OT: carbon polls in daily telegraph. Interesting results. - Page 4

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

Translate This Thread From English to

Threaded View
Re: carbon polls in daily telegraph. Interesting results.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Irrelevant. The climate in the past has changed. Sometimes, under the
influence of CO2 and sometimes not. RIGHT NOW, our climate is changing due
to the influence of high CO2 emissions.

Sheesh!

It's really not that difficult to understand.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



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

It's perfectly true the "climate has changed in the past". :)

If you want to point to what the climate looks like after all the fossfil
fuel has been burned, you can point to the period 55 mn years ago
when the atm CO2 was up to 10 trillon tonnes (pre industrial was around
3 trillion; we're presently passing through 4 trillion).

The source of the extra CO2 is a bit of a mystery then. Now, of course,
we know where it's coming from.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene-Eocene_Thermal_Maximum


--
[Help, my automated poster has developed socialistic tendencies!]
Mr. Robot is just another left wing alarmist.    
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: carbon polls in daily telegraph. Interesting results.
you retarded or what , its  the  NATURAL OCCURING CHANGES  TAHT WE SEE,  IT
HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MAN MADE CO2 ..

YOU SPASTIC MOOORION

Quoted text here. Click to load it



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

LOL. Can you prove that negative?

--
[Rain as the origin of SLR:]
The slow rise of sea level is caused by rain. Water transfer the soil to see.
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

**No point arguing with this one Kym. It's either a 9 year old kid, or a
brain damaged adult. Either way, there's not enough intelligence to waste
your time with.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



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

Ah, well. I was trying for entertainment value.

When I was growing up out in the stix of SA the olds taught us
kids the "bait the travelling salesman" game.

The object of the game was never entirely clear but the rules were
definitely time-varying. Some easy points were usually scored
by getting the guy to admit something they claimed as "free"
was not free.

I remember some happy times watching some guy get the treatment.
Mum and Dad (both veteran cops) would start off slow, but as the pace
increased and the questions became tricky the guy would usually contradicted
himself a few times before the errors were underlined to him a few times.
Even if the shade temp wasn't into triple digits he would be sweating to
explain why black was white and white was black in order to close the sale.
Not they anyone was going to buy the over-priced brushes anyway.

In this case I was hoping the guy was either going to claim CO2
was not a greenhouse gas, or that no-one was burning anything, or
maybe that CO2 knows the different between being added to the atm
by Man or natural processes.

--
[The non-obvious cause of Ice Ages:]
But the Earth produces also the ice dust and export it into space.
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

**I guess. With an opponent that is so clearly deranged (or very young), I
don't see any value in bothering.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Fair enough. Good with it. It appears to be too stupid to appreciate being
caught in a contradiction. At least the other opponents have some
intelligence. It's just that they choose not to use it in this matter.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



Re: carbon polls in daily telegraph. Interesting results.
you gotta be brain damaged selling  so called hi fi gear , at 5 times th
eaccepted value .

Quoted text here. Click to load it



Re: carbon polls in daily telegraph. Interesting results.
...

To share a small joke. I just read a headline roughly along
the lines of "The US may be sweltering, but it's nowhere near
the record for heatwaves".

About 1/2 the US has seen a week or 2 with daily max into triple
digits. Fairly unusual.

But optimism knowing no bounds, the writer of the article
pointed out there was nothing to worry about because the
2 wks was nowhere near the record -- 154 consecutive days
with max over 100 F.

Of course that's in Death Valley.

The joke part?

We're comparing population centres in the US with Death Valley
and congratulating ourselves it ain't as hot as that, now, are we?

--
[Some gmail n00b can't config for HTML or use Google News:]
Why have you posted binaries to a text-only newsgroup, fuck wit?
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

**It is truly sad. I complain about Australians, but, for Americans, this
issue is simply not even on the radar (well, most of them).


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



Re: carbon polls in daily telegraph. Interesting results.
its only changing because of natural things in life .....



Quoted text here. Click to load it



Re: carbon polls in daily telegraph. Interesting results.
On Wed, 13 Jul 2011 11:59:45 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Isn't that what was said to the people that claimed the Earth was
round and those that claimed the Earth was not the centre of the
universe.

How many times have our illustrious scientists told us something that
was "absoloutely correct" only to have the claim proved wrong later?
And usually not just one scientist but hundreds and thousands of them.

Climate change is absolutely true - it happens every day and
everywhere.  AWG on the other hand is not proven to be true, except by
the people that want to make money out of it.  And the UN is the
biggest proponent of AWG to keep us all scared!

--
Sell your surplus electronic components at http://ozcomponents.com
Search or browse for that IC, capacitor,
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: carbon polls in daily telegraph. Interesting results.

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

**  The history of modern science is less than 200 years old.

    A flat, earthed centred universe was a religious notion.


Quoted text here. Click to load it


**  You tell us.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**  Prior to the discovery of nuclear energy, how the stars worked was a
mystery.


Quoted text here. Click to load it

** Scare people and you can control them.

   Bureaucrats are all control freaks.

   So are most Greenies.



....  Phil




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


In the old days, people who didn't think the earth was flat, or
disputed that the earth was the centre of the
universe tended to live very short and miserable lives.  Usually
locked up, burnt at the stake
etc.


Any scientist who has demonstrated that AGW is a total crock is not
treated much better as
far as their career and reputation is concerned.  A witch hunt soon
starts.  We just haven't got back to
the burning at the stake.............yet.



