Re: OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors - Page 9

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
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**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.


Quoted text here. Click to load it

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


Quoted text here. Click to load it

**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,
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**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



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

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.

Quoted text here. Click to load it


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

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

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


Quoted text here. Click to load it

**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?

Quoted text here. Click to load it


**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



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 /
Quoted text here. Click to load it
http://www.skepticalscience.com/roy-spencer-negative-feedback-climate-sensitivity.htm
Quoted text here. Click to load it
http://www.skepticalscience.com/a-cloudy-outlook-for-low-climate-sensitivity.html
Quoted text here. Click to load it
http://www.skepticalscience.com/spencers-misdiagnosis-of-surface-temperature-feedback.html
Quoted text here. Click to load it


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

Arfa


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 /
Quoted text here. Click to load it
http://www.skepticalscience.com/roy-spencer-negative-feedback-climate-sensitivity.htm
Quoted text here. Click to load it
http://www.skepticalscience.com/a-cloudy-outlook-for-low-climate-sensitivity.html
Quoted text here. Click to load it
http://www.skepticalscience.com/spencers-misdiagnosis-of-surface-temperature-feedback.html
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**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



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

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

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

Sounds like Scientology would be the perfect fit then.

Jeff

--
"Everything from Crackers to Coffins"

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

LOL - if they did a presentation for Trev by someone in a lab coat
pretending to look intelligent, and could "prove" that he would be
damned for eternity if he didnt get fully involved, then he would be
sucked right on :)


Quoted text here. Click to load it


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

**Scientolgy was set up as a tax dodge by a 2nd rate science fiction writer.
It relies on the same ignorance damanded by the Catholics, the Muslims, the
Jews and all the other religions. Scientology actively seeks to isolate it's
adherents from normal society. This is a stanadrd ploy by religious and
quasi-religious sects. Like every other religion, Scientology needs to be:

* Taxed.
* Subjected to the normal consumer regulations that surround any other
product or service.

That should sort them out.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



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

How ironic.
They also propagate an unending stream of unsupported information
claiming them to be facts.

Jeff

--
"Everything from Crackers to Coffins"

Re: OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Hmmmm ...



 I feel zero compuction in stting them down, offering them a
Quoted text here. Click to load it

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 /
Quoted text here. Click to load it
http://www.skepticalscience.com/roy-spencer-negative-feedback-climate-sensitivity.htm
Quoted text here. Click to load it
http://www.skepticalscience.com/a-cloudy-outlook-for-low-climate-sensitivity.html
Quoted text here. Click to load it
http://www.skepticalscience.com/spencers-misdiagnosis-of-surface-temperature-feedback.html
Quoted text here. Click to load it

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



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 /
Quoted text here. Click to load it
http://www.skepticalscience.com/roy-spencer-negative-feedback-climate-sensitivity.htm
Quoted text here. Click to load it
http://www.skepticalscience.com/a-cloudy-outlook-for-low-climate-sensitivity.html
Quoted text here. Click to load it
http://www.skepticalscience.com/spencers-misdiagnosis-of-surface-temperature-feedback.html
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Yes. I've been reading Spencer's stuff for several years. On the surface,
much sounds plausible. His arguments have some serious holes in them,
however.

What do you think about Spencer's supernatural beliefs? Does that cause you
to consider his statements with a more critical eye? What do you think of
Spencer's affiliations (with the fossil fuel industry)? Does that cause you
to consider his statements with a more critical eye?
Have you looked at the cites I provided?
Have you read IPCC AR4?


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
 



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 /
Quoted text here. Click to load it
http://www.skepticalscience.com/roy-spencer-negative-feedback-climate-sensitivity.htm
Quoted text here. Click to load it
http://www.skepticalscience.com/satellite-measurements-warming-troposphere.htm
Quoted text here. Click to load it
http://www.skepticalscience.com/a-cloudy-outlook-for-low-climate-sensitivity.html
Quoted text here. Click to load it
http://www.skepticalscience.com/spencers-misdiagnosis-of-surface-temperature-feedback.html
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Nope, I couldn't care less about his religious views, neither do I care
in the least about the religious views of the members of the IPCC.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Spencer's own words:-

"Dr. Spencer’s research has been entirely supported by U.S. government
agencies: NASA, NOAA, and DOE. He has never been asked by any oil
company to perform any kind of service. Not even Exxon-Mobil."

Do you have any cites to prove him a liar?

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Yes, it worries me that they start out from the point of view that he is
wrong, and then go looking for evidence to support that. That is not the
scientific method.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Some of it, unfortunately, I am not in a position to confirm or dispute
their modelling, but I am by nature suspicious of the results of
computer modelling, basically it tends to be high speed guessing. The
problem is extremely complex and all attempts to model climate have been
gross simplifications. Even the models to predict tomorrows weather
rarely agree with each other.

I have an open mind on the subject (which probably puts me in a minority
of one) global warming is without doubt, but the cause is  very much
open to question.



