Re: OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors

I accept that you are making an impossible demand, by doing the equivalent of demanding that I provide proof that facts (in your belief) that the easter bunny, angels, ghosts etc DON'T exist. This cannot be 100% proven as fact, but I doubt any normal adult fully believes in it and rightly would laugh themselves silly if you tried to tell them otherwise that you had proof because you listened to vested interests.

I accept that you have been over time due to either mental illness (as told by other posters on this group in the past), or the victim of lifelong brainwashing that you accept without question belief in certain things that vested interests defecate out that you cannot ever see past this, and it is always right regardless of the facts.

I guess you would have to be that way to be into the audiophile hi-fi business. Unless you believed in the shonky claims thrown about by some manufacturers and their "proof", it probably is much harder to sell such stuff to the gullible.

There are loads like you in various crackpot movements be they the greens, feminism etc. You are not hard to see through. The words and manner of delivery give it away

as Phil would say. Piss Off.

**Absolute twaddle. I haev presented, in the form of the IPCC reports, clear, unequivocal evidence that shows that AGW is the best explanation for the warming we are experiencing. You, OTOH, have demonstrated that you have not read the IPCC reports. You have also failed to answer any of my questions WRT this issue. Your analogy, like all your previous analogies, is utterly bereft of logic. If you feel the IPCC AR4 is faulty, then you need to show where and how the report is faulty. A good place for you to start, is to read the damned report.

This

**Since there is no evidence of those things, a reasonable person can assume that they don't exist. However, in the case of the IPCC AR4, we have:

• Clear, unequivocal evidence that the planet is warming at a faster rate at any time in the last 600,000 years.

• Clear, unequivocal evidence that the planet is experiencing a rate of CO2 rise that is faster than at any time in the last 600,000 years.

• Clear, unequivocal evidence that the rate of temperature rise has been closely linked to CO2 rise in the past.

• Clear, unequivocal evidence that Solar variability fails to account for the temperature rise over the last 200 years.

but I doubt any normal adult fully

**WHAT VESTED INTERESTS? You keep claiming that people have been paid off, that there are vested interests and that corruption is rife in the IPCC, NASA, the US EPA, The US Academy of Sciences, The BoM, The Australian Academy of Science, the UK MET, The Royal Swedish Academy of Science and a host of other reputable organisations, BUT you have failed, despite repeated requests, to provide evidence to support you wild and potentially libellous claims.

As they say: "Put up or shut up."

If you have evidence to support your claims of corruption, present it.

As usual, you will fail to provide evidence to support your wild claims.

**Bollocks. I have a logical, rational, critical thinking brain. I accept that which has been proven by science. Nothign else. I note that you have failed to present a single shred of scientific evidence to support your wild claims.

Now who is being an idiot?

The one who accepts the solid science, from reputable organisations, or the one who believes the bollocks promulgated by Alan Jones, George Pell and Tony Abbott?

**Strawman duly noted. You have zero idea of my business practices. **I'll say again: Sumbit your proof of your wild accusations. **An expected response from a person who has no answers.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

"Jeff Liebermann"

** Cleaning up data is otherwise known as selecting your evidence - a logical fallacy of the highest order. It is completely dishonest and scientifically worthless.

By selecting ones evidence, it becomes possible to "prove" any conclusion you like and posters on usenet do it all the time.

Dunno what definition of "scientific fraud" you think is right, but quietly removing evidence that does not suit an hypothesis has gotta be an example of scientific dishonesty.

.... Phil

"kreed" Speaking about TW:

** People like TW have no idea they give themselves away in their own words all the time.

Charlatans do not have to fool everyone, either all or some of the time, to be a success.

They just have to fool particular people, when it counts.

That why the call them " marks ".

.... Phil

Also noted a news article a couple of weeks back where a NASA scientist came out on record speaking of concerns that aliens might attack us if we don't do something about man made global warming :).

They must be getting so desparate - like a cornered rat - to trot this rubbish out.