One thing is true throughout time, those who have the power and money
and decide that
something is a certain way, in order to gain advantage, to control
people, to rip them off etc
ALWAYS attack those who can prove them wrong.



Justice, science, government policy etc simply is a commodity, and
where possible it does and says exactly what the
highest/most powerful bidder tells it to.






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

You are confused about which ones are the scientists. :)

The scientists are the ones that go out and measure things that
confirm or not an initial hypothesis.

The ones saying "we don't accept your logic or your measurements; it's
all a gigantic hoax  -- our holy writings say something else is true"
are the denialists.

--
Scientists are always changing their story and as a Conservative, I
have no tolerance for ambiguity.  It proves that all science is lies
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
I'm not confused about which ones are scientists - some of the so
called scientists are!

The majority of scientists do NOT "go out and measure things that
confirm or not an initial hypothesis" but accept what they are
"taught" about a whole range of things - just like the rest of us.
Very few scientists will actually check that all these things are true
by doing their own confirmation experiments for any hypotheses.

True, they may read "papers" and consider them "good science" but the
majority will never repeat those experiments to confirm the results
for themselves.  And this is true in many day to day activities of us
"normal" people where we learn something in school, university, etc.
and use that as the basis for our future expansion of that subject.
Sometimes using this approach comes unstuck when an anomaly is found
and then "exceptions to the rule" are created to mask the problem.

The trouble with proving AGW is that they haven't actually "proved"
that the Earth will be 2 degrees (or whatever) hotter in 100 years
time.  They are just claiming that by extrapolating graphs of what has
happened in the recent past. It's like me saying that if I accelerate
my car linearly from 0 to 100kph in 10 mins that I will be driving at
200kph in 20 mins or 600kph in 60 mins.  Perfectly reasonable if I
draw a graph of speed against time and then extrapolate from the 10
min point onwards.  The only trouble is that when I reach the 10 min
mark I may start linearly breaking and slow the car to a dead stop at
the 20 min mark - then where does my future speed hypothsis stand?
--
Sell your surplus electronic components at http://ozcomponents.com
Search or browse for that IC, capacitor,
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
...

Trying to move the goalposts?

Remember your chosen topic is "the people that claimed the Earth was round"
and "those that claimed the Earth was not the centre of the universe".

Scientists do things like put regression lines through random time-series.

E.g.
http://www.kymhorsell.com/graphs/aus-extreme.html
http://www.kymhorsell.com/graphs/us-extreme.html

It's called hypothesis testing.

Everthing else is engineering.

--
Scientists don't look at records, they use regression analysis.  One
can't find a trend by looking at extrema.  
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

**You are seriously deluded and very, very confused. The religious nutters
claimed that the Earth was flat and that it was at the centre of the
universe. It took scientists to prove otherwise. NO different to the
situation we have today. Monckton, Abbott, Minchin and Pell are all
religious fruitcakes that claim the scientists are wrong. You keep putting
your faith in the religious nutters and see how far you get in an argument.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Clearly, you have zero idea of any real scientists. I suggest you contact
a few and ask questions. Stop talking to your religious instructors. They
know fuck all about science. As do you.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Utter and complete bullshit.

  And this is true in many day to day activities of us
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**How can they? No one can. The predictions are based on what has occured in
the past 100 years. The planet has warmed, due to the influence of higher
CO2 emissions. The data gathered suggests that a MINIMUM 2 degree C rise is
highly likely (95% confidence).

  They are just claiming that by extrapolating graphs of what has
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Duh.

 It's like me saying that if I accelerate
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**No. It is nothing like that. That is YOUR strawman. YOu built it, you burn
it down.

  Perfectly reasonable if I
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Think on this:

If the fire brigade came knocking on your door and told you that there was a
95% probability that your house would burn down (within 1 year), due to a
set of specific circumstances, would you:

A) Cancel your household fire insurance?
B) Renew your household fire insurance?
C) Deal with as many of the specific circumstances that you could?


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



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

**Er, nope. The SCIENTISTS stated that the Earth was round(ish) and that the
Earth was not at the centre of the universe. The religious nutters claimed
otherwise. Not unlike the situation we have today. The scientists
(climatologists) have patiently supplied their data which demonstrates that
AGW is occuring. The relgious fruitloops (Abbott, Pell, Minchin, Monckton,
et al) claim they are wrong.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**That's you cliam. You tell us. Whilst you are at it, tell us how many
times the religious fruitcakes have been correct, vs. the scientists.


Quoted text here. Click to load it

**And there are BILLIONS of religious nutters on this planet. Guess what?
The religious nutters are wrong and the scientists are right.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**That's the weather, you idiot.

 AWG on the other hand is not proven to be true, except by
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Prove it. In your proof, you may care to note who pays Monckton (Gina
Rhinehart), Alan Jones (Gina Rhinehart), Plimer (Gina Rhinehart and the
fossil fuel industry), et al. Who do you think earns the most money?

Alan Jones, Monckton and Plimer, or this guy?

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

 And the UN is the
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Prove it. Submit your science that proves the IPCC is incorrect.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



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

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

And 64% say yes.

The Daily Telegraph readership must be hugely dominated by marginal voters.

Either that, or people don't pay much attention to the question, and
just treat it as a vote on whether they like the carbon tax.

Sylvia.

Site Timeline