How the bastards do it

Interesting, you are saying that that is a bad thing (if it is even true) , but its quite ok for CSIRO and governments to be paid by big banking firms ?"

Seems the hypocrisy aint one sided

--









X-No-Archive: Yes

**It's neither good nor bad. Carter is very well qualified to speak about marine geology. He is NOT qualified to speak about climatology. He speaks about climatology, because he is paid (by Exxon and others) to do so). **CSIRO is largely funded by government. That includes the Howard/Abbott government. I will remind you, once more: John Howard and Tony Abbott were/are AGW deniers. All whilst they signed the paycheques to the scientists at CSIRO, who were telling them that they were completely wrong. Good scientists do that: The cite the data, not opinion. Carter cites an uninformed opinion about climatology. IF CSIRO accepts SOME money from "big banking firms", then they are probably doing so because the research they happen to be involved in is worth investing in.

I will ask you once more:

Why was CSIRO reporting that AGW was a serious problem, whilst being paid by the Howard (AGW denying) government?

Care to explain?

I will follow-up by asking: Why do you place your faith in a serial liar like Alan jones, rather than real scientists? Are you completely deluded, or just a fool?

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

d=3D13292

e)

=20

=20

firms ?"

=20

=20

Ahh - good. Now we are getting somewhere, so the "warmist science mongers" = have a vested interest, since the gov stands to pull in billions of our money, and put more controls on our lives, without our individual co= nsent, that would make a very good reason not to allow dissent amongst thes= e 'scientists'.

As for political parties, its not relevant, as behind the scenes they are c= ontrolled by the same groups, who the politicians follow, in a sort of "goo= d cop, bad cop" way in order to convince the gullible public that they do h= ave a way to change REAL things.

Besides, if you remember rightly, Howard towards the end of his power was p= romising to bring in some "warmist" AGW scheme if re-elected, and even thou= gh Abbot is quite correct in saying that AGW is rubbish, you have said your= self he still plans to bring in another scheme that will cost even more. = =20

In other words still supporting warmist theory, but through the backdoor -= again to screw over the public. - if what you say is true.=20

So in other words you answered your own question on that one.

See above. Note also that Howard was put in his box for telling the truth,= and the main reason he was made to lose office was because at the time onl= y a relatively small portion of the public was fully awake to AGW being a f= raud. He tried to pretend to turn at the end but was too late. Now the ma= jority knows, but it is too late.

=20

What about Julia Gillard ? Is she not a serial liar, so much so that lying has virtually become her trademark in the eyes of the public ?

I think you are talking about yourself Trevor. Governments and government = agencies traditionally hold the gold medal for being serial liars, and caus= ing more death and suffering than any other group I can think of. (Maybe we= should call it Democricide?). I wouldn't trust them an inch if we are goin= g to start talking about "lying" and deception.=20

What Jones guest says on that particular interview, it makes sense. =20

I don't know what his other programs are about, but this particular program I don't see what the problem is with it.=20

Now I know what makes Trevor hot under the collar about Jones, he is

**Again, you ignore the points I made. I will re-state:

Whilst Abbott and Howard were running this country, they paid the scientists at CSIRO. Even though Howard and Abbott denied AGW, the CSIRO told them that they were wrong.

**That may be so, but the scientists have been stating the same thing for decades. **Indeed.

**Correct.

**We're screwed either way. Doing something to reduce CO2 emissions will cost money. Doing nothing will cost future generations FAR more money. **You have failed to answer. You claim that the scientists state whatever they're told to state. Howard and Abbott claimed that AGW was bullshit. The scientists stated that they were wrong.

Note also that Howard was put in his box for telling the

**What "fruad"? State your science to prove AGW theory is wrong.

He tried to pretend to turn at the end

**The majority are idiots. They (and you) understand precious little about science. **She is a lawyer and a politician. I do not listen to here about matters other than politics or law. She is NOT a climatologist. I listen to climatologists about climatology.

