Re: OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors

'denier'=20

who=20

=20

dusted,=20

I don't see anything inconsistent whatsoever. What i see is two statements that the AGW crowd has failed to make their case, and they resent anyone saying so. I also see refusal to join shouting matches. So, what do you see?

?-)

Reply to
josephkk
Loading thread data ...

**Near enough. 97% is as close to consensus as it gets. If 97 doctors told you that if you did not alter your diet, you would get a heart attack and 3 doctors told you not to alter your diet, because you'd be fine, what would you do?
**
formatting link
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Reply to
Trevor Wilson

formatting link

**I take it, that you failed to actually READ the article before you made your stupid claim. Here is the rest of what you snipped:
**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

formatting link

Reply to
Trevor Wilson

Heres one with a fair amount of credibility who puts up a reasonable theory contra to that put up by the IPCC. Whether he is right or wrong is way beyond the capability of anybody here to decide, but at least he is approaching the subject from a reasoned scientific perspective not the screaming political one that most seem to favour.

Global warming is a fact, the only argument is whether it is natural and we cannot do anything about it or it is caused by man made conditions that we can control.

formatting link

Reply to
keithr

My problem with both sides of the argument is that neither has an open mind. The arguments are pointless as both have fully made up their minds that they are right. The "Greenies" want it to be true as it fits with their philosophy, the deniers don't want it to be true as they may have to make some sacrifices in their lifestyle.

Reply to
keithr

**I disagree. _I_ certainly would prefer that all the climatologists have it very wrong. Sadly, as their position is one that is rooted in science, it is highly likely that they are correct.

the deniers don't want it to be true as

**That's the way I view it.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Reply to
Trevor Wilson

formatting link

**Whilst not proof that Spencer is wrong about climate science, it is important to realise that Spencer is a strong proponent of 'Intelligent Design', rather than evolution as an explanation for the way that species have become diverse on this planet. A religious viewpoint such at Spencer's places him in rather a poor light straight off. Spencer is a believer in the supernatural. Not only that, but he is very active in groups that support the notion of a supernatural explanation of how things occur on this planet. Sad.

Roy Spencer is (partly) paid by the Heartland Institute. The Heartland Institute is funded by Philip Morris (big tobacco), Olin Foundation (the gun lobby) and Exxon (big oil). His views are hardly surprising, given his employer/s.

Here are some claims made by Spencer, along with some criticisms of Spencer's supernatural ideas:

formatting link

formatting link

formatting link

formatting link

formatting link

formatting link

formatting link

formatting link

formatting link

formatting link

formatting link

formatting link

formatting link

It is good that you've taken the time to read about the AGW issue. I trust that you will also take the time to read the science, from real scientists, who do not place their faith in the supernatural, nor take their money from big oil. This is an excellent place to start:

formatting link

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Reply to
Trevor Wilson

's

the

et.

gun

t

s,

om

Yes, this is an organisation funded by big government, banksters etc, who stand to gain trillions in revenue from this. Dont worry though, they are the good guys and deserve our money, so we must go along with it.

Reply to
kreed

**Of course. It was set up by the World Meteorological Organisation and the UN Environment Programme. As such, it was funded by the UN and thus by member states of the UN.
**"Banksters"? What are "banksters"? Which "banksters" funded the IPCC? Evidence please.
**Do they? How? The IPCC reports on the science. The IPCC was set up by the UN. The UN is "owned" by the 193 members of the UN. Thus, everyone on the planet is part of the UN.

Dont worry though,

**Well, they do have all tht science to back them. You know science? The stuff you have NOT managed to present, at any time during this thread. Would you prefer to listen to the words of big oil and big tobacco for your independent information?
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Reply to
Trevor Wilson

..

.
.
.
.
.

he

he

It is a modern version of the USSR, - a global USSR if you prefer. Take a look at UN policies implemented in Australia and tell me how many of them have actually benefited society and the nation and not hurt it

Saying that the IPCC is setup by the UN only further buries its credibility.

uld

Reply to
kreed

**Here are the questions that you (most recently) failed to answer:

**"Banksters"? What are "banksters"? Which "banksters" funded the IPCC? Evidence please.

**How? The UN os "owned" by all the nations on the planet. Is it perfect? Nup. Would you prefer that the UN was controlled by (say) Enron, Nestle', Union Carbide, GE or Philip Morris? Is that what you would prefer? Why?
**Would you prefer to listen to the words of big oil and big tobacco for your independent information?

Why do you continually avoid answering ANY of my questions?

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Reply to
Trevor Wilson

I really don't want to get drawn into this again, and I have no particular desire to fall out with you - you've helped me out in the past with schematics, and for that I am grateful. But I am really struggling with all of this. For a start, 97% is up from the 95% that you reckoned it was earlier in the thread. You make a case for what a doctor might say, but let's turn that around. If one of your children, say, was up for murder, but there was a 5% chance that they didn't do it, would you consider that to be a proven case ? I certainly wouldn't.

