Toshiba TV29C90 problem; Image fades to black...

[Trevor Wilson]

kreed wrote:

On Sep 28, 12:44 pm, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> wrote:
On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 19:28:58 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
je...@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 je...@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558


Also noted a news article a couple of weeks back where a NASA
scientist came out on record speaking of concerns that aliens might
attack us if we don't do something about man made global warming .


They must be getting so desparate - like a cornered rat - to trot
this rubbish out.



IIRC there were reports of "global warming" on mars also, no wonder
those martians want to come and kill us !

**Substituting lies and complete bullshit for a rational argument does not
enhance your case (such as it is). You need to respond to my many questions
and comments, rather that veering into fantasy-land.

Hanging onto Jeff's coattails is not a reasonable response. Jeff has
presented a cogent, rational argument, that deserves a reasoned response. He
will receive one.

Still waiting for some answers from you.......



--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Phil Allison]

"kreed"

Also noted a news article a couple of weeks back where a NASA
scientist came out on record speaking of concerns that aliens might
attack us if we don't do something about man made global warming .


** Rabid greenies, space aliens - what's the difference ?



..... Phil

 

[Trevor Wilson]

kreed wrote:

On Sep 28, 2:25 pm, "Phil Allison" <phi...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
"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


So true. They should be drummed out of their position, have their
credentials stripped and be prosecuted.
This won't happen though

**LOL! Nor should it. Accusing several dozen of the best scientific
organisations on the planet of fraud, demands some pretty solid evidence.
Thus far, you've presented exactly nothing.

Still waiting for some answers.......


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Trevor Wilson]

kreed wrote:

On Sep 28, 2:47 pm, "Phil Allison" <phi...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
"kreed"

Also noted a news article a couple of weeks back where a NASA
scientist came out on record speaking of concerns that aliens might
attack us if we don't do something about man made global warming .

** Rabid greenies, space aliens - what's the difference ?

.... Phil

I will take my chances with the space aliens thanks,

**Have yourself committed. You've completely lost touch with reality.

I have yet to see where space aliens (assuming they even exist) have
done any harm to us, even if you were to take as fact the claims of
"alien abductees" and such. At best, a few crop circles here and there
might have shaved a few % of profit off the farmers for the damage
done.

**There you go again: Ignoring science, logic and reason. Crop circles were
created by humans. There is no reputable evidence that this planet has been
visited by aliens. Ever. Significantly, so-called 'alien abductions' suddely
began at around the time science fiction movies about aliens made their way
to cinemas. Like your ideas, such things are purely fictional.

When you compare the damage and potential damage done by greenies,

**OK, I'll bite: What damage and what potential dmage do you refer to? Be
specific. Compare that damage to:

* The war in the Gulf.
* The Vietnam War.
* WWII
* WWI
* Chernobyl
* The recent nuclear reactor problems in Japan
* Bhopal
* The Great Pacific Garbage Patch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pacific_Garbage_Patch
* The extinction of thousands of species during the last 100 years

Which is worse and why?

they would be right up there with governments (historically the
greatest threat to human life) and plagues as a significant threat to
mankind.

**Is that so? How so? Be specific in your answer.

I fully expect that you will adopt your usual attitude and you will fail to
respond to any of my questions.

I accept, in advance, that you acknowledge that you are full of shit.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Trevor Wilson]

kreed wrote:

On Sep 28, 2:24 pm, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
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 Wilsonwww.rageaudio.com.au


Submit real proof, not paid for and discredited "proof", failing
that, go away.

**Inability to provide even a tiny shred of supporting evidence is duly
noted.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 14:24:35 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
<trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

* Clear, unequivocal evidence that the planet is warming at a faster rate at
any time in the last 600,000 years.

Ahem...
<http://junksciencearchive.com/MSU_Temps/All_Comp.png>
from:
<http://junksciencearchive.com/MSU_Temps/Warming_Look.html>

* 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.

Ahem...
<http://www.junksciencearchive.com/MSU_Temps/UAHMSUglobe.html>

* Clear, unequivocal evidence that the rate of temperature rise has been
closely linked to CO2 rise in the past.

