Leo's latest missive - Silicon Chip editorial

Is anyone else as horrified at Leo's latest outburst in his magazine as I am? There is a rather surprising amount of ignorance displayed in his editorial. He seems to have the same scientific outlook as George W Bush, John Howard and Andrew Bolt. Which is to say, none at all.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Reply to
Trevor Wilson
Loading thread data ...

Now that's not entirely fair, nobody can be compared to Geoge.W!

I'm really enjoying reading Al Gore's The Assault on Reason at the moment, he gives GWB and the rest of his cronies a right royal flogging.

Dave.

--
---------------------------------------------
Check out my Electronics Engineering Video Blog & Podcast:
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
David L. Jones

I wonder if Leo knows the difference between Chemistry and Physics?

Reply to
L.A.T.

Want to post some critical analysis with excerpt?

Reply to
terryc

Reply to
Trevor Wilson

**It seems that Leo Simpson can be. Like George W, he has:
  • Managed to ignore real science and trust in religion instead.
  • Managed to promulgate lies in place of fact.
  • Refused to back his claims with facts.
**Which exactly what he deserves.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Reply to
Trevor Wilson

**He certainly displays a staggering ignorance of science.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Reply to
Trevor Wilson

to

ied

o
d

ot

nd

Have read the editorial, and until you actually stated otherwise, I first thought the part you were taking issue with Leo to was the part about "the economy improving in a year in most nations". I think he needs to get more of a grip on economic reality before making a ridiculous statement like that. I hope none of you are investing or planning for the future based on beliefs like this.

While I don't dispute that climate change may be occurring and that it always has occurred as part of a natural climate cycle, there are also very many who believe that the theory of man made global warming (AGW) is rubbish .

I also have read where Al Gore is being sued by 20,000 scientists over his claims of AGW so if that is true, then there is plenty of doubt, as I dont regard 20,000 scientists as an insignificant number.

At the end of the day, Gore is a politician and an environmentalist, these are 2 excellent reasons to take anything he says with quite a few (proverbial) grains of salt. The fact that the AGW movement has done everything to rubbish and put down research and views opposite to their "party line" speaks volumes as to their integrity also. If they are in fact correct, they should have nothing to fear by scrutiny and peer review of their "research".

Either way, if (hypothetically) AGW was true, any of the currently proposed methods to "fix" it would result in incredible price increases in energy, most current sources of which there is no viable and cost-effective alternative for (short of nuclear) anyway. This would result in widespread poverty and poor living conditions.

At the end of the day, it stinks of an excuse for another tax (ie: stealing more of our earnings that WE have worked for), another excuse to regulate and control our lives, travel and transport, industry, and/ or as a cover for the inevitable downgrades, rationing, blackouts that in reality will be caused by collapsing state revenues, and the lack of investment in infrastructure (and their years of endless and seemingly unlimited incompetence). I would be amazed if the tax was spent on anything positive to "fix" AGW, it would just disappear into the black hole that is the government budget and now the national debt the current government has given us.

The only real way to fix any hypothetical AGW situation would be a decrease in population levels. By having a future with less people around, both stops carbon emissions through breathing, not to mention the enormous amount each person produces indirectly through their lives just by energy consumption, food production, fuel use etc. Taking any "breeding" bonuses away from hard core welfare ferals and using them in place of proposed carbon taxes would be the best way to kick this off , but dropping the carbon tax and leaving this wasted money in the hands of the taxpayer would be even better still.

It is silly to throw money we can't afford at a fictitious cause and doing such economic damage that by the time we realise that man's activites have nothing to do with climate change, we then find that we have few resources left to deal with how to adapt to natural change in climate. We will then be decades behind any countries that don't fall for this stupidity.

As for Bush, personally, I can't stand the man, and haven't been able to ever since the he started his pathetic Iraq war based on lies, then his Gitmo torture camps, Patriot act etc.

On the carbon issue, he had it dead right.

I also think his current replacement isn't really much of an improvement. A trillion of taxpayer dollars handed out to banks / Wall St. is little more than criminal in my book and will impoverish generations of Americans (and the rest of us, since we will indirectly cop it too) paying it back, with the interest.

Reply to
KR

I dont byt he rag, so did not read the article. Sounds like it may be opinion?

I assume he is talking about global warming/climate change? I dont subscribe to the theory either so perhaps I might share his opinion?

Reply to
The Real Andy

Reply to
David L. Jones

"Trevor Wilson"

** Does not matter a hoot.

** How strange you brought it up then.

** Shame it is perfecty correct logic.

CO2 is still a *very small* component of the atmosphere but IS the substanvce responsible for all animal adn vegetable life on earth.