Let me throw this into the equation :

formatting link

which tells the story of 650 scientists that apparently spoke out against the case. Now I'm sure that there is some reason that it is all lies, or should be discredited, but the same story did appear in many other places, so I have to give it some credibility. 650 seems like quite a big number to me.

OK. Let's reproduce it here, to save everyone having to go look at your link

"1. a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine. "

Yes, I am aware of this variation of the definition of the word, when used specifically in connection to science. However, you will note that it doesn't actually say 'proven', only 'commonly regarded' and that can be used as 'a principle of explanation'. The fact that Einstein's theory of relativity is cited as an example is interesting, in that it has gone so long without actually being proved, that it has become scientific doctrine - dogma even. And yet just last week, it was announced to the world that it was likely that a particle which travelled faster than light, had been clearly detected. Professor Brian Cox, a scientist that I have a deal of respect for in his primary field of quantum physics, and who was involved in the experiments to locate this particle, said that if it was correct, it would turn quantum physics knowledge on its head, and blow Mr Einstein out of the water. Who would ever have thought that ? Do you consider the theory of evolution to be a proven case ? A good many reputable scientists and commentators don't ...

Strangely, having given the definition in the slightly vague terms that they have, your dictionary then goes on at the end to use the words 'principle', 'law' and 'doctrine' as synonyms, which they clearly aren't as they are much more closely defined words.

So as far as I am concerned, my query as to your use of the word 'theory', has not been altered at all. The general understanding of a theory, is that it is one stage up from hypothesis, in that it is an idea or set of ideas, whose validity is supported by known facts, the key word being 'supported' not 'proven'

Arfa

Reply to
Arfa Daily

formatting link

An interesting read. Also interesting, is the fact that this guy is a meteorologist.

Arfa

Reply to
Arfa Daily

formatting link

formatting link

formatting link

formatting link

You're not by any chance a JW as well, are you Trevor ... ? :-)

Arfa

Reply to
Arfa Daily

**There is absolutely no reason for two intelligent people to get drawn into a slanging match.

But I am really

**The 95% confidence refers to the confidence level that climatologists have WRT the cause of global warming being anthropogenic in nature. The figure in the 1970s, was something like 70% and has been rising ever since. The 97% figure represents the number of climatologists that are convinced that AGW is the most likely explanation for the warming.

You make a case for what a

**Indeed, but they are quite different scenarios, with very different outcomes. Would you care to respond to my question please?

formatting link

**Do you have a reputable cite for this alleged statement? That article is clearly biased and highly flawed in many ways. I'd like some independent verification of the 650 scientist claim.
**Correct. AGW is a theory. An highly credible one, that is embraced by the vast majority of climatologists.

The fact that

**Not proven yet. In the same week, other parts of Einstein's work has been validated.

Professor Brian Cox, a scientist that I have a deal of

**Me, for one. Einstein was known to be searching up blind alleys in SOME of his work. That does not make Einstein an idiot. NOr does it make him always wrong. It simply makes Einstein 99% right.
**No. There never was a "theory of evolution". Evolution is an observed fact. Darwin proposed his Theory of Natural Selection to explain evolution. Darwin was a brilliant man.

A good

**Of coruse. They know that evolution is not a theory. They know that Darwin proposed Natural Selection to explain evolution.
**Nonetheless, AGW remains an highly credible theory that attempts to explain the warming of this planet that we are presently witnessing. IT is not a "law", nor is it a fact, beyond doubt. Doubts remain. However, the confidence level pertaining to AGW is running at around 95%.
**Correct. By the time AGW is proven, it will be too late to remedy it. I can't live with that.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Reply to
Trevor Wilson

formatting link

formatting link

formatting link

formatting link

**I am not well regarded by Jehovah's Witness', nor by Mormans. When religious nutters turn up on my doorstep to push their peculiar religion down my throat, I feel zero compuction in stting them down, offering them a cup of tea and then proceding to lecture them on science and the nonsensical nature of supernatural beliefs. Most hurridly excuse themselves and make their escape.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Reply to
Trevor Wilson

formatting link

**Have you taken the time to read IPCC AR4?
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Reply to
Trevor Wilson

formatting link

Here's the original report to the US Senate Environment and Public Works Committee:

Some general comments on the above:

1000 scientists as of Dec 2010:

Revised 2010 version of the report:

Incidentally, only about 20% of the IPCC scientists have anything to do with climate in their daytime academic jobs. Should the IPCC really be considered authoritative?

I'm not sure how to do an independent verification, since the AGW debate has successfully polarized just about everyone involved in climate research. I could probably conjur someone neutral from the non-climatology scientists, but those would not be authoritative. Surely you're not looking for research papers published by non-climatologists?

Methinks you might find the text and links in the 2010 report to be rather umm... interesting. 321 pages is a bit much, but I expect to be done reading sometime tonite.

--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Jeff Liebermann

formatting link

formatting link

formatting link

formatting link

The question is whether you have read his arguments or just the refutations that others have written about them.

Reply to
keithr

..

.
.
.
.
.

-)

a

cal

Thats because it isnt a corporation, with real money, media and power behind it. If it was, he would believe anything they told him :)

Reply to
kreed

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.