Yep. Track volcanoes.
<http://junksciencearchive.com/MSU_Temps/scale2.html>
<http://junksciencearchive.com/MSU_Temps/scale1.html>

Ok, I'll be the first to mention that Steven Milloy may have taken
money from Exxon (indirectly), but it has never been proven. Decide
for yourself:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Milloy>

Since you're so sure that AGW is a proven thing, maybe you can collect
the $500,000 from Milloy? Send a few dollars my way if you succeed:
<http://ultimateglobalwarmingchallenge.com>

* Clear, unequivocal evidence that Solar variability fails to account for
the temperature rise over the last 200 years.

Maybe. The problem is that none of the satellites are able to measure
planetary albedo with sufficient accuracy to make a definitive
determination. We can do almost nothing in the way of measuring
albedo from the ground. The plan is for the satellite to measure how
much energy is reflected by the planet (which includes atmospheric,
ocean, ice, land, etc) and also solar output. The energy difference
is presumed to be what the planet absorbs. Note that all the energy
is not necessarily at IR (heating). Apparently it's sufficiently
important that NASA burned $424 million on the failed Glory launch,
and other global warming related birds. The current assumption that
solar variations do not account for the alleged rise in average
temperatures is based on computer models with some rather serious
potential errors.

There's also a rather odd problem of just what the satellites are
actually measuring. Temperature varies with altitude. Satellite IR
imagers measure through all the various layers of the atmosphere. If
there are clouds covering a land mass, the IR imager gets the
temperature of the clouds, not the ground. So, to prevent this
obvious anomaly, the computers are set to only read numbers where
there are no clouds. However, that discounts the effects of aerosols
and particulates (i.e. dust) in the upper atmosphere, which does a
marvelous job of reflecting sunlight into the IR imager. Volcanoes
make it really difficult to get accurate readings. Plenty of other
complications requiring the usual tweaks, adjustments, compensations,
normalization, and cherry picking. Oh well.

What Malloy has done with the "global thermometer" mentioned above is
to take as much of the METAR and NOAA temperature data as possible and
average all of it. The theory is that if you're faced with a large
number of potentially erroneous data points, and don't have the means
to reduce the errors, averaging all the bad data together will somehow
result in good data. That's because the errors will tend to be in
random directions and hopefully cancel. Since the IPCC uses the same
method, one can presume it to be valid. However, I have my doubts.

Anyway, I have not attempted to debunk anything that you've offered.
What I've done it attempt to undermine your apparently unshakable
certainty in AGW and the IPCC. If I've set you on the path of
critical thinking and academic skepticism, then I haven't wasted my
time.

--
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]

**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. This
cannot be 100% proven as fact, 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.

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.

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.

--
Trevor Wilsonwww.rageaudio.com.au

 

[kreed]

On Sep 28, 12:44 pm, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> wrote:

On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 19:28:58 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <je...@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     je...@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann     AE6KS    831-336-2558

Also noted a news article a couple of weeks back where a NASA
scientist came out on record speaking of concerns that aliens might
attack us if we don't do something about man made global warming .


They must be getting so desparate - like a cornered rat - to trot
this rubbish out.



IIRC there were reports of "global warming" on mars also, no wonder
those martians want to come and kill us !

 

[kreed]

On Sep 28, 2:25 pm, "Phil Allison" <phi...@tpg.com.au> wrote:

"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

So true. They should be drummed out of their position, have their
credentials stripped and be prosecuted.
This won't happen though

 

[kreed]

On Sep 28, 2:47 pm, "Phil Allison" <phi...@tpg.com.au> wrote:

"kreed"

Also noted a news article a couple of weeks back where a NASA
scientist came out on record speaking of concerns that aliens might
attack us if we don't do something about man made global warming .

**  Rabid greenies, space aliens  -  what's the difference ?

....  Phil

I will take my chances with the space aliens thanks,

I have yet to see where space aliens (assuming they even exist) have
done any harm to us, even if you were to take as fact the claims of
"alien abductees" and such. At best, a few crop circles here and there
might have shaved a few % of profit off the farmers for the damage
done.

