARMING.

Do they actually name CO2 as the cause not the earths axis being
aligned to the sun?
https://www.ipcc.ch

Yes they do. In fact, global warming is being blamed for changing the
tilt of the earth's axis.

Read more here; http://tinyurl.com/jlam7c2

and here; http://tinyurl.com/zhxtqtw

More here; http://tinyurl.com/zef9gf6

Might I suggest you make a greater effort into *correctly* interpreting
what you read. It would save a lot of false information being spread about.

Now the truth is out there
Thanks for the links
Number 3 I like the best
<http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/global-warming-is-making-the-earth-tilt-on-its-axis-and-shrinking-india-is-pushing-the-north-pole-a6975611.html>
https://is.gd/uoIG2Z
--
Petzl
The Scots have raised their threat level from "Pissed Off" to "Let's get the Ba----rds." They don't have any other levels. This is the reason they have been used on the front line of the British army for the last 300 years.
John Cleese,
British writer, Atheist, actor and tall person

 

[Petzl]

On Sat, 18 Feb 2017 11:14:51 +1100, Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au>
wrote:

On 18/02/2017 10:55 AM, Petzl wrote:
On Sat, 18 Feb 2017 09:43:16 +1100, Trevor Wilson
trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

On 17/02/2017 9:20 PM, Ned Latham wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:

----snip----

So, what will you do? Kill a cat today? I send my neighbour's cats off
to the pound when I catch them.

Fuck me, that's a good idea!

**It is indeed. Possum cages work well. A can of tuna or salmon and the
cat is caught. The average cat in Australia is reputed to kill something
like 7 native animals per year. It's appalling. Cat owners are, in the
main, a disgusting sub-set of humanity. That said, not all are like
that. A mate's wife owned a cat, so my mate arranged for a large
indoor/outdoor area to be securely fenced with chicken wire, so the cat
could play and not interact with any native species. He is in the minority.


Microchipped desexed cats pose little problem towards birds, feral
cats yes.
The greatest bird threat in suburbia is rats.

Correction, it is domestic cats. Cats are, by their very nature,
hunters. All domestic cats need, at a minimum, to be desexed and *belled*.

Don't believe so the greatest is the Indian Myna bird 2nd to habitat
loss!
<http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/show-no-mercy-for-rats-of-the-sky/news-story/ec185744e2ead9b5fcb346b00dbee00a?nk=694ac89b84113f83a4fa481e853d52fc-1487380122>
https://is.gd/jmu4bk
They nest in roofs and gutters and push native species out of hollow
trees. They make huge nests from paper, dry grass, twigs and leaves.
Apart from the fire risk, the nests infest houses with bird lice,
which can make you sick.

Mynas eat the eggs and kill the young of native species. They attack
cats and magpies, kookaburras and currawongs - brown dive-bombers
screeching blue murder.

They are about the size of a mudlark but heavier, with a brown body
and dark head and neck, lairy yellow legs and beak and a flash of
white under the wings and tail.

You see them in the garden, on the footpath and playing chicken on the
road. They steal your pets' food and spatter dirty droppings on your
barbecue, your washing and your car.

Looks like cats will be extinct in Sydney shortly in any case.
http://sydney.edu.au/news-opinion/news/2017/02/08/cats-at-risk-from-deadly-virus-outbreak.html
https://is.gd/eyvE4O

--
Petzl
(Joel 2:3)
Fire devours before them,
and behind them a flame burns.
The land is like the garden of Eden before them,
but behind them a desolate wilderness,
and nothing escapes them.

 

[Petzl]

On Sat, 18 Feb 2017 12:13:38 +1100, Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote:

Microchipped desexed cats pose little problem towards birds, feral
cats yes.
The greatest bird threat in suburbia is rats.

Correction, it is domestic cats. Cats are, by their very nature,
hunters. All domestic cats need, at a minimum, to be desexed and *belled*.

Don't believe so

Forgot the Rat link
<http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2013/08/australian-cats-and-foxes-may-not-deserve-their-bad-rep>
https://is.gd/RoXaoU
Foxes and feral cats are wildly unpopular among Australian
conservationists. The two animals are infamous for killing off the
continent's native species, and they’ve been the targets of numerous
government-backed eradication campaigns.

But new research suggests that on Australian islands, these predators
help control an even more destructive one: the black rat. As a result,
eliminating cats and foxes could actually leave native mammals more
vulnerable to predation, competition, and ultimately extinction.
--
Petzl

Right now it's about the force of Sharia law verses our Australian
constitution.

It's not about our neighbors it's not about prayer, is not about
freedom of religion, it's about Sharia law verses our constitution.

We need to shift the narrative take the remote away and say we're not
going to watch that channel anymore

We're going to watch this channel, this is the Australian Constitution
channel right there and stand on that.

If we evaluate everything on that basis including upcoming elections
ask yourself who is more likely to stand up for the values of our Australian Constitution.

That's the basis you should use in evaluating not only
unconstitutional political parties, but every other part of our
society

We need to have a secular revival and go back to the Australian
constitution as in a matter of fact we need to have a spiritual
revival to upgrade our only integrity

 

[Petzl]

On Sat, 18 Feb 2017 16:35:10 +1100, Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au>
wrote:

On 18/02/2017 3:56 PM, Petzl wrote:
On Sat, 18 Feb 2017 15:45:09 +1100, Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au
wrote:

Do they actually name CO2 as the cause

**CO2 is not "the cause". The Sun is the cause. CO2 is an 'amplification
factor'. More CO2 and the effect of the radiation from the Sun is
amplified.

I don't think *amplification factor* is the correct phrase to use. CO2
is almost transparent to the radiation from the sun. So, regardless of
how much solar radiation the sun emits, the density of the CO2 will have
little effect. The problem is that CO2 is partially opaque to the
thermal radiation from the earth. It's a wavelength issue. That means
that the heat buildup from the sun's rays cannot reradiate back out into
space but is trapped within the earth's atmosphere and is reradiated
back to the earth's surface. The anthropogenic increase in atmospheric
CO2 is upsetting the natural balance.

