OT GW

**How the f*ck would you know? You have not read the IPCC reports. The IPCC reports are the premier documents in this area. You cannot claim that there are qualified comments on both sides, if you have not bothered reading one of those sides.

-- Trevor Wilson

formatting link

Reply to
Trevor Wilson
Loading thread data ...

Sounds reasonable, and inconsequential to Labor's mishandling of it. In spite of those who might think otherwise, the idea isn't to close this country to genuine asylum seekers but to control how they come here. In retrospect the Howard Government had it pretty right.

Labor changed the system solely for its own political purposes (they thought there might've been a few votes in it) and ended up with a complete stuff up, all down to their own ineptitude.

--
John H
Reply to
John_H

**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.
**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

formatting link

Reply to
Trevor Wilson

**Sure. Happy to do so. The massive weight of scientific investigation lies with AGW as being a reality. It is up to those who don't accept that massive weight of scientific opinion to produce some data that contradicts ALL the above organisations. Could they ALL be wrong? Sure. Is it likely that they're ALL wrong and Alan Jones, George Pell and Monckton are right? Nup. Not likely at all.
**Sure. The data generated was not perfect, but the theory has been validated (experimentally) many times since.
**Yes. Mounting evidence.

**Cite your science that proves them all wrong.

**That would be a lie, rooted in igorance.

**Cite.

**Another lie. Worse, a lie, based on careful cherry-picked data.
**Another lie.

Pronounced

**Indeed.

formatting link

**After you've read the IPCC AR4, provide us with a page-by-page refutation of the data.

-- Trevor Wilson

formatting link

Reply to
Trevor Wilson

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.

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

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

No argument.

Interpreation is the bone of contention

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

Not unknown on both sides.

Reply to
terryc

Howard didn't choose Asylum seeckers, but sold it outright. He also created the current problem by going to war in Iran and Afghanistan.

Umm, where is the astuff up? (Almost) All of Howard's Pacific Island solution ended up here in the end for a significant cost to us.

>
Reply to
terryc

You might take it a little more seriously! :)

Abbott inherited the poisoned chalice by default, at the time when no one anticipated Labor's imminent fall from grace, yet IIRC his popularity rating has always been lower than Gillard's (or Rudd's). He's completely lacking in vision and he's made a heap of commitments he can't possibly honour in government.

All of which points to an early use by date. Whether he falls on his sword, falls off his bike or gets abducted by aliens remains to be seen. It's a fairly safe bet he won't go the same way as Rudd.

--
John H
Reply to
John_H

**And again: Show us the evidence.

It took

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

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

No, sadly very few people rock the boat on the official

**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.

**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.
**Such as.

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

-- Trevor Wilson

formatting link

Reply to
Trevor Wilson

my

Bloody hell, for an "expert" on spotting good and bad "science" you are a real riot Trev.

On the other hand, based on what we see these days, it is possible that DDT ill effects were pushed aside for financial gain - kind of like what "warmists" do now for financial gain, or to protect financial gain..

Much easier to do back then with no internet or other public ways of mass info dissemination other than mainstream media.

Reply to
kreed

This is copied from another newsgroup and shows the lengths that those in the global warming religion will go to discredit those whom oppose them.

(Chris de Freitas is an Associate Professor in the School of Environment at the University of Auckland in New Zealand.)

Reply to
bugalugs

**OK. Then YOU tell us what all those organisations said about DDT. I don't know. terryc doesn't know.
**FIRST, you have to make the point about the above-mentioned organisations and what they claimed about DDT. In the case of AGW, the warnings have been made since the 19th century. Long before anyone had any alleged financial gain in the matter.

-- Trevor Wilson

formatting link

Reply to
Trevor Wilson

Actual data is data but incorrectly collected or arrived at data is not and that is part of the problem.

Reply to
F Murtz

Fine difference. they were talking about in humans and AFAIR, last two decades has become common. General "overuse" in all species was poo-pooed.

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

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.

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

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

Reply to
terryc

**It's all there. Read it.

**You really should read AR4.
**Wrong. It was the popular press claiming an ice age.
**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.
**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

formatting link

Reply to
Trevor Wilson

It was Labor (Hawke) who took us to the first war with Iran, and Labor continue to support the war in Afghanistan (same as they supported the one in Vietnam until it suited them to do otherwise). Are you seriously suggesting that PM Beazley would've told the US to f*ck off?

Labor has stuffed up at every point, starting by abolishing the Pacific solution and finishing up with a kick in the arse from the High Court when they tried to replace it with something far worse, with the East Timor stuff up in the interim.

Howard's policy kept the gate crashers to manageable numbers, it wasn't intended to shut the door on legitimate asylum seekers and nor did it.

--
John H
Reply to
John_H

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.

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

Reply to
terryc

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
Reply to
atec77

**How would you know?

They have no a clue on what is really

**Since you have admitted that you have failed to read AR4, you cannot condemn it. You are speaking from a position of ignorance.
**You lied. I called you on that lie. Simple. Stop lying and I won't have to point out your lies.

Your snipping of the lies about Sciam is duly noted.

-- Trevor Wilson

formatting link

Reply to
Trevor Wilson

Nope, I stated what I knew from that time. I have no ias one way or the other, but you have.

Nope, you just call everything you do not like a lie.

That was where I read it. Read the one on global dimming?

Reply to
terryc

You would be around 870Kms too far away for that purpose.

Reply to
terryc

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.