OT GW

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

Translate This Thread From English to

Threaded View
The scam is unraveling! Too late for the iniquitous tax, the gubmint
skulduggery is being unearthed bit by bit if they do not watch out they
may end up in history as the most ridiculed and hated Gubmint ever.

Re: OT GW
Quoted text here. Click to load it


Too late. They already are.

Re: OT GW
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**What "scam" would that be?

Don't forget your peer-reviewed science. Failure to present it will
result in you being called a laughing stock


  Too late for the iniquitous tax, the gubmint
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Thanks to Tony Abbott, Alan Jones, Bolt, et al, they already are.
Sadly, they're no better nor worse than any government that preceeded them.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au


Re: OT GW
Quoted text here. Click to load it
   It appears that some of the predictions based on this peer reviewed
science may not be backed up by evidence and fact.


Re: OT GW
Quoted text here. Click to load it
you misspelt 99%
  but we knew that tweva is full of shite

--









X-No-Archive: Yes


Re: OT GW
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Your inability to provide peer-reviewed science to back your claim is
duly noted. You know what you are.

--
Trevor Wilson    
www.rageaudio.com.au

Re: OT GW
Quoted text here. Click to load it


Thats because its not. It's mostly fabricated crap in order to get the
result they are paid
to get and it is laugable.  The peers that review this garbage are
just as corrupt as the authors.

Re: OT GW
Quoted text here. Click to load it


**I see. So, your contention is this:

ALL the major scientific organisations on the planet (including: CSIRO,
NASA, The Australian Academy of Science, the US National Academy of
Science, the UK Met, The Australian BoM, The French Academy of Science,
the German Academy of Science, Austrian Academy of Sciences, Royal
Society of Canada, Royal Danish Acadeny of Sciences and Letters, The
Finnish Academy of Sciences and Letters, Hungarian Academy of Sciences,
Russian Academy of Sciences, Royal Society of Scotland, Royal Swedish
Academy of Sciences, et al.) tell us that AGW is the most likely
explanation for the warming that has been noted. You claim that these
guys are all wrong and that Tony Abbott, George Pell, Alan Jones and
Monckton are correct, despite the fact that not one of these clowns has
a scientific education. Is that your contention?

If what you say is correct, then it must be the most massive cover-up in
the entire history of the planet.

There is another possibilty:

That the scientists are right and the raving loonies and shock-jocks
don't know what they're talking about.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

Re: OT GW
Quoted text here. Click to load it
If what you say is correct, then it must be the most massive cover-up
in
Quoted text here. Click to load it


When you look at the staggering amounts of money and power at stake
here, buying off
these organisations (note most are gov funded) would cost lunch money
by comparison

There is one rule that always applies,   -- IT IS ALWAYS ABOUT THE
MONEY / POWER.  This is how
it always has been.


When you look at how things work in real life, and not in TV land or
Government land, this is the only answer.



Quoted text here. Click to load it


Re: OT GW

Quoted text here. Click to load it

What was their early psition on DDT?

Re: OT GW
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**No idea. Tell us.

BTW: The theory of human induced global warming is not a new idea. It
was first theorised well over 100 years ago. Over the last 100 years,
mounting evidence has eradicated oposition to the theory. Except by
people like Alan Jones, George Pell and Nick Minchin. Of course, those
guys are ignorant of science.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

Re: OT GW

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Um, excuse me....

The "evidence", such as it is, has led some to put forward a theory that
is in no way conclusive.


--
Regards,
Noddy.

Re: OT GW
Quoted text here. Click to load it
My point made.
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Blink, we have had both camps; warming and cooling finding data.

Re: OT GW
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**How so? I said I nad no idea of what all those organisations stated
about DDT. They may have stated negatively, or positively on the use of
the stuff. It seems you don't know either. If you made a point, then it
is sure an obscure one.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Not that I've seen. We have a bunch of independent scientists
generating data. We also have a bunch of fossil fuel apolologists
carefully cherry picking the data to advance their case. Data is data.
It cannot be fudged. INTERPRETATION, or careful cherry picking can alter
the conclusions reached.

--
Trevor Wilson    
www.rageaudio.com.au


Re: OT GW
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Educate yourself; scientific bodies thought it was woderful. It took
decades until the nmbers indicated otherwise and another few for them to
understand the mechanism. Same with cell phone?