When you compare the damage and potential damage done by greenies,
they would be right up there with governments (historically the
greatest threat to human life) and plagues as a significant threat to
mankind.

 

[kreed]

On Sep 28, 2:24 pm, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

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 Wilsonwww.rageaudio.com.au

Submit real proof, not paid for and discredited "proof", failing
that, go away.

 

[kreed]

On Sep 28, 2:42 pm, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

kreed wrote:
On Sep 28, 12:44 pm, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> wrote:
On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 19:28:58 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
je...@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 je...@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #Dhttp://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Also noted a news article a couple of weeks back where a NASA
scientist came out on record speaking of concerns that aliens might
attack us if we don't do something about man made global warming .

They must be getting so desparate - like a cornered rat -  to trot
this rubbish out.

IIRC there were reports of "global warming" on mars also, no wonder
those martians want to come and kill us !

**Substituting lies and complete bullshit for a rational argument does not
enhance your case (such as it is). You need to respond to my many questions
and comments, rather that veering into fantasy-land.

I'm glad that you admitted that the fear of aliens attacking over
climate change is bullshit rather than rational argument, and proving
my point that NASA or at least the NASA scientist who made this
crackpot statement is speaking "lies, complete bullshit and veering
into fantasy-land"

Im glad we are in agreement on SOMETHING, Whew !!

Hanging onto Jeff's coattails is not a reasonable response. Jeff has
presented a cogent, rational argument, that deserves a reasoned response. He
will receive one.

No, he gets a "reasoned response", as you fear that he would hang you
out to dry, and "pull your nappy down in front of the entire school,
putting your excrement on pubicl display" metaphorically speaking -
if you started abusing him, so you are sucking up to him, and gently
trying to sucker him into your fantasy, or at least get him to give
you some credit to your nonsense to try and look clever or learned to
the rest of the group (who know what you are really like over years of
experience) to try and get their approval so the newer members will
think you to be some genius and beacon of wisdom and knowledge and try
and pull them onto your team to use them against the others.

You also think he is undecided on the subject and can be nudged in
your direction, so you handle with care. You know that I and some
others already have studied the matter,and those behind it, and have
made up their own minds and will not entertain your rubbish, so there
is no point in being nice to us, as it won't change anything, so you
just try and be nasty, abusive etc to impress the others. I guess its
also a threat to others that you may think to be timid, or wanting
approval from others that "this is what will happen to you if you
don't support me" type bullying.

With me, you have known me on here for a decade or so, know that I
generally don't bother pursuing or carrying on drawn out battles with
abusive clowns as I have better things to do.

I have seen the futile results in the past, one of the most memorable
being of the group trying to convince fuckwits like Miro of basic
facts of ohms law, except in his case, he is arguing against
mathematics, and mathematics in its pure form is one true science
that you cannot argue with.

I more find you an interesting example of someone who is either
mentally disturbed, very very gullible, believes unconditionally in
bullshit, or thinks it cool to do so, kind of like a religious cult
member, or a radical nutter - who desperately needs professional help
to be de-programmed, (this is way out of my area of expertise to do
this for you) and based on this knowledge I really don't care much
what you want to say about me, Im a big boy, been in business all my
adult life, and seen and done enough in that time of how the real
world works to not be shocked or offended any more .

I know you will believe in man-made global warming, and whatever the
next fear and control scam gets cooked up, until the day you hit the
bottom of your grave, hence the old russian saying - "only the grave
cures the hunch-backed".



I even find your insults somewhat funny at times and get a good laugh
out of it.

Still waiting for some answers from you.......

--
Trevor Wilsonwww.rageaudio.com.au

You got plenty

 

[Trevor Wilson]

Jeff Liebermann wrote:

On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 14:24:35 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

* Clear, unequivocal evidence that the planet is warming at a faster
rate at any time in the last 600,000 years.

Ahem...
http://junksciencearchive.com/MSU_Temps/All_Comp.png

**Er, 1978 ~ 2010 is not 600,000 years. Not even close. However, this graph
may provide a little more information:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg

Not quite 600,000 years, but considerably more than 30. Here's some more
information:

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/

And:

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/Closer_Look/index.html

from:
http://junksciencearchive.com/MSU_Temps/Warming_Look.html

* 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.