We are upsetting Gaia!

http://tinyurl.com/ncxhr67

The earth is warming but it being caused by the Earths axis tilting
The North pole is heading for London!
Put this in Google translate
http://klimatsans.com/2017/02/05/klimatfragan-grundad-pa-vetenskap-eller-dogm/
gives
https://is.gd/NzPGOu

The question you need to ask;

What are the climate credentials of this man, Mats Kälvemark.

The reason I say this is that NASA has already done the research behind
the reasons for the *new* axis shift. I tend to believe NASA and not
Mats Kälvemark.

Years ago NASA knew the earth axis was tilting.
I came across it because of Satellite orbit concerns by scientists.
No mention (except by me) in media or Global Warming "experts"

Now it is out and these "experts" are agreeing but claiming the axis
is caused by
You guessed it Global Warming.

Mats Kälvemark I don't know but I know others (I have trust in) who
believe the article fact not fiction.

I have ALWAYS said Climate Change is fact and has happened a number of
times over earths many millennia.

I have never denied in Global warming just question if caused or
influenced by fossil fuels.

The question I would like answered if the North pole is heading to
London where is the South pole going?
--
Petzl
What perfect set of circumstances placed our Sun a Celestial ball of fire at just the correct distance from our little blue planet for life to evolve?
All simply conicidence? The very fact we exist is nothing but the result of a complex yet inevitable string of chemical accidents and biological mutations?
There is no Grand meaning; There is no purpose?

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 18/02/2017 3:36 PM, Petzl wrote:

On Sat, 18 Feb 2017 14:37:30 +1100, Trevor Wilson
trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

On 18/02/2017 10:33 AM, Petzl wrote:
On Sat, 18 Feb 2017 09:37:19 +1100, Trevor Wilson
trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

On 17/02/2017 5:12 PM, felix wrote:
On Friday, 17 Feb 2017 4:49 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 16/02/2017 5:55 PM, Petzl wrote:
On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 15:56:28 +1100, Trevor Wilson
trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

On 16/02/2017 3:17 PM, F Murtz wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 15/02/2017 11:36 PM, F Murtz wrote:
felix wrote:
On Wednesday, 15 Feb 2017 12:35 PM, F Murtz wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 14/02/2017 8:50 PM, F Murtz wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:

**Are you familiar with:

* Batteries.
* Solar/thermal.
* Geo-thermal.


Where is Australia Geo-thermal potential and how far from consumers

**Australia is geologically very stable and has easily accessible
geo-thermal capacity to supply power for the next several thousand
years. Distance from consumers is not a major issue, as HV DC power
transmission losses are less than 3% per 1,000km.





Renewable energy generation is definitely something to aim
for but I
was
pointing out where it is not working because it is not up to the
point
yet and needs not so green assistance till such time,which
SA has
not
allowed for.

**And again: The SA problems began when YOUR mates in the
Lieberal
Party
of SA sold off electricity assets to private industry. Do you
understand
and acknowledge that?


I will acknowledge that the power has been sold off everywhere
bit by
bit when I would rather it not

**And the guys you hate (the Greens) tried to stop it.

**And the guys you hate (the Greens) tried to stop it.

They got Labor to stop selling it then had the coal stations shut down

**Coal-fired power stations emit large amounts of CO2. CO2 is a major
contributor to global warming. Therefore, coal-fired power stations
must be shut down.

Global warming is it?

**The planet is warming rapidly, due to excessive CO2 emissions.
Therefore, we can refer to it as 'Global Warming'.

Fakenews

**No, it's science, you moron. Fakenews is what you see on Murdoch media.

Fairfax is fake also and the "science" is fake also

**AGW theory is fake? Do tell. In your explanation, cite YOUR
credentials that allow us to accept that YOU know more than every
climatologist on the planet.

I see Turnbull is making fake Churchill Quotes
"Winston Churchill never said that politicians complaining about the
newspapers is like a sailor complaining about the sea."
Next he will be advocating windfarms (not known as a turncoat for
nothing)



I thought that mantra was abandoned in favour of
'Climate Change' after it was discovered that warming predictions were
not being met

**No. The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on CLIMATE CHANGE) was set up in
1988, in response to the observed change in the climate. It was
determined that the panel should investigate the following:

* What was changing
* BY how much
* What can be done to mitigate the effects
* What can be done in order for us to best survive the change.

As it happens, the IPCC determined that the planet was warming. Hence:
GLOBAL WARMING.

Do they actually name CO2 as the cause

**CO2 is not "the cause". The Sun is the cause. CO2 is an 'amplification
factor'. More CO2 and the effect of the radiation from the Sun is
amplified.


Not CO2 causing anything?

**Read my explanation again. CO2 AMPLIFIES the effects of Solar
radiation. CO2 does not "cause" the warming. Why do I need to repeat my
explanation?

But the world temp is climbing due to it

axis tilting this has been recorded hapening in earths past, and is
happening now

**Bullshit. The temperature is rising due to excessive CO2 levels.

--
Earth's axis tilt varies periodically. If it leans much, when the
northern hemisphere is turned towards the sun, is where the summers
are always so warm that the snow melts. Axis direction in the universe
determines which hemisphere is tilted towards the sun when its rays
are strongest.

Earth Line shape varies from elliptical to nearly circular. In the
latter case, the difference between winter and summer less, making
glacial possible.

Climate change due to natural variations over time in the sun's
activity in the earth's orbit shape of the Earth's axis tilt and the
cosmic radiation intensity.


Man can not control the climate.

**Since humans have caused the present warming (though excess CO2
release), then humans can reverse that warming.


There will always be time varying due

to unavoidable, natural factors.

A scientific method of hypothesis testing must include the following:

Step 1: Observation and data collection.

Step 2: Objective interpretation of the collected data.

Step 3: Conclusions of the hypothesis is true or false.

Step 4: If false reject it and you start over from step 1 with a
modified hypothesis.