Is she not a serial liar, so much so

**I will ask you again:

Why do you place your faith in serial liars like Alan Jones, Tony Abbott and George Pell in matters of climatology? Why do you not listen to CLIMATOLOGISTS?

**Huh? You call me deluded, because I listen to scientists, rather than politicians, talk-back radio hosts and religious leaders about matters relating to climatology?

Governments and

**Really? How many people have been murdered by the Australian governments? How many people have been murdered by CSIRO scientists?

(Maybe we should call it Democricide?). I

**Carter is a marine geologist. Smart guy. If I want to know about marine geology, he would be the first guy I'd ask. **Carter is a marine geologist. He is paid by Exxon.

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

Well you both have just declared your IQ, only the brain dead listens to that genius.

**The term: "white trash" springs to mind.

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

Nuh. The Jones bitch is so far below "white trash" even the maggots look down on him.

Cheers, Gary B-)

--
When men talk to their friends, they insult each other.
They don't  really mean it.
When women talk to their friends, they compliment each other.
They don't mean it either.

He is the announcer, I particularly liked his guest, who happened to be a scientist, and one telling truth.

scientist,

**A marine geologist.

and one telling truth.

**How would you know? You know zero about climatology.

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

scientist,

Just what does it take to be a climatologist or climate scientist anyway, Trev??? Obviously being a marine geologist is just not good enough, eh? What about an oceanographer ? Or a hydrologist ? Maybe an agricultural scientist is too far from climatology? A marine scientist - sounds a bit too much like a marine geologist, eh

CSIRO scientists with such qualifications seem to be acceptable for the IPCC......what have you got against marine geologists ?

scientist,

Trev???

**A career spent studying the climate. As opposed to a lifetime spent studying religion, politics, teaching young school boys, half-naked footballers and marine geology. **Duh.

**What about an oceanographer?

**What about a hydrologist?

**Very likely.

**Nope. A marine geologist is a marine geologist.

IPCC......what have you got against marine geologists ?

**Nothing at all. If I want to know about marine geology, I'll certainly refer to a marine geologist. If I want to know about climatology, I'll refer to a climatologist.

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

The trouble with studying one field all your life is that you are locked into conventional thinking in the main. Look at new inventions they are quite often made by people out of the field looking out of the square, a locksmith has trouble looking past conventional thinking where as someone outside the field has a blank canvas for instance, so discounting all experts not in a narrow field is stupid.

Umm, in the past, that was identified as a major problem of western education. at one stage, those with an "eastern" education were seen as having a broader/cross area approach to investigation/study/research,

d

=20

That is exactly right, and I believe it is a big problem in recent times. = Even in Electronics, those with the narrow area of knowledge can be very pr= oblematic, if you need to work on/collaborate on something that is even sli= ghtly outside that narrow field of expertise.

All round general knowledge/understanding -even if not as high a level as i= n your specific field is very important. =20

Life experience also counts enormously. Being in small business long term a= nd dealing with all types, teaches you a lot about people, and especially i= f they are lying, pulling a fast one, trying to bullshit their way through = something or have no real knowledge, but are pretending to. I also find ou= t that if (or are perceived as) you listen and are receptive, you find out = a lot of good stuff, but people who are not, and especially push narrow "pa= rroted" crap around will tend to be shut out once they open their mouths.

Experience alone to me sends up red flags all over the place about the pro = AGW warmist brigade.

Even in Electronics,

There are a lot of areas where the knowledge set it like that.

warmist brigade. Well, not many are actually competent to understand, let alone explain the data, so they just go with the fashion/mob.

ed wrote in news:c7mdnZcl8pJ5lXHSnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@westnet.com.au:

Thanks for showing everybody your wondrous logic LOL

**Just the facts. Jones' demographic is the 'white trash' segment of Australian society. People who have no ability to think critically. Science is not something they understand.

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

Trevor Wilson wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@mid.individual.net:

I have only heard about Jones on occasion as I'm not a Sydneysider. From what I know about him he is probably an idiot. But I am interested in the climate debate in a wider sense than his input, since the outcomes affect everyone with energy bills.