Toshiba TV29C90 problem; Image fades to black...

[keithr]

On 29/09/2011 1:17 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

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?

Heres one with a fair amount of credibility who puts up a reasonable
theory contra to that put up by the IPCC. Whether he is right or wrong
is way beyond the capability of anybody here to decide, but at least he
is approaching the subject from a reasoned scientific perspective not
the screaming political one that most seem to favour.

Global warming is a fact, the only argument is whether it is natural and
we cannot do anything about it or it is caused by man made conditions
that we can control.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-articles/global-warming-as-a-natural-response/

 

[keithr]

On 27/09/2011 11:14 AM, Arfa Daily wrote:

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.

My problem with both sides of the argument is that neither has an open
mind. The arguments are pointless as both have fully made up their minds
that they are right. The "Greenies" want it to be true as it fits with
their philosophy, the deniers don't want it to be true as they may have
to make some sacrifices in their lifestyle.

 

[Trevor Wilson]

keithr wrote:

On 27/09/2011 11:14 AM, Arfa Daily wrote:

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.

My problem with both sides of the argument is that neither has an open
mind. The arguments are pointless as both have fully made up their
minds that they are right. The "Greenies" want it to be true as it
fits with their philosophy,

**I disagree. _I_ certainly would prefer that all the climatologists have it
very wrong. Sadly, as their position is one that is rooted in science, it is
highly likely that they are correct.

the deniers don't want it to be true as

they may have to make some sacrifices in their lifestyle.

**That's the way I view it.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Trevor Wilson]

keithr wrote:

On 29/09/2011 1:17 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
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?

Heres one with a fair amount of credibility who puts up a reasonable
theory contra to that put up by the IPCC. Whether he is right or wrong
is way beyond the capability of anybody here to decide, but at least
he is approaching the subject from a reasoned scientific perspective
not the screaming political one that most seem to favour.

Global warming is a fact, the only argument is whether it is natural
and we cannot do anything about it or it is caused by man made
conditions that we can control.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-articles/global-warming-as-a-natural-response/

**Whilst not proof that Spencer is wrong about climate science, it is
important to realise that Spencer is a strong proponent of 'Intelligent
Design', rather than evolution as an explanation for the way that species
have become diverse on this planet. A religious viewpoint such at Spencer's
places him in rather a poor light straight off. Spencer is a believer in the
supernatural. Not only that, but he is very active in groups that support
the notion of a supernatural explanation of how things occur on this planet.
Sad.

Roy Spencer is (partly) paid by the Heartland Institute. The Heartland
Institute is funded by Philip Morris (big tobacco), Olin Foundation (the gun
lobby) and Exxon (big oil). His views are hardly surprising, given his
employer/s.

Here are some claims made by Spencer, along with some criticisms of
Spencer's supernatural ideas:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/clouds-negative-feedback.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Dropped-stations-introduce-warming-bias.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ipcc-scientific-consensus.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/few-degrees-global-warming.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/loehle-scafetta-60-year-cycle.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/roy-spencer-negative-feedback-climate-sensitivity.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/satellite-measurements-warming-troposphere.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/a-cloudy-outlook-for-low-climate-sensitivity.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Roy-Spencers-Great-Blunder-Part-1.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Roy-Spencers-Great-Blunder-Part-2.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Roy-Spencers-Great-Blunder-Part-3.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/spencers-misdiagnosis-of-surface-temperature-feedback.html

It is good that you've taken the time to read about the AGW issue. I trust
that you will also take the time to read the science, from real scientists,
who do not place their faith in the supernatural, nor take their money from
big oil. This is an excellent place to start:

www.ipcc.ch


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Trevor Wilson]

kreed wrote:

On Sep 30, 7:27 am, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
keithr wrote:
On 29/09/2011 1:17 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
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?

Heres one with a fair amount of credibility who puts up a reasonable
theory contra to that put up by the IPCC. Whether he is right or
wrong is way beyond the capability of anybody here to decide, but
at least he is approaching the subject from a reasoned scientific
perspective not the screaming political one that most seem to
favour.

Global warming is a fact, the only argument is whether it is natural
and we cannot do anything about it or it is caused by man made
conditions that we can control.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-articles/global-warming-as-a-nat...

**Whilst not proof that Spencer is wrong about climate science, it is
important to realise that Spencer is a strong proponent of
'Intelligent Design', rather than evolution as an explanation for
the way that species have become diverse on this planet. A religious
viewpoint such at Spencer's places him in rather a poor light
straight off. Spencer is a believer in the supernatural. Not only
that, but he is very active in groups that support the notion of a
supernatural explanation of how things occur on this planet. Sad.