One known example of such a hypothesis test is how the true picture of
our solar system with the sun in the center emerged. Before Copernicus
and Gallilei considered the earth to be the center of our solar
system.

The issue of global warming waived those scientific principles.

**Nope. It obeyed every single one.

The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) is based clearly
stated in the official mission of the United Nations from a ready
answer, that global warming is caused by man (= AGW) by the greenhouse
effect of fossil carbon dioxide.

**Nope. Wrong. I suggest yous study the history and guiding principles
of the IPCC.

Let us examine their hypothesis - true or false!

To begin with is the level of emissions from fossil fuel combustion
before about 1930 negligible.

**BZZZT! Wrong. All following assumptions are, therefore, wrong.

If the data collection carried unconditionally clear, however, that
the Earth over the past 400 millennia undergone four cycles of ice
ages, incl. the latest, followed by global warm-ups at higher
temperatures than today. (Source Dr. F. Goldberg and others)

**Strawman.

After the last ice age, the Earth has undergone four global heating
periods. Wherefore Greenland Greenland right, because grapes grown on
a large scale in England during the Middle Ages, therefore the tree
line in the Swedish mountains higher than today, etc., etc. This is
well documented and fossil fuel has guaranteed not been able to
influence. The explanations are rather natural variations over time in
the sun's activity in the earth's orbit shape of the Earth's axis tilt
and the cosmic radiation intensity.

**Strawman and wrong.

The IPCC predicts in the media catastrophic global warming,
dramatically rising sea levels, increased frequency of heavy rains,
hurricanes, drought, poverty, pandemics and the extinction of polar
bears. Eagerly encouraged by the Swedish followers with politicians
and Johan Rockström tip.

**Some of those things have already occurred and others will still,
probably, occur.

All these threats have so far failed, and the polar bears are today
more than 100% more than in 1955. (Source PBSG)

**What was the population in 1900 and what is it today?

Warming (excl. El Nino) is 1 GRC 150 years. It is faster now than in
previous heating cycles. El Nino gave the maximum power in 2016, but
statistically speaking, 1998 was as hot for the same reason.

**And yet, the planet is STILL warming. Not cooling. Not remaining static.

Total emitted annually from the earth to the atmosphere about 800
gigatonnes (Gt) of carbon dioxide. The vast majority, about 770 Gt,
comes from the land and sea from fossil fuel combustion, approximately
29 Gt / year or 3.6% (Source: IPCC itself in its report AR 4) other
sources is thus 26 times greater!

**Irrelevant. Humans are adding more CO2 into the atmosphere than
natural processes are extracting it.

The concentration of carbon dioxide the atmosphere is 400 ppm (parts
per million), a result of the carbon dioxide emitted from all sources,
where fossil fuel thus accounts for only a small part.

**A small, BUT SIGNIFICANT part.

Water vapor is the strongest greenhouse gas concentration in the
atmosphere is ca. 20,000 PPM. Carbon dioxide concentration (from all
sources) in the atmosphere is 2% of water vapor. Carbon dioxide from
fossil fuels, then can not be anything other than a marginal cause of
global warming.

**Wrong. The Solar forcing action of CO2 ranges from 9% to 26%. These
are not insignificant figures.

The hypothesis that fossil carbon dioxide have significant impact on
global warming must therefore be rejected as false! Thanks to the
dominant greenhouse effect of water vapor, we have today a global
average temperature of +14 GRC. Otherwise, our planet was
uninhabitable with permanent ice age and -15 GRC.

**Just because Water vapour is the major GHG, does not mean that CO2 is
insignificant. Would you be prepared to take a 26% cut in your wages?
Think that is insignificant?

Measures to reduce emissions are often large, expensive and
tax-financed kind in the air. It reduces our resources to work with
real environmental problems. It removes enormous amounts of our tax
money from going to health care and school.

**So does under-taxing multi-national corporations, allowing the wealthy
to park their money offshore and allowing silly deductions for high flyers.

Man can not control the climate. There will always be time varying due
to unavoidable, natural factors.

**Since humans have already influenced the climate, your claim is
provably wrong.

Carbon dioxide is a gas that is essential to all life on earth,
including essential for plant photosynthesis.

**Strawman noted.

However, it is wise to be conservative with the fossil fuels because
they are finite resources and energy.

**Duh.



--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Xeno]

On 18/02/2017 3:56 PM, Petzl wrote:

On Sat, 18 Feb 2017 15:45:09 +1100, Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au
wrote:

Do they actually name CO2 as the cause

**CO2 is not "the cause". The Sun is the cause. CO2 is an 'amplification
factor'. More CO2 and the effect of the radiation from the Sun is
amplified.

I don't think *amplification factor* is the correct phrase to use. CO2
is almost transparent to the radiation from the sun. So, regardless of
how much solar radiation the sun emits, the density of the CO2 will have
little effect. The problem is that CO2 is partially opaque to the
thermal radiation from the earth. It's a wavelength issue. That means
that the heat buildup from the sun's rays cannot reradiate back out into
space but is trapped within the earth's atmosphere and is reradiated
back to the earth's surface. The anthropogenic increase in atmospheric
CO2 is upsetting the natural balance.

We are upsetting Gaia!

http://tinyurl.com/ncxhr67

The earth is warming but it being caused by the Earths axis tilting
The North pole is heading for London!
Put this in Google translate
http://klimatsans.com/2017/02/05/klimatfragan-grundad-pa-vetenskap-eller-dogm/
gives
https://is.gd/NzPGOu

The question you need to ask;

What are the climate credentials of this man, Mats Kälvemark.

The reason I say this is that NASA has already done the research behind
the reasons for the *new* axis shift. I tend to believe NASA and not
Mats Kälvemark.



--

Xeno

First they ignore you,
Then they ridicule you,
Then they fight you,
Then you win.

Mahatma Ghandi

 

[Petzl]

On Sat, 18 Feb 2017 15:45:09 +1100, Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au>
wrote:

Do they actually name CO2 as the cause

**CO2 is not "the cause". The Sun is the cause. CO2 is an 'amplification
factor'. More CO2 and the effect of the radiation from the Sun is
amplified.