Same with using anti-biotic in livestock. Forty years ago if you
suggested using anti-biotic in livestock was not a wise thing to do as
it would br super bugs, you were laughed at by all(?)/greater majority
of scientific bodies. One of our major threats is a virus from pigs and
chickens. Go figure.

I am very wary of taking any widely held scientific belief as absolute.
Our science knowledge is simply the latest findings and evolvos. Some
area rapidly and other glacially.

Climate research is a new area and any modelling is at best a vague
approximation.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

We have. In the 70's is was a new Ice Age was predicted.


Quoted text here. Click to load it

Independent? No, sadly very few people rock the boat on the official
line these days, even in academic institutions.


  We also have a bunch of fossil fuel apolologists
Quoted text here. Click to load it

No argument.

Interpreation is the bone of contention

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Data does not always indicate what it is thought to indicate.

 > INTERPRETATION, or careful cherry picking can alter
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Not unknown on both sides.

Re: OT GW
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**And again: Show us the evidence.

  It took
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Actually, over-use of antibiotics has been suggested by many people
for many years.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Fair enough. Have you actually read the IPCC AR4?

It's OK to question scientific theory. In fact, it is ESSENTIAL that we
do so. If, however, you haven't even bothered to acquaint yourself with
the best available information, then you're hardly in a position to
criticise.


Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Indeed. The theory of AGW was first proposed more than 100 years ago.
It may be another 100 years before it has been proven. Trouble is this:
By the time absolute proof is available, it may be too late to do
anything about it.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**The would seem to be an over-simplification, though climate modelling
is certainly in it's infancy.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Utter and complete bollocks. This is an oft-cited lie. If you'd care
to do some research, you'd understand that the scientific journals at
the time were issuing warnings about global warming, whilst the popular
press was bleating about ice ages. The popular press rarely concerns
itself with science.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Yes. Independent.


  No, sadly very few people rock the boat on the official
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Another, oft-cited, lie. Think back a few years. We had, here in
Australia, John Howard and Tony Abbott running a government that clearly
and unequivocally claimed that A) The planet was not warming and B) Man
was not responsible anyway. Exactly the same thing was stated by George
W Bush. Ad nauseum. Yet here in Australia, CSIRO, BoM and the National
Academy of Science was issuing clear warnings that AGW was a real
problem. This, despite the fact that the guys who paid their wages (John
Howard) claimed the scientists knew nothing. In the US, NASA, the EPA,
The National Academy of Science were issuing warnings to the US (climate
change-denying) government that AGW was a problem.

So much for your claim that scientists are not prepared to bite the hand.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**You SHOULD be very concerned. Cherry-picking data is not a good thing.
Yet deniers constantyly do just that. They use 1998 as a baseline for
temperature measurements.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Such as.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Cite where the IPCC has cherry-picked data.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au


Re: OT GW
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Fine difference. they were talking about in humans and AFAIR, last two
decades has become common. General "overuse" in all species was poo-pooed.
Quoted text here. Click to load it

No, and I don't intend to. I loath bureacratic reports. I just want the
raw data and basic explanation.


Quoted text here. Click to load it

Sadly, even the climatologists would have to agree that it is basically
a black box model. We know what happens on the ground layer and the
top/space layer, but the whole middle is mostly guess work.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Actually they were doing both. Peruse the index of Scientific American.
the warming one came after, but was mostly based on localised data.


Quoted text here. Click to load it

I see you need to listen to Yes minister again to understand how
government works.

Re: OT GW
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**It's all there. Read it.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**You really should read AR4.

Quoted text here. Click to load it


**Wrong. It was the popular press claiming an ice age.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**I still have my issues of Sciam from the 1970s. No reference is made
to an impending ice age, but quite a few references to AGW are made.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Read what I wrote again. You can't have it both ways. Either the
scientists are pandering to the government, or they're not.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au


Re: OT GW
Quoted text here. Click to load it


Absolute waste of my time. They have no a clue on what is really
happening in the middle atmosphere. No amount of reading any beaucrat
produced paper is going to change that simple fact.


Quoted text here. Click to load it

Faaarrrk, you're a cracked record like roddles. Same rubbish replies
with total distortions and with nothing of substance.

Re: OT GW
Quoted text here. Click to load it
The reality is we all knew the model tweva aspires to was is and will
remain flawed due to data being made to fit the requirements
Now that climate-gate is openly being examined it's patently obvious
tweva is a fuckwitt , next time I get down Melbourne and time permits I
intend explaining in person exactly why he is

--









X-No-Archive: Yes


Site Timeline