Roy Spencer is (partly) paid by the Heartland Institute. The
Heartland Institute is funded by Philip Morris (big tobacco), Olin
Foundation (the gun lobby) and Exxon (big oil). His views are hardly
surprising, given his employer/s.

Here are some claims made by Spencer, along with some criticisms of
Spencer's supernatural ideas:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/clouds-negative-feedback.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Dropped-stations-introduce-warming-bi...

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ipcc-scientific-consensus.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/few-degrees-global-warming.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/loehle-scafetta-60-year-cycle.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/roy-spencer-negative-feedback-climate...

http://www.skepticalscience.com/satellite-measurements-warming-tropos...

http://www.skepticalscience.com/a-cloudy-outlook-for-low-climate-sens...

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Roy-Spencers-Great-Blunder-Part-1.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Roy-Spencers-Great-Blunder-Part-2.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Roy-Spencers-Great-Blunder-Part-3.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/spencers-misdiagnosis-of-surface-temp...

It is good that you've taken the time to read about the AGW issue. I
trust that you will also take the time to read the science, from
real scientists, who do not place their faith in the supernatural,
nor take their money from big oil. This is an excellent place to
start:

www.ipcc.ch


Yes, this is an organisation funded by big government,

**Of course. It was set up by the World Meteorological Organisation and the
UN Environment Programme. As such, it was funded by the UN and thus by
member states of the UN.

banksters etc,

**"Banksters"? What are "banksters"? Which "banksters" funded the IPCC?
Evidence please.

who stand to gain trillions in revenue from this.

**Do they? How? The IPCC reports on the science. The IPCC was set up by the
UN. The UN is "owned" by the 193 members of the UN. Thus, everyone on the
planet is part of the UN.

Dont worry though,

they are the good guys and deserve our money, so we must go along with
it.

**Well, they do have all tht science to back them. You know science? The
stuff you have NOT managed to present, at any time during this thread. Would
you prefer to listen to the words of big oil and big tobacco for your
independent information?


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Trevor Wilson]

kreed wrote:

On Sep 30, 9:03 am, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
kreed wrote:
On Sep 30, 7:27 am, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
keithr wrote:
On 29/09/2011 1:17 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
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?

Heres one with a fair amount of credibility who puts up a
reasonable theory contra to that put up by the IPCC. Whether he
is right or wrong is way beyond the capability of anybody here to
decide, but at least he is approaching the subject from a
reasoned scientific perspective not the screaming political one
that most seem to favour.

Global warming is a fact, the only argument is whether it is
natural and we cannot do anything about it or it is caused by man
made conditions that we can control.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-articles/global-warming-as-a-nat...

**Whilst not proof that Spencer is wrong about climate science, it
is important to realise that Spencer is a strong proponent of
'Intelligent Design', rather than evolution as an explanation for
the way that species have become diverse on this planet. A
religious viewpoint such at Spencer's places him in rather a poor
light straight off. Spencer is a believer in the supernatural. Not
only that, but he is very active in groups that support the notion
of a supernatural explanation of how things occur on this planet.
Sad.

Roy Spencer is (partly) paid by the Heartland Institute. The
Heartland Institute is funded by Philip Morris (big tobacco), Olin
Foundation (the gun lobby) and Exxon (big oil). His views are
hardly surprising, given his employer/s.

Here are some claims made by Spencer, along with some criticisms of
Spencer's supernatural ideas:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/clouds-negative-feedback.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Dropped-stations-introduce-warming-bi...

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ipcc-scientific-consensus.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/few-degrees-global-warming.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/loehle-scafetta-60-year-cycle.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/roy-spencer-negative-feedback-climate...

http://www.skepticalscience.com/satellite-measurements-warming-tropos...

http://www.skepticalscience.com/a-cloudy-outlook-for-low-climate-sens...

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Roy-Spencers-Great-Blunder-Part-1.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Roy-Spencers-Great-Blunder-Part-2.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Roy-Spencers-Great-Blunder-Part-3.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/spencers-misdiagnosis-of-surface-temp...

It is good that you've taken the time to read about the AGW issue.
I trust that you will also take the time to read the science, from
real scientists, who do not place their faith in the supernatural,
nor take their money from big oil. This is an excellent place to
start:

www.ipcc.ch

Yes, this is an organisation funded by big government,

**Of course. It was set up by the World Meteorological Organisation
and the UN Environment Programme. As such, it was funded by the UN
and thus by member states of the UN.

banksters etc,

**"Banksters"? What are "banksters"? Which "banksters" funded the
IPCC? Evidence please.

who stand to gain trillions in revenue from this.

