OT: carbon polls in daily telegraph. Interesting results.

Loading thread data ...

formatting link
Well the respondents hate juliar and the tax

--
X-No-Archive: Yes
Reply to
atec77

formatting link

**Why is that interesting? The average IQ of the Telegraph readership is below room temperature.

Witness the answer to the last question.

64% believe that global warming is a myth. Kinda says it all, really. 64% of respondents are idiots.

Even worse, is the way the questions are worded. Some are impossible to answer.

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

The answers given would tend to disprove that theory. They reflect what I hear in my everyday work and general discussion. I can assure you most I work with and know do not have a low IQ.

It just means that 64% are awake to reality and can think for themselves It is about time Australians started to grow up, and it is great to see.

That is somewhat true. for example:

--------------

Will your vote be altered by the carbon tax at the next federal election?

This result doesn't tell you much, as people who don't want the tax and vote Labor or Green will change their vote (in theory) but those that vote liberal and don't want the tax will NOT change their vote. Without knowing how people voted without the tax being an issue, it is a meaningless answer in regards to the carbon tax.

----------------

Should Australia have a carbon tax?

Straightforward, and gives a clear result. I didn't even know the opposition to it was that high but its good to see.

Reply to
kreed

**Nope. It merely validates it. Most people are idiots.
**Ok. You're surrounded by idiots. I get that.
**Clearly, that is not the case. ALL the climatologists have told us that AGW is a reality. Denial of that, is denial of science. Denial of science is proof of stupidity.
**Nope. It is clear prof that 64% of the respondents are idiots.

**It is tragic that so many Australians are able to deny science so readily.
**It is 100% true, not somewhat.

**The opinions of idiots mean little to me.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Reply to
Trevor Wilson

You being a "people " certainly prove your claim

--
X-No-Archive: Yes
Reply to
atec77

formatting link

"Will your vote be altered by the carbon tax at the next federal election?"

And 64% say yes.

The Daily Telegraph readership must be hugely dominated by marginal voters.

Either that, or people don't pay much attention to the question, and just treat it as a vote on whether they like the carbon tax.

Sylvia.

Reply to
Sylvia Else

formatting link

**A smart person once described the Daily Telegraph readership as possessing an average IQ that is below room temperature.

And, as you previously commented, the questions are appallingly poorly phrased.

And, as I previously noted, the responses to the last question prove, conclusively, that the Daily Telegraph readership are mostly idiots.

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

"Trevor Wilson"

** Since when is climatology a science ?

It is no more a science than Scientology is.

So called climatologists ( they invented the subject and dubbed themselves with the misleading title ) do not perform experiments, have never made successful predictions about the future climate and are generally laughed at by real scientists as obvious fakes and opportunists.

BTW:

The word "science" coming from the lips of TW is a blasphemy.

.... Phil

Reply to
Phil Allison

**For a few decades now. Here's a guy who seems to know a little about the topic:

formatting link

**Really? What do you base that conclusion on?

Send a message to Dr Ayers explaining your POV. I'm certain he will most interested in your well informed opinion.

Remind me: What is your experience in the area of atmospheric physics?

**Are you certain about that? Got some proof?
**Are you certain about that? Google: Svante Arrheius sometime. More than 100 years ago, Arrhenius predicted that the temperature of the planet would rise, if humans increased CO2 emissions. He drew on works and experimental data from guys like Fourier that has already established that CO2 was highly resonant at several IR frequencies.

and

**I don't accept that lie. I do accept that Tony Abbott, George Pell and Alan Jones dispute the science however. None of those guys understands diddly about science though.
**Uh-huh. I'll play your game. YOU explain the warming trend that has been observed over the past 100 odd years. If it is not CO2, then what is it?
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Reply to
Trevor Wilson

"Trevor Wilson"

** Nonsense.

It is not science at all.

** No science involved in either.

But lostsa money and gaining influence over gullible people is the driver.

** How absurd.

** He a friend of " Nostradamus " by any chance ??

What absurd Crapology.

The only " science " TW is familiar with.

** ROTFL.

TW always use his opinions to prove his opinions.

Same as all fakes, liars and charlatans.

** The small, recent trend you allude to may well be measurement error, statistical variance or a natural effect that will turn and go the other way in the future.

THEN we will have all sorts of dire predictions of planet wide disaster from Global Cooling !!!

THEN all the climate charlatans will be saying we need to generate more CO2 to fix it !!!!!

The obvious comparisons with witchcraft and bone pointing are frightening.

BTW:

Been damn cool where I live lately......

.... Phil

Reply to
Phil Allison

**So you keep insisting. I feel reasonably certain that this guy may dispute what you say:

formatting link

Send him an email, outlining your theories. I feel certain he will be pleased to hear from you, telling him that the last few decades of his research was a waste of time.

**I see. So, all those years of research performed by Dr Ayers is pointless? Is that your contention?

Have you sent Dr Ayers an email, explaining your theory?

**There are other possibilities. Perhaps the climatologists are correct and the religious nutters (Abbott, Pell, et al) and the talk-back radio hosts are wrong. Let's examine the possibilities:
  • The guys who study the climate have told us that CO2 levels are rising to levels that pose a serious risk of irreversible damage to our climate.
  • A bunch of religious nutters, politicians and talk-back radio hosts, with all their climate expertise, claim that the climatologists are wrong.

Yeah, sure.

**Failure to answer question duly noted.

**Nup. Pretty smart guy, as it happens. Here's a Wiki entry:

formatting link

And here's one for Fourier (who I am certain you are already familiar with):

formatting link

**Don't be rude. Read the science and ignore what the religious nutters, politicians and talk-back radio hosts tell you. Here's a good starting point:

formatting link

**Nup. Just the science and logic.
**You mean like Tony Abbott, George Pell and Alan Jones? You think they're honest?

You're dreaming.