Ahem...
http://www.junksciencearchive.com/MSU_Temps/UAHMSUglobe.html

**Again, a 30 year trend merely backs my claim.

* Clear, unequivocal evidence that the rate of temperature rise has
been closely linked to CO2 rise in the past.

Yep. Track volcanoes.
http://junksciencearchive.com/MSU_Temps/scale2.html
http://junksciencearchive.com/MSU_Temps/scale1.html

**What are you trying to say? That the temerature of the planet is rising?
That CO2 levels are rising? No argument from me.

Ok, I'll be the first to mention that Steven Milloy may have taken
money from Exxon (indirectly), but it has never been proven. Decide
for yourself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Milloy

**The data presented shows:

* That CO2 levels are rising.
* That average temperatures are trending upwards.

I have no issue with that data.

Since you're so sure that AGW is a proven thing, maybe you can collect
the $500,000 from Milloy? Send a few dollars my way if you succeed:
http://ultimateglobalwarmingchallenge.com

**I am satisfied that AGW has been shown to be the most likey explanation
for the temperature rise that has been noted, with around 95% confidence.
That is not 100% confidence and would likely not qualify for the money. It
is likely that, by the time 100% confidence has been reached, several things
will have occured:

* Milloy will be dead.
* VERY serious problems associated with global warming will be occuring and
the planet will have descended into a state of anarchy. US Dollars will
likely be virtually worthless. Food will be only currency of value.

* Clear, unequivocal evidence that Solar variability fails to
account for the temperature rise over the last 200 years.

Maybe. The problem is that none of the satellites are able to measure
planetary albedo with sufficient accuracy to make a definitive
determination.

**Which is why measuring the rate of heat retention by the oceans is so
important:

http://www.bom.gov.au/inside/eiab/State-of-climate-2010-updated.pdf

Examine the graph on page 4. The planet's oceans store vastly more heat than
the troposphere does. The oceans are warming.

We can do almost nothing in the way of measuring

albedo from the ground. The plan is for the satellite to measure how
much energy is reflected by the planet (which includes atmospheric,
ocean, ice, land, etc) and also solar output. The energy difference
is presumed to be what the planet absorbs. Note that all the energy
is not necessarily at IR (heating). Apparently it's sufficiently
important that NASA burned $424 million on the failed Glory launch,
and other global warming related birds. The current assumption that
solar variations do not account for the alleged rise in average
temperatures is based on computer models with some rather serious
potential errors.

**Really? Which errors? We know that the Sun output has diminished
(slightly) over the past couple of decades and yet the temperature trend of
the Earth is still up.

There's also a rather odd problem of just what the satellites are
actually measuring. Temperature varies with altitude. Satellite IR
imagers measure through all the various layers of the atmosphere. If
there are clouds covering a land mass, the IR imager gets the
temperature of the clouds, not the ground. So, to prevent this
obvious anomaly, the computers are set to only read numbers where
there are no clouds. However, that discounts the effects of aerosols
and particulates (i.e. dust) in the upper atmosphere, which does a
marvelous job of reflecting sunlight into the IR imager. Volcanoes
make it really difficult to get accurate readings. Plenty of other
complications requiring the usual tweaks, adjustments, compensations,
normalization, and cherry picking. Oh well.

**Which is why ocean temperature measurements are so important. It is the
planet's oceans that contain the most heat. By a considerable margin.

What Malloy has done with the "global thermometer" mentioned above is
to take as much of the METAR and NOAA temperature data as possible and
average all of it. The theory is that if you're faced with a large
number of potentially erroneous data points, and don't have the means
to reduce the errors, averaging all the bad data together will somehow
result in good data. That's because the errors will tend to be in
random directions and hopefully cancel. Since the IPCC uses the same
method, one can presume it to be valid. However, I have my doubts.