I don't think *amplification factor* is the correct phrase to use. CO2
is almost transparent to the radiation from the sun. So, regardless of
how much solar radiation the sun emits, the density of the CO2 will have
little effect. The problem is that CO2 is partially opaque to the
thermal radiation from the earth. It's a wavelength issue. That means
that the heat buildup from the sun's rays cannot reradiate back out into
space but is trapped within the earth's atmosphere and is reradiated
back to the earth's surface. The anthropogenic increase in atmospheric
CO2 is upsetting the natural balance.

We are upsetting Gaia!

http://tinyurl.com/ncxhr67

The earth is warming but it being caused by the Earths axis tilting
The North pole is heading for London!
Put this in Google translate
http://klimatsans.com/2017/02/05/klimatfragan-grundad-pa-vetenskap-eller-dogm/
gives
https://is.gd/NzPGOu
Earth's axis tilt varies periodically. If it leans much, when the
northern hemisphere is turned towards the sun, is where the summers
are always so warm that the snow melts. Axis direction in the universe
determines which hemisphere is tilted towards the sun when its rays
are strongest.

Water vapor is the strongest greenhouse gas concentration in the
atmosphere is ca. 20,000 PPM. Carbon dioxide concentration (from all
sources) in the atmosphere is 2% of water vapor. Carbon dioxide from
fossil fuels, then can not be anything other than a marginal cause of
global warming.

The hypothesis that fossil carbon dioxide have significant impact on
global warming must therefore be rejected as false! Thanks to the
dominant greenhouse effect of water vapor, we have today a global
average temperature of +14 GRC. Otherwise, our planet was
uninhabitable with permanent ice age and -15 GRC.
--
Petzl
(Joel 2:3)
Fire devours before them,
and behind them a flame burns.
The land is like the garden of Eden before them,
but behind them a desolate wilderness,
and nothing escapes them.

 

[Petzl]

On Sat, 18 Feb 2017 14:37:30 +1100, Trevor Wilson
<trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

On 18/02/2017 10:33 AM, Petzl wrote:
On Sat, 18 Feb 2017 09:37:19 +1100, Trevor Wilson
trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

On 17/02/2017 5:12 PM, felix wrote:
On Friday, 17 Feb 2017 4:49 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 16/02/2017 5:55 PM, Petzl wrote:
On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 15:56:28 +1100, Trevor Wilson
trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

On 16/02/2017 3:17 PM, F Murtz wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 15/02/2017 11:36 PM, F Murtz wrote:
felix wrote:
On Wednesday, 15 Feb 2017 12:35 PM, F Murtz wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 14/02/2017 8:50 PM, F Murtz wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:

**Are you familiar with:

* Batteries.
* Solar/thermal.
* Geo-thermal.


Where is Australia Geo-thermal potential and how far from consumers

**Australia is geologically very stable and has easily accessible
geo-thermal capacity to supply power for the next several thousand
years. Distance from consumers is not a major issue, as HV DC power
transmission losses are less than 3% per 1,000km.





Renewable energy generation is definitely something to aim
for but I
was
pointing out where it is not working because it is not up to the
point
yet and needs not so green assistance till such time,which
SA has
not
allowed for.

**And again: The SA problems began when YOUR mates in the
Lieberal
Party
of SA sold off electricity assets to private industry. Do you
understand
and acknowledge that?


I will acknowledge that the power has been sold off everywhere
bit by
bit when I would rather it not

**And the guys you hate (the Greens) tried to stop it.

**And the guys you hate (the Greens) tried to stop it.

They got Labor to stop selling it then had the coal stations shut down

**Coal-fired power stations emit large amounts of CO2. CO2 is a major
contributor to global warming. Therefore, coal-fired power stations
must be shut down.

Global warming is it?

**The planet is warming rapidly, due to excessive CO2 emissions.
Therefore, we can refer to it as 'Global Warming'.

Fakenews

**No, it's science, you moron. Fakenews is what you see on Murdoch media.

Fairfax is fake also and the "science" is fake also

I see Turnbull is making fake Churchill Quotes
"Winston Churchill never said that politicians complaining about the
newspapers is like a sailor complaining about the sea."
Next he will be advocating windfarms (not known as a turncoat for
nothing)



I thought that mantra was abandoned in favour of
'Climate Change' after it was discovered that warming predictions were
not being met

**No. The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on CLIMATE CHANGE) was set up in
1988, in response to the observed change in the climate. It was
determined that the panel should investigate the following:

* What was changing
* BY how much
* What can be done to mitigate the effects
* What can be done in order for us to best survive the change.

As it happens, the IPCC determined that the planet was warming. Hence:
GLOBAL WARMING.

Do they actually name CO2 as the cause

**CO2 is not "the cause". The Sun is the cause. CO2 is an 'amplification
factor'. More CO2 and the effect of the radiation from the Sun is
amplified.

Not CO2 causing anything? But the world temp is climbing due to it
axis tilting this has been recorded hapening in earths past, and is
happening now
--
Earth's axis tilt varies periodically. If it leans much, when the
northern hemisphere is turned towards the sun, is where the summers
are always so warm that the snow melts. Axis direction in the universe
determines which hemisphere is tilted towards the sun when its rays
are strongest.

Earth Line shape varies from elliptical to nearly circular. In the
latter case, the difference between winter and summer less, making
glacial possible.

Climate change due to natural variations over time in the sun's
activity in the earth's orbit shape of the Earth's axis tilt and the
cosmic radiation intensity.


Man can not control the climate. There will always be time varying due
to unavoidable, natural factors.

A scientific method of hypothesis testing must include the following:

Step 1: Observation and data collection.

Step 2: Objective interpretation of the collected data.

Step 3: Conclusions of the hypothesis is true or false.

Step 4: If false reject it and you start over from step 1 with a
modified hypothesis.

One known example of such a hypothesis test is how the true picture of
our solar system with the sun in the center emerged. Before Copernicus
and Gallilei considered the earth to be the center of our solar
system.

