Toshiba TV29C90 problem; Image fades to black...

[kreed]

On Sep 27, 4:44 pm, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

kreed wrote:
On Sep 27, 2:03 pm, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 12:46:26 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

**Take some time to read AR4. THEN get back to me.

The reports are here:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_report...
I've only read the one on the physical science basis.

The 5th report is scheduled for release in stages from Sept 2013
thru Oct 2014. It's focus is a bit different than previous reports.
http://www.ipcc.ch/activities/activities.shtml
"...AR5 will put greater emphasis on assessing the socio-economic
aspects of climate change and implications for sustainable
development, risk management and the framing of a response
through both adaptation and mitigation."
In other words, it will tell the governments and politicians what to
do. I can't wait.

**No, it won't. It will, like a good scientific document, ADVISE on
appropriate course/s of action. They are not likely to be pleasant
and will be resisted by the Murdock media and the fossil fuel
industry. There is certainly no doubt that many nations will be
dragging their feet on the way to reduce CO2 emissions.

That is a very scientific observation.
We should all embrace Trevor's crackpot theories based on just this.

**I do not espouse "crackpot theories". I merely read and understand the
science. It is a great pity that you do not do likewise.



Will our society survive? I doubt it. It seems more likely that
action will be too little too late.

Our society will surive and thrive if we stop allowing ourselves to
constantly being made to live in fear for the purposes of controlling
us,  throw this AGW crap and those involved in it straight in the bin,
cut the big guys out of controlling everything (including both sides
of our government and media) stop them from creating artificial
shortages of resources in order to fleece us, and stop worrying about
lies and lead productive lives.

**I note your continued avoidance of dealing with my previous questions and
comments. I further note your dismissal of good, solid science, in
preference for a religious, stick-your-head-in-the-sand approach. You, Tony
Abbott, George Pell, Christopher Monckton and Alan Jones are a good match
for each other. None of you deals with the science.

That is an extremely contradictory statement. You avoid the fact that
you only quote paid off shills like the IPCC as factual, and as being
"solid science" and regard anyone who disagrees with these "paid for"
theories as being a religious nutter or being paid off by a particular
industry, whereas the AGW movement is both of these times 1000.

Sadly a lot of science is corporate or government funded these days.
These people are therefore owned, and both groups who own them want
the power and money that AGW potentially put in their hands. The power
to control resources that are vital such as coal and oil, ensure that
they have a monopoly to extract usury prices for them, and also to
ensure that only their own companies and sponsors have access to them
cheaply in order to eliminate competition. (IE: GE has an exemption in
Texas, and will be allowed to burn all the coal it wants, but its
competitors won't, causing a monopoly to exist) This is litereally
worth trillions and comes with a bonus of a high level of control of
billions of humans. With this at stake, no one is going to let the
facts get in the way of what is probably the biggest prize in human
history. - but fortunately for us (except you) this is what has
happened.


We are not talking scientists here, we are talking "pay for required
results" people. Ones who probably could never get a job, or funding
if they didnt get on the bandwagon and get the results they were told
to get.

This is why your entire statement is so ridiculous to start with.
Polls show that the vast majority of Australians (and other countries
by the sound of it) have woken up to it, and it is about time too.

the "master race" and "eugenics" were "good solid science" in their
day too. If you were a "scientist" and didn't agree with this good
science agenda, you didnt have a career - therefore you didnt eat - or
you didn't have a life. Ditto if you were in the media, or other
industry that could report the truth, and blow these scams open.

Funny to look at the parallels now to this situation and the global
warming industry.

--
Trevor Wilsonwww.rageaudio.com.au

 

[kreed]

On Sep 27, 11:14 am, "Arfa Daily" <arfa.da...@ntlworld.com> wrote:

"Trevor Wilson" <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message

news:9e9o9qFmk9U1@mid.individual.net...



Arfa Daily wrote:
Well, I guess we're never going to agree on any aspect of this. You
seem predisposed to take the wrong way, a number of points that I
have repeatedly made, but ho-hum, it's been an interesting line of
chat, and at least it hasn't descended into a screaming match as is
so often the case in these discussions  

**Provided there is some respect on both sides and an attempt to undestand
the other POV, I see no reason why a screaming match is necessary. I no
longer waste my time with those who choose to insult, rather than present
a cogent argument. It's better for my health.

Your comments about prices of CFLs have me intrigued. I did some more
research. Here are some prices in the US:

http://www.homedepot.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Navigation?storeId...

Prices appear to be somewhat lower than Australia and dramatically lower
than in the UK. I suggest that you should be complaining about CFL prices
in the UK. Clearly, something is seriously awry.

I accept personal preferences for ICs are valid. I accept that personal
preferences against CFLs are also valid. I also accept the testing done by
Choice and others, that prove the efficiency aspects of CFLs are
significantly in advance of ICs. I accept, in the abscence of evidence to
the contrary, that CFLs have a manufacturing energy cost that is
approximately 6 times that of ICs.

Having said all that, there is one aspect of our discussion that I find
deeply troubling. You're a smart guy. Yet you appear to be willing to
reject the overwhelming bulk of good, solid science that has shown that
rising CO2 levels are causing the present warming we find ourselves
experiencing. You appear to be rejecting the science, in preference for
the hysterical ravings of those who have clear links to the fossil fuel
industry. OTH, the scientists who study and report on global warming, for
the most part, do not have links to the alternative energy business. They
do what a good scientist should do - report the science without regard to
political or business bias. Consider the NASA and EPA scientists who were
issuing very clear warnings to President Bush. Bush was a rabid global
warming denier. We had the same thing here in Australia. During the Howard
government years, Australia's premier scientific body (the CSIRO) was
issuing clear reports to the government that anthropogenic global warming
was going to cause serious problems for Australia and the rest of the
planet. Yet the Howard government was aligned with the Bush government, in
that denial of the science was the order of the day. In fact, the leftover
ministers of the Howard government are still denying the science, even
today. Most are religious loonies, so no one takes much ntice anymore.

Please do some reading on the topic. Unlike the present discussion on CFLs
(which is really a bit of a distraction), it is a very important issue.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

Hmmm. You see, this is where I get a bit pissed off. The terms like 'denier'
that get bandied about. This is a carefully chosen word to put those who
have an 'alternate' view, firmly into the same bracket as the holocaust
deniers. And the "You're a smart guy"  ....   but  ...  I can almost see the
head sadly shaking. If you think that I'm so smart, do you honestly believe
that I never do any reading on all this ? Do you think my position on all
this has come about as a result of me just wanting to take an alternate view
for the sake of it ? I don't know what the situation is in your half of the
world, but up here, the whole eco-bollox thing has become like an hysterical
religion. No one is allowed to have an alternate view without being screamed
down as a "denier". When I say that the case is by no means proven, except
in the media, it's reached the point now where the BBC don't basically carry
any news that might present an alternate view. If they do have anyone on a
programme that dares to suggest any alternate view, they make sure that
there are three loud-mouthed greenies in the studio, to shout the person
down. Plus the interviewer of course. It has got so that every news story is
twisted to include the phrases "global warming" and "carbon footprint" and
"CO2 emissions". I'm sick to bloody death of hearing it.

Whenever you hear any of these 'weasel words" as we call them, you

know that the speaker
or the forum is bought and has no credibility.

There are other weasel words too used here like "working families"
"tackle" "planet" (except when used in the proper context - such as
discussing a planet in legitimate science discussion), "nation
building" "empowerment" "clean" (as in clean energy, clean feed AKA
draconian internet censorship) etc.