**Do they? How? The IPCC reports on the science. The IPCC was set up
by the UN. The UN is "owned" by the 193 members of the UN. Thus,
everyone on the planet is part of the UN.


It is a modern version of the USSR, - a global USSR if you prefer.
Take a look at UN policies implemented in Australia and tell me how
many of them have actually benefited society and the nation and not
hurt it

**Here are the questions that you (most recently) failed to answer:

**"Banksters"? What are "banksters"? Which "banksters" funded the IPCC?
Evidence please.

Saying that the IPCC is setup by the UN only further buries its
credibility.

**How? The UN os "owned" by all the nations on the planet. Is it perfect?
Nup. Would you prefer that the UN was controlled by (say) Enron, Nestle',
Union Carbide, GE or Philip Morris? Is that what you would prefer? Why?

Dont worry though,

they are the good guys and deserve our money, so we must go along
with it.

**Well, they do have all tht science to back them. You know science?
The stuff you have NOT managed to present, at any time during this
thread. Would you prefer to listen to the words of big oil and big
tobacco for your independent information?

**Would you prefer to listen to the words of big oil and big tobacco for
your independent information?

Why do you continually avoid answering ANY of my questions?
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[kreed]

On Sep 30, 7:27 am, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

keithr wrote:
On 29/09/2011 1:17 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
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?

Heres one with a fair amount of credibility who puts up a reasonable
theory contra to that put up by the IPCC. Whether he is right or wrong
is way beyond the capability of anybody here to decide, but at least
he is approaching the subject from a reasoned scientific perspective
not the screaming political one that most seem to favour.

Global warming is a fact, the only argument is whether it is natural
and we cannot do anything about it or it is caused by man made
conditions that we can control.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-articles/global-warming-as-a-nat...

**Whilst not proof that Spencer is wrong about climate science, it is
important to realise that Spencer is a strong proponent of 'Intelligent
Design', rather than evolution as an explanation for the way that species
have become diverse on this planet. A religious viewpoint such at Spencer's
places him in rather a poor light straight off. Spencer is a believer in the
supernatural. Not only that, but he is very active in groups that support
the notion of a supernatural explanation of how things occur on this planet.
Sad.

Roy Spencer is (partly) paid by the Heartland Institute. The Heartland
Institute is funded by Philip Morris (big tobacco), Olin Foundation (the gun
lobby) and Exxon (big oil). His views are hardly surprising, given his
employer/s.

Here are some claims made by Spencer, along with some criticisms of
Spencer's supernatural ideas:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/clouds-negative-feedback.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Dropped-stations-introduce-warming-bi...

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ipcc-scientific-consensus.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/few-degrees-global-warming.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/loehle-scafetta-60-year-cycle.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/roy-spencer-negative-feedback-climate...

http://www.skepticalscience.com/satellite-measurements-warming-tropos...

http://www.skepticalscience.com/a-cloudy-outlook-for-low-climate-sens...

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Roy-Spencers-Great-Blunder-Part-1.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Roy-Spencers-Great-Blunder-Part-2.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Roy-Spencers-Great-Blunder-Part-3.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/spencers-misdiagnosis-of-surface-temp...

It is good that you've taken the time to read about the AGW issue. I trust
that you will also take the time to read the science, from real scientists,
who do not place their faith in the supernatural, nor take their money from
big oil. This is an excellent place to start:

www.ipcc.ch

Yes, this is an organisation funded by big government, banksters etc,
who stand to gain trillions in revenue from this. Dont worry though,
they are the good guys and deserve our money, so we must go along with
it.

--
Trevor Wilsonwww.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Arfa Daily]

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:9ei69tFb6jU1@mid.individual.net...

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?

I really don't want to get drawn into this again, and I have no particular
desire to fall out with you - you've helped me out in the past with
schematics, and for that I am grateful. But I am really struggling with all
of this. For a start, 97% is up from the 95% that you reckoned it was
earlier in the thread. You make a case for what a doctor might say, but
let's turn that around. If one of your children, say, was up for murder, but
there was a 5% chance that they didn't do it, would you consider that to be
a proven case ? I certainly wouldn't.

Let me throw this into the equation :

http://www.mlive.com/opinion/flint/index.ssf/2009/01/its_time_to_pray_for_global_wa.html

which tells the story of 650 scientists that apparently spoke out against
the case. Now I'm sure that there is some reason that it is all lies, or
should be discredited, but the same story did appear in many other places,
so I have to give it some credibility. 650 seems like quite a big number to
me.