The issue of global warming waived those scientific principles.

The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) is based clearly
stated in the official mission of the United Nations from a ready
answer, that global warming is caused by man (= AGW) by the greenhouse
effect of fossil carbon dioxide.

Let us examine their hypothesis - true or false!

To begin with is the level of emissions from fossil fuel combustion
before about 1930 negligible.

If the data collection carried unconditionally clear, however, that
the Earth over the past 400 millennia undergone four cycles of ice
ages, incl. the latest, followed by global warm-ups at higher
temperatures than today. (Source Dr. F. Goldberg and others)

After the last ice age, the Earth has undergone four global heating
periods. Wherefore Greenland Greenland right, because grapes grown on
a large scale in England during the Middle Ages, therefore the tree
line in the Swedish mountains higher than today, etc., etc. This is
well documented and fossil fuel has guaranteed not been able to
influence. The explanations are rather natural variations over time in
the sun's activity in the earth's orbit shape of the Earth's axis tilt
and the cosmic radiation intensity.

The IPCC predicts in the media catastrophic global warming,
dramatically rising sea levels, increased frequency of heavy rains,
hurricanes, drought, poverty, pandemics and the extinction of polar
bears. Eagerly encouraged by the Swedish followers with politicians
and Johan Rockström tip.

All these threats have so far failed, and the polar bears are today
more than 100% more than in 1955. (Source PBSG)

Warming (excl. El Nino) is 1 GRC 150 years. It is faster now than in
previous heating cycles. El Nino gave the maximum power in 2016, but
statistically speaking, 1998 was as hot for the same reason.

Total emitted annually from the earth to the atmosphere about 800
gigatonnes (Gt) of carbon dioxide. The vast majority, about 770 Gt,
comes from the land and sea from fossil fuel combustion, approximately
29 Gt / year or 3.6% (Source: IPCC itself in its report AR 4) other
sources is thus 26 times greater!

The concentration of carbon dioxide the atmosphere is 400 ppm (parts
per million), a result of the carbon dioxide emitted from all sources,
where fossil fuel thus accounts for only a small part.

Water vapor is the strongest greenhouse gas concentration in the
atmosphere is ca. 20,000 PPM. Carbon dioxide concentration (from all
sources) in the atmosphere is 2% of water vapor. Carbon dioxide from
fossil fuels, then can not be anything other than a marginal cause of
global warming.

The hypothesis that fossil carbon dioxide have significant impact on
global warming must therefore be rejected as false! Thanks to the
dominant greenhouse effect of water vapor, we have today a global
average temperature of +14 GRC. Otherwise, our planet was
uninhabitable with permanent ice age and -15 GRC.

Measures to reduce emissions are often large, expensive and
tax-financed kind in the air. It reduces our resources to work with
real environmental problems. It removes enormous amounts of our tax
money from going to health care and school.

Man can not control the climate. There will always be time varying due
to unavoidable, natural factors.

Carbon dioxide is a gas that is essential to all life on earth,
including essential for plant photosynthesis.

However, it is wise to be conservative with the fossil fuels because
they are finite resources and energy.

not the earths axis being
aligned to the sun?
https://www.ipcc.ch

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 18/02/2017 10:33 AM, Petzl wrote:

On Sat, 18 Feb 2017 09:37:19 +1100, Trevor Wilson
trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

On 17/02/2017 5:12 PM, felix wrote:
On Friday, 17 Feb 2017 4:49 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 16/02/2017 5:55 PM, Petzl wrote:
On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 15:56:28 +1100, Trevor Wilson
trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

On 16/02/2017 3:17 PM, F Murtz wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 15/02/2017 11:36 PM, F Murtz wrote:
felix wrote:
On Wednesday, 15 Feb 2017 12:35 PM, F Murtz wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 14/02/2017 8:50 PM, F Murtz wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:

**Are you familiar with:

* Batteries.
* Solar/thermal.
* Geo-thermal.


Where is Australia Geo-thermal potential and how far from consumers

**Australia is geologically very stable and has easily accessible
geo-thermal capacity to supply power for the next several thousand
years. Distance from consumers is not a major issue, as HV DC power
transmission losses are less than 3% per 1,000km.





Renewable energy generation is definitely something to aim
for but I
was
pointing out where it is not working because it is not up to the
point
yet and needs not so green assistance till such time,which
SA has
not
allowed for.

**And again: The SA problems began when YOUR mates in the
Lieberal
Party
of SA sold off electricity assets to private industry. Do you
understand
and acknowledge that?


I will acknowledge that the power has been sold off everywhere
bit by
bit when I would rather it not

**And the guys you hate (the Greens) tried to stop it.

**And the guys you hate (the Greens) tried to stop it.

They got Labor to stop selling it then had the coal stations shut down

**Coal-fired power stations emit large amounts of CO2. CO2 is a major
contributor to global warming. Therefore, coal-fired power stations
must be shut down.

Global warming is it?

**The planet is warming rapidly, due to excessive CO2 emissions.
Therefore, we can refer to it as 'Global Warming'.

Fakenews

**No, it's science, you moron. Fakenews is what you see on Murdoch media.

I see Turnbull is making fake Churchill Quotes
"Winston Churchill never said that politicians complaining about the
newspapers is like a sailor complaining about the sea."
Next he will be advocating windfarms (not known as a turncoat for
nothing)



I thought that mantra was abandoned in favour of
'Climate Change' after it was discovered that warming predictions were
not being met

**No. The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on CLIMATE CHANGE) was set up in
1988, in response to the observed change in the climate. It was
determined that the panel should investigate the following:

* What was changing
* BY how much
* What can be done to mitigate the effects
* What can be done in order for us to best survive the change.

As it happens, the IPCC determined that the planet was warming. Hence:
GLOBAL WARMING.