Yes, these people get extremely angry and potentially violent when
their lies are exposed
to the world, and no one believes them anymore. Be very careful of
them.
Imagine all the money that has been spent cooking up the AGW scam,
the
"scientists" that had to be funded and coerced into coming
up with the right results, the media, government to all go along with
it, even in our case where our PM has bascially been totally destroyed
by supporting this scam.

It was all working perfectly the goal of ultimate power and control
was right there, ready to be grabbed, and thanks to the internet and
common sense, the whole thing got dissolved by bright light of the
truth.


The anger must be immense, and they are still walking around with the
emperors new clothes on - wanting to "arrest deniers", "Tattoo
deniers" (Australia), run adverts showing children being blown up in
class for not believing in AGW - which if you or I tried it - we would
be done for "making and possession of child abuse material" but of
course, no one gets charged or jailed for it because of selective
enforcement of laws, in what is rapidly becoming a lawless world.

Most of the initial momentum for this whole affair, came from computer
models. Computer models can't even guess your electricity bill correctly,
when they can't be bothered to read your meter, and that's with just a few
variables involved. A lot more of the fuel comes from the University of East
Anglia here in the UK, where the badly flawed 'hockey stick' graph came
from, that sought to show the rapid warming, that actually hadn't taken
place. The guy in charge of all this was suspended from his position, after
his emails were obtained, showing communications with his contemporaries,
inviting them to massage the data to fit the model. It was largely as a
result of this, that the last big convention up in Scandinavia fell apart,
as it was taking place when all this came out. What kind of science is that
? What kind of scientist is he ?

My big problem is that the greenies don't have an open mind about the
situation. As far as they are concerned, it is fully proven, done, dusted,
and anyone who doesn't follow blindly down the path, is a heretic. Well, I'm
sorry, but in my mind, as long as there is the slightest doubt, the case
isn't proven and closed, and a good scientist should keep his mind open.
Fortunately, there is a recent groundswell of alternate view from a number
of equally reputable scientists, who are finally having the balls to stand
up and be counted.

And as for people being in the pay of the fossil fuel industry, have you
stopped to consider the multi-billion dollar industry that is now the green
movement ? Do you think that for some reason, because they are greenies,
they are somehow nicer people than those in fossil fuel ? Not prepared to
have people in their pay to say what they need them to ? If the whole
man-made global warming argument were to collapse, it would spell the death
of the green industrial machine, with no less implications and impact that a
similar demise of the fossil fuel industry would have.

I quite understand that you feel strongly that the case for man-made global
warming is made with 100% certainty. That is your prerogative. But please
understand that I, and many others also read the same data and arguments,
and arrive at a different conclusion. I don't have a closed mind on the
subject. I am still open to persuasion if indisputable data is presented.
But I would really like it to all become detached from the religious
hysteria that has gripped the world over it.

I don't have a problem with accepting that the weather patterns are
changing. But then they always have throughout recorded history. Maybe man's
activities do have a contributory effect. But I seriously don't believe that
all of the changes that are perceived are down to things that we are doing.
There are many other factors that contribute to weather patterns, and some
of them may be more significant than some of the pseudo-science about man's
activities, would have everyone believe. As far as I am concerned, the jury
is still out.

Anyway, that's my piece said. I don't suppose it will change anything, and I
expect there will still be a lot of people pursing their lips and shaking
their heads at this poor deluded fool, but hey-ho. That's life, and I don't
really have the inclination to spend any more time on it now.

Arfa

 

[F Murtz]

Phil Allison wrote:

"Fuckwit Murtz"

** Hey FUCKWIT.

DO NOT post quotes without the source.

The Oxford English Dictionary which is an english dictionary,Not one
which puts every diverse weird spelling that it can come up with.
The oxford eventually puts alternative spellings in when they become
accepted but macquarie does it early which accelerates the misspelling
enormously so that it becomes common more quickly.

Others alter the word and some misguided dictionaries follow.

** HEY FUCKWIT !!

Got any idea how dictionaries are created ??

Obviously fucking NOT.
----------------------------


The really wonderful thing about the English language is that it Lives,
Breathes and CHANGES !!

So we can have * FUN * with it.

And best of all, it pisses fuckwit pedants like this Murtz cretin off to
hell !!!!!!!!!

May he long reside there, in a straightjacket and ROT !!


... Phil

 

[Phil Allison]

"Fuckwit Murtz"

** Hey FUCKWIT.

DO NOT post quotes without the source.

The Oxford English Dictionary

** What version ?

What edition ??

You bullshitting, autistic prick.



** HEY FUCKWIT !!

Got any idea how dictionaries are created ??

Obviously fucking NOT.
----------------------------

Cos you are a MORON .

 

[kreed]

On Sep 27, 9:42 pm, kreed <kenreed1...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sep 27, 11:14 am, "Arfa Daily" <arfa.da...@ntlworld.com> wrote:

"Trevor Wilson" <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message

news:9e9o9qFmk9U1@mid.individual.net...

Arfa Daily wrote:
Well, I guess we're never going to agree on any aspect of this. You
seem predisposed to take the wrong way, a number of points that I
have repeatedly made, but ho-hum, it's been an interesting line of
chat, and at least it hasn't descended into a screaming match as is
so often the case in these discussions  

**Provided there is some respect on both sides and an attempt to undestand
the other POV, I see no reason why a screaming match is necessary. I no
longer waste my time with those who choose to insult, rather than present
a cogent argument. It's better for my health.

Your comments about prices of CFLs have me intrigued. I did some more
research. Here are some prices in the US:

http://www.homedepot.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Navigation?storeId....

Prices appear to be somewhat lower than Australia and dramatically lower
than in the UK. I suggest that you should be complaining about CFL prices
in the UK. Clearly, something is seriously awry.

I accept personal preferences for ICs are valid. I accept that personal
preferences against CFLs are also valid. I also accept the testing done by
Choice and others, that prove the efficiency aspects of CFLs are
significantly in advance of ICs. I accept, in the abscence of evidence to
the contrary, that CFLs have a manufacturing energy cost that is
approximately 6 times that of ICs.

Having said all that, there is one aspect of our discussion that I find
deeply troubling. You're a smart guy. Yet you appear to be willing to
reject the overwhelming bulk of good, solid science that has shown that
rising CO2 levels are causing the present warming we find ourselves
experiencing. You appear to be rejecting the science, in preference for
the hysterical ravings of those who have clear links to the fossil fuel
industry. OTH, the scientists who study and report on global warming, for
the most part, do not have links to the alternative energy business. They
do what a good scientist should do - report the science without regard to
political or business bias. Consider the NASA and EPA scientists who were
issuing very clear warnings to President Bush. Bush was a rabid global
warming denier. We had the same thing here in Australia. During the Howard
government years, Australia's premier scientific body (the CSIRO) was
issuing clear reports to the government that anthropogenic global warming
was going to cause serious problems for Australia and the rest of the
planet. Yet the Howard government was aligned with the Bush government, in
that denial of the science was the order of the day. In fact, the leftover
ministers of the Howard government are still denying the science, even
today. Most are religious loonies, so no one takes much ntice anymore..