**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

OK. Let's reproduce it here, to save everyone having to go look at your link

"1. a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as
correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a
class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. Synonyms: principle,
law, doctrine. "

Yes, I am aware of this variation of the definition of the word, when used
specifically in connection to science. However, you will note that it
doesn't actually say 'proven', only 'commonly regarded' and that can be used
as 'a principle of explanation'. The fact that Einstein's theory of
relativity is cited as an example is interesting, in that it has gone so
long without actually being proved, that it has become scientific doctrine -
dogma even. And yet just last week, it was announced to the world that it
was likely that a particle which travelled faster than light, had been
clearly detected. Professor Brian Cox, a scientist that I have a deal of
respect for in his primary field of quantum physics, and who was involved in
the experiments to locate this particle, said that if it was correct, it
would turn quantum physics knowledge on its head, and blow Mr Einstein out
of the water. Who would ever have thought that ? Do you consider the theory
of evolution to be a proven case ? A good many reputable scientists and
commentators don't ...

Strangely, having given the definition in the slightly vague terms that they
have, your dictionary then goes on at the end to use the words 'principle',
'law' and 'doctrine' as synonyms, which they clearly aren't as they are much
more closely defined words.

So as far as I am concerned, my query as to your use of the word 'theory',
has not been altered at all. The general understanding of a theory, is that
it is one stage up from hypothesis, in that it is an idea or set of ideas,
whose validity is supported by known facts, the key word being 'supported'
not 'proven'

Arfa

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[kreed]

On Sep 30, 9:03 am, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

kreed wrote:
On Sep 30, 7:27 am, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
keithr wrote:
On 29/09/2011 1:17 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
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?

Heres one with a fair amount of credibility who puts up a reasonable
theory contra to that put up by the IPCC. Whether he is right or
wrong is way beyond the capability of anybody here to decide, but
at least he is approaching the subject from a reasoned scientific
perspective not the screaming political one that most seem to
favour.

Global warming is a fact, the only argument is whether it is natural
and we cannot do anything about it or it is caused by man made
conditions that we can control.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-articles/global-warming-as-a-nat....

**Whilst not proof that Spencer is wrong about climate science, it is
important to realise that Spencer is a strong proponent of
'Intelligent Design', rather than evolution as an explanation for
the way that species have become diverse on this planet. A religious
viewpoint such at Spencer's places him in rather a poor light
straight off. Spencer is a believer in the supernatural. Not only
that, but he is very active in groups that support the notion of a
supernatural explanation of how things occur on this planet. Sad.

Roy Spencer is (partly) paid by the Heartland Institute. The
Heartland Institute is funded by Philip Morris (big tobacco), Olin
Foundation (the gun lobby) and Exxon (big oil). His views are hardly
surprising, given his employer/s.

Here are some claims made by Spencer, along with some criticisms of
Spencer's supernatural ideas:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/clouds-negative-feedback.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Dropped-stations-introduce-warming-bi....

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ipcc-scientific-consensus.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/few-degrees-global-warming.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/loehle-scafetta-60-year-cycle.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/roy-spencer-negative-feedback-climate....

http://www.skepticalscience.com/satellite-measurements-warming-tropos....

http://www.skepticalscience.com/a-cloudy-outlook-for-low-climate-sens....

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Roy-Spencers-Great-Blunder-Part-1.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Roy-Spencers-Great-Blunder-Part-2.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Roy-Spencers-Great-Blunder-Part-3.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/spencers-misdiagnosis-of-surface-temp....

It is good that you've taken the time to read about the AGW issue. I
trust that you will also take the time to read the science, from
real scientists, who do not place their faith in the supernatural,
nor take their money from big oil. This is an excellent place to
start:

www.ipcc.ch

Yes, this is an organisation funded by big government,

**Of course. It was set up by the World Meteorological Organisation and the
UN Environment Programme. As such, it was funded by the UN and thus by
member states of the UN.

banksters etc,

**"Banksters"? What are "banksters"? Which "banksters" funded the IPCC?
Evidence please.

who stand to gain trillions in revenue from this.

**Do they? How? The IPCC reports on the science. The IPCC was set up by the
UN. The UN is "owned" by the 193 members of the UN. Thus, everyone on the
planet is part of the UN.

It is a modern version of the USSR, - a global USSR if you prefer.
Take a look at UN policies implemented in Australia and tell me how
many of them have actually benefited society and the nation and not
hurt it

Saying that the IPCC is setup by the UN only further buries its
credibility.

  Dont worry though,

they are the good guys and deserve our money, so we must go along with
it.

**Well, they do have all tht science to back them. You know science? The
stuff you have NOT managed to present, at any time during this thread. Would
you prefer to listen to the words of big oil and big tobacco for your
independent information?

--
Trevor Wilsonwww.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Arfa Daily]

"keithr" <keith@nowhere.com.au> wrote in message
news:4e845846@dnews.tpgi.com.au...