Do they actually name CO2 as the cause

**CO2 is not "the cause". The Sun is the cause. CO2 is an 'amplification
factor'. More CO2 and the effect of the radiation from the Sun is
amplified.


not the earths axis being

aligned to the sun?
https://www.ipcc.ch

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Xeno]

On 18/02/2017 2:37 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

On 18/02/2017 10:33 AM, Petzl wrote:
On Sat, 18 Feb 2017 09:37:19 +1100, Trevor Wilson
trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

On 17/02/2017 5:12 PM, felix wrote:
On Friday, 17 Feb 2017 4:49 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 16/02/2017 5:55 PM, Petzl wrote:
On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 15:56:28 +1100, Trevor Wilson
trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

On 16/02/2017 3:17 PM, F Murtz wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 15/02/2017 11:36 PM, F Murtz wrote:
felix wrote:
On Wednesday, 15 Feb 2017 12:35 PM, F Murtz wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 14/02/2017 8:50 PM, F Murtz wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:

**Are you familiar with:

* Batteries.
* Solar/thermal.
* Geo-thermal.


Where is Australia Geo-thermal potential and how far from consumers

**Australia is geologically very stable and has easily accessible
geo-thermal capacity to supply power for the next several thousand
years. Distance from consumers is not a major issue, as HV DC power
transmission losses are less than 3% per 1,000km.





Renewable energy generation is definitely something to aim
for but I
was
pointing out where it is not working because it is not up
to the
point
yet and needs not so green assistance till such time,which
SA has
not
allowed for.

**And again: The SA problems began when YOUR mates in the
Lieberal
Party
of SA sold off electricity assets to private industry. Do you
understand
and acknowledge that?


I will acknowledge that the power has been sold off everywhere
bit by
bit when I would rather it not

**And the guys you hate (the Greens) tried to stop it.

**And the guys you hate (the Greens) tried to stop it.

They got Labor to stop selling it then had the coal stations shut
down

**Coal-fired power stations emit large amounts of CO2. CO2 is a major
contributor to global warming. Therefore, coal-fired power stations
must be shut down.

Global warming is it?

**The planet is warming rapidly, due to excessive CO2 emissions.
Therefore, we can refer to it as 'Global Warming'.

Fakenews

**No, it's science, you moron. Fakenews is what you see on Murdoch media.


I see Turnbull is making fake Churchill Quotes
"Winston Churchill never said that politicians complaining about the
newspapers is like a sailor complaining about the sea."
Next he will be advocating windfarms (not known as a turncoat for
nothing)



I thought that mantra was abandoned in favour of
'Climate Change' after it was discovered that warming predictions were
not being met

**No. The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on CLIMATE CHANGE) was set up in
1988, in response to the observed change in the climate. It was
determined that the panel should investigate the following:

* What was changing
* BY how much
* What can be done to mitigate the effects
* What can be done in order for us to best survive the change.

As it happens, the IPCC determined that the planet was warming. Hence:
GLOBAL WARMING.

Do they actually name CO2 as the cause

**CO2 is not "the cause". The Sun is the cause. CO2 is an 'amplification
factor'. More CO2 and the effect of the radiation from the Sun is
amplified.

I don't think *amplification factor* is the correct phrase to use. CO2
is almost transparent to the radiation from the sun. So, regardless of
how much solar radiation the sun emits, the density of the CO2 will have
little effect. The problem is that CO2 is partially opaque to the
thermal radiation from the earth. It's a wavelength issue. That means
that the heat buildup from the sun's rays cannot reradiate back out into
space but is trapped within the earth's atmosphere and is reradiated
back to the earth's surface. The anthropogenic increase in atmospheric
CO2 is upsetting the natural balance.

We are upsetting Gaia!

http://tinyurl.com/ncxhr67

--

Xeno

First they ignore you,
Then they ridicule you,
Then they fight you,
Then you win.

Mahatma Ghandi

 

[Xeno]

On 18/02/2017 5:10 PM, Petzl wrote:

On Sat, 18 Feb 2017 16:35:10 +1100, Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au
wrote:

On 18/02/2017 3:56 PM, Petzl wrote:
On Sat, 18 Feb 2017 15:45:09 +1100, Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au
wrote:

Do they actually name CO2 as the cause

**CO2 is not "the cause". The Sun is the cause. CO2 is an 'amplification
factor'. More CO2 and the effect of the radiation from the Sun is
amplified.

I don't think *amplification factor* is the correct phrase to use. CO2
is almost transparent to the radiation from the sun. So, regardless of
how much solar radiation the sun emits, the density of the CO2 will have
little effect. The problem is that CO2 is partially opaque to the
thermal radiation from the earth. It's a wavelength issue. That means
that the heat buildup from the sun's rays cannot reradiate back out into
space but is trapped within the earth's atmosphere and is reradiated
back to the earth's surface. The anthropogenic increase in atmospheric
CO2 is upsetting the natural balance.

We are upsetting Gaia!

http://tinyurl.com/ncxhr67

The earth is warming but it being caused by the Earths axis tilting
The North pole is heading for London!
Put this in Google translate
http://klimatsans.com/2017/02/05/klimatfragan-grundad-pa-vetenskap-eller-dogm/
gives
https://is.gd/NzPGOu

The question you need to ask;

What are the climate credentials of this man, Mats Kälvemark.

The reason I say this is that NASA has already done the research behind
the reasons for the *new* axis shift. I tend to believe NASA and not
Mats Kälvemark.

Years ago NASA knew the earth axis was tilting.
I came across it because of Satellite orbit concerns by scientists.
No mention (except by me) in media or Global Warming "experts"

Now it is out and these "experts" are agreeing but claiming the axis
is caused by You guessed it Global Warming.

They are claiming it is caused by (1) melting ice sheets in places like
Greenland and (2) the drying of the Indian subcontinent thereby creating
an imbalance in the spinning top that is our earth. You can put whatever
spin you like on to the causes of those two but I will stick with AGW.

Mats Kälvemark I don't know but I know others (I have trust in) who
believe the article fact not fiction.

He authored an article you posted. He is a *commentator*, not a climate
authority.

I have ALWAYS said Climate Change is fact and has happened a number of
times over earths many millennia.

