Re: OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors - Page 8

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

Translate This Thread From English to

Threaded View
Re: OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors

"Jeff Liebermann"

Quoted text here. Click to load it


** Ever hear of  Politician's Logic ??

It goes like this:

A group of politicians is confronted with what looks like a serious problem.

They say to each other:

" This is just terrible  -  we must do SOMETHING "

Then a rather obvious suggestion is made and they all latch onto it saying:

" This is  SOMETHING  therefore we  MUST  do it  !! "



...  Phil



Re: OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
Quoted text here. Click to load it

That is a very scientific observation.
We should all embrace Trevor's crackpot theories based on just this.


Quoted text here. Click to load it

Our society will surive and thrive if we stop allowing ourselves to
constantly being made to live in fear for the purposes of controlling
us,  throw this AGW crap and those involved in it straight in the bin,
cut the big guys out of controlling everything (including both sides
of our government and media) stop them from creating artificial
shortages of resources in order to fleece us, and stop worrying about
lies and lead productive lives.


Quoted text here. Click to load it


Re: OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**I do not espouse "crackpot theories". I merely read and understand the
science. It is a great pity that you do not do likewise.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**I note your continued avoidance of dealing with my previous questions and
comments. I further note your dismissal of good, solid science, in
preference for a religious, stick-your-head-in-the-sand approach. You, Tony
Abbott, George Pell, Christopher Monckton and Alan Jones are a good match
for each other. None of you deals with the science.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



Re: OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
Quoted text here. Click to load it

That is an extremely contradictory statement.  You avoid the fact that
you only quote paid off shills like the IPCC as factual, and as being
"solid science" and regard anyone who disagrees with these "paid for"
theories as being a religious nutter or being paid off by a particular
industry, whereas the AGW movement is both of these times 1000.

Sadly a lot of science is corporate or government funded these days.
These people are therefore owned, and both groups who own them want
the power and money that AGW potentially put in their hands. The power
to control resources that are vital such as coal and oil, ensure that
they have a monopoly to extract usury prices for them, and also to
ensure that only their own companies and sponsors have access to them
cheaply in order to eliminate competition. (IE: GE has an exemption in
Texas, and will be allowed to burn all the coal it wants, but its
competitors won't, causing a monopoly to exist)  This is litereally
worth trillions and comes with a bonus of a high level of control of
billions of humans.  With this at stake, no one is going to let the
facts get in the way of what is probably the biggest prize in human
history. - but fortunately for us (except you) this is what has
happened.


We are not talking scientists here, we are talking "pay for required
results" people. Ones who probably could never get a job, or funding
if they didnt get on the bandwagon and get the results they were told
to get.

This is why your entire statement is so ridiculous to start with.
Polls show that the vast majority of Australians (and other countries
by the sound of it) have woken up to it, and it is about time too.

the "master race" and "eugenics" were "good solid science" in their
day too.  If you were a "scientist" and didn't agree with this good
science agenda, you didnt have a career - therefore you didnt eat - or
you didn't have a life.  Ditto if you were in the media, or other
industry that could report the truth, and blow these scams open.

Funny to look at the parallels now to this situation and the global
warming industry.


Quoted text here. Click to load it


Re: OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**No, it is not. You have consistently failed to back your claims with any
science. You supply only opinions. I cite science, whilst you cite nothing.

  You avoid the fact that
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**In this thread, I have cited a dozen or so SCIENTIFIC sources of good
repute. Some of those sources (NASA, the US EPA, the US Academy of Sciences)
were reporting the dangers of AGW, while George W Bush was in charge of the
US. Just a reminder: George W Bush was inextricably linked to the oil
industry and a well-known AGW denier. Same deal with CSIRO and John Howard.
Care to explain that?

As usual, you will fail to answer my questions. Your non-answer will be
viewed as an admission that you are wrong.


 and as being
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Care to prove it?

As usual, you will fail to answer my questions. Your non-answer will be
viewed as an admission that you are wrong.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**There is no other way to fund science or any other form of research.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Care to prove that?

As usual, you will fail to answer my questions. Your non-answer will be
viewed as an admission that you are wrong.

 and both groups who own them want
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Strawman duly noted. Try to stay on topic.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Strawman duly noted. Try to stay on topic.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**So, what you are saying is this:

AGW science is a popularity issue, with the people who really know their
stuff (IE: The climatologists) don't know what is going on, but the
uneducated masses (IS: You, Tony Abbott, George Pell, et al) are right, for
some unknown reasons? Is that what you're trying to say?