Anyway, I have not attempted to debunk anything that you've offered.
What I've done it attempt to undermine your apparently unshakable
certainty in AGW and the IPCC. If I've set you on the path of
critical thinking and academic skepticism, then I haven't wasted my
time.

**I do not have an "unshakable certainty in AGW and the IPCC". I accept that
the 95% certainty of AGW is a reasonable figure. What I find irrational is
the fact that many people seem to be clinging to the 5% uncertainty and
hoping that a very large number of very smart scientists are wrong.

Fundamentally, the way I see it is like this:

* If we spend a few Bucks today to mitigate CO2 emissions, we may be able to
avert the 95% probability of disaster.
* If we don't spend the money today, then it is highly probable (95%
certainty) that the cost will escalate with each passing year, to a point
where we will be unable to fund mitigation.
* If the scientists are wrong and we spend a few Bucks now, then it's cost
us some money.
* If the scientists are right and we don't spend the money, our civilisation
will not likely survive.

Make no mistake: I did not say that humans will be wiped out. Many will
survive. Anarchy is loking like a real probability.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Trevor Wilson]

kreed wrote:

On Sep 28, 2:42 pm, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
kreed wrote:
On Sep 28, 12:44 pm, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> wrote:
On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 19:28:58 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
je...@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 je...@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #Dhttp://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Also noted a news article a couple of weeks back where a NASA
scientist came out on record speaking of concerns that aliens might
attack us if we don't do something about man made global warming .

They must be getting so desparate - like a cornered rat - to trot
this rubbish out.

IIRC there were reports of "global warming" on mars also, no wonder
those martians want to come and kill us !

**Substituting lies and complete bullshit for a rational argument
does not enhance your case (such as it is). You need to respond to
my many questions and comments, rather that veering into
fantasy-land.


I'm glad that you admitted that the fear of aliens attacking over
climate change is bullshit rather than rational argument, and proving
my point that NASA or at least the NASA scientist who made this
crackpot statement is speaking "lies, complete bullshit and veering
into fantasy-land"

Im glad we are in agreement on SOMETHING, Whew !!

**We agree on nothing. YOU made the claim about an alleged NASA scientist
making an absurd statement. YOU need to sunstantiate the claim. As usual,
you will fail in this action.

Hanging onto Jeff's coattails is not a reasonable response. Jeff has
presented a cogent, rational argument, that deserves a reasoned
response. He will receive one.


No, he gets a "reasoned response", as you fear that he would hang you
out to dry, and "pull your nappy down in front of the entire school,

**Unlike you, Jeff has placed some reased arguments, backed by some cites.
You present nothing to support your wild claims. BIG difference.

putting your excrement on pubicl display" metaphorically speaking -
if you started abusing him,

**Bollocks. I have NEVER abused Jeff. Abuse follows those who act like
dickheads. You have consistently failed to act reasonably and rationally.
You have failed to back your claims with any evidence.

so you are sucking up to him, and gently

trying to sucker him into your fantasy, or at least get him to give
you some credit to your nonsense to try and look clever or learned to
the rest of the group (who know what you are really like over years of
experience) to try and get their approval so the newer members will
think you to be some genius and beacon of wisdom and knowledge and try
and pull them onto your team to use them against the others.

**Bollocks. I cite facts and data. You cite absolutely nothing. Jeff has
backed his arguments with cites. You do not. Comparing yourself to Jeff is
extremely insulting to Jeff.

You also think he is undecided on the subject and can be nudged in
your direction, so you handle with care.

**Bollocks. I don't know what Jeff's position is. I don't much care. The
truth is the truth. Facts are facts. Your complete bullshit is just that:
Complete bullshit. Not once have you presented any facts, or cites to back
your claims. Not once. Jeff presented cites to back his claims.

You know that I and some

others already have studied the matter,and those behind it,

**Liar. You have not read the IPCC AR4. You have, therefore, failed to study
the topic. AR4 is the premier document on the topic.

and have

made up their own minds and will not entertain your rubbish, so there
is no point in being nice to us, as it won't change anything, so you
just try and be nasty, abusive etc to impress the others.

**Not at all. I politely asked you to present data and facts to support your
claims and you failed miserably. Your continued failure to present any data
ensures that you deserve the contempt you receive.