I agree with you. The earth has gone through *cycles*. The cycles have
both natural causes and unnatural causes. The natural cycles happened
over vast periods of time so life on earth was able to adapt.

The unnatural cycles - major volcanic eruption, a meteorite hit on
earth, any number of them - tend to be much more dramatic. Extinction of
the dinosaurs for example. Mankind wasn't there to record the trauma the
dinosaurs suffered in that extinction event.

What we are talking about now is AGW, another unnatural cycle that is
occurring extremely rapidly - way beyond the ability of most life on
earth to adapt. Certainly it will be beyond the capacity of mankind to
adapt.

After we have long gone, the earth will still go through cycles and, in
the absence of the parasite that is mankind, will no doubt again achieve
a Gaia balance.

Foolhardy indeed is the parasite that destroys its host without first
finding or moving to another.

I have never denied in Global warming just question if caused or
influenced by fossil fuels.

The various graphs showing the increasing concentrations in the
atmosphere correlate almost perfectly with our use of fossil fuels.

Might I suggest you watch this video clip; http://tinyurl.com/mrdyrc4
It will answer some of the points you have posited here in this thread.
Oh, and the speaker *is* a climate scientist. He does know what he is
talking about and, I might add, he and others predicted back in the 70's
and 80s what is happening now viz a viz climate change. What he speaks
of is nothing new, just everything going according to early predictions.

The question I would like answered if the North pole is heading to
London where is the South pole going?

Well, if the snowfalls they had in Tasmania over the Christmas period
recently are any indication, it's heading to Australia! ;-)

--

Xeno

First they ignore you,
Then they ridicule you,
Then they fight you,
Then you win.

Mahatma Ghandi

 

[felix]

On Friday, 17 Feb 2017 7:14 PM, Petzl wrote:

On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 17:31:46 +1100, felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote:

On Friday, 17 Feb 2017 4:21 PM, Petzl wrote:
On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 14:37:13 +1100, Fran Snortilus
nuts@loathsomeneedshelp.com> wrote:

On 17/02/2017 11:24 AM, Xeno wrote:
On 17/02/2017 10:04 AM, Petzl wrote:
If he is the one saying that it is possible to burn coal without
producing CO2, then I have to dismiss his credibility entirely.

Might I respectfully suggest that you learnt nothing from your high
school chemistry classes. Fret not for it seems you are not alone. You
can redress this significant lack by undergoing some remedial studies.
Start with the links I supplied.
Xeno, the person you're responding to will soon have you wondering how
he can walk and chew gum at the same time and you'll see frequent
responses from other posters asking how many goon bags he's consumed
today or....
Fran Snotilus
thinks by putting people down she looks smart
it doesn't work..
She makes more enemies than friends!

she killfiles everyone who disagrees with her

--
http://thereligionofpeace.com
http://www.barenakedislam.com/
http://www.siotw.org

 

[Petzl]

On Sat, 18 Feb 2017 20:40:46 +1100, Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au>
wrote:

On 18/02/2017 5:10 PM, Petzl wrote:
On Sat, 18 Feb 2017 16:35:10 +1100, Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au
wrote:

On 18/02/2017 3:56 PM, Petzl wrote:
On Sat, 18 Feb 2017 15:45:09 +1100, Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au
wrote:

Do they actually name CO2 as the cause

**CO2 is not "the cause". The Sun is the cause. CO2 is an 'amplification
factor'. More CO2 and the effect of the radiation from the Sun is
amplified.

I don't think *amplification factor* is the correct phrase to use. CO2
is almost transparent to the radiation from the sun. So, regardless of
how much solar radiation the sun emits, the density of the CO2 will have
little effect. The problem is that CO2 is partially opaque to the
thermal radiation from the earth. It's a wavelength issue. That means
that the heat buildup from the sun's rays cannot reradiate back out into
space but is trapped within the earth's atmosphere and is reradiated
back to the earth's surface. The anthropogenic increase in atmospheric
CO2 is upsetting the natural balance.

We are upsetting Gaia!

http://tinyurl.com/ncxhr67

The earth is warming but it being caused by the Earths axis tilting
The North pole is heading for London!
Put this in Google translate
http://klimatsans.com/2017/02/05/klimatfragan-grundad-pa-vetenskap-eller-dogm/
gives
https://is.gd/NzPGOu

The question you need to ask;

What are the climate credentials of this man, Mats Kälvemark.

The reason I say this is that NASA has already done the research behind
the reasons for the *new* axis shift. I tend to believe NASA and not
Mats Kälvemark.

Years ago NASA knew the earth axis was tilting.
I came across it because of Satellite orbit concerns by scientists.
No mention (except by me) in media or Global Warming "experts"

Now it is out and these "experts" are agreeing but claiming the axis
is caused by You guessed it Global Warming.

They are claiming it is caused by (1) melting ice sheets in places like
Greenland and (2) the drying of the Indian subcontinent thereby creating
an imbalance in the spinning top that is our earth. You can put whatever
spin you like on to the causes of those two but I will stick with AGW.

Mats Kälvemark I don't know but I know others (I have trust in) who
believe the article fact not fiction.

He authored an article you posted. He is a *commentator*, not a climate
authority.

I have ALWAYS said Climate Change is fact and has happened a number of
times over earths many millennia.

I agree with you. The earth has gone through *cycles*. The cycles have
both natural causes and unnatural causes. The natural cycles happened
over vast periods of time so life on earth was able to adapt.

The unnatural cycles - major volcanic eruption, a meteorite hit on
earth, any number of them - tend to be much more dramatic. Extinction of
the dinosaurs for example. Mankind wasn't there to record the trauma the
dinosaurs suffered in that extinction event.

What we are talking about now is AGW, another unnatural cycle that is
occurring extremely rapidly - way beyond the ability of most life on
earth to adapt. Certainly it will be beyond the capacity of mankind to
adapt.

After we have long gone, the earth will still go through cycles and, in
the absence of the parasite that is mankind, will no doubt again achieve
a Gaia balance.

Foolhardy indeed is the parasite that destroys its host without first
finding or moving to another.