Please do some reading on the topic. Unlike the present discussion on CFLs
(which is really a bit of a distraction), it is a very important issue.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

Hmmm. You see, this is where I get a bit pissed off. The terms like 'denier'
that get bandied about. This is a carefully chosen word to put those who
have an 'alternate' view, firmly into the same bracket as the holocaust
deniers. And the "You're a smart guy"  ....   but  ...  I can almost see the
head sadly shaking. If you think that I'm so smart, do you honestly believe
that I never do any reading on all this ? Do you think my position on all
this has come about as a result of me just wanting to take an alternate view
for the sake of it ? I don't know what the situation is in your half of the
world, but up here, the whole eco-bollox thing has become like an hysterical
religion. No one is allowed to have an alternate view without being screamed
down as a "denier". When I say that the case is by no means proven, except
in the media, it's reached the point now where the BBC don't basically carry
any news that might present an alternate view. If they do have anyone on a
programme that dares to suggest any alternate view, they make sure that
there are three loud-mouthed greenies in the studio, to shout the person
down. Plus the interviewer of course. It has got so that every news story is
twisted to include the phrases "global warming" and "carbon footprint" and
"CO2 emissions". I'm sick to bloody death of hearing it.

Whenever you hear any of these 'weasel words" as we call them, you
know that the speaker
or the forum is bought and has no credibility.

There are other weasel words too used here like "working families"
"tackle" "planet" (except when used in the proper context - such as
discussing a planet in legitimate science discussion), "nation
building" "empowerment" "clean" (as in clean energy, clean feed AKA
draconian internet censorship) etc.

Yes, these people get extremely angry and potentially violent when
their lies are exposed
to the world, and no one believes them anymore.  Be very careful of
them.
  Imagine all the money that has been spent cooking up the AGW scam,
the
"scientists" that had to be funded and coerced into coming
up with the right results, the media, government to all go along with
it, even in our case where our PM has bascially been totally destroyed
by supporting this scam.

It was all working perfectly the goal of ultimate power and control
was right there, ready to be grabbed, and thanks to the internet and
common sense, the whole thing got dissolved by bright light of the
truth.

The anger must be immense, and they are still walking around with the
emperors new clothes on -  wanting to "arrest deniers", "Tattoo
deniers" (Australia), run adverts showing children being blown up in
class for not believing in AGW - which if you or I tried it - we would
be done for "making and possession of child abuse material"  but of
course, no one gets charged or jailed for it because of selective
enforcement of laws, in what is rapidly becoming a lawless world.

Most of the initial momentum for this whole affair, came from computer
models. Computer models can't even guess your electricity bill correctly,
when they can't be bothered to read your meter, and that's with just a few
variables involved. A lot more of the fuel comes from the University of East
Anglia here in the UK, where the badly flawed 'hockey stick' graph came
from, that sought to show the rapid warming, that actually hadn't taken
place. The guy in charge of all this was suspended from his position, after
his emails were obtained, showing communications with his contemporaries,
inviting them to massage the data to fit the model. It was largely as a
result of this, that the last big convention up in Scandinavia fell apart,
as it was taking place when all this came out. What kind of science is that
? What kind of scientist is he ?

My big problem is that the greenies don't have an open mind about the
situation. As far as they are concerned, it is fully proven, done, dusted,
and anyone who doesn't follow blindly down the path, is a heretic. Well, I'm
sorry, but in my mind, as long as there is the slightest doubt, the case
isn't proven and closed, and a good scientist should keep his mind open..
Fortunately, there is a recent groundswell of alternate view from a number
of equally reputable scientists, who are finally having the balls to stand
up and be counted.

And as for people being in the pay of the fossil fuel industry, have you
stopped to consider the multi-billion dollar industry that is now the green
movement ? Do you think that for some reason, because they are greenies,
they are somehow nicer people than those in fossil fuel ? Not prepared to
have people in their pay to say what they need them to ? If the whole
man-made global warming argument were to collapse, it would spell the death
of the green industrial machine, with no less implications and impact that a
similar demise of the fossil fuel industry would have.

I quite understand that you feel strongly that the case for man-made global
warming is made with 100% certainty. That is your prerogative. But please
understand that I, and many others also read the same data and arguments,
and arrive at a different conclusion. I don't have a closed mind on the
subject. I am still open to persuasion if indisputable data is presented.
But I would really like it to all become detached from the religious
hysteria that has gripped the world over it.

I don't have a problem with accepting that the weather patterns are
changing. But then they always have throughout recorded history. Maybe man's
activities do have a contributory effect. But I seriously don't believe that
all of the changes that are perceived are down to things that we are doing.
There are many other factors that contribute to weather patterns, and some
of them may be more significant than some of the pseudo-science about man's
activities, would have everyone believe. As far as I am concerned, the jury
is still out.

Anyway, that's my piece said. I don't suppose it will change anything, and I
expect there will still be a lot of people pursing their lips and shaking
their heads at this poor deluded fool, but hey-ho. That's life, and I don't
really have the inclination to spend any more time on it now.

Arfa

Also take a look at the Green Movement.

Note that like most evils, it always starts out with reasonable
things, like don't throw rubbish everywhere, dont dump large
quantities of toxic waste in streams, or land etc (especially where it
gets back into your food or water supply). Fair enough, people say.
Then over time things change

The entire core and philosophy of the modern Green movement is to sell
to people to a totally non-negotiable blinding hate and loathing of
yourself and humans generally, that "people are filth, a disease, have
to be gotten rid of (Except for greenies and those in power of course
who are totally exempt from this, they are allowed to drive large
cars, fly everywhere, have large families, huge homes, and electricity
usage etc - where you and I are absolute filth who shouldn't be
allowed electricity, children, meat, or any resources).

Out of interest, I was pointed by another poster to a guy called
"Alfred Adask" who discovered an interesting phrase in the drug
enforcement laws - where the term "Man and other animals" is used. He
used this successfuly as a defense to get a charge of producing
nutritional supplements dropped. I would advise checking this out.
Note the term "animals" - very convenient to remove someone's rights
and possibly a reason why the government is so keen on pushing
"evolution" (Note the implication - If you are evolved from animals -
you are an animal yourself, have no rights, like cattle and are not a
human being ?)

Note too that for greenies, who tend over time to get everything they
want legislated for - Nothing at all is ever enough. They get handed
everything, then they come up with a set of crazier and crazier
demands. There is no room whatsover for negotiation, or avoiding bad
consequences - their word is the way it is and that is the end of it.


Electricity ? Can't have coal, becuase of "carbon pollution", but
hydro and wind are ok - No carbon ?

Hydro - Oh no, damming rivers destroys wildlife, and some rare
fish.
Wind ? No way, it kills some rare bird, and the noises from the
blades distresses animals.
Nuclear - Oh no, Chernobyl !

Solar - They haven't attacked that yet - but the fact is that it isnt
a solution in that it doesn't work at night, in climates where there
isnt much sun, and with high rise apartment buildings and office
blocks would not have enough roof space to collect sufficient power.
It also doesnt work well when there is bad weather. It would be
useless to power heavy industry or something like an aluminium plant.


As you can see - the goal is not to make "clean" (though unaffordable)
power, but to progressively remove these resources from the average
person, and turn us back to a feudal state where we are mere slaves
and animals, and these elites are our rulers living in unbelievable
luxury. People like that are kept on the edge of starvation, they
have no rights, they do not question, they do not protest, they do
little to resist, and are flat out surviving. This sort of society is
the wet dream of anyone in power, who wants to stay in power. Without
affordable energy, the ability to travel you are nothing and have no
economic future, no way out of ignorance or any form of life. Take a
look at countries where this already happens.


Look also at Agenda 21 which is a scary policy of environmental evil.

 

[kreed]

On Sep 27, 6:46 am, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

kreed wrote:
On Sep 26, 3:36 pm, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
kreed wrote:
On Sep 26, 1:28 pm, Jeffrey Angus <grendel...@aim.com> wrote:
On 9/25/2011 7:24 PM, Phil Allison wrote:

"William Sommerwanker the Fuckwit PEDANT"

** Be better to put idiots like you in straightjackets.

Correct spelling.