On 29/09/2011 1:17 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
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?

Heres one with a fair amount of credibility who puts up a reasonable
theory contra to that put up by the IPCC. Whether he is right or wrong is
way beyond the capability of anybody here to decide, but at least he is
approaching the subject from a reasoned scientific perspective not the
screaming political one that most seem to favour.

Global warming is a fact, the only argument is whether it is natural and
we cannot do anything about it or it is caused by man made conditions that
we can control.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-articles/global-warming-as-a-natural-response/

An interesting read. Also interesting, is the fact that this guy is a
meteorologist.

Arfa

 

[Arfa Daily]

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:9ek674FhoqU1@mid.individual.net...

keithr wrote:
On 29/09/2011 1:17 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
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?

Heres one with a fair amount of credibility who puts up a reasonable
theory contra to that put up by the IPCC. Whether he is right or wrong
is way beyond the capability of anybody here to decide, but at least
he is approaching the subject from a reasoned scientific perspective
not the screaming political one that most seem to favour.

Global warming is a fact, the only argument is whether it is natural
and we cannot do anything about it or it is caused by man made
conditions that we can control.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-articles/global-warming-as-a-natural-response/

**Whilst not proof that Spencer is wrong about climate science, it is
important to realise that Spencer is a strong proponent of 'Intelligent
Design', rather than evolution as an explanation for the way that species
have become diverse on this planet. A religious viewpoint such at
Spencer's places him in rather a poor light straight off. Spencer is a
believer in the supernatural. Not only that, but he is very active in
groups that support the notion of a supernatural explanation of how things
occur on this planet. Sad.

Roy Spencer is (partly) paid by the Heartland Institute. The Heartland
Institute is funded by Philip Morris (big tobacco), Olin Foundation (the
gun lobby) and Exxon (big oil). His views are hardly surprising, given his
employer/s.

Here are some claims made by Spencer, along with some criticisms of
Spencer's supernatural ideas:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/clouds-negative-feedback.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Dropped-stations-introduce-warming-bias.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ipcc-scientific-consensus.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/few-degrees-global-warming.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/loehle-scafetta-60-year-cycle.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/roy-spencer-negative-feedback-climate-sensitivity.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/satellite-measurements-warming-troposphere.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/a-cloudy-outlook-for-low-climate-sensitivity.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Roy-Spencers-Great-Blunder-Part-1.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Roy-Spencers-Great-Blunder-Part-2.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Roy-Spencers-Great-Blunder-Part-3.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/spencers-misdiagnosis-of-surface-temperature-feedback.html

It is good that you've taken the time to read about the AGW issue. I trust
that you will also take the time to read the science, from real
scientists, who do not place their faith in the supernatural, nor take
their money from big oil. This is an excellent place to start:

www.ipcc.ch


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

You're not by any chance a JW as well, are you Trevor ... ?

Arfa

 

[Trevor Wilson]

Arfa Daily wrote:

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:9ei69tFb6jU1@mid.individual.net...
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?




I really don't want to get drawn into this again, and I have no
particular desire to fall out with you - you've helped me out in the
past with schematics, and for that I am grateful.

**There is absolutely no reason for two intelligent people to get drawn into
a slanging match.

But I am really

struggling with all of this. For a start, 97% is up from the 95% that
you reckoned it was earlier in the thread.

**The 95% confidence refers to the confidence level that climatologists have
WRT the cause of global warming being anthropogenic in nature. The figure in
the 1970s, was something like 70% and has been rising ever since. The 97%
figure represents the number of climatologists that are convinced that AGW
is the most likely explanation for the warming.

You make a case for what a

doctor might say, but let's turn that around. If one of your
children, say, was up for murder, but there was a 5% chance that they
didn't do it, would you consider that to be a proven case ? I
certainly wouldn't.

**Indeed, but they are quite different scenarios, with very different
outcomes. Would you care to respond to my question please?

Let me throw this into the equation :

http://www.mlive.com/opinion/flint/index.ssf/2009/01/its_time_to_pray_for_global_wa.html

which tells the story of 650 scientists that apparently spoke out
against the case. Now I'm sure that there is some reason that it is
all lies, or should be discredited, but the same story did appear in
many other places, so I have to give it some credibility. 650 seems
like quite a big number to me.

**Do you have a reputable cite for this alleged statement? That article is
clearly biased and highly flawed in many ways. I'd like some independent
verification of the 650 scientist claim.