As usual, you will fail to answer my questions. Your non-answer will be
viewed as an admission that you are wrong.

I have news for you: Science is not a popularity contest. Science involves
research and the tabulation of that investigation. Just because a bunch of
uneducated idiots don't believe the facts, does not make those facts
invalid.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Were they? Cite your proof of this.

As usual, you will fail to answer my questions. Your non-answer will be
viewed as an admission that you are wrong.


  If you were a "scientist" and didn't agree with this good
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**The research by the IPCC and others is about independent, quality science.
Which, if you had taken the time to read and digest the IPCC reports, you
would understand. By choosing NOT to read the IPCC reports and then
criticising those same reports, you merely expose your extreme ignorance.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



Re: OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 06:57:43 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Suggestion:  Go easy on the name calling and labels.  Everyone that
disagrees with you is not necessarily an uneducated idiot.

Have you read through the infamous "Harry Read Me" file that
demonstrates the extent to which at least some of the data was cooked?
<http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/HARRY_READ_ME.txt
I won't pretend to understand it all, but what little I can decode,
reeks of manipulating the results to conform to expected results (or
at least statistically significant results).

Also, I mentioned this in the past, but methinks this might be a good
time to resurrect it.  See:
<
http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/slv-wx/SLV-rainfall-06.jpg
This isn't directly related with AGW but it does show that it's very
easy to manipulate trends and projections.  That data shown is the
rainfall statistics for my area.  If I use an even order trend
extrapolation, the graph is towards drought.  If I use an odd order,
it's toward deluge.  I note that the "dog leg" has been dropped by the
IPCC, largely for this reason.  If you wanna see how it works, the
spreadsheets used to create this are at:
<http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/slv-wx/

--
Jeff Liebermann     snipped-for-privacy@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**I have a policy of treating people the way they deserve to be treated. If
a person wilfully ignores the science and resorts to parrotting
unsubstantiated rumour, then they have opened the door to the appropriate
descriptors.

  Everyone that
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**People who dispute those who have spent their lives studying a subject,
without presenting a shred of evidence to support their claims, are
uneducated idiots. People who have failed to read the premier document on a
given subject and then proffer their own unsupported opinions are uneducated
idiots.


Quoted text here. Click to load it

**I have not read that particular document, though I have read half a dozen
others, which comment negatively on the CRU. I've also read the CRU's
response AND a couple of the INDEPENDENT reviews that have exonerated the
CRU. Have you read all that? Or have you only read the negative comments?

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Indeed. However, this is a trend which is VERY difficult to refute:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Global_Temperature_Anomaly_1880-2010_ (Fig.A).gif

Note the TREND. No data fudging is required to prove that the planet is
experiencing a warming TREND. Some years will be warmer and some cooler.
However, the overall TREND is clear and obvious. Also note that there are no
predictions in this trend.

  That data shown is the
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**I suggest you examine the graph I tabled. Note the trend. It is clear and
unarguable.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



Re: OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 09:50:58 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"

Quoted text here. Click to load it


Have you stopped beating your wife?  Please try to phrase your
questions without the implied insults.

When it was first leaked, I read the original and made up my own mind
as to what it represented.  I later read the Wikipedia article and
some of the referenced articles.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy
That was about 2 years ago.  Accepting the conclusions of eminent
authorities is certainly easier than trying to understand what
happened, but I find it more interesting.  From the above article:
   "Six committees investigated the allegations and published
   reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct."
which is correct.  There was no fraud or misconduct.  What I saw was a
substantial amount of effort expended in removing and invalidating
inconsistent data and data that did not fit the predefined
conclusions.  Unfortunately, as I didn't understand everything that
was happening in the document, I can only offer a general impression.