So CO2 ain't air pollution ( should be sung to the tune of Rock 'n Roll Ain't Noise Plollution)

Problem is only the bad press dished out by a bunch of politically motivated zealots.

** How strange you brought it up then.

** There is no such animal as a credible "climate scientist".

Cos the subject is still in its infancy and its promoter's predictions no better than Voodoo.

** Easy to see which side of the fence TW is on.

..... Phil

Reply to
Phil Allison

"KR"

The only real way to fix any hypothetical AGW situation would be a decrease in population levels. By having a future with less people around, both stops carbon emissions through breathing, not to mention the enormous amount each person produces indirectly through their lives just by energy consumption, food production, fuel use etc.

** Comments like these would make one suspect that CO2 was *itself* a source of heat energy inexhorably warming the globe. Hate to tell ya this pal - it ain't !!!

The culprit is right up there in the sky every single day - albiet 92 million miles away ....

If ever a situation arose where the the human race was in peril from the heat energy released by our long time stellar friend - it is far from impossible to moderate the amount that warms god old planet earth.

Deliberate climate cooling would be far preferable to all the world's nations going to the suicidal risks of a Plutonium energy ecomony.

..... Phil

Reply to
Phil Allison

Agreed.

Indeed

Indeed

(more) indeed.

and he who embarks first on this fool's escapade of "carbon trading" is consigning his country to a third world economic future unless/untill ALL nations do so in lockstep. While it sounds ever so noble to be the first to do the most, it is suicide for the nation.

Yes

zackly

yes he did

and IF we get oz out of debt by 2022 it'll be a miracle.

Reply to
who where

hi, did you know there is NO proof of global warming.

Reply to
mark krawczuk

Of course there is no proof as you cant prove future events today. Global warming is essentially a hypothesis that states that unless we do something now, then something terrible will happen at some future date. Only way to prove this is for someone to build a time machine. As to whether you want to beleive the hypothesis, thats a differant issue.

Reply to
Mauried

There is, it's just a question of WHO (or what) is causing it, and by how much.

Current consensus is the earth is in a phase where it's warming up anyway, though it would be a reasonable guess that humans factor in somewhat too.

The question is HOW much are the humans actually effecting it. Blaming it entirely on humans is incorrect, likewise, it would be a good guess that blaming it on the earth doing it behind our backs entirely isn't quite right either.

Cow flatulence factors significantly in some circles, but if you've ever met my brother in law, his flatulence would probably account for a fair proportion too.

My point being, hypothetically, if you were to remove ALL sources of animal, human warming, and basically everything you have control over, then the earth would STILL warm up. Surely not as quickly, but it would still warm anyway.

Personally, I think a diet change for my BIL would be a good start.

--
Linux Registered User # 302622
Reply to
John Tserkezis

Ignopring the colourful language, the problem with all this climate change stuff is that a lot of it IS NOT science, but more correctly mathematically projections, which can be very problematic.

The real problem is that a more and more data is re-analysed and scientifically evaluated, it is changing and since some of this is base data, oh dear.

My bottom line is that we are going to see some climate change, but weather it is runaway, and what percentage anthromorphological (sp stuffed) I don't know.

Since we do not fully understand Australia's weather, I am very sceptical of climate change scare stories. Credibility is nt helped by the swine flu scare story beat up doing the rounds.

Reply to
terryc

nope, you could offer to reduce your cnsumptive living to a more simple, less resource consuming lifestyle. i.e sharing, rather than greed.

Reply to
terryc

Have read the editorial, and until you actually stated otherwise, I first thought the part you were taking issue with Leo to was the part about "the economy improving in a year in most nations". I think he needs to get more of a grip on economic reality before making a ridiculous statement like that. I hope none of you are investing or planning for the future based on beliefs like this.

While I don't dispute that climate change may be occurring and that it always has occurred as part of a natural climate cycle, there are also very many who believe that the theory of man made global warming (AGW) is rubbish .

**Indeed. There are a large number of scientific illiterates who state just that. Sadly, those people have either failed to read the IPCC reports, or are financially tied to the fossil fuel industry. The facts are blindingly simple: The vast majority of climatologists have carefully and succinctly explained that global warming is occuring and that it is mostly due to anthropogenic influence.

I also have read where Al Gore is being sued by 20,000 scientists over his claims of AGW so if that is true, then there is plenty of doubt, as I dont regard 20,000 scientists as an insignificant number.

**Sounds bogus to me. However, I'll be happy to read whatever evidence you can provide to support your claim. If you cannot provide any evidence, your claim will be dismissed as bullshit.

At the end of the day, Gore is a politician and an environmentalist, these are 2 excellent reasons to take anything he says with quite a few (proverbial) grains of salt. The fact that the AGW movement has done everything to rubbish and put down research and views opposite to their "party line" speaks volumes as to their integrity also. If they are in fact correct, they should have nothing to fear by scrutiny and peer review of their "research".

