OT: carbon polls in daily telegraph. Interesting results.

Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary

Translate This Thread From English to

Threaded View
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/julia-gillard-digging-herself-a-deeper-hole-over-the-carbon-tax/story-e6freuzr-1226093386366

Re: OT: carbon polls in daily telegraph. Interesting results.
Quoted text here. Click to load it
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/julia-gillard-digging-herself-a-deeper-hole-over-the-carbon-tax/story-e6freuzr-1226093386366
Well the respondents hate juliar and the tax

--
X-No-Archive: Yes


Re: carbon polls in daily telegraph. Interesting results.
Quoted text here. Click to load it
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/julia-gillard-digging-herself-a-deeper-hole-over-the-carbon-tax/story-e6freuzr-1226093386366

**Why is that interesting? The average IQ of the Telegraph readership is
below room temperature.

Witness the answer to the last question.

64% believe that global warming is a myth.
Kinda says it all, really. 64% of respondents are idiots.

Even worse, is the way the questions are worded. Some are impossible to
answer.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



Re: carbon polls in daily telegraph. Interesting results.
Quoted text here. Click to load it

The answers given would tend to disprove that theory.
They reflect what I hear in my everyday work and general discussion.
I can assure you most I work with and know do not have a low IQ.


Quoted text here. Click to load it

It just means that 64% are awake to reality and can think for
themselves
It is about time Australians started to grow up, and it is great to
see.


Quoted text here. Click to load it

That is somewhat true.
for example:

--------------

Will your vote be altered by the carbon tax at the next federal
election?

This result doesn't tell you much, as people who don't want the tax
and vote Labor or Green will change their vote (in theory)
but those that vote liberal and don't want the tax will NOT change
their vote.  Without knowing how people voted without the tax being
an issue, it is a meaningless answer in regards to the carbon tax.

----------------

Should Australia have a carbon tax?

Straightforward, and gives a clear result.
I didn't even know the opposition to it was that high but its good to
see.



Quoted text here. Click to load it


Re: carbon polls in daily telegraph. Interesting results.
Quoted text here. Click to load it
**Nope. It merely validates it. Most people are idiots.


Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Ok. You're surrounded by idiots. I get that.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Clearly, that is not the case. ALL the climatologists have told us that
AGW is a reality. Denial of that, is denial of science. Denial of science is
proof of stupidity.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Nope. It is clear prof that 64% of the respondents are idiots.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**It is tragic that so many Australians are able to deny science so readily.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**It is 100% true, not somewhat.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**The opinions of idiots mean little to me.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



Re: carbon polls in daily telegraph. Interesting results.
Quoted text here. Click to load it
You being a "people " certainly prove your claim

--
X-No-Archive: Yes


Re: carbon polls in daily telegraph. Interesting results.

"Trevor Wilson"

Quoted text here. Click to load it


** Since when is climatology a science ?

It is no more a science than Scientology is.

So called climatologists ( they invented the subject and dubbed themselves
with the misleading title ) do not perform experiments, have never made
successful predictions about the future climate and are generally laughed at
by real scientists as obvious fakes and opportunists.


BTW:

The word "science" coming from the lips of TW is a blasphemy.


....  Phil






Re: carbon polls in daily telegraph. Interesting results.
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**For a few decades now. Here's a guy who seems to know a little about the
topic:

http://www.bom.gov.au/announcements/new_director/biography.shtml

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Really? What do you base that conclusion on?

Send a message to Dr Ayers explaining your POV. I'm certain he will most
interested in your well informed opinion.

Remind me: What is your experience in the area of atmospheric physics?

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Are you certain about that? Got some proof?

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Are you certain about that? Google: Svante Arrheius sometime. More than
100 years ago, Arrhenius predicted that the temperature of the planet would
rise, if humans increased CO2 emissions. He drew on works and experimental
data from guys like Fourier that has already established that CO2 was highly
resonant at several IR frequencies.

 and
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**I don't accept that lie. I do accept that Tony Abbott, George Pell and
Alan Jones dispute the science however. None of those guys understands
diddly about science though.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Uh-huh. I'll play your game. YOU explain the warming trend that has been
observed over the past 100 odd years. If it is not CO2, then what is it?


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



Re: carbon polls in daily telegraph. Interesting results.

"Trevor Wilson"
Quoted text here. Click to load it

** Nonsense.

 It is not science at all.


Quoted text here. Click to load it


 **  No science involved in either.

 But lostsa money and gaining influence over gullible people is the driver.


Quoted text here. Click to load it

  ** How absurd.


Quoted text here. Click to load it

**  He a friend of  " Nostradamus "  by any chance ??

  What absurd Crapology.