**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



OK. Let's reproduce it here, to save everyone having to go look at
your link
"1. a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly
regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation
and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of
relativity. Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine. "

Yes, I am aware of this variation of the definition of the word, when
used specifically in connection to science. However, you will note
that it doesn't actually say 'proven', only 'commonly regarded' and
that can be used as 'a principle of explanation'.

**Correct. AGW is a theory. An highly credible one, that is embraced by the
vast majority of climatologists.

The fact that

Einstein's theory of relativity is cited as an example is
interesting, in that it has gone so long without actually being
proved, that it has become scientific doctrine - dogma even. And yet
just last week, it was announced to the world that it was likely that
a particle which travelled faster than light, had been clearly
detected.

**Not proven yet. In the same week, other parts of Einstein's work has been
validated.

Professor Brian Cox, a scientist that I have a deal of

respect for in his primary field of quantum physics, and who was
involved in the experiments to locate this particle, said that if it
was correct, it would turn quantum physics knowledge on its head, and
blow Mr Einstein out of the water. Who would ever have thought that ?

**Me, for one. Einstein was known to be searching up blind alleys in SOME of
his work. That does not make Einstein an idiot. NOr does it make him always
wrong. It simply makes Einstein 99% right.

Do you consider the theory of evolution to be a proven case ?

**No. There never was a "theory of evolution". Evolution is an observed
fact. Darwin proposed his Theory of Natural Selection to explain evolution.
Darwin was a brilliant man.


A good

many reputable scientists and commentators don't ...

**Of coruse. They know that evolution is not a theory. They know that Darwin
proposed Natural Selection to explain evolution.

Strangely, having given the definition in the slightly vague terms
that they have, your dictionary then goes on at the end to use the
words 'principle', 'law' and 'doctrine' as synonyms, which they
clearly aren't as they are much more closely defined words.

**Nonetheless, AGW remains an highly credible theory that attempts to
explain the warming of this planet that we are presently witnessing. IT is
not a "law", nor is it a fact, beyond doubt. Doubts remain. However, the
confidence level pertaining to AGW is running at around 95%.

So as far as I am concerned, my query as to your use of the word
'theory', has not been altered at all. The general understanding of a
theory, is that it is one stage up from hypothesis, in that it is an
idea or set of ideas, whose validity is supported by known facts, the
key word being 'supported' not 'proven'

**Correct. By the time AGW is proven, it will be too late to remedy it. I
can't live with that.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Trevor Wilson]

Arfa Daily wrote:

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:9ek674FhoqU1@mid.individual.net...
keithr wrote:
On 29/09/2011 1:17 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
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?

Heres one with a fair amount of credibility who puts up a reasonable
theory contra to that put up by the IPCC. Whether he is right or
wrong is way beyond the capability of anybody here to decide, but
at least he is approaching the subject from a reasoned scientific
perspective not the screaming political one that most seem to
favour. Global warming is a fact, the only argument is whether it is
natural
and we cannot do anything about it or it is caused by man made
conditions that we can control.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-articles/global-warming-as-a-natural-response/

**Whilst not proof that Spencer is wrong about climate science, it is
important to realise that Spencer is a strong proponent of
'Intelligent Design', rather than evolution as an explanation for
the way that species have become diverse on this planet. A religious
viewpoint such at Spencer's places him in rather a poor light
straight off. Spencer is a believer in the supernatural. Not only
that, but he is very active in groups that support the notion of a
supernatural explanation of how things occur on this planet. Sad.

Roy Spencer is (partly) paid by the Heartland Institute. The
Heartland Institute is funded by Philip Morris (big tobacco), Olin
Foundation (the gun lobby) and Exxon (big oil). His views are hardly
surprising, given his employer/s.

Here are some claims made by Spencer, along with some criticisms of
Spencer's supernatural ideas:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/clouds-negative-feedback.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Dropped-stations-introduce-warming-bias.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ipcc-scientific-consensus.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/few-degrees-global-warming.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/loehle-scafetta-60-year-cycle.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/roy-spencer-negative-feedback-climate-sensitivity.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/satellite-measurements-warming-troposphere.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/a-cloudy-outlook-for-low-climate-sensitivity.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Roy-Spencers-Great-Blunder-Part-1.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Roy-Spencers-Great-Blunder-Part-2.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Roy-Spencers-Great-Blunder-Part-3.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/spencers-misdiagnosis-of-surface-temperature-feedback.html

It is good that you've taken the time to read about the AGW issue. I
trust that you will also take the time to read the science, from real
scientists, who do not place their faith in the supernatural, nor
take their money from big oil. This is an excellent place to start:

www.ipcc.ch


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



You're not by any chance a JW as well, are you Trevor ... ?