**It HAS been peer-reviewed! Many times. The result is always the same. Read the IPCC reports. They were peer-reviewed.

Either way, if (hypothetically) AGW was true, any of the currently proposed methods to "fix" it would result in incredible price increases in energy, most current sources of which there is no viable and cost-effective alternative for (short of nuclear) anyway. This would result in widespread poverty and poor living conditions.

**Really? How much would it cost? Be precise. You're claiming that it will result in "incredible price increases". Please feel free to present your evidence.

At the end of the day, it stinks of an excuse for another tax (ie: stealing more of our earnings that WE have worked for), another excuse to regulate and control our lives, travel and transport, industry, and/ or as a cover for the inevitable downgrades, rationing, blackouts that in reality will be caused by collapsing state revenues, and the lack of investment in infrastructure (and their years of endless and seemingly unlimited incompetence).

**All those things are (partly) the result of lack of investment in infrastructure, caused (partly) by inadequate taxation.

I would be amazed if the tax was spent on anything positive to "fix" AGW, it would just disappear into the black hole that is the government budget and now the national debt the current government has given us.

**Then we need to ensure that this does not occur. AGW is a serious problem and requires serious solutions.

The only real way to fix any hypothetical AGW situation would be a decrease in population levels.

**Good idea. In theory. In practice, not so good. The economies of this planet are predicated on continuous population increase. As soon as population growth ceases, economies start falling over. It is, of course, a giant 'Ponzi Scheme'. It was always doomed to failure.

By having a future with less people around, both stops carbon emissions through breathing, not to mention the enormous amount each person produces indirectly through their lives just by energy consumption, food production, fuel use etc. Taking any "breeding" bonuses away from hard core welfare ferals and using them in place of proposed carbon taxes would be the best way to kick this off , but dropping the carbon tax and leaving this wasted money in the hands of the taxpayer would be even better still.

**Why? So the taxpayer can buy bigger, more powerful 4WDs, or bigger, more power hungry plasma TV sets, or bigger, more power hungry homes? Tough taxation, although extremely unpopular, may just cause people to start acting responsibly. There are some possible links between lightly taxed nations (like the US and Australia) and the amount of energy used.

It is silly to throw money we can't afford at a fictitious cause

**Whoa there boy! You have to prove that all those climatologists have it wrong, BEFORE you can claim that AGW is fictitious. Unfortunately, for you, the data is already in. AGW is real and it is a serious problem. However, feel free to present your proof.

and doing such economic damage that by the time we realise that man's activites have nothing to do with climate change, we then find that we have few resources left to deal with how to adapt to natural change in climate. We will then be decades behind any countries that don't fall for this stupidity.

**And there is the real problem. This is a planetary problem. The entire planet must work to sort it out. Australia must do it's part.

As for Bush, personally, I can't stand the man, and haven't been able to ever since the he started his pathetic Iraq war based on lies, then his Gitmo torture camps, Patriot act etc.

On the carbon issue, he had it dead right.

**No, he didn't. Leo has been sucked in by charlatans and liars. He, like you, is just hoping that the climatologists don't know their business. You're both wrong.

I also think his current replacement isn't really much of an improvement.

**Nonsense. Bush place the US (and the rest of the world) into this mess. Bush cut taxation for the very wealthy and INCREASED spending. It does not take a genius to work out that when a nation spends more than it earns, there'll be big problems further down the track. At least Obama has assessed the situation and placed the facts in front of the public.

A trillion of taxpayer dollars handed out to banks / Wall St. is little more than criminal in my book and will impoverish generations of Americans (and the rest of us, since we will indirectly cop it too) paying it back, with the interest.

**I'm not qualified to speak about serious economic matters. There are credible arguments for doing nothing and credible arguments for bailing out private businesses.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Reply to
Trevor Wilson

**I guess it depends on what you call "proof". We have clear, undeniable proof of the following:
  • CO2 is a known GHG.
  • In the past 600,000 years, CO2 levels and temperatures show a clear link. CO2 sometimes precedes temperature rise and sometimes lags.
  • Since the advent of the industrial revolution, CO2 levels have increased by around 30%.
  • Since the advent of the industrial revolution, temperatures have increased.
  • Since the advent of the industrial revolution, temperatures and CO2 levels have increased at a faster rate than at any time in the last 600,000 years.
  • The warmest 11 years on record have all occured in the last 13 years.

To disregard global warming and man's influence on climate merely demonstrates a breath-taking lack of understanding of the science involved. I suggest you read the IPCC reports and get back to us.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Reply to
Trevor Wilson

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.