I have never denied in Global warming just question if caused or
influenced by fossil fuels.

The various graphs showing the increasing concentrations in the
atmosphere correlate almost perfectly with our use of fossil fuels.

Might I suggest you watch this video clip; http://tinyurl.com/mrdyrc4
It will answer some of the points you have posited here in this thread.
Oh, and the speaker *is* a climate scientist. He does know what he is
talking about and, I might add, he and others predicted back in the 70's
and 80s what is happening now viz a viz climate change. What he speaks
of is nothing new, just everything going according to early predictions.

The question I would like answered if the North pole is heading to
London where is the South pole going?

Well, if the snowfalls they had in Tasmania over the Christmas period
recently are any indication, it's heading to Australia! ;-)

Except for CO2 being the cause and you may be right. You and I are in
agreement.
The other problem is there is nothing we can do about this in the time
frame that is available as the process is non-reversible.
--
Petzl
What perfect set of circumstances placed our Sun a Celestial ball of fire at just the correct distance from our little blue planet for life to evolve?
All simply conicidence? The very fact we exist is nothing but the result of a complex yet inevitable string of chemical accidents and biological mutations?
There is no Grand meaning; There is no purpose?

 

[felix]

On Friday, 17 Feb 2017 7:36 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

On 17/02/2017 5:04 PM, felix wrote:
On Thursday, 16 Feb 2017 11:52 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 16/02/2017 11:46 AM, felix wrote:
On Thursday, 16 Feb 2017 5:23 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 15/02/2017 12:35 PM, F Murtz wrote:







Renewable energy is good if it works, my problem is with it when it
is a
waste of time or does not work efficiently,Coal is fine as a stop
gap
till the bugs are worked out in renewables.

**What bugs would they be? Wind turbines work.

when the wind blows, and not cost effective

**Once erected, they deliver power at no cost for decades.

except for maintenance, breakdowns, servicing, etc., and killing birds

**That old chestnut. Far more birds are killed by emissions from coal
fired power stations than from wind turbines.

failed to address the maintenance issue I see

In any case, if you are REALLY so fucking concerned about birds (I bet
you're not), then you should be killing cats. Cats kill 10,000 times
more birds than wind turbines do.

So, what will you do? Kill a cat today? I send my neighbour's cats off
to the pound when I catch them.

what a prick you are! it's not illegal to own a cat. do you also run
elderly drivers off the road coz they're too slow?

If the cat is chipped, it only costs the neighbour $100.00 to get it
back. They only do it once or twice. Cat owners are quite easy to
train. Hit them in the wallet.

train them to do what?






--
http://thereligionofpeace.com
http://www.barenakedislam.com/
http://www.siotw.org

 

[felix]

On Saturday, 18 Feb 2017 9:43 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

On 17/02/2017 9:20 PM, Ned Latham wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:

----snip----

So, what will you do? Kill a cat today? I send my neighbour's cats off
to the pound when I catch them.

Fuck me, that's a good idea!

**It is indeed. Possum cages work well. A can of tuna or salmon and
the cat is caught. The average cat in Australia is reputed to kill
something like 7 native animals per year.

what native animals are there in suburbia?

> It's appalling.

you're appalling

> Cat owners are, in the main, a disgusting sub-set of humanity.

you're an idiot

That said, not all are like that. A mate's wife owned a cat, so my
mate arranged for a large indoor/outdoor area to be securely fenced
with chicken wire, so the cat could play and not interact with any
native species. He is in the minority.

so he should be..


--
http://thereligionofpeace.com
http://www.barenakedislam.com/
http://www.siotw.org

 

[felix]

On Friday, 17 Feb 2017 8:28 PM, Ned Latham wrote:

felix wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:
felix wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:
----snip----

What bugs would they be? Wind turbines work.
when the wind blows, and not cost effective
Once erected, they deliver power at no cost for decades.
except for maintenance, breakdowns, servicing, etc., and killing birds
I don't know this for a fact, but I read somewwhere (ages ago) that
those turbines are efficient because they're built using materials
that make for building the strongest magnets possible, and that
those materials are rare earths, which are energy intensive in
mining, refining, and manufacture; IOW, those turbines have a
very large carbon footprint.

----snip----

but if the Greens had their way Australia would be flat broke
in no time
and we'd be all sitting around with no jobs and smoking pot..
That sounds so bad that I think we should try it, just to be sure.

----snip----

Like Murtz, you are happy to criticise the Greens, without foundation
if they had had their way and blocked asset sales, the debt would be
triple what it is now, and our credit rating in the gutter
If the Laborals were to manage the economy responsibly, asset sales
would not be required for balancing the budget.

Asset sales have two very serious consequences: first, they immediately
and permanently reduce government revenue (and usually also immediately
and permanently increase government costs); second, they diminish our
national asset base; sooner or later there'll be nothing left to sell;
what then?

I know. it's not good, but it's all due to labor governments running up
massive debt. Howard took eleven years to pay of Keating's $96 billion
debt, and then Krudd and Gillard put us back in the poo again in next to
no time

Ned

--
http://thereligionofpeace.com
http://www.barenakedislam.com/
http://www.siotw.org

 

[Jasen Betts]

On 2017-02-18, felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote:

On Saturday, 18 Feb 2017 9:43 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

what native animals are there in suburbia?

Off the top of my head kookaburras, blue tongued lizards, snakes,
rosellas, cockatoos, seagulls, pelicans, possums, also huntsman,
cross, funnel-web, and redback spiders, and those are just the
ones that got in my way and I kind-of recognised.

--
This email has not been checked by half-arsed antivirus software

 

[Jasen Betts]

On 2017-02-17, Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 09:03:49 GMT, Ned Latham
nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> wrote:



But working oxyfuel coal fired power station in Germany USA and other
places have zero CO2 atmospheric emissions. When working as designed

(they pump what little they make underground called recapture as
liquid CO2)

You lieing liar, it makes Two to Three tons of CO2 for every ton of
coal how can that be "little".

--
This email has not been checked by half-arsed antivirus software