Incidentally, I don't recall the exact report, but one of the early
AGW research reports produced spectacular predicted temperature rises.
Even the supporters were amazed, as was the press which carried the
story in the most alarmist manner possible.  It turned out that the
researchers had used history from weather stations located in urban
areas, which tend to be heat islands.  When all the urban sensor data
was removed, leaving only rural sensors, the numbers looked like
random garbage with no obvious trend line.  Recently, satellite data
has eliminated much of these types of problems, but it was amusing to
watch the cover up after this was pointed out.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

I just wanted to point out how easy it is to do.  Much to my disgust,
the local water district used my method to justify drought funding a
few years ago.  We really did have a drought, but the historical
numbers were insufficient to qualify for federally funded relief.  So,
they produced ominous trend graphs, but also "normalized" (tweaked)
some of the data.  Computers make all this so easy to do.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Holdit.  A few rants ago, I mentioned that I believe that there's no
question that there's been a trend towards temperature increase.  I
don't question any of that type of historical data (unless the
original data is suspect).  The pressing questions are:
1.  What is the predicted trend line?
2.  Is it caused by human activity?
3.  Should we do anything about it?
4.  Will doing anything about it actually work or cause more problems?
My comments were specifically directed towards predicting future
trends, not historical data.

Incidentally, I find it amusing that the IPCC and you are both using
the term AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) where anthropogenic means
"caused by humans" as if it's already conclusive that any and all
effects are the result of human activities.  Begging the question
comes to mind.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation
It doesn't explain everything, but is a substantial part of the
puzzle.
<http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2006/brightness.shtml
Hmmm... I wonder if the current unusual lack of sunspots is caused by
human activity?

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Ok.  I won't argue.

--
Jeff Liebermann     snipped-for-privacy@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors

Quoted text here. Click to load it

NASA's Glory satellite was suppose to measure all this more accurately
as the exact effect of variations in solar output isn't totally clear.
However, the satellite failed to reach orbit.
<http://glory.gsfc.nasa.gov/misison_details.html
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glory_ (satellite)>

--
Jeff Liebermann     snipped-for-privacy@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
Quoted text here. Click to load it


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 ! :)

Re: OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**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



Re: OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
Quoted text here. Click to load it

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 !!


Quoted text here. Click to load it

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.



Quoted text here. Click to load it

You got plenty :)

Re: OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**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.


Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Unlike you, Jeff has placed some reased arguments, backed by some cites.
You present nothing to support your wild claims. BIG difference.


Quoted text here. Click to load it

**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
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**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.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**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
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**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
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**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
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**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.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**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
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**And yet, you contiue to sprout complete bullshit, without bothering to
back your dodgy claims.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**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
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Hardly surprising, given your extremely ignorant attitudes.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**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.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

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


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



Re: OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
Quoted text here. Click to load it

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/aug/18/aliens-destroy-humanity-prote =
ct-civilisations
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Re: OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
Quoted text here. Click to load it
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/aug/18/aliens-destroy-humanity-protect-civilisations

**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:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Unlike you, Jeff has placed some reased arguments, backed by some cites.
You present nothing to support your wild claims. BIG difference.


Quoted text here. Click to load it

**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
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**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.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**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
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**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
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**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
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**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.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**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
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**And yet, you contiue to sprout complete bullshit, without bothering to
back your dodgy claims.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**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
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Hardly surprising, given your extremely ignorant attitudes.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**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.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

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


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



Re: OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors

<snip>

Quoted text here. Click to load it


All ?


**Bollocks. Unlike you, I've been examining the subject of AGW since the mid
Quoted text here. Click to load it


Theory ?


Arfa


Quoted text here. Click to load it

Re: OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**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?

Quoted text here. Click to load it

** http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



Re: OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
Quoted text here. Click to load it

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.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-articles/global-warming-as-a-natural-response /

Re: OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
Quoted text here. Click to load it
http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-articles/global-warming-as-a-natural-response /

**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:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/clouds-negative-feedback.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Dropped-stations-introduce-warming-bias.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ipcc-scientific-consensus.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/few-degrees-global-warming.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/loehle-scafetta-60-year-cycle.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/roy-spencer-negative-feedback-climate-sensitivity.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/satellite-measurements-warming-troposphere.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/a-cloudy-outlook-for-low-climate-sensitivity.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Roy-Spencers-Great-Blunder-Part-1.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Roy-Spencers-Great-Blunder-Part-2.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Roy-Spencers-Great-Blunder-Part-3.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/spencers-misdiagnosis-of-surface-temperature-feedback.html

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:

www.ipcc.ch


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au





Re: OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
Quoted text here. Click to load it

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.

Quoted text here. Click to load it


Site Timeline