I did correct the spelling.

** No, you fucking FUCKWIT.

The spelling IS correct !!!!!!

Pedantry is a mental illness.

Sorry William, despite the rather colorful way Phil has of
expressing himself, he is correct.

strait jacket
[streyt-jak-it]
strait jack et
[streyt-jak-it]
noun
1. a garment made of strong material and designed to bind the arms,
as of a violently disoriented person.
2. anything that severely confines, constricts, or hinders:
Conventional attitudes can be a straitjacket, preventing original
thinking.

and under Number 2 - a picture of Trevor Wilson is displayed as an
example.

**If you want to carry on a rational discussion, do so. If you want
to engage in purile insults, feel free. You merely expose yourself
to others for the moron that you are.

No, I am not being puerile,

**Plainly, you are. Read your own words again.

 Im giving an example that most on this

group can easily identify with in relation to your global warming
"faith".  An analogy if you like.

**Bollocks. I have merely cited the overwhelming amount of good, solid
SCIENCE that supports the notion of AGW. You, OTOH, despite requests, have
supplied ZERO evidence to counter that science. Let's talk about who has
their beliefs rooted in faith and who has his rooted in science. You are are
very shakey ground.



I note you inability to address my previous comments and questions.
Says a great deal about your ability to carry on a reasoned,
rational discussion.

To my mind addressing your comments or questions on AGW is like
addressing past "scientific theories" like Hitlers "master Aryan race"
or "eugenics"  The subject is so obviously ridiculous, discredited to
start with that any thinking person has already dismissed it for what
it is.

**Utter and complete bollocks. If you wish to discredt it, then supply your
peer-reviewed science. Should be like shooting fish in a barrel. Unless, of
course, you happen to lack ammunition.



It is not possible to ever be right debating with someone like
yourself, as your belief level is similar to that of a chronic
religious fanatic, it simply isnt possible to change your mind

**Bollocks. Supply your peer-reviewed science.



Suggesting i look at a bought off organisation like the IPCC, ASIO,

**I said NOTHING about ASIO. I cited several scientific organisations. If
you have some evidence that these organisations have been "bought off", then
you need to supply some evidence pertaining to:

* Who bought them off?
* Why they were bought off?
* Which scientists are driving around in Buggatti Veyrons, because they've
been bought off?
* Some evidence to prove that ALL the organisations I listed were "bought
off".

YOU made the claim. YOU prove it.

 or

other sources you mention is as ridiculous as saying "God and every
seemingly impossible thing in the bible is 100% real, just ask the
vicar, bishop, pope, etc in my church, or worse still, the leader of
my cult. I wouldnt dignify it with starting a discussion on it.

**YOU made an outrageous claim. YOU need to substantiate that claim.



The answer  from these sort of people, if you do not 1000% agree
without question is that  "You are a mental case/fool and/or evil for
not believing."

**If a person does not accept the fact of AGW, then there are several
possibilities:

You forgot one.

"Has lived in the real world, seen how things work, has enough life
experience to spot when they are being scammed, lied to, or someone is
pissing on their head and trying to tell them that they are not
pissing, it is rain."

* That person is as dumb as a rock.
* That person is lying.
* That person has not taken the time to read the data.
* That person is employed by the fossil fuel industry, or gains some income
from the use of fossil fuel.

"gains some income from the use of fossil fuel"

HMM. that applies to 99% of the nation. Restrict usage, make
unaffordable, take away fossil fuel and watch how fast the nation
turns into a place that makes the 3rd world look like luxury. A large
majority of people are ALIVE because of Fossil fuel in the form of
products, transport, chemiclas, medicines but most importantly food
(via fertilizer). Wake up.

Your industry -Hi Fi- would be gone overnight in the blink of an eye.
Valve amps and other "inefficient" high powered or class A units would
likely be banned under some bodgy energy efficiency standards and
probably confiscated.

You might do ok in selling audiophile headphones, and hand cranked
generators for use with portable MP3 players though, as no one would
be able to afford to power anything bigger. On the other hand, no
one would be able to afford to pay the freight on these things, as
fuel usage is involved. What a bummer.

* That person has allowed religious beliefs to over-ride logic and reason..

We see that in your posts. AGW is a religion to you, a fanatic
religion.

Same process under the soviets, "You live in the USSR
which is the best and most free nation and political system in the
world, if you question this, you must be a mental case, so off to the
mental hospital (re-education camp) you go".

**There is no "USSR". The USSR was not a free state.

Dickhead. Read the post properly.

Hm, by your logic becuse the Nazis dont exist anymore (well don't
officially, except in the green movement) so therefore Auchwitz and
the other horrors of the regime don't exist and are not relevant ?

There would have been no free state in the west if this climate
madness had gone ahead in its full form without people waking up.
Gillard is trying hard though.

 Not that many truly

believed this crap, but they kept their mouth firmly closed, to avoid
the consequences, or be avoid being ostracised by those around them,
who might agree with them, but are too afraid to be seen supporting or
associating with someone who speaks it publicly.

**Fortunately, our society is not like the defunct USSR. Our society is free
and ideas can be freely stated and, if found to be false, dismissed.



Put it this way, go out there, read and examine anti-AGW material,

**I read it daily. I've also read the IPCC AR4. Have you?

 Im

not going to go and spend lots of my time doing this for you, it would
be a waste of time anyway.

**A waste of time is discussing logic and reason with you. I note your
continued avoidance of my questions and points raised.

Avoidance of discussing known paid for data made to order.
I wouldn't give it credibility by discussing it.

I may as well try and convince someone who is fanatical islam that if
they kill an infidel, they won't go to heaven and enjoy an eternal
orgy with willing young virgins.

--
Trevor Wilsonwww.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Trevor Wilson]

Jeff Liebermann wrote:

On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 15:57:31 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

**Not at all. Aluminium smelting can utilise any electrical energy
source. Nukes, geo-thermal, Solar, wind, tidal, whatever. And, just
to press the point home, I did a little research a while back on the
aluminium industry.

* Back in 1989, electricity costs were around 50% of the present
level (in Australia).
* Aluminium was around US$600.00/Tonne.
* The electricity cost to smelt 1 Tonne of aluminium in 1989 was
approximately $200.00/Tonne.
* The aluminium industry (in Australia) was profitable in 1989.
* The electricity cost to smelt 1 Tonne of aluminium today was
approximately $400.00/Tonne.
* The aluminium price today is close to US$2,500.00/Tonne.
* Even using the most pessimistic cost increases, due to greenhouse
reduction costs, the aluminium industry (in Australia) will still be
very profitable.

The aluminium industry continually bleats about high costs. They
don't menton the massive profits.

Interesting. I excavated some US numbers on aluminum. Each page has
about 5 years worth of annual costs. Sorry for the mess:
http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/aluminum/mcs-2011-alumi.pdf
http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/aluminum/alumimcs06.pdf
http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/aluminum/050302.pdf

Price (not adjusted for inflation)
US$ per lb
2010 1.214
2009 1.252
2008 1.205
2007 0.794
2006 1.017
2005 0.688
2004 0.649
2003 0.681
2002 0.840
2001 0.880
2000 0.771
1999 0.655
1998 0.657

Looks to me like the price of aluminum doubled between 1998 and 2010
in the US. That's about right considering the increased cost of
industrial electricity. However, it seems that the price in Australia
went up by 4.2 times. Was there something that happened in Australia
during this time period to produce this difference?

**The prices I cited were international ones. Hence the use of US Dollars.
Although the cost of electricity rose by a factor of approximately 2 between
1989 and now, the cost to aluminium processors is not so clear. Aluminium
processors do deals with suppliers that do not reflect the real cost of
energy. In at least one case, the producers has their own power generating
plant (here in Australia).