  The only  " science  " TW is familiar with.


Quoted text here. Click to load it

** ROTFL.

 TW always use his opinions to prove his opinions.

 Same as all fakes, liars and charlatans.


Quoted text here. Click to load it


** The small, recent trend you allude to may well be measurement error,
statistical variance or a natural effect that will turn and go the other way
in the future.

THEN  we will have all sorts of dire predictions of planet wide disaster
from Global Cooling  !!!

THEN all the climate charlatans will be saying we need to generate more CO2
to fix it  !!!!!

The obvious comparisons with witchcraft and bone pointing are frightening.

BTW:

Been damn cool where I live lately......



....  Phil




Re: carbon polls in daily telegraph. Interesting results.
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**So you keep insisting. I feel reasonably certain that this guy may dispute
what you say:

http://www.bom.gov.au/announcements/new_director/biography.shtml

Send him an email, outlining your theories. I feel certain he will be
pleased to hear from you, telling him that the last few decades of his
research was a waste of time.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**I see. So, all those years of research performed by Dr Ayers is pointless?
Is that your contention?

Have you sent Dr Ayers an email, explaining your theory?


Quoted text here. Click to load it

**There are other possibilities. Perhaps the climatologists are correct and
the religious nutters (Abbott, Pell, et al) and the talk-back radio hosts
are wrong. Let's examine the possibilities:

* The guys who study the climate have told us that CO2 levels are rising to
levels that pose a serious risk of irreversible damage to our climate.
* A bunch of religious nutters, politicians and talk-back radio hosts, with
all their climate expertise, claim that the climatologists are wrong.

Yeah, sure.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Failure to answer question duly noted.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Nup. Pretty smart guy, as it happens. Here's a Wiki entry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius

And here's one for Fourier (who I am certain you are already familiar with):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Fourier

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Don't be rude. Read the science and ignore what the religious nutters,
politicians and talk-back radio hosts tell you. Here's a good starting
point:

www.ipcc.ch


Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Nup. Just the science and logic.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**You mean like Tony Abbott, George Pell and Alan Jones? You think they're
honest?

You're dreaming.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**That "small, recent trend" is the most rapid rise in temperature in more
than 400,000 years. That makes it neither small, nor recent. See:

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

And:

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/Closer_Look/index.html
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Not from the climatologists. Those claims are coming from religious
nutters, politicians, talk-back radio hosts and journalists.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Nope. Fact is that large sulphur emissions from China are causing less
warming on the surface. The effects of visible pollution on warming has been
known for quite some time. If more pollution is emitted, then the worst
effects of the warming trend may be able to be mitigated for awhile. Of
course, when the skies clear...............

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**I agree. Those who claim that climatologists are wrong are just religious
fools.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**So? Here's the climate comparisons where I live:

http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=tmean&area=eaus&season01%12&ave_yr10 %

And:

http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=tmean&area=eaus&season12%02&ave_yr10 %.

And:

http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=tmean&area=eaus&season06%08&ave_yr10 %

Kinda obvious, huh?

Damned science. It'll get you every single time.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



Re: carbon polls in daily telegraph. Interesting results.
[NPD Phil:]
Quoted text here. Click to load it
...

That's right. More magical thinking.

Climates operate on magical principles and completely random factors that
are impossible to study.

--
[v^3 is Phil's notation for linear:]
Quoted text here. Click to load it
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: carbon polls in daily telegraph. Interesting results.

< snipped-for-privacy@kymhorsell.com


** Context shifting is not your game is it ??

   Fuckwit.



...  Phil



Re: carbon polls in daily telegraph. Interesting results.

"Trevor Wilson"


** TWs idea of  "science" is the same as my idea of witchcraft.

 Nothing new there.

 The guy is a notorious fake, charlatan and audiophool.




....  Phil



Re: carbon polls in daily telegraph. Interesting results.
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**So you keep insisting. I feel reasonably certain that this guy may dispute
what you say:

http://www.bom.gov.au/announcements/new_director/biography.shtml

Send him an email, outlining your theories. I feel certain he will be
pleased to hear from you, telling him that the last few decades of his
research was a waste of time.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**I see. So, all those years of research performed by Dr Ayers is pointless?
Is that your contention?

Have you sent Dr Ayers an email, explaining your theory?


Quoted text here. Click to load it

**There are other possibilities. Perhaps the climatologists are correct and
the religious nutters (Abbott, Pell, et al) and the talk-back radio hosts
are wrong. Let's examine the possibilities:

* The guys who study the climate have told us that CO2 levels are rising to
levels that pose a serious risk of irreversible damage to our climate.
* A bunch of religious nutters, politicians and talk-back radio hosts, with
all their climate expertise, claim that the climatologists are wrong.