IIRC there were reports of "global warming" on mars also, no wonder those martians want to come and kill us ! :)

=A0a

ietly

e

So true. They should be drummed out of their position, have their credentials stripped and be prosecuted. This won't happen though

**Substituting lies and complete bullshit for a rational argument does not enhance your case (such as it is). You need to respond to my many questions and comments, rather that veering into fantasy-land.

Hanging onto Jeff's coattails is not a reasonable response. Jeff has presented a cogent, rational argument, that deserves a reasoned response. He will receive one.

Still waiting for some answers from you.......

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

"kreed"

Also noted a news article a couple of weeks back where a NASA scientist came out on record speaking of concerns that aliens might attack us if we don't do something about man made global warming :).

** Rabid greenies, space aliens - what's the difference ?

.... Phil

**LOL! Nor should it. Accusing several dozen of the best scientific organisations on the planet of fraud, demands some pretty solid evidence. Thus far, you've presented exactly nothing.

Still waiting for some answers.......

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

I will take my chances with the space aliens thanks,

I have yet to see where space aliens (assuming they even exist) have done any harm to us, even if you were to take as fact the claims of "alien abductees" and such. At best, a few crop circles here and there might have shaved a few % of profit off the farmers for the damage done. :)

When you compare the damage and potential damage done by greenies, they would be right up there with governments (historically the greatest threat to human life) and plagues as a significant threat to mankind.

or

ve

is

d ,

ume

at

O2

, a

ted

us

ild

he

and

Submit real proof, not paid for and discredited "proof", failing that, go away.

**Have yourself committed. You've completely lost touch with reality. **There you go again: Ignoring science, logic and reason. Crop circles were created by humans. There is no reputable evidence that this planet has been visited by aliens. Ever. Significantly, so-called 'alien abductions' suddely began at around the time science fiction movies about aliens made their way to cinemas. Like your ideas, such things are purely fictional. **OK, I'll bite: What damage and what potential dmage do you refer to? Be specific. Compare that damage to:

• The war in the Gulf.

• The Vietnam War.

• WWII

• WWI

• Chernobyl

• The recent nuclear reactor problems in Japan

• Bhopal

• The Great Pacific Garbage Patch
  formatting link

• The extinction of thousands of species during the last 100 years

Which is worse and why?

**Is that so? How so? Be specific in your answer.

I fully expect that you will adopt your usual attitude and you will fail to respond to any of my questions.

I accept, in advance, that you acknowledge that you are full of shit.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

**Inability to provide even a tiny shred of supporting evidence is duly noted.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

t

ns

I'm glad that you admitted that the fear of aliens attacking over climate change is bullshit rather than rational argument, and proving my point that NASA or at least the NASA scientist who made this crackpot statement is speaking "lies, complete bullshit and veering into fantasy-land"

Im glad we are in agreement on SOMETHING, Whew !!

He

No, he gets a "reasoned response", as you fear that he would hang you out to dry, and "pull your nappy down in front of the entire school, putting your excrement on pubicl display" metaphorically speaking - if you started abusing him, so you are sucking up to him, and gently trying to sucker him into your fantasy, or at least get him to give you some credit to your nonsense to try and look clever or learned to the rest of the group (who know what you are really like over years of experience) to try and get their approval so the newer members will think you to be some genius and beacon of wisdom and knowledge and try and pull them onto your team to use them against the others.

You also think he is undecided on the subject and can be nudged in your direction, so you handle with care. You know that I and some others already have studied the matter,and those behind it, and have made up their own minds and will not entertain your rubbish, so there is no point in being nice to us, as it won't change anything, so you just try and be nasty, abusive etc to impress the others. I guess its also a threat to others that you may think to be timid, or wanting approval from others that "this is what will happen to you if you don't support me" type bullying.

With me, you have known me on here for a decade or so, know that I generally don't bother pursuing or carrying on drawn out battles with abusive clowns as I have better things to do.