I'll attempt to locate my cites with the relevant information.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Trevor Wilson]

kreed wrote:

On Sep 27, 4:44 pm, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
kreed wrote:
On Sep 27, 2:03 pm, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 12:46:26 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

**Take some time to read AR4. THEN get back to me.

The reports are here:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_report...
I've only read the one on the physical science basis.

The 5th report is scheduled for release in stages from Sept 2013
thru Oct 2014. It's focus is a bit different than previous
reports. <http://www.ipcc.ch/activities/activities.shtml
"...AR5 will put greater emphasis on assessing the socio-economic
aspects of climate change and implications for sustainable
development, risk management and the framing of a response
through both adaptation and mitigation."
In other words, it will tell the governments and politicians what
to do. I can't wait.

**No, it won't. It will, like a good scientific document, ADVISE on
appropriate course/s of action. They are not likely to be pleasant
and will be resisted by the Murdock media and the fossil fuel
industry. There is certainly no doubt that many nations will be
dragging their feet on the way to reduce CO2 emissions.

That is a very scientific observation.
We should all embrace Trevor's crackpot theories based on just this.

**I do not espouse "crackpot theories". I merely read and understand
the science. It is a great pity that you do not do likewise.



Will our society survive? I doubt it. It seems more likely that
action will be too little too late.

Our society will surive and thrive if we stop allowing ourselves to
constantly being made to live in fear for the purposes of
controlling us, throw this AGW crap and those involved in it
straight in the bin, cut the big guys out of controlling everything
(including both sides of our government and media) stop them from
creating artificial shortages of resources in order to fleece us,
and stop worrying about lies and lead productive lives.

**I note your continued avoidance of dealing with my previous
questions and comments. I further note your dismissal of good, solid
science, in preference for a religious, stick-your-head-in-the-sand
approach. You, Tony Abbott, George Pell, Christopher Monckton and
Alan Jones are a good match for each other. None of you deals with
the science.


That is an extremely contradictory statement.

**No, it is not. You have consistently failed to back your claims with any
science. You supply only opinions. I cite science, whilst you cite nothing.

You avoid the fact that

you only quote paid off shills like the IPCC as factual,

**In this thread, I have cited a dozen or so SCIENTIFIC sources of good
repute. Some of those sources (NASA, the US EPA, the US Academy of Sciences)
were reporting the dangers of AGW, while George W Bush was in charge of the
US. Just a reminder: George W Bush was inextricably linked to the oil
industry and a well-known AGW denier. Same deal with CSIRO and John Howard.
Care to explain that?

As usual, you will fail to answer my questions. Your non-answer will be
viewed as an admission that you are wrong.


and as being

"solid science" and regard anyone who disagrees with these "paid for"
theories as being a religious nutter or being paid off by a particular
industry, whereas the AGW movement is both of these times 1000.

**Care to prove it?

As usual, you will fail to answer my questions. Your non-answer will be
viewed as an admission that you are wrong.

Sadly a lot of science is corporate or government funded these days.

**There is no other way to fund science or any other form of research.

These people are therefore owned,

**Care to prove that?

As usual, you will fail to answer my questions. Your non-answer will be
viewed as an admission that you are wrong.

and both groups who own them want

the power and money that AGW potentially put in their hands. The power
to control resources that are vital such as coal and oil, ensure that
they have a monopoly to extract usury prices for them, and also to
ensure that only their own companies and sponsors have access to them
cheaply in order to eliminate competition. (IE: GE has an exemption in
Texas, and will be allowed to burn all the coal it wants, but its
competitors won't, causing a monopoly to exist) This is litereally
worth trillions and comes with a bonus of a high level of control of
billions of humans. With this at stake, no one is going to let the
facts get in the way of what is probably the biggest prize in human
history. - but fortunately for us (except you) this is what has
happened.

**Strawman duly noted. Try to stay on topic.

We are not talking scientists here, we are talking "pay for required
results" people. Ones who probably could never get a job, or funding
if they didnt get on the bandwagon and get the results they were told
to get.

**Strawman duly noted. Try to stay on topic.

This is why your entire statement is so ridiculous to start with.
Polls show that the vast majority of Australians (and other countries
by the sound of it) have woken up to it, and it is about time too.

**So, what you are saying is this:

AGW science is a popularity issue, with the people who really know their
stuff (IE: The climatologists) don't know what is going on, but the
uneducated masses (IS: You, Tony Abbott, George Pell, et al) are right, for
some unknown reasons? Is that what you're trying to say?

As usual, you will fail to answer my questions. Your non-answer will be
viewed as an admission that you are wrong.

I have news for you: Science is not a popularity contest. Science involves
research and the tabulation of that investigation. Just because a bunch of
uneducated idiots don't believe the facts, does not make those facts
invalid.

the "master race" and "eugenics" were "good solid science" in their
day too.

**Were they? Cite your proof of this.

As usual, you will fail to answer my questions. Your non-answer will be
viewed as an admission that you are wrong.


If you were a "scientist" and didn't agree with this good

science agenda, you didnt have a career - therefore you didnt eat - or
you didn't have a life. Ditto if you were in the media, or other
industry that could report the truth, and blow these scams open.

Funny to look at the parallels now to this situation and the global
warming industry.

**The research by the IPCC and others is about independent, quality science.
Which, if you had taken the time to read and digest the IPCC reports, you
would understand. By choosing NOT to read the IPCC reports and then
criticising those same reports, you merely expose your extreme ignorance.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Trevor Wilson]

kreed wrote:

On Sep 27, 6:46 am, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
kreed wrote:
On Sep 26, 3:36 pm, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
kreed wrote:
On Sep 26, 1:28 pm, Jeffrey Angus <grendel...@aim.com> wrote:
On 9/25/2011 7:24 PM, Phil Allison wrote:

"William Sommerwanker the Fuckwit PEDANT"

** Be better to put idiots like you in straightjackets.

Correct spelling.

I did correct the spelling.

** No, you fucking FUCKWIT.

The spelling IS correct !!!!!!

Pedantry is a mental illness.

Sorry William, despite the rather colorful way Phil has of
expressing himself, he is correct.

strait jacket
[streyt-jak-it]
strait jack et
[streyt-jak-it]
noun
1. a garment made of strong material and designed to bind the
arms, as of a violently disoriented person.
2. anything that severely confines, constricts, or hinders:
Conventional attitudes can be a straitjacket, preventing original
thinking.

and under Number 2 - a picture of Trevor Wilson is displayed as an
example.

**If you want to carry on a rational discussion, do so. If you want
to engage in purile insults, feel free. You merely expose yourself
to others for the moron that you are.

No, I am not being puerile,

**Plainly, you are. Read your own words again.

Im giving an example that most on this

group can easily identify with in relation to your global warming
"faith". An analogy if you like.

**Bollocks. I have merely cited the overwhelming amount of good,
solid SCIENCE that supports the notion of AGW. You, OTOH, despite
requests, have supplied ZERO evidence to counter that science. Let's
talk about who has their beliefs rooted in faith and who has his
rooted in science. You are are very shakey ground.



I note you inability to address my previous comments and questions.
Says a great deal about your ability to carry on a reasoned,
rational discussion.

To my mind addressing your comments or questions on AGW is like
addressing past "scientific theories" like Hitlers "master Aryan
race" or "eugenics" The subject is so obviously ridiculous,
discredited to start with that any thinking person has already
dismissed it for what it is.

