How the bastards do it

**I understand that the CSIRO 'protein diet' has been shown to be a valid weight loss regime. I understand that protein extends to lean meats, fish, eggs, lentils, chickpeas and other forms of high protein foods.

If you're trying to make a point, then do so.

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

The first law of pollution is that what you do is less important than the scale on which you do it.

Global warming is a fact and has been known about for years no matter what the deniers want to believe. What the cause is and what the effect will be is more open to question. The world has been this warm before in recorded history and cooled again, will that repeat that pattern or keep going up? I don't think that there is enough of a pattern in the data to be able to predict the result, therefore the most sensible course of action is to prepare for the worst.

**That would be the common-sense approach.

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

is

es

if

You don't, you quote paid off shill organisations, that will manufacture wh= atever results their paymasters tell them too. Anyone who doesn't toe the l= ine...... Well the first post in this thread shows what happens to them...= .until the time comes that there are too many of them to sack them all.

Enjoy your emperor's new clothes. Thankfully there isn't webcam functional= ity on Usenet.

**Then you need to provide proof of that claim. In your proof, you need to explain how the following organisations were issuing clear warnings of AGW during the government of George W Bush:

NASA The US EPA The American Academy of Sciences

I should remind you, at this point, that George W Bush and his cronies were vehement deniers of AGW and rabid supporters of big oil. They also substantially or entirely funded these organisations.

Additionally, you need to provide explain how the following organisations were issuing clear and unequivocal warnings about AGW, during the Howard/Abbott government in Australia:

BoM CSIRO The Australian Academy of Science

I remind you that Howard and Abbott are/were consistent AGW deniers and either fully or partially funded the above organisations.

It seems that scientists are either stupid (for insulting their paymasters) or just plain dedicated and honest.

Anyone

**Does it? How do you know what happened to Drapela? Do you have evidence? Or are you just basing your claims on heresay? I don't know why Drapela was fired. He may have been sexually abusing his students. Or even the dean's daughter. If you can present some evidence to prove that he was fired for his idiotic, unscientific ideas, then present it.

....until the time comes that there are too

**The you need to explain why the guys at BoM and CSIRO were not sacked during the Howard/Abbott regime. **Here's an idea: Why don't you learn some science? Clearly, you have no idea of what scientists do, how they work, nor anything else about their lives.

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

Chuckle, so they have created new science following the storm of disbelief of their old science. You have proven my point.

I think a lot of people on both sides don't actually know what "global warming" actually is/means.

Exactly.

The problem here is that "courses of action" are all proposed by parties seeking to maximise their power when the dust settles. "In the Global Interest" is a very subjective opinion.

I hope your science is better than your grammar. but given your totl rabid regurigitation I doubt it. Bye.

**LOL! Your hideous spelling is duly noted, d*****ad.

Your inability to present your evidence is duly noted. I, therefore, note that you are just another pitiful liar.

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

Now there is an open minded approach. Don't bother thinking about it, just follow the loudest voice like a sheep.

**Your point being? That unscientific morons can commission a web site? That's nothing new.

Try reading this:

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

I understand Trevor, and thank you for showing us how rabid morons can commission a web site. The IPPC is a perfect example of such a site .

Note the typical symbols of the AGW "skeptics". Can you explain why all climate conservatives are also right-wing political conservatives?

e ,

As I see it, one definition of "Global Warming", is that that of theoretica= lly naturally occurring global warming and cooling cycles, which to me is q= uite feasible, as things tend to never be static in nature, but tend to mov= e up and down over time. We see this during every year with the seasons. If= someone straight out denied this, I would find that to be a bit suspicious= .

The other definition is of "man made global warming". (AKA "AGW"). suppose= dly caused by human activity - which is being pedalled as fact. This I, and= a majority of people firmly believe to be utter rubbish, and there are ple= nty of scientists, and others out there who have put sensible thought and r= esearch of the situation who also agree, and find this theory to be politic= ally and financially motivated. Those who believe in this AGW are often ref= erred to as warmists.

n p o

=20

The problem also is these "courses of action" are incredibly destructive to= our society, and way of life. Anyone who has not thought seriously of the= social and other ramifications of living in a society without cheap energy= available, really needs to wake up to themselves.

Based on the theory

Warmists as far as Im concerned are quite within their rights to make whate= ver preparations, and change their lifestyle, at their own expense, as much= as they like. Where they cross the line, is where they try to force other= s to do as they do, against their will.

**Turnbull isn't.

Can't think of any others.

Oh wait: Yes I can Margaret Thatcher. She has been known to call deniers complete idiots.

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

**Your point being? That unscientific morons can commission a web site? **Of course you have no idea of the site. It contains far too much science for you. You prefer your AGW information in bite-sized, Nazi slogan chunks.

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

Tirelessly working to re-format your stupid posts so we can read them. 
Please sort out your newsreader.

**Fair enough.

**Not quite. SCIENTISTS (as opposed to politicians, talk-back radio hosts, osteopaths, religious nutters and the ignorant) have carefully examined the available data, which includes proxy measurements stretching back more than 600,000 years and have concluded that CO2 levels affect temperatures on this planet. Nothing new there. Fourier proposed the hypothesis back in the 19th century. Note the following graphs:

Note the VERY close relationship between rising temperatures and rising CO2 levels. Sometimes, CO2 levels rise prior to temperatures and sometimes they lag. What scientists are quite certain about is that when more CO2 is in the atmosphere, higher temperatures will result.

Since humans have increased CO2 levels by around 35% over the past 200 years, we can see that the unprecedented rise in temperatures (more rapid than at any time in the past 600,000 years) can only be due to those excess CO2 levels.

Therefore, humans are the cause. This has been stated with more than 95% confidence by climatologists.

This I, and a majority of people firmly believe to be utter

**Sure. Lots of ignorant people claim all sorts of ignorant things. When climatologists tell us that there is a problem, sensible people listen. Idiots don't.

and there are plenty of scientists, and others out there who

**Sure. You can find all manner of geologists, osteopaths, dentists and others with no expertise in climatology who say all sorts of things. It only matters what the climatologists tell us about climatology.

, and find this theory to be politically and financially

**By the terminally ignorant.

**How so? Be precise in your answer. After you've conconcted your nonsense, read this:

Anyone who has not

**I take it that you are aware that by 2013 or 2014, solar PV power will be cheaper than coal generated power? By 2020 and beyond, it will likely be incredibly cheap. Of course, solar is not the only answer, but it serves to illustrate the point. Geo-thermal can rival the cost of coal, with virtually zero emissions. Australia has shit-loads of geo-thermal potential. Enough to supply the rest of the planet for thousands of years. **I take it, then, that you also object to Tony Abbott's silly tax scheme, which rips money from your pocket and hands it over to large Mostly foreign owned) corporations? Tony Abbott has promised to cut Australia's CO2 emissions by the same amount that Labor has.

Which system do you want?

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

I did not claim that all political conservatives were climate conservatives. Most political conservatives can look at an issue that requires social change and formulate a policy that takes heed of their scientific advisors rather than accusing them of being part of a global socialist conspiracy. On the other hand, I have never come across a climate conservative that was not a political conservative. They also tend to come from the right-wing of the conservatives.