OT GW - Page 3

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

Translate This Thread From English to

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



No, there are a lot who aren't, but a lot have awoken in the last
couple of years



Look at the success of the following:
Quoted text here. Click to load it




Haven't heard the guys program but if he is exposing
AGW for what it is, he cant be too bad.


Quoted text here. Click to load it




Taken down by the "Thought Police" and had his human
rights trampled recently so therefore must have been
credible or would have been left alone.


Quoted text here. Click to load it

Can't say I watch any of that.

Can anyone else on here comment if they do ?


Quoted text here. Click to load it

Probably true that you aren't the first, but you bring it up the most
often.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

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

**I accept your admission that you lied.

Go read AR4.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

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

no, i stated the obvious

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

Wife watches Sunrise... for the morning news I think (I prefer The
Australian).  ;)

'Deal or no Deal' is a must, where folk claiming to be teachers, etc,
demonstrate their complete inability to perform simple mental
arithmetic.  I'm yet to see a climatologist but it's probably only a
matter of time!  :)

--
John H

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

Mine occasionally watches that. (has it on while she is doing stuff
around the house)
 It gives me a good incentive to get out of the house and do something
constructive.  As soon as you hear an ad for a miracle vacuum cleaner,
exercise gear or whatever
that is a good motivation.


Quoted text here. Click to load it

I can remember occasionally seeing the ending of that show a while
back, which was on just before the news
(When I used to watch the 6pm news).  People paid very dearly for the
lack of knowledge of probability
and statistics.




"Well, there is $100,000  and 50c on the board, would you like to take
a turn at knocking out the 50c and walking
home with a massive $100k - or take the offer of $50k".


They also fail to realise that $50k tax free (tax free as a
competition prize, unless the laws have changed since last time I
looked)


- Is worth a hell of a lot more than just 50k - its worth what you
need to earn to NET $50k after tax. (depends on bracket you are in)

- It is probably worth $250k + if you are in the early years of a
mortgage when you take 25 yr of non tax deductible interest into
account and the tax paid on the earnings to pay that.

- Taking that much financial and associated mental stress out of your
life, allowing you to spend more time with your family, or your wife
not being forced to work if she doesn't want to - PRICELESS.



No wonder we have a bloody financial crisis......   ;)


Quoted text here. Click to load it


Re: OT GW
On Wed, 07 Dec 2011 13:51:01 +1100, Trevor Wilson

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Interesting, given the rather lengthy discussions we have had on this
topic in the past.
--
Cheers,
Paul Saccani
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: OT GW

Quoted text here. Click to load it

By "discuss" I assume you'll give me reasons as to why every one I may
offer up is wrong, regardless of who it is and what credentials they may
have.

I'd also assume that if the world's most eminent climatologist was to
make a public statement claiming that their modelling was flawed and the
climate situation isn't as dire as we've been led to believe you'd
suggest that they'd been "got at" by some organisation and they were a
crank.

Don't worry Trev. I don't expect such a thing will ever happen. If it
did *millions* of dollars of research funding would suddenly evaporate,
and we can't have that :)

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Really? I must have blinked and missed them.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Yes. Lets.


Bzzzt. *Plenty* of dispute. Just none that you're prepared to accept :)

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Uh-huh.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Lol :) Mythbusters :)

The definitive scientific research team :)

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Nasty.


Bugger.


The ultimate "gift that keeps on giving" if you will....

Quoted text here. Click to load it
dispute.
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Interesting.


Nicely summed up there Trev.

But here's the thing that there's no getting around for me: For all that
"indisputable fact", why is the "science" so uncertain about the effect?

Okay, try this on for size for a moment, and look at the issue from a
layman's perspective.

Here we have a situation whereby data has been collected over a period
of years. That data has been examined by people who are experts in the
field and has lead to some theories, but no one can say for sure what
the effect, if any, will be. In fact we can't even get universal
agreement amongst the experts themselves. Yet we're advised that there
is a issue that needs to be dealt with, and we should change the way we
do things today (read -> Spend squillions of dollars) to adopt a "just
in case" policy rather than leave that "issue" (if any) for future
generations to deal with.

Do you see a problem with any of this Trevor?

Quoted text here. Click to load it

What, guilt by association?

Just because my neighbour and I might not like the taste of Broccoli
doesn't mean we have anything else in common.


--
Regards,
Noddy.

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

**No. I mean DISCUSS.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Why would you think that? Nothing would please me more than to
discover that all the scientists are wrong.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**You seem to think that the whole thing is a scam to line the pockets
of evil scientists. Weird. Consider the possibility that the scientists
are making observations (that the planet has warmed) and are simply
trying to understand why and if it is due to man's influence.

Or, think of it this way:

Let's say the scientists convince Exxon, Alan Jones, George Pell, Nick
Minchin and the others that AGW is a real thing and that CO2 reduction
schemes must be enacted immediately.

Their job is done. No more money for the scientists. For the scientists
to succeed, then they'll put themselves out of a job.

So, according to your logic, it is the deniers that are the problem. It
is Alan Jones, Nick Minchin, Exxon and the others that keep all these
evil scientists in work.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**www.ipcc.ch


Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Incorrect, but place your evidence here.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Good, I'm pleased we agree on that one.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Not at all. Mythbusters are just ONE bunch of people that has proven
the influence of CO2 as a GHG.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Science is not uncertain. Science tells us that the 500ppm tipping
point is around 95% certain. That is not "uncertain". That is mostly
certain.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Well, no. We have already seen/measured the effect. Arctic ice cover
is decreasing, the oceans are warming, we are experiencing more hot days
during Summer and fewer cold days during Winter. No doubts about the
effects.