**Utter and complete bollocks. If you wish to discredt it, then
supply your peer-reviewed science. Should be like shooting fish in a
barrel. Unless, of course, you happen to lack ammunition.



It is not possible to ever be right debating with someone like
yourself, as your belief level is similar to that of a chronic
religious fanatic, it simply isnt possible to change your mind

**Bollocks. Supply your peer-reviewed science.



Suggesting i look at a bought off organisation like the IPCC, ASIO,

**I said NOTHING about ASIO. I cited several scientific
organisations. If you have some evidence that these organisations
have been "bought off", then you need to supply some evidence
pertaining to:

* Who bought them off?
* Why they were bought off?
* Which scientists are driving around in Buggatti Veyrons, because
they've been bought off?
* Some evidence to prove that ALL the organisations I listed were
"bought off".

YOU made the claim. YOU prove it.

or

other sources you mention is as ridiculous as saying "God and every
seemingly impossible thing in the bible is 100% real, just ask the
vicar, bishop, pope, etc in my church, or worse still, the leader of
my cult. I wouldnt dignify it with starting a discussion on it.

**YOU made an outrageous claim. YOU need to substantiate that claim.



The answer from these sort of people, if you do not 1000% agree
without question is that "You are a mental case/fool and/or evil for
not believing."

**If a person does not accept the fact of AGW, then there are several
possibilities:


You forgot one.

**Nope.

"Has lived in the real world, seen how things work, has enough life
experience to spot when they are being scammed, lied to, or someone is
pissing on their head and trying to tell them that they are not
pissing, it is rain."

**Except that you have consistently failed to support your arguments with
any science. OTOH, I have consistently referred you to good, solid,
reputable science.

* That person is as dumb as a rock.
* That person is lying.
* That person has not taken the time to read the data.
* That person is employed by the fossil fuel industry, or gains some
income from the use of fossil fuel.

"gains some income from the use of fossil fuel"

HMM. that applies to 99% of the nation.

**Possibly.

Restrict usage, make

unaffordable, take away fossil fuel and watch how fast the nation
turns into a place that makes the 3rd world look like luxury.

**Watch what happens over the next decade or two. In case you've been living
under a rock, you might realise that oil is running out.

A large

majority of people are ALIVE because of Fossil fuel in the form of
products, transport, chemiclas, medicines but most importantly food
(via fertilizer). Wake up.

**So? What do you propose we do as the oil runs out?

As usual, you will fail to answer my questions. Your non-answer will be
viewed as an admission that you are wrong.

Your industry -Hi Fi- would be gone overnight in the blink of an eye.
Valve amps and other "inefficient" high powered or class A units would
likely be banned under some bodgy energy efficiency standards and
probably confiscated.

**Points:
* I have little to do with the products you mention.
* High end amplification represents a miniscule proportion of energy usage.

You might do ok in selling audiophile headphones, and hand cranked
generators for use with portable MP3 players though, as no one would
be able to afford to power anything bigger. On the other hand, no
one would be able to afford to pay the freight on these things, as
fuel usage is involved. What a bummer.


* That person has allowed religious beliefs to over-ride logic and
reason.

We see that in your posts. AGW is a religion to you, a fanatic
religion.

**It's called science. Something you appear to have no familiarity with.
Your inability to answer my questions says it all.

Same process under the soviets, "You live in the USSR
which is the best and most free nation and political system in the
world, if you question this, you must be a mental case, so off to
the mental hospital (re-education camp) you go".

**There is no "USSR". The USSR was not a free state.

Dickhead. Read the post properly.

**Calling me names does nothing to enhance your ability to read plain
English. You spoke in the present tense. The USSR is gone. Any references
should, therefore, be in the past tense.

Hm, by your logic becuse the Nazis dont exist anymore (well don't
officially, except in the green movement) so therefore Auchwitz and
the other horrors of the regime don't exist and are not relevant ?

**Nazis may still exist, though the Third Reich no longer does. Auschwitz is
no longer used as a concentration camp. It is a tourist attraction.

There would have been no free state in the west if this climate
madness had gone ahead in its full form without people waking up.

**What "climate madness" do you refer to?

As usual, you will fail to answer my questions. Your non-answer will be
viewed as an admission that you are wrong.

Gillard is trying hard though.


Not that many truly

believed this crap, but they kept their mouth firmly closed, to
avoid the consequences, or be avoid being ostracised by those
around them, who might agree with them, but are too afraid to be
seen supporting or associating with someone who speaks it publicly.

**Fortunately, our society is not like the defunct USSR. Our society
is free and ideas can be freely stated and, if found to be false,
dismissed.



Put it this way, go out there, read and examine anti-AGW material,

**I read it daily. I've also read the IPCC AR4. Have you?

**Have you read the IPCC AR4?

As usual, you will fail to answer my questions. Your non-answer will be
viewed as an admission that you are wrong.

Im

not going to go and spend lots of my time doing this for you, it
would be a waste of time anyway.

**A waste of time is discussing logic and reason with you. I note
your continued avoidance of my questions and points raised.


Avoidance of discussing known paid for data made to order.
I wouldn't give it credibility by discussing it.

**Nope. Avoidance of answering direct questions is an indication of
ignorance. You have no clue. You have not read the IPCC AR4. That much is
abundantly clear. What is also clear is that you would probably fail to
understand the report if you had taken the time to read it. Instead, you
prefer to concentrate your time on listening to Alan Jones, George Pell,
Tony Abbott and the other extremist nutters, who understand nothing about
science.

I may as well try and convince someone who is fanatical islam that if
they kill an infidel, they won't go to heaven and enjoy an eternal
orgy with willing young virgins.

**What you SHOULD do, is read the damned science.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[F Murtz]

Phil Allison wrote:
The predictable crap he usually does

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 06:57:43 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
<trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

I have news for you: Science is not a popularity contest. Science involves
research and the tabulation of that investigation. Just because a bunch of
uneducated idiots don't believe the facts, does not make those facts
invalid.

Suggestion: Go easy on the name calling and labels. Everyone that
disagrees with you is not necessarily an uneducated idiot.

Have you read through the infamous "Harry Read Me" file that
demonstrates the extent to which at least some of the data was cooked?
<http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/HARRY_READ_ME.txt>
I won't pretend to understand it all, but what little I can decode,
reeks of manipulating the results to conform to expected results (or
at least statistically significant results).

Also, I mentioned this in the past, but methinks this might be a good
time to resurrect it. See:
<http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/slv-wx/SLV-rainfall-06.jpg>
This isn't directly related with AGW but it does show that it's very
easy to manipulate trends and projections. That data shown is the
rainfall statistics for my area. If I use an even order trend
extrapolation, the graph is towards drought. If I use an odd order,
it's toward deluge. I note that the "dog leg" has been dropped by the
IPCC, largely for this reason. If you wanna see how it works, the
spreadsheets used to create this are at:
<http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/slv-wx/>

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

 

[Trevor Wilson]

Jeff Liebermann wrote:

On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 06:57:43 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

I have news for you: Science is not a popularity contest. Science
involves research and the tabulation of that investigation. Just
because a bunch of uneducated idiots don't believe the facts, does
not make those facts invalid.

Suggestion: Go easy on the name calling and labels.

**I have a policy of treating people the way they deserve to be treated. If
a person wilfully ignores the science and resorts to parrotting
unsubstantiated rumour, then they have opened the door to the appropriate
descriptors.

Everyone that

disagrees with you is not necessarily an uneducated idiot.

**People who dispute those who have spent their lives studying a subject,
without presenting a shred of evidence to support their claims, are
uneducated idiots. People who have failed to read the premier document on a
given subject and then proffer their own unsupported opinions are uneducated
idiots.