I guess its

also a threat to others that you may think to be timid, or wanting
approval from others that "this is what will happen to you if you
don't support me" type bullying.

**You STILL don't get it. You made wild accusations and wild claims. I asked
for you to supply some evidence to support those claims. You failed to do
so. Your argument has failed.

With me, you have known me on here for a decade or so,

**I don't know you and I don't care to know you. You are clearly an idiot. I
prefer never to deal with such people. I can and regluarly deal with people
who do not share my view on many matters. They all have one thing on common:
They put forward logical, reasonable arguments to back their claims. You do
not.

know that I

generally don't bother pursuing or carrying on drawn out battles with
abusive clowns as I have better things to do.

**And yet, you contiue to sprout complete bullshit, without bothering to
back your dodgy claims.

I have seen the futile results in the past, one of the most memorable
being of the group trying to convince fuckwits like Miro of basic
facts of ohms law, except in his case, he is arguing against
mathematics, and mathematics in its pure form is one true science
that you cannot argue with.

I more find you an interesting example of someone who is either
mentally disturbed, very very gullible, believes unconditionally in
bullshit,

**Nope. I accept that when all the planet's climatologists warn of a problem
that they are likely to be correct. I also accept that you are a complete
idiot, since you believe in some mythical bullshit about all these
climatologists being bribed, without a solitary shred of evidence to support
your claim. I also accept that you dismiss AGW, without bothering to study
the premier document on the subject.

or thinks it cool to do so, kind of like a religious cult

member, or a radical nutter - who desperately needs professional help
to be de-programmed, (this is way out of my area of expertise to do
this for you) and based on this knowledge I really don't care much
what you want to say about me, Im a big boy, been in business all my
adult life, and seen and done enough in that time of how the real
world works to not be shocked or offended any more .

**Hardly surprising, given your extremely ignorant attitudes.

I know you will believe in man-made global warming, and whatever the
next fear and control scam gets cooked up, until the day you hit the
bottom of your grave, hence the old russian saying - "only the grave
cures the hunch-backed".

**Bollocks. Unlike you, I've been examining the subject of AGW since the mid
1970s. The only thing that has altered is the amount of data that supports
the theory.

I even find your insults somewhat funny at times and get a good laugh
out of it.



Still waiting for some answers from you.......

**Still waiting for some answers.......


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Arfa Daily]

<snip>

**Nope. I accept that when all the planet's climatologists warn of a
problem that they are likely to be correct.

All ?


**Bollocks. Unlike you, I've been examining the subject of AGW since the mid

1970s. The only thing that has altered is the amount of data that supports
the theory.

Theory ?


Arfa

Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[kreed]

On Sep 29, 7:42 am, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

kreed wrote:
On Sep 28, 2:42 pm, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
kreed wrote:
On Sep 28, 12:44 pm, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> wrote:
On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 19:28:58 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
je...@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 je...@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #Dhttp://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Also noted a news article a couple of weeks back where a NASA
scientist came out on record speaking of concerns that aliens might
attack us if we don't do something about man made global warming .

They must be getting so desparate - like a cornered rat - to trot
this rubbish out.

IIRC there were reports of "global warming" on mars also, no wonder
those martians want to come and kill us !

**Substituting lies and complete bullshit for a rational argument
does not enhance your case (such as it is). You need to respond to
my many questions and comments, rather that veering into
fantasy-land.

I'm glad that you admitted that the fear of aliens attacking over
climate change is bullshit rather than rational argument, and proving
my point that NASA or at least the NASA scientist who made this
crackpot statement is speaking "lies, complete bullshit and veering
into fantasy-land"

Im glad we are in agreement on SOMETHING,   Whew !!

**We agree on nothing. YOU made the claim about an alleged NASA scientist
making an absurd statement. YOU need to sunstantiate the claim. As usual,
you will fail in this action.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/aug/18/aliens-destroy-humanity-protect-civilisations
>

 

[josephkk]

On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 11:32:04 +1000, Jeßus <none@all.invalid> wrote:

On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 02:14:53 +0100, "Arfa Daily"
arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote:

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.

snip

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.