**I am not well regarded by Jehovah's Witness', nor by Mormans. When
religious nutters turn up on my doorstep to push their peculiar religion
down my throat, I feel zero compuction in stting them down, offering them a
cup of tea and then proceding to lecture them on science and the nonsensical
nature of supernatural beliefs. Most hurridly excuse themselves and make
their escape.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Trevor Wilson]

Arfa Daily wrote:

"keithr" <keith@nowhere.com.au> wrote in message
news:4e845846@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
On 29/09/2011 1:17 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
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?

Heres one with a fair amount of credibility who puts up a reasonable
theory contra to that put up by the IPCC. Whether he is right or
wrong is way beyond the capability of anybody here to decide, but at
least he is approaching the subject from a reasoned scientific
perspective not the screaming political one that most seem to favour.

Global warming is a fact, the only argument is whether it is natural
and we cannot do anything about it or it is caused by man made
conditions that we can control.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-articles/global-warming-as-a-natural-response/

An interesting read. Also interesting, is the fact that this guy is a
meteorologist.

**Have you taken the time to read IPCC AR4?

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 11:52:27 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
<trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

Let me throw this into the equation :

http://www.mlive.com/opinion/flint/index.ssf/2009/01/its_time_to_pray_for_global_wa.html

which tells the story of 650 scientists that apparently spoke out
against the case. Now I'm sure that there is some reason that it is
all lies, or should be discredited, but the same story did appear in
many other places, so I have to give it some credibility. 650 seems
like quite a big number to me.

**Do you have a reputable cite for this alleged statement? That article is
clearly biased and highly flawed in many ways. I'd like some independent
verification of the 650 scientist claim.

Here's the original report to the US Senate Environment and Public
Works Committee:
<http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=83947f5d-d84a-4a84-ad5d-6e2d71db52d9>

Some general comments on the above:
<http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6>

1000 scientists as of Dec 2010:
<http://www.climatedepot.com/a/9035/SPECIAL-REPORT-More-Than-1000-International-Scientists-Dissent-Over-ManMade-Global-Warming-Claims--Challenge-UN-IPCC--Gore>

Revised 2010 version of the report:
<http://hw.libsyn.com/p/b/f/6/bf663fd2376ffeca/2010_Senate_Minority_Report.pdf?sid=b6c4660adeeec66b4b7e4b116e831bbb&l_sid=27695&l_eid=&l_mid=2336201>

Incidentally, only about 20% of the IPCC scientists have anything to
do with climate in their daytime academic jobs. Should the IPCC
really be considered authoritative?
<http://www.globalwarming.org/2009/02/16/christyschlesinger-debate-part-ii/>

I'm not sure how to do an independent verification, since the AGW
debate has successfully polarized just about everyone involved in
climate research. I could probably conjur someone neutral from the
non-climatology scientists, but those would not be authoritative.
Surely you're not looking for research papers published by
non-climatologists?

Methinks you might find the text and links in the 2010 report to be
rather umm... interesting. 321 pages is a bit much, but I expect to
be done reading sometime tonite.

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

 

[keithr]

On 30/09/2011 7:27 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

keithr wrote:
On 29/09/2011 1:17 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
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?

Heres one with a fair amount of credibility who puts up a reasonable
theory contra to that put up by the IPCC. Whether he is right or wrong
is way beyond the capability of anybody here to decide, but at least
he is approaching the subject from a reasoned scientific perspective
not the screaming political one that most seem to favour.

Global warming is a fact, the only argument is whether it is natural
and we cannot do anything about it or it is caused by man made
conditions that we can control.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-articles/global-warming-as-a-natural-response/

**Whilst not proof that Spencer is wrong about climate science, it is
important to realise that Spencer is a strong proponent of 'Intelligent
Design', rather than evolution as an explanation for the way that species
have become diverse on this planet. A religious viewpoint such at Spencer's
places him in rather a poor light straight off. Spencer is a believer in the
supernatural. Not only that, but he is very active in groups that support
the notion of a supernatural explanation of how things occur on this planet.
Sad.

Roy Spencer is (partly) paid by the Heartland Institute. The Heartland
Institute is funded by Philip Morris (big tobacco), Olin Foundation (the gun
lobby) and Exxon (big oil). His views are hardly surprising, given his
employer/s.