Have you read through the infamous "Harry Read Me" file that
demonstrates the extent to which at least some of the data was cooked?
http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/HARRY_READ_ME.txt
I won't pretend to understand it all, but what little I can decode,
reeks of manipulating the results to conform to expected results (or
at least statistically significant results).

**I have not read that particular document, though I have read half a dozen
others, which comment negatively on the CRU. I've also read the CRU's
response AND a couple of the INDEPENDENT reviews that have exonerated the
CRU. Have you read all that? Or have you only read the negative comments?

Also, I mentioned this in the past, but methinks this might be a good
time to resurrect it. See:
http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/slv-wx/SLV-rainfall-06.jpg
This isn't directly related with AGW but it does show that it's very
easy to manipulate trends and projections.

**Indeed. However, this is a trend which is VERY difficult to refute:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Global_Temperature_Anomaly_1880-2010_(Fig.A).gif

Note the TREND. No data fudging is required to prove that the planet is
experiencing a warming TREND. Some years will be warmer and some cooler.
However, the overall TREND is clear and obvious. Also note that there are no
predictions in this trend.

That data shown is the

rainfall statistics for my area. If I use an even order trend
extrapolation, the graph is towards drought. If I use an odd order,
it's toward deluge. I note that the "dog leg" has been dropped by the
IPCC, largely for this reason. If you wanna see how it works, the
spreadsheets used to create this are at:
http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/slv-wx/

**I suggest you examine the graph I tabled. Note the trend. It is clear and
unarguable.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Trevor Wilson]

Jeff Liebermann wrote:

Also, I mentioned this in the past, but methinks this might be a good
time to resurrect it. See:
http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/slv-wx/SLV-rainfall-06.jpg
This isn't directly related with AGW but it does show that it's very
easy to manipulate trends and projections.

**Here are some graphs that are directly related to the issues faced by
Australia (and the rest of the planet):

http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=tmean&area=aus&season=0112&ave_yr=11

http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=tmax&area=aus&season=0112&ave_yr=11

http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=tmin&area=aus&season=0112&ave_yr=11

The tools are available for you to mess around with the graphs all you wish.
The results will be pretty much the same. The trend to higher temperatures
accross Australia are clear and unequivocal. These are not guesses, nor
projections. They're real, hard data.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Trevor Wilson]

kreed wrote:

On Sep 28, 6:44 am, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 15:57:31 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

**Not at all. Aluminium smelting can utilise any electrical energy
source. Nukes, geo-thermal, Solar, wind, tidal, whatever. And, just
to press the point home, I did a little research a while back on
the aluminium industry.

* Back in 1989, electricity costs were around 50% of the present
level (in Australia).
* Aluminium was around US$600.00/Tonne.
* The electricity cost to smelt 1 Tonne of aluminium in 1989 was
approximately $200.00/Tonne.
* The aluminium industry (in Australia) was profitable in 1989.
* The electricity cost to smelt 1 Tonne of aluminium today was
approximately $400.00/Tonne.
* The aluminium price today is close to US$2,500.00/Tonne.
* Even using the most pessimistic cost increases, due to greenhouse
reduction costs, the aluminium industry (in Australia) will still
be very profitable.

The aluminium industry continually bleats about high costs. They
don't menton the massive profits.

Interesting. I excavated some US numbers on aluminum. Each page has
about 5 years worth of annual costs. Sorry for the mess:
http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/aluminum/mcs-2011-al...
http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/aluminum/alumimcs06.pdf
http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/aluminum/050302.pdf

Price (not adjusted for inflation)
US$ per lb
2010 1.214
2009 1.252
2008 1.205
2007 0.794
2006 1.017
2005 0.688
2004 0.649
2003 0.681
2002 0.840
2001 0.880
2000 0.771
1999 0.655
1998 0.657

Looks to me like the price of aluminum doubled between 1998 and 2010
in the US. That's about right considering the increased cost of
industrial electricity. However, it seems that the price in
Australia went up by 4.2 times. Was there something that happened
in Australia during this time period to produce this difference?

**The prices I cited were international ones. Hence the use of US
Dollars. Although the cost of electricity rose by a factor of
approximately 2 between 1989 and now, the cost to aluminium
processors is not so clear. Aluminium processors do deals with
suppliers that do not reflect the real cost of energy. In at least
one case, the producers has their own power generating plant (here
in Australia).

I'll attempt to locate my cites with the relevant information.

--
Trevor Wilsonwww.rageaudio.com.au

If it is like everything else, permit fees, outrageous environmental
regulations, rates, taxes and other charges
are the usual suspects.

**I note your continued inability to answer my questions and deal with the
facts presented. I accept your admission that you are wrong.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 09:50:58 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
<trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

Have you read through the infamous "Harry Read Me" file that
demonstrates the extent to which at least some of the data was cooked?
http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/HARRY_READ_ME.txt

**I have not read that particular document, though I have read half a dozen
others, which comment negatively on the CRU. I've also read the CRU's
response AND a couple of the INDEPENDENT reviews that have exonerated the
CRU. Have you read all that? Or have you only read the negative comments?

Have you stopped beating your wife? Please try to phrase your
questions without the implied insults.

When it was first leaked, I read the original and made up my own mind
as to what it represented. I later read the Wikipedia article and
some of the referenced articles.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy>
That was about 2 years ago. Accepting the conclusions of eminent
authorities is certainly easier than trying to understand what
happened, but I find it more interesting. From the above article:
"Six committees investigated the allegations and published
reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct."
which is correct. There was no fraud or misconduct. What I saw was a
substantial amount of effort expended in removing and invalidating
inconsistent data and data that did not fit the predefined
conclusions. Unfortunately, as I didn't understand everything that
was happening in the document, I can only offer a general impression.

Incidentally, I don't recall the exact report, but one of the early
AGW research reports produced spectacular predicted temperature rises.
Even the supporters were amazed, as was the press which carried the
story in the most alarmist manner possible. It turned out that the
researchers had used history from weather stations located in urban
areas, which tend to be heat islands. When all the urban sensor data
was removed, leaving only rural sensors, the numbers looked like
random garbage with no obvious trend line. Recently, satellite data
has eliminated much of these types of problems, but it was amusing to
watch the cover up after this was pointed out.

Also, I mentioned this in the past, but methinks this might be a good
time to resurrect it. See:
http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/slv-wx/SLV-rainfall-06.jpg
This isn't directly related with AGW but it does show that it's very
easy to manipulate trends and projections.

**Indeed.

I just wanted to point out how easy it is to do. Much to my disgust,
the local water district used my method to justify drought funding a
few years ago. We really did have a drought, but the historical
numbers were insufficient to qualify for federally funded relief. So,
they produced ominous trend graphs, but also "normalized" (tweaked)
some of the data. Computers make all this so easy to do.

However, this is a trend which is VERY difficult to refute:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Global_Temperature_Anomaly_1880-2010_(Fig.A).gif

Holdit. A few rants ago, I mentioned that I believe that there's no
question that there's been a trend towards temperature increase. I
don't question any of that type of historical data (unless the
original data is suspect). The pressing questions are:
1. What is the predicted trend line?
2. Is it caused by human activity?
3. Should we do anything about it?
4. Will doing anything about it actually work or cause more problems?
My comments were specifically directed towards predicting future
trends, not historical data.

Incidentally, I find it amusing that the IPCC and you are both using
the term AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) where anthropogenic means
"caused by humans" as if it's already conclusive that any and all
effects are the result of human activities. Begging the question
comes to mind.