I have seen the futile results in the past, one of the most memorable being of the group trying to convince fuckwits like Miro of basic facts of ohms law, except in his case, he is arguing against mathematics, and mathematics in its pure form is one true science that you cannot argue with.

I more find you an interesting example of someone who is either mentally disturbed, very very gullible, believes unconditionally in bullshit, or thinks it cool to do so, kind of like a religious cult member, or a radical nutter - who desperately needs professional help to be de-programmed, (this is way out of my area of expertise to do this for you) and based on this knowledge I really don't care much what you want to say about me, Im a big boy, been in business all my adult life, and seen and done enough in that time of how the real world works to not be shocked or offended any more :).

I know you will believe in man-made global warming, and whatever the next fear and control scam gets cooked up, until the day you hit the bottom of your grave, hence the old russian saying - "only the grave cures the hunch-backed".

I even find your insults somewhat funny at times and get a good laugh out of it.

You got plenty :)

Ahem...

from:

Ahem...

Yep. Track volcanoes.

Ok, I'll be the first to mention that Steven Milloy may have taken money from Exxon (indirectly), but it has never been proven. Decide for yourself:

Since you're so sure that AGW is a proven thing, maybe you can collect the $500,000 from Milloy? Send a few dollars my way if you succeed:

Maybe. The problem is that none of the satellites are able to measure planetary albedo with sufficient accuracy to make a definitive determination. We can do almost nothing in the way of measuring albedo from the ground. The plan is for the satellite to measure how much energy is reflected by the planet (which includes atmospheric, ocean, ice, land, etc) and also solar output. The energy difference is presumed to be what the planet absorbs. Note that all the energy is not necessarily at IR (heating). Apparently it's sufficiently important that NASA burned $424 million on the failed Glory launch, and other global warming related birds. The current assumption that solar variations do not account for the alleged rise in average temperatures is based on computer models with some rather serious potential errors.

There's also a rather odd problem of just what the satellites are actually measuring. Temperature varies with altitude. Satellite IR imagers measure through all the various layers of the atmosphere. If there are clouds covering a land mass, the IR imager gets the temperature of the clouds, not the ground. So, to prevent this obvious anomaly, the computers are set to only read numbers where there are no clouds. However, that discounts the effects of aerosols and particulates (i.e. dust) in the upper atmosphere, which does a marvelous job of reflecting sunlight into the IR imager. Volcanoes make it really difficult to get accurate readings. Plenty of other complications requiring the usual tweaks, adjustments, compensations, normalization, and cherry picking. Oh well.

What Malloy has done with the "global thermometer" mentioned above is to take as much of the METAR and NOAA temperature data as possible and average all of it. The theory is that if you're faced with a large number of potentially erroneous data points, and don't have the means to reduce the errors, averaging all the bad data together will somehow result in good data. That's because the errors will tend to be in random directions and hopefully cancel. Since the IPCC uses the same method, one can presume it to be valid. However, I have my doubts.

Anyway, I have not attempted to debunk anything that you've offered. What I've done it attempt to undermine your apparently unshakable certainty in AGW and the IPCC. If I've set you on the path of critical thinking and academic skepticism, then I haven't wasted my time.

--
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann     AE6KS    831-336-2558

**Er, 1978 ~ 2010 is not 600,000 years. Not even close. However, this graph may provide a little more information:

Not quite 600,000 years, but considerably more than 30. Here's some more information:

And:

**Again, a 30 year trend merely backs my claim.

**What are you trying to say? That the temerature of the planet is rising? That CO2 levels are rising? No argument from me. **The data presented shows:

• That CO2 levels are rising.

• That average temperatures are trending upwards.

I have no issue with that data.

**I am satisfied that AGW has been shown to be the most likey explanation for the temperature rise that has been noted, with around 95% confidence. That is not 100% confidence and would likely not qualify for the money. It is likely that, by the time 100% confidence has been reached, several things will have occured:

• Milloy will be dead.