  In fact we can't even get universal
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Not quite. There is dispute about the precise tipping point. At least
one researcher believes it has already been reached, whilst others
believe that 550ppm is more like it. It is uncertain because climate
science is hideously complicated and we are entering a condition never
experienced by humans.


  Yet we're advised that there
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Pretty much. It is, however, important to get the "squillions of
Dollars" into some kind of perspective. The figures generally bandied
about suggest that the cost, if done today, would be around
US$0.75/day/person for about 20 years. That's everyone, of course. Some
will pay more, some less. If we wait another ten years, the cost is
likely to rise sharply.


Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Yes.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Slightly different.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

Re: OT GW

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Are you sure that Exxon doesn't have any green energy investments?

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

**They probably do. That's just spreading the risk. Their main source of
income is to get people to burn as much oil as possible. They are a
major funder to denialist groups and institutions.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au


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

Well, no pollis are standing up ad shoutng their turn, so of course they
will shift donations to those who do. That is why companies like this
make donations; to keep things the way they are.

Re: OT GW
On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 11:19:31 +1100, Trevor Wilson

 
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Weally Twevor!?! Well, ya weally fooled me with your constant
references to Alan Jones, George Pell and Nick Minchin in virtually
every reply of yours in this thread!

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

Your name made me LOL.




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




Funny how you always choose to divert discussion away from ior
ignore the threads where you don't want to deal with reality.
Where you firmly planted both feet in your mouth.

You appear to think yourself not answerable for your comments.
Perhaps non compus mentis?
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ /  ASCII ribbon campaign | For every complex problem there is an
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: OT GW


"Bernd Felsche"  wrote in message

.......................

Funny how you always choose to divert discussion away from ior
ignore the threads where you don't want to deal with reality.
Where you firmly planted both feet in your mouth.

You appear to think yourself not answerable for your comments.
Perhaps non compus mentis?
=======================================================
LOL.....non compus mentis? = Bernd Felsche?     ;>)
Cheers
DAVO


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

The correct answer is probably not!  Depending of course on whose
trickery you happen to believe.  ;)

The simple fact is that any trend will always be superimposed on other
variables that drive temperature over the short term, such as ENSO and
volcanic eruptions.  The article I previously cited for Trevor's
benefit supports an upward trend and is well worth a read.

The usual trick is to simply plot the global annual means and draw a
line through them, which averages out the variables over time
(individual years taken in isolation mean very little).  The trick
used here is to factor out the variables (there's a link to the
complete original paper within the article)....
http://www.aussmc.org/documents/waiting-for-global-cooling.pdf

It's particularly interesting in as much as it hasn't been disputed by
the usual sceptics, at least not as far as I'm aware.  Nor does it
appear to support the IPCC guestimate of 0.2░ C per decade... probably
because it's based on real data and not some crackpot climatologist's
model (the author is a meteorologist).

--
John H

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

Might be a good project for SC, a weather station that can log this
data over a long period and export it to a PC.  Give it a few years
and we will be able to see for ourselves.

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

Probably not.  I've had exactly that setup in operation for quite a
few years... Davis Vantage Pro wireless weather station with data
logger (cheaper alternatives are now commonplace).  The annual
variation in the mean temperature for a single location is
surprisingly large and will long remain statistically insignificant in
terms of any global, or even local, trend.

I any case satellite derived data, which have been available since the
1970's, are likely to produce far more reliable results than data from
ground stations.  And of course historical data, like Trevor's 600,000
year claim, rely entirely on proxies which are both questionable and
open to manipulation...  look no further than Mann's hockey stick (and
Trevor probably doesn't).  ;)

--
John H

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




They are NOT PRIVATE emails. Emails sent in the conduct of one's
work or using the facilities of one's employer are the property of
the corporation; unless that corportation provides a facility for
the conduct of PRIVATE emails.

If the corporation has a requirement to provide information under
law, then they must supply that information. A university with
research funded by government has that obligation.

Quoted text here. Click to load it


How do you classify "corrupt"? Does it include passively playing the
game? A very LUCRATIVE game.
<http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2011/08/23/the-alarming-cost-of-climate-change-hysteria/

Quoted text here. Click to load it


It's in the emails. They take less time to read than an IPCC
Assessment Report and the opinions expressed therein are startlingly
frank about their uncertainties.

Quoted text here. Click to load it





You don't seem to understand that those are BUREAUCRATIC
definitions, not scientific.

Quoted text here. Click to load it


Over a time scale of 10,000 years.

If we collectively put $1,000,000 into an interest-bearing account,
then that would pay for all the costs of "relocation". In the past,
it was called "migration" when people moved because the weather was
consistently unbearable.

Quoted text here. Click to load it


CO2 has nothing to do with "acid rain"

Quoted text here. Click to load it

CO2 has nothing to do with asbestos.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

CO2 has nothing to do with lead "poisoning" from exhaust gases.

THREE attempts to distract from the fact that CO2 is NOT a control
knob for global temperature. Your inability to concentrate argument
on the subject matter indicates a lack of depth of understanding.

You have failed to cite just ONE credible published paper that
demonstrates how CO2 substantially controls global temperature; let
alone our meagre CO2 emissions.

Quoted text here. Click to load it




Bollocks. There is NO credible evidence of that in the real world.
Pre-history shows temperature varying WIDELY with CO2 levels far
higher than even the most catastrophist predictions from the IPCC.

In the real world; CO2 levels respond to temperature change. Not the
other way around.
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ /  ASCII ribbon campaign | For every complex problem there is an
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: OT GW
On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 10:25:55 +1100, Trevor Wilson

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Too bad you didn't have that ethical sense when you accused various
parties of being paid shills for oil companies with exactly no
evidence to support your claims.
--
Cheers,
Paul Saccani
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.

Site Timeline