Here are some claims made by Spencer, along with some criticisms of
Spencer's supernatural ideas:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/clouds-negative-feedback.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Dropped-stations-introduce-warming-bias.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ipcc-scientific-consensus.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/few-degrees-global-warming.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/loehle-scafetta-60-year-cycle.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/roy-spencer-negative-feedback-climate-sensitivity.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/satellite-measurements-warming-troposphere.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/a-cloudy-outlook-for-low-climate-sensitivity.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Roy-Spencers-Great-Blunder-Part-1.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Roy-Spencers-Great-Blunder-Part-2.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Roy-Spencers-Great-Blunder-Part-3.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/spencers-misdiagnosis-of-surface-temperature-feedback.html

It is good that you've taken the time to read about the AGW issue. I trust
that you will also take the time to read the science, from real scientists,
who do not place their faith in the supernatural, nor take their money from
big oil. This is an excellent place to start:

www.ipcc.ch

The question is whether you have read his arguments or just the
refutations that others have written about them.

 

[Jeffrey Angus]

On 9/30/2011 7:08 AM, kreed wrote:

Thats because it isnt a corporation, with real money, media and power
behind it. If it was, he would believe anything they told him

Sounds like Scientology would be the perfect fit then.

Jeff

--
"Everything from Crackers to Coffins"

 

[kreed]

On Sep 30, 11:55 am, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

Arfa Daily wrote:
"Trevor Wilson" <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:9ek674FhoqU1@mid.individual.net...
keithr wrote:
On 29/09/2011 1:17 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
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?

Heres one with a fair amount of credibility who puts up a reasonable
theory contra to that put up by the IPCC. Whether he is right or
wrong is way beyond the capability of anybody here to decide, but
at least he is approaching the subject from a reasoned scientific
perspective not the screaming political one that most seem to
favour. Global warming is a fact, the only argument is whether it is
natural
and we cannot do anything about it or it is caused by man made
conditions that we can control.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-articles/global-warming-as-a-nat....

**Whilst not proof that Spencer is wrong about climate science, it is
important to realise that Spencer is a strong proponent of
'Intelligent Design', rather than evolution as an explanation for
the way that species have become diverse on this planet. A religious
viewpoint such at Spencer's places him in rather a poor light
straight off. Spencer is a believer in the supernatural. Not only
that, but he is very active in groups that support the notion of a
supernatural explanation of how things occur on this planet. Sad.

Roy Spencer is (partly) paid by the Heartland Institute. The
Heartland Institute is funded by Philip Morris (big tobacco), Olin
Foundation (the gun lobby) and Exxon (big oil). His views are hardly
surprising, given his employer/s.

Here are some claims made by Spencer, along with some criticisms of
Spencer's supernatural ideas:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/clouds-negative-feedback.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Dropped-stations-introduce-warming-bi....

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ipcc-scientific-consensus.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/few-degrees-global-warming.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/loehle-scafetta-60-year-cycle.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/roy-spencer-negative-feedback-climate....

http://www.skepticalscience.com/satellite-measurements-warming-tropos....

http://www.skepticalscience.com/a-cloudy-outlook-for-low-climate-sens....

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Roy-Spencers-Great-Blunder-Part-1.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Roy-Spencers-Great-Blunder-Part-2.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Roy-Spencers-Great-Blunder-Part-3.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/spencers-misdiagnosis-of-surface-temp....

It is good that you've taken the time to read about the AGW issue. I
trust that you will also take the time to read the science, from real
scientists, who do not place their faith in the supernatural, nor
take their money from big oil. This is an excellent place to start:

www.ipcc.ch

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

You're not by any chance a JW as well, are you Trevor ...  ?    

**I am not well regarded by Jehovah's Witness', nor by Mormans. When
religious nutters turn up on my doorstep to push their peculiar religion
down my throat, I feel zero compuction in stting them down, offering them a
cup of tea and then proceding to lecture them on science and the nonsensical
nature of supernatural beliefs. Most hurridly excuse themselves and make
their escape.

--
Trevor Wilsonwww.rageaudio.com.au

Thats because it isnt a corporation, with real money, media and power
behind it. If it was, he would believe anything they told him

 

[kreed]

On Sep 29, 7:24 am, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 14:24:35 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
tre...@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/i...

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.

Look at the REAL threats around you. Including the ones posed by the
backers of this fear campaign. That is far more real and far more
certain than some religious "pay us tithes (carbon tax) or the gods of
the sky will unleash fire (Global warming) on you"

--
Trevor Wilsonwww.rageaudio.com.au

 

[kreed]

On Sep 30, 10:22 pm, Jeffrey Angus <grendel...@aim.com> wrote:

On 9/30/2011 7:08 AM, kreed wrote:

Thats because it isnt a corporation, with real money, media and power
behind it.  If it was, he would believe anything they told him

Sounds like Scientology would be the perfect fit then.

LOL - if they did a presentation for Trev by someone in a lab coat
pretending to look intelligent, and could "prove" that he would be
damned for eternity if he didnt get fully involved, then he would be
sucked right on

Jeff

--
"Everything from Crackers to Coffins"