kreed wrote:
On Sep 26, 8:28 am, "Trevor Wilson" wrote:
Arfa Daily wrote:
Well, I guess we're never going to agree on any aspect of this. You
seem predisposed to take the wrong way, a number of points that I
have repeatedly made, but ho-hum, it's been an interesting line of
chat, and at least it hasn't descended into a screaming match as is
so often the case in these discussions :-)
**Provided there is some respect on both sides and an attempt to
undestand the other POV, I see no reason why a screaming match is
necessary. I no longer waste my time with those who choose to
insult, rather than present a cogent argument. It's better for my
health.
Your comments about prices of CFLs have me intrigued. I did some more
research. Here are some prices in the US:
http://www.homedepot.com/webapp/wcs/...gation?storeId...
Prices appear to be somewhat lower than Australia and dramatically
lower than in the UK. I suggest that you should be complaining about
CFL prices in the UK. Clearly, something is seriously awry.
I accept personal preferences for ICs are valid. I accept that
personal preferences against CFLs are also valid. I also accept the
testing done by Choice and others, that prove the efficiency aspects
of CFLs are significantly in advance of ICs. I accept, in the
abscence of evidence to the contrary, that CFLs have a manufacturing
energy cost that is approximately 6 times that of ICs.
Having said all that, there is one aspect of our discussion that I
find deeply troubling. You're a smart guy. Yet you appear to be
willing to reject the overwhelming bulk of good, solid science that
has shown that rising CO2 levels are causing the present warming we
find ourselves experiencing. You appear to be rejecting the science,
in preference for the hysterical ravings of those who have clear
links to the fossil fuel industry. OTH, the scientists who study and
report on global warming, for the most part, do not have links to
the alternative energy business. They do what a good scientist
should do - report the science without regard to political or
business bias. Consider the NASA and EPA scientists who were issuing
very clear warnings to President Bush. Bush was a rabid global
warming denier. We had the same thing here in Australia. During the
Howard government years, Australia's premier scientific body (the
CSIRO) was issuing clear reports to the government that
anthropogenic global warming was going to cause serious problems for
Australia and the rest of the planet. Yet the Howard government was
aligned with the Bush government, in that denial of the science was
the order of the day. In fact, the leftover ministers of the Howard
government are still denying the science, even today. Most are
religious loonies, so no one takes much ntice anymore.
On the contrary - few believe in it anymore at least in Australia.
**The dribblers don't count. People who lack a decent education are not
representative of thinking adults. Nor are religious loonies like Alan
Jones, Christopher Monckton and George Pell.
This fraud has been thoroughly exposed for what it is and it is great
to see.
**Fraud? Do tell. Please provide your peer-reviewed science that proves that
the CSIRO, the IPCC, NASA, the US EPA, the British Academy of Science, the
US National Academy of Sciences, The German Academy of Science, The
Australian Bureu of Meteorology, The UK MET, The Royal Swedish Academy of
Sciences, The Netherlands Academey of Sciences and a host of other
organisations.
So, over to you: Supply your peer-reviewed science which proves that all
these guys (and many, many other respected scientific organisations) have it
so terribly wrong.
Did you know that the head of the CSIRO is a former bankster,
from the same company that wants to be australia's carbon banker and
there is another sitting on the board there?
**So? CSIRO has been successful at commercialising many of it's developments
over the years. It makes perfect sense to have people with commercial skills
on the board. The scientists report the science. The board does not.
The banksters cooked up
this scam and funded and promoted it behind the scenes over many years
as the next big cash cow for themselves, and to set up more control
over the people.
**Did they? Prove it.
In other words you and your business pays the tax,
and the big connected *******s get exemptions and you are driven under
and they end up with a monopoly and can charge what they want. This is
how the world works.
**Sure. It's how it has always worked. Nothing to do with global warming
though. Excessive CO2 emissions are driving the temperature of this planet
faster than at any time in the last 600,000 years. Nothing to do with
taxation, politics or the opinions of religious nutters.
Scientists - like most other people in this world get jobs, pay and
research funding based on following the corporate line, and/or party
line, at least to the general public.
**Is that so? Care to explain why the scientists at the CSIRO reported to
the Howard (AGW denying) government that AGW was a real problem? Care to
explain why the scientists at NASA and the US EPA were reporting to the Bush
(AGW denying) government that AGW was a real problem? According to your
twisted logic, the scientists at all three organisations should have
reported what their political masters wanted. To their credit, the
scientists did what all reputable scientists do - they reported the facts.
Thats just how real life works
in this thoroughly corrupted world.
**OK. Prove it.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au