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 /
Quoted text here. Click to load it
http://www.skepticalscience.com/roy-spencer-negative-feedback-climate-sensitivity.htm
Quoted text here. Click to load it
http://www.skepticalscience.com/satellite-measurements-warming-troposphere.htm
Quoted text here. Click to load it
http://www.skepticalscience.com/a-cloudy-outlook-for-low-climate-sensitivity.html
Quoted text here. Click to load it
http://www.skepticalscience.com/spencers-misdiagnosis-of-surface-temperature-feedback.html
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**A person that holds 'Intelligent Design' as some kind of rational view is
seriously suspect. In fact, I would be concerned about any person, that
claims to be a scientist, who hold any kind of supernatural beliefs.

Spencer is part of this organisation:

http://www.cornwallalliance.org/about /

Here is part of their platform:

http://www.cornwallalliance.org/articles/read/an-evangelical-declaration-on-global-warming /

An excerpt:

  1.. We believe Earth and its ecosystems—created by God’s intelligent
design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence —are
robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited
for human flourishing, and displaying His glory.  Earth’s climate system is
no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming
and cooling in geologic history.
  2.. We believe abundant, affordable energy is indispensable to human
flourishing, particularly to societies which are rising out of abject
poverty and the high rates of disease and premature death that accompany it.
With present technologies, fossil and nuclear fuels are indispensable if
energy is to be abundant and affordable.
  3.. We believe mandatory reductions in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse
gas emissions, achievable mainly by greatly reduced use of fossil fuels,
will greatly increase the price of energy and harm economies.
  4.. We believe such policies will harm the poor more than others because
the poor spend a higher percentage of their income on energy and desperately
need economic growth to rise out of poverty and overcome its miseries.
Disturbing stuff. Spencer is listed as a prominent signer:

http://www.cornwallalliance.org/blog/item/prominent-signers-of-an-evangelical-declaration-on-global-warming /

It seems clear that Spencer STARTS from a theological POV and moulds his
science to fit that view. Are you certain you want to get on this idiot's
train of thought?

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Certainly, but it gets very messy. Probably easier to refer you to the
organisation that has unravelled the paper trail:

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2010/06/19/206237/the-oily-operators-behind-the-religious-climate-change-disinformation-front-group-cornwall-alliance /

And here:

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2010/10/16/206882/glenn-beck-cornwall-alliance-exxonmobil-climate-change /

And:

http://thinkprogress.org/green/2010/06/15/174718/cornwall-alliance-frontgroup /

And, of course, here is where he has worked for the Heartland Institute:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Conference_on_Climate_Change

The Heartland Institute is a 'front' for big tobacco and big oil (along with
big guns):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heartland_Institute

In short, Spencer is a religious nutter, who is (partly) paid by big oil.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**No, I do not. Spencer is a religious fruit-cake. ANYTHING he says must be
viewed with deep suspicion.

 That is
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Indeed. Which is why I supplied a number of cites that criticise Spencer's
claims. Did you look at them?

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**This present discussion is not specifically about the modelling. It's
about the fact that AGW is occuring. IOW: We only need look at the
historical data.

 but I am by nature suspicious of the results
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Indeed. And the modelling of climate is improving all the time.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Bullshit. The BoM has a very impressive success rate with determining
weather over a 24 hour period. It is less successful over 48 hours and even
less so over 72 hours and so on. However, we are not discussing weather.
We're discussing climate. BIG difference.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Well, no, it is not "Very much open to question". There is a small amont
of doubt about why it is occuring. Around 5% at present.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



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 /
Quoted text here. Click to load it
http://www.skepticalscience.com/roy-spencer-negative-feedback-climate-sensitivity.htm
Quoted text here. Click to load it
http://www.skepticalscience.com/satellite-measurements-warming-troposphere.htm
Quoted text here. Click to load it
http://www.skepticalscience.com/a-cloudy-outlook-for-low-climate-sensitivity.html
Quoted text here. Click to load it
http://www.skepticalscience.com/spencers-misdiagnosis-of-surface-temperature-feedback.html
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Well, a majority of several on here, it would seem. You could at least add
me to that sentiment, so that's two of us ...   :-)

Arfa


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 /

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

Arfa


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 /
Quoted text here. Click to load it
**Have you taken the time to read IPCC AR4?


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



Re: OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors


Quoted text here. Click to load it



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 :

http://www.mlive.com/opinion/flint/index.ssf/2009/01/its_time_to_pray_for_global_wa.html

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.



Quoted text here. Click to load it

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

Quoted text here. Click to load it

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

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

 But I am really
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**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
Quoted text here. Click to load it

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

Quoted text here. Click to load it
http://www.mlive.com/opinion/flint/index.ssf/2009/01/its_time_to_pray_for_global_wa.html
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**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.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Correct. AGW is a theory. An highly credible one, that is embraced by the
vast majority of climatologists.

 The fact that
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**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
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**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.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**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
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Of coruse. They know that evolution is not a theory. They know that Darwin
proposed Natural Selection to explain evolution.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**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%.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**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



Site Timeline