**That "small, recent trend" is the most rapid rise in temperature in more than 400,000 years. That makes it neither small, nor recent. See:

formatting link

And:

formatting link

**Not from the climatologists. Those claims are coming from religious nutters, politicians, talk-back radio hosts and journalists.
**Nope. Fact is that large sulphur emissions from China are causing less warming on the surface. The effects of visible pollution on warming has been known for quite some time. If more pollution is emitted, then the worst effects of the warming trend may be able to be mitigated for awhile. Of course, when the skies clear...............
**I agree. Those who claim that climatologists are wrong are just religious fools.
**So? Here's the climate comparisons where I live:

formatting link

And:

formatting link

And:

formatting link

Kinda obvious, huh?

Damned science. It'll get you every single time.

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

Trevor Wilson wrote: [NPD Phil:]

...

That's right. More magical thinking.

Climates operate on magical principles and completely random factors that are impossible to study.

--
[v^3 is Phil's notation for linear:]
>On a bike with rider in tuck position air resistance with no wind
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
kym

"Trevor Wilson"

** TWs idea of "science" is the same as my idea of witchcraft.

Nothing new there.

The guy is a notorious fake, charlatan and audiophool.

.... Phil

Reply to
Phil Allison

**So you keep insisting. I feel reasonably certain that this guy may dispute what you say:

formatting link

Send him an email, outlining your theories. I feel certain he will be pleased to hear from you, telling him that the last few decades of his research was a waste of time.

**I see. So, all those years of research performed by Dr Ayers is pointless? Is that your contention?

Have you sent Dr Ayers an email, explaining your theory?

**There are other possibilities. Perhaps the climatologists are correct and the religious nutters (Abbott, Pell, et al) and the talk-back radio hosts are wrong. Let's examine the possibilities:
  • The guys who study the climate have told us that CO2 levels are rising to levels that pose a serious risk of irreversible damage to our climate.
  • A bunch of religious nutters, politicians and talk-back radio hosts, with all their climate expertise, claim that the climatologists are wrong.

Yeah, sure.

**Failure to answer question duly noted.

**Nup. Pretty smart guy, as it happens. Here's a Wiki entry:

formatting link

And here's one for Fourier (who I am certain you are already familiar with):

formatting link

**Don't be rude. Read the science and ignore what the religious nutters, politicians and talk-back radio hosts tell you. Here's a good starting point:

formatting link

**Nup. Just the science and logic.
**You mean like Tony Abbott, George Pell and Alan Jones? You think they're honest?

You're dreaming.

**That "small, recent trend" is the most rapid rise in temperature in more than 400,000 years. That makes it neither small, nor recent. See:

formatting link

And:

formatting link

**Not from the climatologists. Those claims are coming from religious nutters, politicians, talk-back radio hosts and journalists.
**Nope. Fact is that large sulphur emissions from China are causing less warming on the surface. The effects of visible pollution on warming has been known for quite some time. If more pollution is emitted, then the worst effects of the warming trend may be able to be mitigated for awhile. Of course, when the skies clear...............
**I agree. Those who claim that climatologists are wrong are just religious fools.
**So? Here's the climate comparisons where I live:

formatting link

And:

formatting link

And:

formatting link

Kinda obvious, huh?

Damned science. It'll get you every single time.

-- Trevor Wilson

formatting link

Reply to
Trevor Wilson

Just to barge in uninvited here...

I agree that the scientific opinion is very much divided on the cause of the climate change that is obvious to all of us who have lived on this planet for more than half a century. As you say it might be a temporary variation to the statistical norm, but it is just as likely to be something else.

The introduction of CO2 into an atmosphere is easy to do, and it is easy to show a "greenhouse" effect when it is done. Try it - all you need is a large plastic bag and a thermometer, and a tiny amount of CO2 to introduce after the first temp reading after an hour in the sun. For the second reading start from scratch then introduce the CO2 and take the second reading after an hour in the sun.

I say that reduction of carbon can only be a good thing, and the cost is very reasonable if governments think the process through, as this one has. If we do nothing, future generations are in a good position to condemn this generation for its selfish attitude in the highly likely event that climate change deniers are wrong.

Reply to
samiam
** Vote Green do we ??

Ride a bicycle ?

Drive a Prius ?

.... Phil

Reply to
Phil Allison

No, no, and no.

--
Sam
Reply to
gdel.remove

**All are welcome.

**Wrong. Scientific opinion is NOT divided. The science is settled. The arguments now come from religious nutters, politicians, talk-back radio hosts and fossil fuel apologists. Make no mistake: The guys who study the climate of this planet are in agreement. The guys who deny it, do so for other reasons, other than the science.

As you say it might be a

**The IPCC was originally formed to uncover the reasons why the planet was warming. Hence the 'CC' in the title. It was determined that CO2 was the only possible reason that could be attributed to the present warming, since all the other influences were taken into account. There is no 'statistical variation'. There is a physical reason why the planet is warming. The reasons could have been due to variations in Solar flux, orbital puturbations, smog and a bunch of other stuff. CO2 was the only standout difference. CO2 is the problem.
**Of course. This experiment has been done many times, since the 19th century, when the theory was first proposed. It has been well established that oxygen and nitrogen are transparent to IR, whilst CO2, methane and several other atmospheric gases are highly resonant at several IR frequencies. Through this resonance, they acquire kinetic energy, which is, in turn, transferred to the rest of the atmosphere, thus raising the kinetic energy of the entire system.
**Indeed. If the deniers are wrong, then inaction now, may lead to irreversible damage to the planet.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Reply to
Trevor Wilson

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.