See any problem with what you've said between the two paragraphs?

Hmmm, indeed.

I don't see anything inconsistent whatsoever. What i see is two
statements that the AGW crowd has failed to make their case, and they
resent anyone saying so. I also see refusal to join shouting matches.
So, what do you see?

?-)

 

[Trevor Wilson]

Arfa Daily wrote:

snip


**Nope. I accept that when all the planet's climatologists warn of a
problem that they are likely to be correct.


All ?

**Near enough. 97% is as close to consensus as it gets. If 97 doctors told
you that if you did not alter your diet, you would get a heart attack and 3
doctors told you not to alter your diet, because you'd be fine, what would
you do?

**Bollocks. Unlike you, I've been examining the subject of AGW since
the mid
1970s. The only thing that has altered is the amount of data that
supports the theory.



Theory ?

** http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Trevor Wilson]

kreed wrote:

On Sep 29, 7:42 am, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
kreed wrote:
On Sep 28, 2:42 pm, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
kreed wrote:
On Sep 28, 12:44 pm, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> wrote:
On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 19:28:58 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
je...@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 je...@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #Dhttp://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Also noted a news article a couple of weeks back where a NASA
scientist came out on record speaking of concerns that aliens
might attack us if we don't do something about man made global
warming .

They must be getting so desparate - like a cornered rat - to trot
this rubbish out.

IIRC there were reports of "global warming" on mars also, no
wonder those martians want to come and kill us !

**Substituting lies and complete bullshit for a rational argument
does not enhance your case (such as it is). You need to respond to
my many questions and comments, rather that veering into
fantasy-land.

I'm glad that you admitted that the fear of aliens attacking over
climate change is bullshit rather than rational argument, and
proving my point that NASA or at least the NASA scientist who made
this crackpot statement is speaking "lies, complete bullshit and
veering into fantasy-land"

Im glad we are in agreement on SOMETHING, Whew !!

**We agree on nothing. YOU made the claim about an alleged NASA
scientist making an absurd statement. YOU need to sunstantiate the
claim. As usual, you will fail in this action.



http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/aug/18/aliens-destroy-humanity-protect-civilisations

**I take it, that you failed to actually READ the article before you made
your stupid claim. Here is the rest of what you snipped:

Hanging onto Jeff's coattails is not a reasonable response. Jeff has
presented a cogent, rational argument, that deserves a reasoned
response. He will receive one.


No, he gets a "reasoned response", as you fear that he would hang you
out to dry, and "pull your nappy down in front of the entire school,

**Unlike you, Jeff has placed some reased arguments, backed by some cites.
You present nothing to support your wild claims. BIG difference.

putting your excrement on pubicl display" metaphorically speaking -
if you started abusing him,

**Bollocks. I have NEVER abused Jeff. Abuse follows those who act like
dickheads. You have consistently failed to act reasonably and rationally.
You have failed to back your claims with any evidence.

so you are sucking up to him, and gently

trying to sucker him into your fantasy, or at least get him to give
you some credit to your nonsense to try and look clever or learned to
the rest of the group (who know what you are really like over years of
experience) to try and get their approval so the newer members will
think you to be some genius and beacon of wisdom and knowledge and try
and pull them onto your team to use them against the others.

**Bollocks. I cite facts and data. You cite absolutely nothing. Jeff has
backed his arguments with cites. You do not. Comparing yourself to Jeff is
extremely insulting to Jeff.

You also think he is undecided on the subject and can be nudged in
your direction, so you handle with care.

**Bollocks. I don't know what Jeff's position is. I don't much care. The
truth is the truth. Facts are facts. Your complete bullshit is just that:
Complete bullshit. Not once have you presented any facts, or cites to back
your claims. Not once. Jeff presented cites to back his claims.

You know that I and some

others already have studied the matter,and those behind it,

**Liar. You have not read the IPCC AR4. You have, therefore, failed to study
the topic. AR4 is the premier document on the topic.

and have

made up their own minds and will not entertain your rubbish, so there
is no point in being nice to us, as it won't change anything, so you
just try and be nasty, abusive etc to impress the others.