Yeah, sure.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Failure to answer question duly noted.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Nup. Pretty smart guy, as it happens. Here's a Wiki entry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius

And here's one for Fourier (who I am certain you are already familiar with):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Fourier

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Don't be rude. Read the science and ignore what the religious nutters,
politicians and talk-back radio hosts tell you. Here's a good starting
point:

www.ipcc.ch


Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Nup. Just the science and logic.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**You mean like Tony Abbott, George Pell and Alan Jones? You think they're
honest?

You're dreaming.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**That "small, recent trend" is the most rapid rise in temperature in more
than 400,000 years. That makes it neither small, nor recent. See:

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

And:

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/Closer_Look/index.html
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Not from the climatologists. Those claims are coming from religious
nutters, politicians, talk-back radio hosts and journalists.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Nope. Fact is that large sulphur emissions from China are causing less
warming on the surface. The effects of visible pollution on warming has been
known for quite some time. If more pollution is emitted, then the worst
effects of the warming trend may be able to be mitigated for awhile. Of
course, when the skies clear...............

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**I agree. Those who claim that climatologists are wrong are just religious
fools.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**So? Here's the climate comparisons where I live:

http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=tmean&area=eaus&season01%12&ave_yr10 %

And:

http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=tmean&area=eaus&season12%02&ave_yr10 %.

And:

http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=tmean&area=eaus&season06%08&ave_yr10 %

Kinda obvious, huh?

Damned science. It'll get you every single time.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



Re: carbon polls in daily telegraph. Interesting results.
Quoted text here. Click to load it

A proven corrupt "results for money" group who you wouldnt trust even
if your life depended on it.

Quoted text here. Click to load it


How about the climategate "scientists" caught with their pants down
fabricating data ??



Quoted text here. Click to load it

That isnt a very scientific observation

Quoted text here. Click to load it


Re: carbon polls in daily telegraph. Interesting results.
...
Quoted text here. Click to load it
...

Are we running down medical practitioners again?

Simple answer. Don't get sick or go into a hospital.

Or you could always ask to get free treatment to guarantee an
honest diagnosis...

--
There have been floods before and there will be floods again. The
Austrailian floods weren't even record breaking.
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: carbon polls in daily telegraph. Interesting results.

Quoted text here. Click to load it


** There was an American surgeon interviewed on ABC radio a few years back,
who gave simple advice.

He said, in essence, that if a surgeon ever recommend surgery -  seek the
advice of another.

Repeat this process up to 9 times, but only if necessary.

Stop of course,  if any surgeon says it not needed.

Cos he is the one who is right.



....  Phil




Re: carbon polls in daily telegraph. Interesting results.
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Really? Got some proof of that?

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Really? Cite which data was fabricated.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Yes, it is. The overwhelming amonut of scientific evidence supports the
notion of AGW. Anyone who denies the overwhelming bulk of science can only
be regarded as an idiot, or a religious ignoramous. Given that some of the
most outspoken people happne to be Tony Abbott, Nick Minchin, George Pell
and Monckton, it is only reasonable to assume that the Catholic Church has
some kind of interest in promulgating a mistrust of good science. Given the
history of the Catholics, this should surprise no one.


Quoted text here. Click to load it

**No response from you or PA on climate data I note.

SOP.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



Re: carbon polls in daily telegraph. Interesting results.
Quoted text here. Click to load it




You are making a basic mistake in deriding these individuals none of
whom have credentials in these subject and do not claim to. They are
getting their material from others who are working in these fields,I
don't know who they are or their credentials.
The only sin is their repeating the material you disagree with which is
automatically wrong by your thinking.


Quoted text here. Click to load it


Re: carbon polls in daily telegraph. Interesting results.
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Incorrect. ALL those individuals have the same access to information from
climatologists that I do. Their ignorance stems from the fact that they
choose to ignore what the climatologists say and believe what some religious
nutter, or talk-back radio host says about AGW.

Either the climatologists are correct about the climate, or the talk-back
radio hosts are. I know who I am putting my money on.

 They are
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**No, they're not. The people who work in climatology tells us that AGW is a
major problem. Those who work in radio, religion or geology claim otherwise.
Of course, none of those people has any real experience in climatology.

I
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Nope. They are wrong, according to the climatologists.

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/bom-chief-lashes-pell-over-climate-stance-20110222-1b324.html


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au




Site Timeline