• VERY serious problems associated with global warming will be occuring and the planet will have descended into a state of anarchy. US Dollars will likely be virtually worthless. Food will be only currency of value.

**Which is why measuring the rate of heat retention by the oceans is so important:

Examine the graph on page 4. The planet's oceans store vastly more heat than the troposphere does. The oceans are warming.

We can do almost nothing in the way of measuring

**Really? Which errors? We know that the Sun output has diminished (slightly) over the past couple of decades and yet the temperature trend of the Earth is still up. **Which is why ocean temperature measurements are so important. It is the planet's oceans that contain the most heat. By a considerable margin. **I do not have an "unshakable certainty in AGW and the IPCC". I accept that the 95% certainty of AGW is a reasonable figure. What I find irrational is the fact that many people seem to be clinging to the 5% uncertainty and hoping that a very large number of very smart scientists are wrong.

Fundamentally, the way I see it is like this:

• If we spend a few Bucks today to mitigate CO2 emissions, we may be able to avert the 95% probability of disaster.

• If we don't spend the money today, then it is highly probable (95% certainty) that the cost will escalate with each passing year, to a point where we will be unable to fund mitigation.

• If the scientists are wrong and we spend a few Bucks now, then it's cost us some money.

• If the scientists are right and we don't spend the money, our civilisation will not likely survive.

Make no mistake: I did not say that humans will be wiped out. Many will survive. Anarchy is loking like a real probability.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

**We agree on nothing. YOU made the claim about an alleged NASA scientist making an absurd statement. YOU need to sunstantiate the claim. As usual, you will fail in this action. **Unlike you, Jeff has placed some reased arguments, backed by some cites. You present nothing to support your wild claims. BIG difference. **Bollocks. I have NEVER abused Jeff. Abuse follows those who act like dickheads. You have consistently failed to act reasonably and rationally. You have failed to back your claims with any evidence.

so you are sucking up to him, and gently

**Bollocks. I cite facts and data. You cite absolutely nothing. Jeff has backed his arguments with cites. You do not. Comparing yourself to Jeff is extremely insulting to Jeff. **Bollocks. I don't know what Jeff's position is. I don't much care. The truth is the truth. Facts are facts. Your complete bullshit is just that: Complete bullshit. Not once have you presented any facts, or cites to back your claims. Not once. Jeff presented cites to back his claims.

You know that I and some

**Liar. You have not read the IPCC AR4. You have, therefore, failed to study the topic. AR4 is the premier document on the topic.

and have

**Not at all. I politely asked you to present data and facts to support your claims and you failed miserably. Your continued failure to present any data ensures that you deserve the contempt you receive.

I guess its

**You STILL don't get it. You made wild accusations and wild claims. I asked for you to supply some evidence to support those claims. You failed to do so. Your argument has failed. **I don't know you and I don't care to know you. You are clearly an idiot. I prefer never to deal with such people. I can and regluarly deal with people who do not share my view on many matters. They all have one thing on common: They put forward logical, reasonable arguments to back their claims. You do not.

know that I

**And yet, you contiue to sprout complete bullshit, without bothering to back your dodgy claims. **Nope. I accept that when all the planet's climatologists warn of a problem that they are likely to be correct. I also accept that you are a complete idiot, since you believe in some mythical bullshit about all these climatologists being bribed, without a solitary shred of evidence to support your claim. I also accept that you dismiss AGW, without bothering to study the premier document on the subject.

or thinks it cool to do so, kind of like a religious cult

**Hardly surprising, given your extremely ignorant attitudes. **Bollocks. Unlike you, I've been examining the subject of AGW since the mid 1970s. The only thing that has altered is the amount of data that supports the theory. **Still waiting for some answers.......

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

ct-civilisations

>

All ?

**Bollocks. Unlike you, I've been examining the subject of AGW since the mid

Theory ?

Arfa