**Not at all. I politely asked you to present data and facts to support your
claims and you failed miserably. Your continued failure to present any data
ensures that you deserve the contempt you receive.

I guess its

also a threat to others that you may think to be timid, or wanting
approval from others that "this is what will happen to you if you
don't support me" type bullying.

**You STILL don't get it. You made wild accusations and wild claims. I asked
for you to supply some evidence to support those claims. You failed to do
so. Your argument has failed.

With me, you have known me on here for a decade or so,

**I don't know you and I don't care to know you. You are clearly an idiot. I
prefer never to deal with such people. I can and regluarly deal with people
who do not share my view on many matters. They all have one thing on common:
They put forward logical, reasonable arguments to back their claims. You do
not.

know that I

generally don't bother pursuing or carrying on drawn out battles with
abusive clowns as I have better things to do.

**And yet, you contiue to sprout complete bullshit, without bothering to
back your dodgy claims.

I have seen the futile results in the past, one of the most memorable
being of the group trying to convince fuckwits like Miro of basic
facts of ohms law, except in his case, he is arguing against
mathematics, and mathematics in its pure form is one true science
that you cannot argue with.

I more find you an interesting example of someone who is either
mentally disturbed, very very gullible, believes unconditionally in
bullshit,

**Nope. I accept that when all the planet's climatologists warn of a problem
that they are likely to be correct. I also accept that you are a complete
idiot, since you believe in some mythical bullshit about all these
climatologists being bribed, without a solitary shred of evidence to support
your claim. I also accept that you dismiss AGW, without bothering to study
the premier document on the subject.

or thinks it cool to do so, kind of like a religious cult

member, or a radical nutter - who desperately needs professional help
to be de-programmed, (this is way out of my area of expertise to do
this for you) and based on this knowledge I really don't care much
what you want to say about me, Im a big boy, been in business all my
adult life, and seen and done enough in that time of how the real
world works to not be shocked or offended any more .

**Hardly surprising, given your extremely ignorant attitudes.

I know you will believe in man-made global warming, and whatever the
next fear and control scam gets cooked up, until the day you hit the
bottom of your grave, hence the old russian saying - "only the grave
cures the hunch-backed".

**Bollocks. Unlike you, I've been examining the subject of AGW since the mid
1970s. The only thing that has altered is the amount of data that supports
the theory.

I even find your insults somewhat funny at times and get a good laugh
out of it.



Still waiting for some answers from you.......

**Still waiting for some answers.......


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 21:38:33 -0700 (PDT), kreed
<kenreed1999@gmail.com> wrote:

Also noted a news article a couple of weeks back where a NASA
scientist came out on record speaking of concerns that aliens might
attack us if we don't do something about man made global warming .

They must be getting so desparate - like a cornered rat - to trot
this rubbish out.

Not desperate. This is business as usual in the "more research is
necessary" business. That's the tag line used by professionals
seeking funding for their favorite projects, and to support their
lifestyle. Some good examples of such research that actually does get
funded can be found mixed in with:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ig_Nobel_Prize_winners>
For example, last year's peace prize went to several individuals for:
"...confirming the widely held belief that swearing relieves pain."

More in line with AGW is the topic of bovine flatulence (farting):
<http://sxxz.blogspot.com/2008/01/do-cow-farts-cause-global-warming.html>
Checking Google Scholar, shows 54 reports on bovine flatulence.
<http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q="bovine+flatulence">

Another is rotting vegetation behind dams belching methane.
<http://www.green-planet-solar-energy.com/hydroelectric-energy.html>
So, even the "cleanest" source of electricity we have is not
considered a contributor to global warming. Google Scholar shows
about 200 relevant reports.

Pick a topic that even hints of global warming, and there will be a
line of "researchers" banging on the door for funding.

IIRC there were reports of "global warming" on mars also, no wonder
those martians want to come and kill us !

Yep. We imported the inquisition, bigotry, and intolerance from the
old world to the new. We'll probably do the same when we walk on
Mars.

--
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