Note the TREND. No data fudging is required to prove that the planet is
experiencing a warming TREND. Some years will be warmer and some cooler.
However, the overall TREND is clear and obvious. Also note that there are no
predictions in this trend.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation>
It doesn't explain everything, but is a substantial part of the
puzzle.
<http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2006/brightness.shtml>
Hmmm... I wonder if the current unusual lack of sunspots is caused by
human activity?

**I suggest you examine the graph I tabled. Note the trend. It is clear and
unarguable.

Ok. I won't argue.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 19:28:58 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation
It doesn't explain everything, but is a substantial part of the
puzzle.
http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2006/brightness.shtml

NASA's Glory satellite was suppose to measure all this more accurately
as the exact effect of variations in solar output isn't totally clear.
However, the satellite failed to reach orbit.
<http://glory.gsfc.nasa.gov/misison_details.html>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glory_(satellite)>

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

 

[kreed]

On Sep 28, 6:44 am, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 15:57:31 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

**Not at all. Aluminium smelting can utilise any electrical energy
source. Nukes, geo-thermal, Solar, wind, tidal, whatever. And, just
to press the point home, I did a little research a while back on the
aluminium industry.

* Back in 1989, electricity costs were around 50% of the present
level (in Australia).
* Aluminium was around US$600.00/Tonne.
* The electricity cost to smelt 1 Tonne of aluminium in 1989 was
approximately $200.00/Tonne.
* The aluminium industry (in Australia) was profitable in 1989.
* The electricity cost to smelt 1 Tonne of aluminium today was
approximately $400.00/Tonne.
* The aluminium price today is close to US$2,500.00/Tonne.
* Even using the most pessimistic cost increases, due to greenhouse
reduction costs, the aluminium industry (in Australia) will still be
very profitable.

The aluminium industry continually bleats about high costs. They
don't menton the massive profits.

Interesting.  I excavated some US numbers on aluminum.  Each page has
about 5 years worth of annual costs.  Sorry for the mess:
http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/aluminum/mcs-2011-al....
http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/aluminum/alumimcs06.pdf
http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/aluminum/050302.pdf

  Price (not adjusted for inflation)
     US$ per lb
2010    1.214
2009    1.252
2008    1.205
2007    0.794
2006    1.017
2005    0.688
2004    0.649
2003    0.681
2002    0.840
2001    0.880
2000    0.771
1999    0.655
1998    0.657

Looks to me like the price of aluminum doubled between 1998 and 2010
in the US.  That's about right considering the increased cost of
industrial electricity.  However, it seems that the price in Australia
went up by 4.2 times.  Was there something that happened in Australia
during this time period to produce this difference?

**The prices I cited were international ones. Hence the use of US Dollars..
Although the cost of electricity rose by a factor of approximately 2 between
1989 and now, the cost to aluminium processors is not so clear. Aluminium
processors do deals with suppliers that do not reflect the real cost of
energy. In at least one case, the producers has their own power generating
plant (here in Australia).

I'll attempt to locate my cites with the relevant information.

--
Trevor Wilsonwww.rageaudio.com.au

If it is like everything else, permit fees, outrageous environmental
regulations, rates, taxes and other charges
are the usual suspects.

 

[Trevor Wilson]

kreed wrote:

**I note your continued inability to answer my questions and deal
with the facts presented. I accept your admission that you are wrong.



I accept that you are making an impossible demand, by doing the
equivalent of demanding that I provide proof that facts (in your
belief) that the easter bunny, angels, ghosts etc DON'T exist.

**Absolute twaddle. I haev presented, in the form of the IPCC reports,
clear, unequivocal evidence that shows that AGW is the best explanation for
the warming we are experiencing. You, OTOH, have demonstrated that you have
not read the IPCC reports. You have also failed to answer any of my
questions WRT this issue. Your analogy, like all your previous analogies, is
utterly bereft of logic. If you feel the IPCC AR4 is faulty, then you need
to show where and how the report is faulty. A good place for you to start,
is to read the damned report.

This

cannot be 100% proven as fact,

**Since there is no evidence of those things, a reasonable person can assume
that they don't exist. However, in the case of the IPCC AR4, we have:

* Clear, unequivocal evidence that the planet is warming at a faster rate at
any time in the last 600,000 years.
* Clear, unequivocal evidence that the planet is experiencing a rate of CO2
rise that is faster than at any time in the last 600,000 years.
* Clear, unequivocal evidence that the rate of temperature rise has been
closely linked to CO2 rise in the past.
* Clear, unequivocal evidence that Solar variability fails to account for
the temperature rise over the last 200 years.

but I doubt any normal adult fully

believes in it and rightly would laugh themselves silly if you tried
to tell them otherwise that you had proof because you listened to
vested interests.

**WHAT VESTED INTERESTS? You keep claiming that people have been paid off,
that there are vested interests and that corruption is rife in the IPCC,
NASA, the US EPA, The US Academy of Sciences, The BoM, The Australian
Academy of Science, the UK MET, The Royal Swedish Academy of Science and a
host of other reputable organisations, BUT you have failed, despite repeated
requests, to provide evidence to support you wild and potentially libellous
claims.

As they say: "Put up or shut up."

If you have evidence to support your claims of corruption, present it.

As usual, you will fail to provide evidence to support your wild claims.

I accept that you have been over time due to either mental illness (as
told by other posters on this group in the past), or the victim of
lifelong brainwashing that you accept without question belief in
certain things that vested interests defecate out that you cannot ever
see past this, and it is always right regardless of the facts.

**Bollocks. I have a logical, rational, critical thinking brain. I accept
that which has been proven by science. Nothign else. I note that you have
failed to present a single shred of scientific evidence to support your wild
claims.

Now who is being an idiot?

The one who accepts the solid science, from reputable organisations, or the
one who believes the bollocks promulgated by Alan Jones, George Pell and
Tony Abbott?

I guess you would have to be that way to be into the audiophile hi-fi
business. Unless you believed in the shonky claims thrown about by
some manufacturers and their "proof", it probably is much harder to
sell such stuff to the gullible.

**Strawman duly noted. You have zero idea of my business practices.

There are loads like you in various crackpot movements be they the
greens, feminism etc. You are not hard to see through. The words and
manner of delivery give it away

**I'll say again: Sumbit your proof of your wild accusations.

as Phil would say. Piss Off.

**An expected response from a person who has no answers.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Phil Allison]

"Jeff Liebermann"

"Six committees investigated the allegations and published
reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct."
which is correct. There was no fraud or misconduct. What I saw was a
substantial amount of effort expended in removing and invalidating
inconsistent data and data that did not fit the predefined
conclusions.

** Cleaning up data is otherwise known as selecting your evidence - a
logical fallacy of the highest order. It is completely dishonest and
scientifically worthless.

By selecting ones evidence, it becomes possible to "prove" any conclusion
you like and posters on usenet do it all the time.

Dunno what definition of "scientific fraud" you think is right, but quietly
removing evidence that does not suit an hypothesis has gotta be an example
of scientific dishonesty.



..... Phil

 

[Phil Allison]

"kreed"
Speaking about TW:

I guess you would have to be that way to be into the audiophile hi-fi
business. Unless you believed in the shonky claims thrown about by
some manufacturers and their "proof", it probably is much harder to
sell such stuff to the gullible.

There are loads like you in various crackpot movements be they the
greens, feminism etc. You are not hard to see through. The words and
manner of delivery give it away

as Phil would say. Piss Off.

** People like TW have no idea they give themselves away in their own words
all the time.

Charlatans do not have to fool everyone, either all or some of the time, to
be a success.

They just have to fool particular people, when it counts.

That why the call them " marks ".




..... Phil